A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis

[wavy]

Am I still missing the point?

Yes. Just reread my post.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

It is not enough that a text displays parallelism for it to be counted as poetic since non poetic literature also displays parallelism.

Study emphasis in Hebrew poetry. The ordering of days, the repetition, the culmination of all creative work (mankind) and the apex of the narrative (why the sabbath is important, at least to ancient Israelites) all point towards poetry. You only say this because you have not studied it.

Wavy you have to identify something that is distinctive about poetry other than 'parallelism' if you want to provide evidence for your structure in Genesis 1 cited in the opening OP.

I'm not going to do your dirty work for you (although I have already given you examples other than parallelism). Study. I can offer you books by leading scholars if you so desire.

I cited the song of Moses as an example only of the type of evidence that would convince me. Your hermenuetic suffers as a result.

So there's really no point to it, is there? You've already laid down the groundwork for what you will or will not accept, which is something different and sequestered from what is truth. I have "suffered" nothing. You still have points to address. Your objection to the poetry doesn't address the point. My argument does not stand or fall on the account being poetry or not. Let's remain objective.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[stranger]

Hi wavy,

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?

If prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts THEN we don't communicate facts through poetry. We are talking about fiction.

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry then prose/poetry has relation to facts. We are talking about non-fiction.

It is presumably understood that:
Prose/poetry are not the facts but offer an interpretation of facts unless the prose/poetry is fiction.

Am I still missing the point?

I reread your post - please respond to the above statements /propositions or if you prefer give me your argument in simple statements so I can follow your reasoning.

blessings: stranger

 

[wavy]

I reread your post - please respond to the above statements /propositions or if you prefer give me your argument in simple statements so I can follow your reasoning.

You said:

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?

My reply: In relation to my argument, whether or not something is poetry/prose is irrelevant to whether something is factual. We can lie through poetry/prose. We can be creative and make up stories to entertain. We can do anything through writing. But being poetry/prose by nature does not make something factual/false.

How we establish facts is by experimentation, regardless of literary genre or device.

So, you said:

Am I still missing the point?

Yes.

 

[wavy]

It really doesn’t put it beyond the sun, moon and stars, but above the expanse of heaven surrounding our earth. The light of the sun, moon, stars was set to appear in our heavens, not actually the bodies themselves.

You keep saying that, but a literal reading of the texts proves otherwise. The text not only says that the sun and moon were placed in the firmament, but also the stars. Your objection to the sun/moon being beneath the waters was that the passage says "lights", not specifically the bodies themselves, but that ignores the fact that the stars (with no reference to "light") were placed in the firmament beneath the waters also.

And in fact, the two lights were most certainly the sun and the moon. Consider the following:

Genesis 1:15 and let them be for lights in the [firmament] of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Compare:


Jeremiah 31:35Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:

The whole account is quite vague

Hardly. It only becomes vague when we brush aside what the ancients literally believed and try to read science into it.

 

[stranger]

You said:

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?

My reply: In relation to my argument, whether or not something is poetry/prose is irrelevant to whether something is factual.

This one depends on the poetry /prose. The prophets of old were poets!

We can lie through poetry/prose.

Most certainly yes.

We can be creative and make up stories to entertain.

Most certainly yes - I called this 'fiction' remember?

We can do anything through writing.

no comment.

But being poetry/prose by nature does not make something factual/false.

The poetry/prose can provide an interpretation of a fact or event and it can be true or false.

How we establish facts is by experimentation, regardless of literary genre or device.

All the facts that science can establish will ultimately vindicate that God created the heavens and the earth.

So, you said:
Am I still missing the point?
Yes

Let it be so. . . for so you have said.
I thank you for your patience.

blessings: stranger

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

I think the main thing you two are missing in this discussion is that the narrative is told from the point of view of someone on earth viewing it!

Gen 1:2 There was no life on the earth;
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/biblestudy.html

As far as this goes, It can just as accurately be interpreted as Became a waste and a desolation.

If you take into account the fact that hebrew letters serve as numbers, and the improbability that the #7 (the number of completeness) occurs over 30 times in verse 1, which is mathematically impossible. You would see the earth was complete then destroyed. This is refered to as the Kaboe, or overthrow of Satan. God then replenishes the earth, which is the story or narrative of Genesis and the Bible anyways. Which is God's relationship with Man. Job also refers to this. And the meter and verse of the 1st 2 chapters of genesis attest to this, both mathematically and poetically. This is one single account, and I know what "higher critics say" about that but there not always right!

