Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:I have no problem with this.
I will say that I think a lot of what you are seeing from OEC was more, at first, to establish their interpretation as credible. As I have witnessed much of the changing attitudes towards OEC since the mid-80's, when I started getting interested in this, I have noticed mcuh of the early discussions *were* about the discussions of YOM, etc. The attacks that have been leveled and still leveled at them mean that it is still under discussion. That lovely little article is a case in point. Left up to me, I would really feel no need to be as paranoid as I am in teaching this subject. But I still have to fight for the liegitimacy that you are granting. That YOM is stll on the table is not our choice.

I would love to move the discussion onto this.

Sorry for being so long in getting back. Life is busy!

Anyway, whatever the sematic range of yom (it's always going to be a valid debate, just like the range of any word), I think people would do well to move on to other issues. Even the most hardcore YECer, if he is going to be intellectually honest, has to admit that there is at least a good case to be made for yom referring to an age, whether literally or figuratively. So, fine. Let the debate continue over the validity of YEC/OEC, but in the meantime, let's move on to what I really think is the more important (and more interesting!) question: the exegetical theology that comes from each.

I don't feel that the theology is necessarily any different, or that it has to be. Original sin doesn't have to change (unless you feel that animal death/plant death negates original sin). The nature of man doesn't have to change. The curse dosen' have to change. All of these were up for debate as to their meanings and applications before the debate between OEC and YEc came about. Will there be OEC that do chagne these? Sure. Doesn't mean they are right.

I will keep looking for the articles, I;m mad because my bookmarks on not on this coputer and the computer it is on,,,,oh, not important. FOr me, this is simply an issue of correcting bad science/observations that resulted from an erroneous fear of a philosophy.

For what it's worth: here is what I found on ww.asa3.org

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1987/PSCF3-87Pun.html (lol,. this starts with a Calvinist frame....but that wasn't my pointin linking to it....merely one example of it )
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/noontime.html
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF6-03Newman.pdf

I'm not saying these are exactly what you are looking for. This wa simply a search with Biblical exegisis and theology in their serach engine. I am using their website because they have one of the largest sources of OEC writings. At least by looking at these you can tell me their shortcomings or helpme understand what you mean.

I will go back to a point I made above. For mny of us, OEC was never about messing with theology. In fact, I would say that much of the contention about theology and OEC was brought about by YEC attacking us. Again, much of OEC was simply to show that interpretation of the creation and interpretaion of scripture will be in harmony. Historically, YEC leveled attacks at OEC because they thought we were all about destroying the view of the innerrancy of Genesis, so the theology of original sin, the fall, has been brought into the fray. I don't know why my theology has to be any different than someone who holds YEC?!?!?

God as Maker of heaven and earth? Yep
God established mankind in His image? Yep
Mankind was without sin befor the fall? Yep
Mankind fell? Yep
Satan was at workat the fall? Yep
We were cursed? Yep (now, I may debate what that means with regard to animalk death...I read a commentary all about weeds and how they wee a result of the curse....really?)
We need a redeemer? Yep
The redeemer was established even in Genesis? Yep...

What else is on thetable?
How is my theology any different?

OK, now this is moving in the right direction as it helps me get at what I'm looking for. The list you brought up, what type of theology are all of those? I would put them in the category of systematic theology. Now, I don't expect your systematic theology to be much, if at all, different from that of a solid YECer. But, let me comment on that more specifically:

YECers seem to have leveled two arguments against the validity of OEC (here we are back to that unintereting question again). 1) Textual/hermeneutical arguments based on words and phrases (i.e., "good," "day," "evening and morning," etc.). From these, they conclude that the OEC interpretation of Gen 1 is invalid. Much of the debate, it seems to me, has happened on this level. Sadly, much of what has passed as exegetical theology has gone on here, too, as if debates on the semantic ranges of words lead to proper exegesis

2) Arguments from systematic theology: now this, I think, is where the problem lies that has made the debates about (1) so forceful. In short, many YECers have proposed that the systematic theology of OECers is radically different. That, I think, is the common complaint against people like Hamm, for he sounds like he is saying that because you believe there was death before the Fall, you do irreconcilable damage to the Gospel and thus can't even really be Christian! OECers have reacted in the same manner. Rich's article, for instance, about appearance of age and YEC effectively turns YECers into heretics who turn God into a cosmic liar. Such charges, I think, on both sides, are far overstated. There will be some minor changes in systematic theology, but by and large, as you presented, there is a broad enough consensus on all the cardinal points that I don't think the YEC/OEC debate matters on the systematic level.

Now, this is the context of my original (and continuing) request. Let's drop arguments based on systematic theology as being overstated and flatly irrelevent. I think any honest YECer would have to admit, based on your own words above, that you are just as orthodox as they. And you, I think, would be so honest and kind as to admit the same in return. Thus, we can hopefully difuse the unnecessarily emotional aspect of the debate. Second, I propose that YECers let arguments of the first time go, at least for the time being, or, if nothing else, at least for the sake of continuing the debate on this front. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, the total legitimacy of OEC hermeneutics (which, you would contend, I believe, are the same as those YECers follow--literalism!) and conclusions. Great.

