answersincreation.org (Literal Genesis AND Old Earth Creationism?)

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 is just there as a chapter heading. It sets the scene for what is to come, then, from Gen 1:2 onwards, the story is told in detail. Then it's told again, slightly differently, in Gen 2. Are you aware that most modern scholars believe Gen 1 and Gen 2 to have been written by a different hands?

---

This is a valid view, and a number of Evangelical scholars (e.g. Gordon Wenham) hold it.However, I would argue from the Hebrew grammar that Gen 1:1 is the first event in a waw-consecutive sequence. The second event is in verse 3: "and then God said ..." With this interpretation, God first created everything in Gen 1:1. It was created in a raw form, but not yet finished (its raw state is described in Gen 1:2). The six "days" begin in Gen 1:3 and describe the finishing of what was made in Gen 1:1.

quote:

---

Did you ever consider that it might be literal and allegorical?

---

E.g. Jack Collins' calls the days of Genesis "analogical days." (C. John Collins is an Evangelical scholar who is NOT a YEC).

quote:

---

Or that it might be literal but simply untrue?

---

As an Evangelical, I find the term "untrue" to be too harsh. But if you said "literal but non-historical" I would give this a lot of credence. There is a large amount of symbolism and metaphor in Genesis 1. It is entirely possible that the original author himself did not present it as history, but as a metaphorical story to describe the creation of the cosmos, somewhat like a parable.

quote:

---

Okay, I can't really argue with your waw-consecutive argument, but nonetheless, this makes little sense to me. If God created the heaven in Gen 1:1, why does he make it again in 1:6-8? This makes no narrative sense.

---

I think it makes good sense. The literary structure and flow seems to be:
v1) In the beginning, God created everything.
v2) But though the land existed, it was formless and empty. No "realms," and no inhabitants for these realms. This situation needed to be addressed.
v3 ff) So God created "forms" or "realms" on the first three days, and "filled" these realms on the next three days.Note the symmetry of "forming" and "filling":
Day 1: light----Day 4: light-bearers
Day 2: waters above and below----Day 5: birds and fish
Day 3a: dry land----Day 6a: land animals
Day 3b: vegetation----Day 6b: man (created to live in a garden)

quote:

---

I am sorry to say that I think you are being dishonest with yourself here.

​

If the events in Genesis did not happen, then the story is untrue. It's as simple as that. Stories that detail events that never occurred are untrue; anything else is sophistry. We know that the earth was not created in the way Genesis describes. None of it is accurate. You know this. Now you may consider that the text contains some allegorical or spiritual truth, but that is irrelevant. I could pick out any number of super-hero comics that contain allegorical truths, but that doesn't mean that stories about Spider-Man or Green Lantern are true.

​

What are we to call a story that describes events which never took place save for "untrue"?

---

I disagree. What about parables, e.g. the parable of the sower and the seeds? Is this parable "true" or "untrue"? I claim it is improper to call this "untrue" even though it was probably not a historical event. It conveys truth and it "rings true" to the reader.Or what about poetry? Is it "true" or "untrue" that the sun is like a strong man who leaves his tent in the morning and runs across the sky throughout the day, as described in Psalm 19? This is not "true" in a scientific sense, of course. But it describes a real, true observation in poetic terms, so should not be called "untrue," either.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think it makes good sense. The literary structure and flow seems to be:
v1) In the beginning, God created everything.

---

But that isn't what it says! You are changing the text.

​

In Gen1:1 God creates the heaven. Then, in Gen 1:6-7 God creates a firmament/expanse and in 1:8 he calls it heaven. Now if you want to claim that these are both events in a sequence, that means he made heaven twice.

---

No, that is what it says. The phrase "heavens and earth" in Gen 1:1 is a merism meaning "everything". Later, where the words "heavens" or "earth occur alone, they have a much more restricted, normal meaning.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or what about poetry? Is it "true" or "untrue" that the sun is like a strong man who leaves his tent in the morning and runs across the sky throughout the day, as described in Psalm 19? This is not "true" in a scientific sense, of course. But it describes a real, true observation in poetic terms, so should not be called "untrue," either.

---

Frankly you are being ridiculous now. I said "literal but simply untrue". Note the use of the word "literal". Your poem is not literal. If we were to take your poem literally, as I was suggesting for this interpretation of Genesis, then it is clearly not true. You are moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about poetry and I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about a literal interpretation.