 

[unred typo]

You keep saying that, but a literal reading of the texts proves otherwise. The text not only says that the sun and moon were placed in the firmament, but also the stars. Your objection to the sun/moon being beneath the waters was that the passage says "lights", not specifically the bodies themselves, but that ignores the fact that the stars (with no reference to "light") were placed in the firmament beneath the waters also......

...It's only becomes vague when we brush aside what the ancients literally believed and try to read science into it.

You think because I consider Genesis to be literal that I can’t allow for the exact phrasing to be muddled by the ‘science’ of the day when the account was translated. I do. I just happen to believe that today’s science is not that much more advanced. The science of their day was leaping off a step ladder compared to today’s, jumping out of the Empire state building. Neither one is going to get you to Jupiter. There is so much more out there that we have not even begun to know about how the universe works, that we would do well to start with the best narrative we have on the subject and understand it literally in the best way we can, instead of dismissing it as poetry.

God made the sun, moon, and stars to be lights in our heaven. If you lived in a dark tent under a flood light, and I punched holes into your tent, I would be making lights in your canopy for you to see by. I would be bringing the floodlight into your expanse of darkness. That is not saying that I am putting the floodlight inside the expanse of your tent, is it?

8-)

 

[wavy]

As far as this goes, It can just as accurately be interpreted as Became a waste and a desolation.

If you take into account the fact that hebrew letters serve as numbers, and the improbability that the #7 (the number of completeness) occurs over 30 times in verse 1, which is mathematically impossible. You would see the earth was complete then destroyed.

No. This myth about "became" (the gap theory) has no support from the Hebrew. Appealing to numbers won't help you.

You see, in order for the verb to be legitimately translated "became", two conditions have to be met according to the example set forth in biblical Hebrew:

1) There must be a transformation, with the previous state (before the transformation) already written down/mentioned.

2) The verb (hayah) must be followed by the lamed prefix (ל־) attached to the noun/gerund of the resultant state.

Of necessity, the beginning verses would have had to read like this:

"In the beginning God created heaven (really 'sky') and an ordered earth ('land'), and the earth became disordered ('formless and 'void')". These conditions are not met, as they would be here:

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became (hayah) a living being

His first state was dust (inanimate), God then acted upon the dust by imparting his life, and then man became a living being.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

instead of dismissing it as poetry.

Nothing has been dismissed as poetry. I repeat: "even if it was not poetry, that still doesn't tackle the evidence against the account's authenticity."

It has been dismissed as scientifically false (yet still theologically significant).

God made the sun, moon, and stars to be lights in our heaven. If you lived in a dark tent under a flood light, and I punched holes into your tent, I would be making lights in your canopy for you to see by. I would be bringing the floodlight into your expanse of darkness. That is not saying that I am putting the floodlight inside the expanse of your tent, is it?

However, the plain reading of the text -- without trying to read science into it to rescue yourself -- does not support this. It is against this. It seems you have not read my objections to this eisegesis.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

I believe Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis.

Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence.

 

[stranger]

Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence.

Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a liberal viewpoint.

Mosaic authorship is affirmed when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a conservative viewpoint.

I personally think that Moses was the most qualified man to write it - whether by his own hand or as an overseer.

blessings: stranger

 

[unred typo]

Well, here is where you claim that you don’t dismiss it as poetry, instead of a historical, factual account:

Nothing has been dismissed as poetry. I repeat: "even if it was not poetry, that still doesn't tackle the evidence against the account's authenticity."
It has been dismissed as scientifically false (yet still theologically significant).

And here is where you dismiss it as poetry, claiming it’s not a historical, factual, scientifically congruous account:

I maintain a more liberal, figurative interpretation of Genesis on the grounds of many a factor (historical, critical, linguistic etc.) From a viewpoint of objectivity, I believe the creation narrative (Genesis 1-2:3) to be poetical in its essence, written to make a point about God, mankind, and the reason for the sabbath.

You are claiming it disagrees with science, but you must do something with it, so you dismiss it as poetry, “written to make a point.†And yes, I understand that you are not dismissing it simply on the grounds that it is poetical, but you still are dismissing it as “theologically significant†poetry and not taking the elements of it to be factual and in line with science.

However, the plain reading of the text -- without trying to read science into it to rescue yourself -- does not support this. It is against this. It seems you have not read my objections to this eisegesis.

I don’t need rescue. I told you, I don’t particularly care what your itty bitty science says this year. It will change as it always does. The Biblical account is flexible enough to accommodate whatever is the current scientific view, unless you get too far away from the actual facts. I don’t think God is worried that you might get the wrong ideas about how he created the universes. That’s your problem. He gave a pretty vague outline of the events and if he had wanted you to have the complete story, he would have given it in more detail. When you look at a masterpiece, do you need to find out what brushes were used and what techniques were employed and how long it took to complete in order to enjoy it and appreciate the work involved and the mastery of the artist? If you feel you need to know these things, you would do best asking the artist and not an art major who's making an educated guess.