But in that case, what are we left with? If we agree on the systematic theology and we agree on the rough conclusions, what am I looking for? Glad you asked! I'm looking at the exegetical, not systematic, theology of the text. Let me give you a brief example of how a YECer might handle it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Here, God's (Heb. Elohim, not YHWH) first action is to creat light. That this is physical and not spiritual light is evident in that 1:2 finds the earth covered in darkness. Commentators have frequently pointed out that the initial creation shows two deficiencies: disorder and emptiness. First, then, God begins to fill the emptiness (darkness) by creating light. Once the light is created, God then separates it from darkness, and this takes the first step in resolving the issue of disorder.

It is important to note here that no material source of light is given (that is, the sun, moon, or stars). The light comes from God Himself. With this one simple fact, Moses teaches the important truth that God is the source of protection. Just as fear brings darkness, light brings comfort. Since God gives the light, He both expells that which brings fear and provides that which brings protection. The Egyptians believed that Ra (the sun god) was the ultimate provider. Likewise, the land in which they were entering (Sinai) believed that the moon god was the provider. By breaking off light from the Sun and making it come directly from God, Moses strikes deeply at the heart of pagan theology. These luminaries are not necessary to give light, and thus, are not necessary to provide protection, and thus, are not objects of worship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, we could go much further and deeper, but that provides a basic idea. Now, I doubt you would disagree with any of the theology proper of the text. God is the source of light and of protection, and the luminaries are not to be worshipped. So, again, it's not the systematic theology on which an OECer and YECer differ. But I'm sure you'll see that an OECer could not hold to this interpretation--this exegesis--because it flatly requires that the luminaries did not yet exist. In fact, it is based on that premise. What, then, is the exegetical theology of light without the luminaries? I know where, scientifically, you would say it came from. And I'm granting that. I'm asking about the theology of the text.

We could do that with every single verse in the book, and then, as we do so, show their interrelationships. I'm fully aware of how the YEC position builds an exegetical theology, word by word, clause by clause, and verse by verse. I can fully see how such a theology is tied into Gen. 2 (in fact, of how it provides the basis for it), and how the entire Creation/Adam narrative contributes to the theology of Genesis as a whole. What I cannot see is how the OEC view does any of that. I CAN see the OEC view can be made compatible with the rest of orthodox theology. I have not, however, seen how the exegetical theology that is used to build a systematic theology contributes to orthodoxy.

Maybe Ross' commentary will help here. It's on my shelf. I'll pick it up in the next few weeks, when these classes I'm in are finally over!

So, let's try this. Keep it simple and as much as possible, instead of trying to "prove" YEC/OEC theology, start at the beginning and build our own theology aside from harmonization with or defense against current scientific paradigms. Let's strive to understand through the lens of an intelligent people unencumbered with useless "knowledge." (As an aside, I don't consider myself more or less intelligent than the first humans, I just am surrounded with more stuff) But that also means that we have to examine the original Hebrew as much as current scholarship allows to derive our understanding and we cannot allow questionable subdivision, in some cases, of the text to frame our commentary. So, again, let's try this, not the whole account at once, but we have to start somewhere and I propose 1:1.

"In beginning God had created the heavens and the earth"

My translation, and yes I proofread it, and no there are not any words missing.

jac wrote:Now, this is the context of my original (and continuing) request. Let's drop arguments based on systematic theology as being overstated and flatly irrelevent. I think any honest YECer would have to admit, based on your own words above, that you are just as orthodox as they. And you, I think, would be so honest and kind as to admit the same in return. Thus, we can hopefully difuse the unnecessarily emotional aspect of the debate. Second, I propose that YECers let arguments of the first time go, at least for the time being, or, if nothing else, at least for the sake of continuing the debate on this front. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, the total legitimacy of OEC hermeneutics (which, you would contend, I believe, are the same as those YECers follow--literalism!) and conclusions. Great.

But in that case, what are we left with? If we agree on the systematic theology and we agree on the rough conclusions, what am I looking for? Glad you asked! I'm looking at the exegetical, not systematic, theology of the text. Let me give you a brief example of how a YECer might handle it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Here, God's (Heb. Elohim, not YHWH) first action is to creat light. That this is physical and not spiritual light is evident in that 1:2 finds the earth covered in darkness. Commentators have frequently pointed out that the initial creation shows two deficiencies: disorder and emptiness. First, then, God begins to fill the emptiness (darkness) by creating light. Once the light is created, God then separates it from darkness, and this takes the first step in resolving the issue of disorder.