​

The literal interpretation is not true. That makes it untrue.

---

But we are talking about Genesis 1, which does contain a significant amount of poetic imagery. Poetry is not off-bounds in this discussion--especially poetry about nature, as Psalm 19.I think you being much too narrow in your definition of "truth." You want to evaluate "truth" on a single metric which includes full scientific and historical accuracy. By your definition, the official times for sunrise and sunset can never be "true," because the sun does not actually rise and set--instead, the earth rotates.The use of figures of speech or poetic imagery does not make an account "untrue." I maintain that Psalm 19 is "true" even though it is poetic. The author was not attempting to communicate scientific truth about celestial orbits, thus the Psalm cannot be charged to be "untrue" on these grounds. We have the same situation in Genesis 1. Before we can decide if it is "true" or "untrue", we need to determine what the author was attempting to communicate. If he was not attempting to communicate literal, historical, scientific information, then it should not be called "untrue" on these grounds.

quote:

---

Maybe you should address the issue GM brought out about you equivocating with the words true and truth.

---

But I did address this issue. I do not believe I am equivocating with the words. Rather, I believe biblical critics try to define the word too narrowly and one-dimensionally. Look again at the last two paragraphs of my posting: There is a strong linkage between authorial intent, interpretation, and truth/untruth. To call something "untrue" is to imply that the author is in error, either intentionally lying or unintentionally mistaken. But this evaluation depends on our interpretation of what the author was trying to communicate. It is possible that he was neither lying nor mistaken.For example, if the weatherman says that "the sun rose this morning at 6:38 AM," this is not correct in a scientific sense. But is it "untrue?" Is the weatherman lying or mistaken? No, he is just using a common figure of speech. He is not trying to communicate that the sun actually moves around the earth. To call his statement "untrue" is to misinterpret it, to ascribe the wrong intent to the speaker.Likewise in Genesis 1. What is the author trying to communicate? Is he trying to present a scientific, historical, chronological account of origins, as both atheists and YECs assume? Or is he trying to describe historical events in non-scientific, poetic terms? Or is he trying to present a non-historical thematic arrangement of the cosmos rather than a historical account of its actual creation? Or is he using the basic literary structure of extant cosmogonies as a polemic against their theologies?Calling Genesis 1 "untrue" implicitly assumes that the author is trying to present a scientific, historical, chronological account of origins. But this intent has yet to be shown. If this is not the authorial intent, then it is not correct to label Gen 1 as "untrue" on this basis.

I really wasn't trying to push your buttons. I was trying to tighten up and clarify some of your statements. I think our differences are more semantic than anything else. But I think these semantic issues are important. I'll try to explain my main points in a different (hopefully clearer) way. Point 1: I agree with you that a specific YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is untrue. But this does not mean that Genesis 1 is untrue. To conclude this, one would have to show that this specific YEC interpretation was intended by the author.Point 2: There is a subtle difference in meaning between "untrue" and "non-historical." Parables, fairy-tales, etc. are not intended to be taken as history, so they are definitely non-historical. But I believe that to call them "untrue" is too general and vague and misleading; the term "non-historical" is clearer. We both agree that these things are non-historical, but we disagree on whether or not the terms "true" or "untrue" should be applied to them.Point 3: The term "literal" as applied to biblical interpretation by Evangelicals is usually a technical misnomer (as it is for Creation Science). Generally what is meant is "literary" or, even better, "historical-grammatical-cultural-literary." Those who claim to adopt a "literal" Bible interpretation usually do not claim that the parables were actual historical events, and they allow for imagery and figures of speech, yet they still say that their interpretation is "literal."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point. Hopefully you can figure it out

​

Truth as I believe GM is using it
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

​

The definition you are equivocating it too
(often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.

​

She is not using a narrow definition of truth, you are trying to expand it to a totally different meaning of the word. They are , for all intents and purposes, different words. Yes they are spelled the same, yes they are pronounced the same, but they are different words with different meanings.

​

These are homonym's. Their definitions may be similar, but they are not the same word.

---

I agree. The word "untrue" is unclear, since it can have at least two different implications. This is why I've been using the term "non-historical." This is more specific and leaves less chance for misunderstanding.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Point 2: There is a subtle difference in meaning between "untrue" and "non-historical." Parables, fairy-tales, etc. are not intended to be taken as history, so they are definitely non-historical. But I believe that to call them "untrue" is too general and vague and misleading; the term "non-historical" is clearer.