 

[wavy]

Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a liberal viewpoint.

Mosaic authorship is affirmed when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a conservative viewpoint.

I personally think that Moses was the most qualified man to write it - whether by his own hand or as an overseer.

blessings: stranger

Well, let's consider the evidence. I'll begin with mine.

Genesis 36:31 And these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before a king reigned from Israel's sons...

The author is is making a matter-of-fact assertion about a past event using "reign" in the perfect tense ("reigned"). He lists Edomite kings down to the last who lived roughly 200 years after Moses' time. And the indefinite "a" king is used, meaning the author was familiar with at least one more king after Israel's first king (Saul, 11th century) was in power.

There are several more examples, but we'll begin with this for now.

*waits for appeal to "prophecy"*

 

[stranger]

Wavy wrote in his OP::
Discrepancies with modern science:

A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this firmament/dome. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this firmament, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.

Day 4 from the scope of day 2? I would agree with this: day 4 from the scope of day 7. (see my post dated 31st Dec for what I subscribe to)

The scientific position is not a unified front - it is often those who go against the science of the day that make breakthroughs in science even though they are ridiculed by their collegues. Science also involves 'repeatable experiments' - creation was a once of.

I believe the genesis account is 'revelation' - what the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, God has revealed. . .
As with all truth whether scientific or not it is God revealed and not contraditory.

So if you say the genesis account (day 4/day2) is 'absurdity to the extreme 'from a scientific position it indicates to me that something is wrong. I hope you can resolve this 'without selling your inheritance and not knowing it'.

Consider moving this to the Christian/science forum.

blessing: stranger

 

[stranger]

wavy wrote in his opening OP:
Inconsistencies between the narratives:

In the first account, there are six days of creation. In the second, there is only one. This is only one example.

So let the queries begin!

In the first account there is 7 days (true 6 days of creation, one day rest which by the way is not an 'intermission').

The second so called narrative offers a more detailed picture of man. Creation and the created host take a back seat position in the interest of the author thereafter.

So I don't feel that there are inconsistences between the narratives. But unlike many others I am not swayed by fundamentalist nor liberal arguments. Both have a long history and I tend to study the scriptures without reference to other works these days.

So wavy - what is a 'layman' to do when presented with your arguments? 'Inconsistencies' there are - everywhere.

I say farewell to this tread - may the truth prevail and if the Lord exults you and your argument above me it will be fitting for me to confess that I have been wrong.

blessings: stranger

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

I disagree, and jeremiah supports this! On top of that Genesis is akin to revelatiion in reverse. And Numbers do support it!
http://freespace.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm

 

[cyberjosh]

Wavy, have you looked up on the Hebrew link I gave you yet? You seem to have passed over my last inquiry on this.

 

[wavy]

Yes. I reference it in one of my previous posts.

 

[cyberjosh]

Yes. I reference it in one of my previous posts.

Ah, thank you. I found it.

Maybe not chronologically, as the link to Benner cybershark provided proposes, but elements of what the culture believed was literally and historically true is contained therein (like there being a solid dome above the earth).

Well, yes to an extent it is not all chronological, as Jeff Benner shows, but the extent that he shows this is up to verse 5. The rest of the days be shows have proper Hebrew designations for first, second, third, etc. ANd if you noticed he did hold to the idea of 7 days transpiring according to exegetical analysis.

Benner's "block logic", I believe, is credible because there are other examples of parallels besides repetition.

Consider these parallels:


Day 1: Light (dark,light/day,night divided) = Day 4: Celestials (sun guides the day, moon guides night).



Day 2: Firmament (places the heavens above the primordial waters) = Day 5: Sea creatures/birds (corresponds to water and heavens/sky)



Day 3: Sub-waters conglomerated/land appearing/vegetation = Day 6: Animals/man (both land mammals who eat the vegetation).

There are differences, which can be distinguished, and if you'll notice Benner would disagree with you on this point, because it conglomerates to much. And Benner rightfully notes that the first three days of creation are thematically about "seperating" while the next three days are on "filling". These are distinct observations & occurances.

Although this may seem to dispel any notions of contradiction between the first and seconds accounts, it still presents a problem for fundamentalists, because then a literal six day ordered creation is impossible anyway (if it's not intended to be chronological).

Reevaluate what Benner wrote and tell me what you think.

P.S. Also note that God revamps in short what he did in the creation at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 31:17 saying, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." There is no ambiguity there.