It is important to note here that no material source of light is given (that is, the sun, moon, or stars). The light comes from God Himself. With this one simple fact, Moses teaches the important truth that God is the source of protection. Just as fear brings darkness, light brings comfort. Since God gives the light, He both expells that which brings fear and provides that which brings protection. The Egyptians believed that Ra (the sun god) was the ultimate provider. Likewise, the land in which they were entering (Sinai) believed that the moon god was the provider. By breaking off light from the Sun and making it come directly from God, Moses strikes deeply at the heart of pagan theology. These luminaries are not necessary to give light, and thus, are not necessary to provide protection, and thus, are not objects of worship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, we could go much further and deeper, but that provides a basic idea. Now, I doubt you would disagree with any of the theology proper of the text. God is the source of light and of protection, and the luminaries are not to be worshipped. So, again, it's not the systematic theology on which an OECer and YECer differ. But I'm sure you'll see that an OECer could not hold to this interpretation--this exegesis--because it flatly requires that the luminaries did not yet exist. In fact, it is based on that premise. What, then, is the exegetical theology of light without the luminaries? I know where, scientifically, you would say it came from. And I'm granting that. I'm asking about the theology of the text.

Well, I DON"T see why why we can't hold to this position...

..I just don' see what the bid deal about our idea of there being luminaries...If God indeed has the power and majesty to control the luminaries, why would that destroy the idea that God is the provider/proector and that *HE* is to worhsipped? instead of he sun? I just am looking at this and nt seeing the significance that I suppos the YEC does. (or placing so much on there not being luminaries). I have always seen Genesis as te whole as establishing order, showing GOd's glory nd majesty. God creating light outside of luminaries, while certainly impressive, is no less impressive to me (and other OEC) than creatingt luminaries that create that light. God is still the ultimate source of light and protection...shoot, He MADE the luminaries!!!

I guess 'm just not seeing why that exegesis leads to that theology *exclusively*....why YEC gets to conclude that and not OEC seems...like...pigeon-holing or trying to "own" a certain conclusion. Having the luminaries there does not negate taht God made the light.

jac wrote: We could do that with every single verse in the book, and then, as we do so, show their interrelationships. I'm fully aware of how the YEC position builds an exegetical theology, word by word, clause by clause, and verse by verse. I can fully see how such a theology is tied into Gen. 2 (in fact, of how it provides the basis for it), and how the entire Creation/Adam narrative contributes to the theology of Genesis as a whole. What I cannot see is how the OEC view does any of that. I CAN see the OEC view can be made compatible with the rest of orthodox theology. I have not, however, seen how the exegetical theology that is used to build a systematic theology contributes to orthodoxy.

Maybe Ross' commentary will help here. It's on my shelf. I'll pick it up in the next few weeks, when these classes I'm in are finally over!Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Maybe because the YEC is trying to establish that thlogy as exclusivey theirs Personally don't see the conclusion from your example...(that EC gets to conlcude that GOd is he protector who established order and source of light)

"In beginning God had created the heavens and the earth"

My translation, and yes I proofread it, and no there are not any words missing.

OK, I'll go first. This verse make 3 blanket statements.
1. The heavens and the earth (Universe) were created.
2. God is the creator.
3. If God did the creating, he must have existed prior to creating.

Items of note:
The verse in the original Hebrew contains 7 words, coincidence?
Accordingly, by the end of this verse, the universe had already been in existance for an unspecified period of time.

???

zoe wrote:Well, I DON"T see why why we can't hold to this position...

..I just don' see what the bid deal about our idea of there being luminaries...If God indeed has the power and majesty to control the luminaries, why would that destroy the idea that God is the provider/proector and that *HE* is to worhsipped? instead of he sun? I just am looking at this and nt seeing the significance that I suppos the YEC does. (or placing so much on there not being luminaries). I have always seen Genesis as te whole as establishing order, showing GOd's glory nd majesty. God creating light outside of luminaries, while certainly impressive, is no less impressive to me (and other OEC) than creatingt luminaries that create that light. God is still the ultimate source of light and protection...shoot, He MADE the luminaries!!!

I guess 'm just not seeing why that exegesis leads to that theology *exclusively*....why YEC gets to conclude that and not OEC seems...like...pigeon-holing or trying to "own" a certain conclusion. Having the luminaries there does not negate taht God made the light.

No, zoe, an OEC can't hold that position as the exegetical point in this passage. Such an interpretation is based on the sun NOT being the source of light, for if the sun is the source of light, then the entire theological statement is destroyed. Again, I'm NOT saying that OEC can't hold to that position from a systematic perspective. Of course you do. I have no doubt that all OECers believe that God is the protector and provider and that only He is to be worshiped. But you can't get that from this verse. You get it from others.

Now, what you get from a particular verse is called the exegetical theology. I absolutely could not care less what your systematic theology teaches because I've already conceded that your systematic theology is going to be broadly the same as any YECist. I'm interested in the exegetical theology of Gen 1 from an OEC perspective.

So - let's just use the example we've been talking about. What's the theological point of having light appear on day one and the sun, moon, and stars appear on day four? I'm fully aware of the scientific reason. I'm asking for the THEOLOGICAL reason, because it would have been just as scientifically accurate to say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the first day and leave nothing to the statement as to whether they were visible or not (indeed, mankind wasn't even around to see them until the sixth day!). So, in light of the fact that Moses seems to have taken special pains to put the existence of light as a separate issue from the existence of the luminaries, what do you, an OECer, believe the theological point is?