---

Then practise what you preach and go around telling people that you think Spider-Man comics are true.

---

No--"truth" is the wrong category. If I practice what I preach I would tell people that I think Spider-Man is non-historical.

quote:

---

I was trying to gently introduce achristian1985 to the idea that the Genesis creation account might not be quite all it's cracked up to be. Now you actually agree with that. You know perfectly well that Genesis 1 describes events never happened. In introducing this kind of equivocation, you are clouding the issue. I consider it important that folks like ac1985 get the message that their belief in the reliability is wrong. You are not helping. All you are doing is providing another layer of obfuscation and self/mutual deception. Typical apologetics in fact. All you are doing is engaging in special pleading for the Bible. If I had said that Spider-Man wasn't true, no-one would have batted an eyelid, but say the same about Genesis and suddenly it's all far more complicated than that...

​

Saying that Genesis might be "literal but untrue" makes my position perfectly clear. All you are doing is providing Christians with a scrap of comfort to cling onto; Genesis might describe events that never happened, but it's still true... Like I say, self-deception and mutual deception. The sort of mutual deception upon which religion depends.

---

I was not trying to equivocate, but to help you make your point in a way that can be accepted by Evangelicals. To call the Bible "untrue" is very close to calling it "errant." Evangelicals are extremely resistant to accepting error in the Bible. So if you want to communicate to them that their interpretation may be in error, it is counter-productive to also ascribe error to the Bible itself. (But perhaps your point is also that the Bible itself is in error? In which case your message will not be well-received.)

quote:

---

The majority of Christian Bible-literalists mean exactly what they say when they claim that the Bible is literally true.

​

This is a case of one definition for the theologians and another for the laity. Sophisticated (or should that be Sophistic?) apologists have their rarefied definitions of "literal" and proceed as if everyone knew what they meant and used the word the same way. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the large numbers of literal creationist Christians amply demonstrates.

---

Yes, many lay Christians do not understand or use the terminology correctly. That was my point. The term "evolution" likewise has one definition for scientists and another for the lay public. So do we ignore the scientific definitions on this site and allow the layman to define "evolution" simply because the laymen outnumber the scientists? Of course not. Neither should we do this with theological terms. Let's try to keep the discussions on a scholarly level. (BTW, on this score you are much better than most contributors on this site. Many here are completely ignorant of theology.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is exactly my problem with your attitude.

​

I know that many evangelicals won't like what I have to say. That's fine; they don't have to listen. However I know what I think, I know my own mind and I know my own arguments. You clearly don't.

---

Perhaps I did not understand your argument. But it seemed to me that your main point (an errant interpretation) did not require an errant Bible. I agree with your main point, and was trying to help other Evangelicals to see it.

quote:

---

This resistance to the truth that you describe is exactly the problem. A resistance to even considering the idea that the Bible might be largely fictional is exactly the problem. It is dishonest, closed-minded and it is simply wrong; the Bible is largely fiction.

​

I am not going to compromise my arguments in order to soothe the sensibilities of Christians. That may mean that I persuade fewer people, but that is the way it has to be. If I were to pander to Christian delusions (such as Biblical inerrancy) I would be watering down my true opinion. In fact, I would be lying and I refuse to do that.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood your goal. I though you were trying to persuade Evangelicals to reconsider their interpretation of Genesis. But perhaps you are trying to attack the foundations of Christianity itself?

quote:

---

For the record, I consider this attitude that the Bible is inerrant to be an extremely harmful and actively dangerous idea. I consider your watered down version of the same to be somewhat harmful as well; it encourages a lack of intellectual honesty and encourages sophistry. Hanging onto the idea that the Bible is true even where it is clearly wrong is simply bullshit. You may not like my opinion and I may fail to persuade you with it, but I will not patronise you and others by modulating my arguments until they no longer resemble anything that I believe.

---

Here we very strongly disagree.BTW, I have not been trying to put words in your mouth, as you have accused me. Rather, I have been re-wording the core of your arguments in a way that I (and other Evangelicals) can more easily agree with. If you do not wish to modulate your arguments to be more persuasive to a larger audience, that is your choice. I will continue to agree with you where I can but will disagree where I must.