I don't want to pick on this one verse. We can do this with every single verse. In fact, we should, and we have to. You said you wanted to move on beyond the discussion of validity on to the discussion of theology. Wonderful. So let's do so. Forgetting your system of theology, what is the particular point of Gen 1:3-4?


Warhoop:

OK, I'll go first. This verse make 3 blanket statements.
1. The heavens and the earth (Universe) were created.
2. God is the creator.
3. If God did the creating, he must have existed prior to creating.

Items of note:
The verse in the original Hebrew contains 7 words, coincidence?
Accordingly, by the end of this verse, the universe had already been in existance for an unspecified period of time.

I think this is off to a good start. The verse clearly teaches creation ex nihilo, and it certainly makes God the creator. I'd like to add, further, that the Hebrew word here for God is Elohim, as opposed to YHWH. The emphasis here, then, is on God's omnipotence and sovereignty over His creation. Nothing created God. He is the first.

I wouldn't read anything into the "unspecified period of time", however. That only matters based on our understanding of yom as an age, which, I suppose, we are conceding for now. The more important question is whether or not this is part of the first day, which I suggest it has to be. The narrative clearly is meant to give the impression of a seven "day" creation period, not a seven day "formation" period. Thus, the initial creation ought to be included in these seven days. Taking yom as an age, that presents no problem anyway, as there's just a long time between the initial creation and the initial declaration of light.

Now, on to the next verse:

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (NIV)

It seems to me that v. 2 is subsequent to v. 1. First, God created the universe, then the focus shifts to earth. We notice four things about it:

1. It is "formless and empty" - that is, chaotic and inhospitable for life.
2. It is covered in water.
3. It is enshrouded with darkness.
4. God is hovering over it.

So, I'd agree with commentators that take (1) as the primary problem that the next six days are going to fix. That God is "hovering" over the waters implies that God is taking care of this earth, that He is preparing it. God's attention is focused on this little ball of rock out in the universe.

Thoughts, next verse?

Jac,

It seems that your entire point is based upon the fact that because there was no sun on day 1, that allows a conclusion that the text is then showing that God is the protector and provider. ie, the *absence*of a sun established the conclusion. Why, though?

Perhaps, then, you could go over the exegesis more explicitly. What about the absence of a sun allows that conclusion? (that precludes us from drawing that same conclusion is the sun were there?)

Yes, ma'am, it is the absence of the sun that establishes that fact in these verses. Please do not misunderstand me to be saying that an OEC perspective cannot claim that God is the protector and provider. Heck, you could even make a case that God is the protector and provider from Gen 1 based on day four. What I'm saying is that you can't get it from day one.

Further, I'm not even saying I think this is the correct interpretation. I'm still considering the exegetical theology of Gen 1. I am simply well aware of the YEC exegesis, and thus, I'm looking for the OEC counterpart. The only reason I offered this example was to help you understand what I'm looking for from an OEC perspective. For a more detailed discussion of this verse, let me simply quote Benjamin Shaw from his "The Literal-Day Interpretation" (Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, ed., Did God Create in Six Days? (White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege Press, 2005), 202-03):

Shaw wrote:There is much to be said about these three verses. Note first that the section begins with the vav consecutive. It is a commonplace in Hebrew grammar that the vav consecutive is used primarily to indicate temporal sequence of events. As Driver says, "The most obvious and frequent relation is naturally that of simple chronological succession." Though logical sequence (apart from temporal concerns) is a secondary use of the vav consecutive, it is a secondary use. It would indeed be odd for the writer to begin his narrative with a secondary use of a common grammatical construction. Such a secondary use is required by the framework hypothesis.

It is further the view of the framework hypothesis that verse 3 speaks of the creation of the sun, which is then addressed in more detail on Day 4. Sailhamer, for example, says, "It should be noted, however, that the sun, moon, and stars are all to be included in the usual meaning of the phrase 'heavens and the earth' . . .and thus according to the present account these celestial bodies were all created in v. 1." The problem with this view is that it gives no adequate explanation for the three-day separation between the actual creation of the heavenly bodies and the description of their being made. Further, it seems to miss the point of the narrative, that light is not necessarily connected with the luminaries. Rather, light is necessarily connected with God himself. It is a curious to me that Sailhamer recognizes that the use of brsht implies a 'chrt (that is, a beginning implies an end) when he says, "the author's description of creation appears to be controlled by an eschatological anticipation of the 'end times.'" But he then misses the fact that at the beginning and the end of things, light is not connected with luminaries, but rather with God himself. Even as Genesis begins with the light emanating from God, so, at the end, "the city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the lamb" (Rev. 21:23). Hamilton recognizes this is substance, saying, "The Bible begins and ends by describing an untarnished world that is filled with light, but no sun (cf. Rev. 22:5). Should not the one who is himself called 'light' (1 John 1:5) have at his disposal many sources by which he dispatches light into creation?"

We then take note that God sees the light and pronounces on its character. The light, as it were, shares in the goodness of God. Even as Jesus tells the rich young ruler that there is none good but God, so those, such as Sailhamer, who think that "the 'good' is that which is beneficial for man" are in error. Rather, that is good which shares in the character of God. Thus, the light and all the other things produced the course of the creation week are good not because they are beneficial for man. They are; but that is a secondary consideration. Rather, they are good because God has put in them something of his own goodness.

Now, while I have problems with Shaw's methodology (for one thing, he is more concerned with refuting Sailhamer's Framework exposition that offering his own, and secondly, he weaves quite a bit of systematic theology into his exegesis; consider his comments on eschatology), what exegesis he does provide is acceptable. He makes much of the fact that light is not connected with the luminaries. But if the luminaries were already created, or if God created the light by creating the luminaries (that is, if the light comes first from the luminaries and only ultimately from God), then the particular theological point Shaw is making is lost. Shaw would have us believe that the important part of the story so far is that the luminaries are not the source of light (contra both common sense and, more importantly, Egyptian mythology), but rather God is. It is based on this that the character of the light can be declared good.

Here, again, we have another lost point if the light comes from the luminaries. Shaw would have us believe that the "goodness" of the chapter pertains to God's own goodness, not merely that which is beneficial for man. Again, while light may be existentially good from an OEC perspective, it seems hard to get at that idea if the verse is actually talking about the creation of the luminaries. For it is three days later they are created, and then, their purpose is to govern the night and day that was created on the first day. Certainly, the luminaries have their own existential goodness, but it seems backwards to talk about light's goodness first and then to discuss the goodness of the source of that light--the luminaries--three days later.

Anyway, whether you agree or not with Shaw or not, in any case, this particular exegesis is based on the idea that light exists independently of the luminaries, and that on purpose, and thus all things associated with the light do likewise. Now, AGAIN, I am NOT saying that things associated with the light cannot be understood properly in an OEC model. But I am not so impressed with, "But OEC can have that same exegesis, too!" If so, fine, but let's see it demonstrated, line by line.

And again, my entire concern is not about days one and four. Every day makes its own statement that contributes to the theology of the passage. Put differently, every action is put on every day for a specific reason. I know those reasons so far as YEC goes. I don't know them so far as OEC goes. The reason is probably a combination of

1. My own ignorance on the subject, and
2. The primary interest on the part of OEC writers in defending the validity of their interpretation rather than the exegesis of their interpretation.

So, perhaps we can just do like warhoop is suggesting, and walk through the passage ourselves? I'd be just as fine with that! I don't have to have an established OEC site or scholar from which to take OEC exegetical cues.

Jac,

Isthere something specificall y*grammatical* that empahzies that lack of the sun, or is it simply the fact that tere *is* no sun. That;s what I'm driving at. So far, All I keep hearing is "no sun, no sun, no sun" and then simply "well,gee, that absolutely points to a six day, God is protector". *WHY* is this absolute?!?!

DOn't get me wrng, I see why they can make taht point. But is there something aboutthe Hebrew phrases that am jus not getting?

So far, (if I can simply be the devils advocate), I don't see any more significance in the *exegetical* theoloy you are presenting than the *systematic* theology. (Perhaps this is why I didn't do so well in the foreign languages).

The Hebrew stats hat God created light....wonderful...This light points to Od as prtector, great.

I have absolutely no arguments....but *why* does this "belong" to the YEC any more than the OEC, with regards to exegesis and theology??!? (read into those exclamaton points simple frustration....I on't like that I just am not getting this). Great, the LIGHT points to God as protector and provider, why it DEMANDS* that the sun wasn't created then as well, I don't see.

(I still wish I caould find more information abut the framework hypothesis)

If it makes you feel any better, the frustration is on both sides, not with your disagreement, but with my inability to get you to see my point. I hate it when I can't be clear!

To directly answer your question, there is nothing grammatical about the lack of sun. There is obviously no Hebrew rule that says, "When this letter appears before that letter, it means that no sun is present!" The point is conceptual. Let's consider it this way:

Suppose someone is reading you the text for the first time. You've never heard it before. They come to the statement that God created the light. Now, before they get any further, they ask you this question: "Zoe, where did this light come from?" You answer, "Well, God, of course." They respond, "Of course it came from God. But everything comes from God. The universe came from God. I want to know, what was the immediate cause of the light that is shining on the surface of the earth here in these verses?"

Now, remember, you've not read on to day four yet. You are at day one for the first time. Do you say, "Well . . . light can only come from the sun, and, after all, the heavens and earth, which I take to mean the universe, were created at verse 1, and they certainly include the sun, so, I say the the light must come from the sun, even though the sun is not expressly mentioned." Or, do you say, "Well, this is clearly an account of how the whole universe was created step by step, and I don't see anything about the sun, so apparently, Moses believed that the light came before the sun . . . so, God must have just just shined it there himself. A miracle, like the whole creation ex nihilo thing!"

Two perfectly good answers. I'm not saying which is right and which is wrong. I'm trying to answer your question about the "no sun" thing. YEC's get the idea that there is "no sun", no from a grammatical point, but from a conceptual point of what the story is trying to tell us. To press our analogy further, when your reader gets to day four, she may ask you, "Does the entrance of the luminaries change your answer?" For many YECs I've read (though not all), the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day seems just as ex nihilo as the creation of every other event on their respective days (light, earth/sky, vegetation, air/sea creatures, land creatures/man). As such, they're inclined to take the creation of the luminaries as original, and thus, inclined to take the light in verse 1 as NOT coming from the sun, but apparently, from God Himself.

Now, it is from that statement that they draw the theology above, that God, not the luminaries, are the source of light, and then attribute to Him all that goes with it.

I don't see how you can make the same point if the luminaries already existed, though. Put it this way: by what means do we get to the idea that God is the source of light--answer, because there was no sun to give it! Certainly, you can take God as being the ultimate source of light for the simple reason that God created it. Fine. But there is a difference, theologically, in saying, "God is the ultimate source of light" (because, after all, God is the ultimate source of everything) and "God is the immediate source of light." The former theology is one of agency--God uses the luminaries to produce his light, and thus, we get into some sort of theology about agency to get to the aspects of light that we've been talking about before. The latter is a theology of immediacy.

AGAIN, OEC can have a theology of immediacy in the aspects we've been talking about when they get to other verses, but they can't get there from these verses. And again, that's fine.

This is what I'm saying: if Moses had OEC in mind when he penned Gen 1, then he didn't have Shaw's idea of the immediacy of light in his mind. He certainly had a point for putting the creation of light before the revealing of the luminaries (what that is, though, we've not yet discussed, and frankly, I don't know yet!), but his point was not that God is the immediate source of light because God, in OEC, is not the immediate source of light. So, there has to be another meaning there.

And THAT is why I do make such a strong distinction between systematic and exegetical theology. We all have roughly the same systematic theology (and more specifically, the same theology proper). But a YEC and an OEC interpretation of Gen 1 are going to have different exegetically theological emphases. I'm interested in OECs exegetical emphases. Just what point was Moses trying to make, for example, by putting the creation of light on the first day and the revealing on the luminaries on the fourth? And not just that, but what was he trying to do with each verse, theologically speaking?

Jac3510 wrote:If it makes you feel any better, the frustration is on both sides, not with your disagreement, but with my inability to get you to see my point. I hate it when I can't be clear!

lol, (maybe i's the left brain persontalking with a right brain...)..I attribut the frsutrtin more to my ack of knowledge.

jac wrote: To directly answer your question, there is nothing grammatical about the lack of sun. There is obviously no Hebrew rule that says, "When this letter appears before that letter, it means that no sun is present!" The point is conceptual. Let's consider it this way:

Suppose someone is reading you the text for the first time. You've never heard it before. They come to the statement that God created the light. Now, before they get any further, they ask you this question: "Zoe, where did this light come from?" You answer, "Well, God, of course." They respond, "Of course it came from God. But everything comes from God. The universe came from God. I want to know, what was the immediate cause of the light that is shining on the surface of the earth here in these verses?"

Now, remember, you've not read on to day four yet. You are at day one for the first time. Do you say, "Well . . . light can only come from the sun, and, after all, the heavens and earth, which I take to mean the universe, were created at verse 1, and they certainly include the sun, so, I say the the light must come from the sun, even though the sun is not expressly mentioned." Or, do you say, "Well, this is clearly an account of how the whole universe was created step by step, and I don't see anything about the sun, so apparently, Moses believed that the light came before the sun . . . so, God must have just just shined it there himself. A miracle, like the whole creation ex nihilo thing!"

I absolutely agree the significance of this. I don't think, however, that it then has to be directly concluded that this means the sun wasn't present. What may have been written to be an *emphasis* of God's gory and might doesn't necessairly cancel *how* He did it. I see it as the analogy of someone pointing to a car and saying "see I made that car and made it move". And before, perhaps, we know much *about* a car, we are certainly impressed with this. As we examine the car and see that the engine makes it move, I don't this it cancels the original statement nor does it take away from the fact that the enginewas there all the time. Perhaps it *was* stated that way to establish God, I don't think we can take it further than that.

jac wrote: Two perfectly good answers. I'm not saying which is right and which is wrong. I'm trying to answer your question about the "no sun" thing. YEC's get the idea that there is "no sun", no from a grammatical point, but from a conceptual point of what the story is trying to tell us. To press our analogy further, when your reader gets to day four, she may ask you, "Does the entrance of the luminaries change your answer?" For many YECs I've read (though not all), the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day seems just as ex nihilo as the creation of every other event on their respective days (light, earth/sky, vegetation, air/sea creatures, land creatures/man). As such, they're inclined to take the creation of the luminaries as original, and thus, inclined to take the light in verse 1 as NOT coming from the sun, but apparently, from God Himself.

Now, it is from that statement that they draw the theology above, that God, not the luminaries, are the source of light, and then attribute to Him all that goes with it.

I guess I'm just nt seeing how this thenestablishes YEC.

jac wrote: I don't see how you can make the same point if the luminaries already existed, though. Put it this way: by what means do we get to the idea that God is the source of light--answer, because there was no sun to give it! Certainly, you can take God as being the ultimate source of light for the simple reason that God created it. Fine. But there is a difference, theologically, in saying, "God is the ultimate source of light" (because, after all, God is the ultimate source of everything) and "God is the immediate source of light." The former theology is one of agency--God uses the luminaries to produce his light, and thus, we get into some sort of theology about agency to get to the aspects of light that we've been talking about before. The latter is a theology of immediacy.

Okay,I see the diference between the agency and immediacy. I can even see why it was written to confirm that role. I suppose ultimatley I am saying (see above) that the conclusion are limited.

I guess to me, it doesnt make *much* difference now as to whether Gd created the agency that provides light....that it quite as impressive as light. Certainly throughout all ofGenesis 1-2, there is *no* question about God's mastery and omnipoence.

BTW, what is

jac wrote:sort of theology about agency

....?!?!?

AGAIN, OEC can have a theology of immediacy in the aspects we've been talking about when they get to other verses, but they can't get there from these verses. And again, that's fine.

Hesistantly I concede the details....although I still think the overall conclusion (it must be YEC) is not as powerful.

jac wrote: This is what I'm saying: if Moses had OEC in mind when he penned Gen 1, then he didn't have Shaw's idea of the immediacy of light in his mind.

(tongue-in-cheek)....well, I doubt Moses was worried about that :-p

jac wrote: He certainly had a point for putting the creation of light before the revealing of the luminaries (what that is, though, we've not yet discussed, and frankly, I don't know yet!), but his point was not that God is the immediate source of light because God, in OEC, is not the immediate source of light. So, there has to be another meaning there.

And THAT is why I do make such a strong distinction between systematic and exegetical theology. We all have roughly the same systematic theology (and more specifically, the same theology proper). But a YEC and an OEC interpretation of Gen 1 are going to have different exegetically theological emphases. I'm interested in OECs exegetical emphases. Just what point was Moses trying to make, for example, by putting the creation of light on the first day and the revealing on the luminaries on the fourth? And not just that, but what was he trying to do with each verse, theologically speaking?

Well, I anwered above with the car example. I don't think they have o be mutually exclusive. I know you tend to be more black an white in your analysis. I don't think that an idea that God is the immediate source of, well, everything doesn't mean that it can't be clarified later inthe text. I know that you are huge in the "you can't use latertext to illuminate former text"....I don't agree, but certainly within 2 chapters it seems reasonable to think that the events of day four clarify God as the Gd of the luminaries that provide light. (TO be honest I always think this strains the text, that God would have made light and then creatd the sun afterwards....not that HE *couldn't* of course, just seemedout or order God is certainly a God of order. )

THis is why I am still intrigued by the framework hypothesi (although I know you aren't a fan).

Ah well

YOu did a good job explainig.....I *think* I have it now!!

Zoe, I'm not trying to say the YEC interpretation is right. I'm saying there is a difference. I brought it up, not to debate which is right (I don't care--remember, so far as this thread goes, I'm conceding OEC!), but to use as an EXAMPLE of the kind of exegesis I'm looking for. I certainly don't expect you to agree with the YEC exegesis of the passage.

What I do expect you (or, OECers in general) to do is something LIKE what I did there. What really bothers me is that all I ever really see OECers do is say, "Yeah, but we can say that too!" YEC takes the Bible literally? Oh yeah, so can OEC! YEC reads it in context? Oh yeah, so can OEC! YEC thinks there was a literal tree, adam, eve, snake, etc.? Oh yeah, so can OEC! Now, YEC has an exegetical theology. Oh yeah, OEC does to!

Great, what is it?

I'm not doubting that there CAN be one. I'm saying that there HASN'T been one. And arguing that the YEC exegetical theology is wrong doesn't substitute you actually having one. I don't care one your reading CAN say. I want to know what it DOES say. Remember, I teach this stuff to Bible study groups. This isn't all academic to me. I'd rather get behind the pat Sunday School answers of talking about God's sovereignty and OEC being valid. Don't you think Moses had a little more in mind than that? Why should we treat Gen 1-2 different than all the rest of Scripture? Every other passage of the Bible, we analyze to find out authorial intent. Why not do that here, too?

I don't want to debate examples. I want to see the theology. Taking the issues of animal diet. YEC takes the statements as prohibitive. Animals were once completely vegetarian, as were men. And the theology there? It is one of table fellowship. Man is to be ruler over the animals, but he was not to lord it over them. He was, rather, to "rule" them the same way you "rule" your family--that is, the people with whom you have your closest fellowship. Again, I'm sure any OECer, you could find some passage that teaches that, too. But you certainly can't say THAT is the point of the passage in Gen. 1, because, for you, animals weren't all vegetarians! So the table-fellowship analogy is gone. So, what IS the theology of the verse?

And AGAIN, I'm not asking for that one particular one to be answered. What I want to see is an explanation of the whole chapter from an OEC perspective.

tl;dr - what's Moses trying to teach beyond the order of creation, or does OEC take Gen 1 as just an "in case your were curious" type deal?

"In beginning God had created the heavens and the earth"

Jac said:

I wouldn't read anything into the "unspecified period of time", however. That only matters based on our understanding of yom as an age, which, I suppose, we are conceding for now. The more important question is whether or not this is part of the first day, which I suggest it has to be. The narrative clearly is meant to give the impression of a seven "day" creation period, not a seven day "formation" period. Thus, the initial creation ought to be included in these seven days. Taking yom as an age, that presents no problem anyway, as there's just a long time between the initial creation and the initial declaration of light.

I'm not conceding anything with regards to ages or days because at this point in the narrative this is all we know: the universe had a beginning and that God created it. We don't know anything about a "creative period," thus taking the verse at face value and with all the information given to this point, all we really know is that at some unknown and unspecified point in the past the universe had been created. I am trying to allow the narrative reveal itself to us, so quit reading ahead.

Now, on to the next verse:

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (NIV)

It seems to me that v. 2 is subsequent to v. 1. First, God created the universe, then the focus shifts to earth. We notice four things about it:

1. It is "formless and empty" - that is, chaotic and inhospitable for life.
2. It is covered in water.
3. It is enshrouded with darkness.
4. God is hovering over it.

So, I'd agree with commentators that take (1) as the primary problem that the next six days are going to fix. That God is "hovering" over the waters implies that God is taking care of this earth, that He is preparing it. God's attention is focused on this little ball of rock out in the universe.

Thoughts, next verse?

No offense, but most english translations horribly mangle this verse, if I may:
"and the earth had existed desolate and void of life and darkness over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters"

I find it interesting that you are able to get "chaotic and inhospitable for life" from "formless and empty," but inhospitable at least, from my perspective is correct. But again let's not get ahead of ourselves in referring to days or ages that we know nothing about.

Up to this point, this is all we have a right to say:
1. At some point there was a creation event, where God created the universe ex nihilo.
Theological impact:
The universe (all matter) had a beginning.
God is the Creator of all matter.
God existed before creation(eternal?).
God created ex nihilo.
2. At some point after the creation event, God took particular note of "earth" or perhaps God chose "earth," which had been lifeless and covered in water.
Theological impact:
"earth" had been uninhabited and uninhabitable.
The "earth" was selected by God.

Is this an accurate exposition? Anything missing or maybe overstated?

I'm not conceding anything with regards to ages or days because at this point in the narrative this is all we know: the universe had a beginning and that God created it. We don't know anything about a "creative period," thus taking the verse at face value and with all the information given to this point, all we really know is that at some unknown and unspecified point in the past the universe had been created. I am trying to allow the narrative reveal itself to us, so quit reading ahead.

Yes, I'm reading ahead a bit, only because the purpose of this thread is to get an exegetical theology of Gen 1-2 from an OEC perspective. It wouldn't do me much good to walk through it and get a YEC perspective, now would it? I've read tons of those.

No offense, but most english translations horribly mangle this verse, if I may:
"and the earth had existed desolate and void of life and darkness over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters"

No offense taken, but I think your statement is . . . overstated. Even if we adopt your rendering, the English translations hardly "horribly mangle this verse." All you've done is to change the state of being verb to a pluperfect. In any case, from what I can tell, it's a simple qal preterite, and should be rendered "was" (see Keil) The LXX takes it the same way, rendering it en (cf. John 1:1, which uses the same verb).

So . . . at best, you could say you have a syntactically possible translation. It's hardly fair to say modern translations have mangled the verse.

I find it interesting that you are able to get "chaotic and inhospitable for life" from "formless and empty," but inhospitable at least, from my perspective is correct. But again let's not get ahead of ourselves in referring to days or ages that we know nothing about.

Up to this point, this is all we have a right to say:
1. At some point there was a creation event, where God created the universe ex nihilo.
Theological impact:
The universe (all matter) had a beginning.
God is the Creator of all matter.
God existed before creation(eternal?).
God created ex nihilo.
2. At some point after the creation event, God took particular note of "earth" or perhaps God chose "earth," which had been lifeless and covered in water.
Theological impact:
"earth" had been uninhabited and uninhabitable.
The "earth" was selected by God.

Is this an accurate exposition? Anything missing or maybe overstated?

Sounds good so far. I'd be interested in hearing an OEC chime in now, though, on the issue of the "formlessness" and "void." Most commentators I've read take this is a major theme for Genesis; the initial creation had two deficiencies that God will begin to resolve. Would an OEC position accept that?

Jac,

"formlessness" and "void." Most commentators I've read take this is a major theme for Genesis; the initial creation had two deficiencies that God will begin to resolve. Would an OEC position accept that?

Why wouldn't we accept that?!?!

I don't know why, zoe. I didn't say you wouldn't. I didn't realize my not assuming would cause such shock?

Would you consider the early earth, as it existed four billion years ago, deficient in those ways?