Evidence for God from Science

lol, no problems...

Jac3510 wrote:
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.

Jac,
Sorry to back track, but....
Just to be completely objective on this analysis in Gen 1:1, can you go into more detail as to why "this has to be part of the first day".

Sorry, guys I've been away awhile.. What is the consensus of this post? What is the question here?

YLT wrote: Sorry to back track, but....
Just to be completely objective on this analysis in Gen 1:1, can you go into more detail as to why "this has to be part of the first day".

Dude

Long time no see. Glad to see you! As far as your question, let me first say that "has to be" is probably too strong. "More likely" may be better, and definitely "more likely to me." But as you know, there are two possibilities--well, three if you count Walton's positions, but that discussion would take us too far afield--1) that the verse is a general summary verse that the rest of the story unfolds, or 2) that it is the first event followed chronologically by those that follow.

(1) has many proponents, but I see several weaknesses with it.

1. It really would deny a seven day creation, however you take the word day. The seven days would be one of fashioning and molding, not of the creation itself. Whatever position a person takes on the length of the days, they do have to take Ex 20:11 seriously, as it is directly based on the Genesis account. There, God is expressly said to have created "the heavens and the earth" in seven days; that tells me that 1:1 must be included in the week, and was not considered separate from it.

2. 1:3 begins with a vav consecutive, which implies the events of the second day were temporally sequentially to 1:1. This mitigates against the view that Gen. 1:1 is a summary statement, I think.

3. Comparison with other verses that clearly are summary statements don't seem to have the same flavor as this does. Consider, for example, Gen. 22:1. This is a clear example of a summary statement, in that it summarizes the entire story. But consider, then, 24:1 -- in this example, the verse is antecedent to the story. So it seems to fit the category of antecedent completed action more than summary statement.

4. If it is only a summary statement, then it leaves the origin of the formless, void earth to be explained.

So, all in all, it seems to me that we should consider 1:2 to be a part of the first day.

Gman wrote:Sorry, guys I've been away awhile.. What is the consensus of this post? What is the question here?

No consensus, G. Maybe you could read through the thread and give me your own thoughts. It does seem that my original question hasn't been answered in the broader literature, or at least not in a very visible way! So, we're kind of working our way through this a bit at a time.

Jac3510 wrote: No consensus, G. Maybe you could read through the thread and give me your own thoughts. It does seem that my original question hasn't been answered in the broader literature, or at least not in a very visible way! So, we're kind of working our way through this a bit at a time.

Thanks Jac.. I've read through some of it but it's a little fuzzy to me. There seems to be a lot of questions.. Can I ask what specific question you and others are asking? Sorry..

No prob. The fuzziness is the main problem I've been encountering. I've been asking for an exegetical theology of Gen 1-2 from an OEC perspective. In other words, assuming the validity of the OEC model (which means we don't have to debate about how "day" should be translated), what is the theological point of the chapters? And, more specifically, what is the theology of each verse--how does it contribute to the whole?

Pretty much every other interpretation of Gen 1 has done a great job about putting forward their exegetical theology: YEC, the Framework Hypothesis, Walton's Temple Text view, etc. . . . all of them do a good job at getting to the theological point not just of the next, but of the verses within the text. All of them unite the verses around a theological center, and each verse contributes to that center. I've not had the pleasure of seeing that from any OEC advocates yet. Our systematic theology is roughly the same, but we're not after that here. We're after the exegetical theology.

If you want an example of that, listen to the lecture Byblos linked to. The guy is neither OEC nor YEC. He holds to a very different view of the passage, but he does a great job at getting to what he sees is the theology of the text. That's what I'm looking for from an OEC model. Certainly, OEC has a great apologetic value, but we all have to admit that Moses didn't pen the passage for 21st century apologetics as it relates to 21st century science. He was speaking something to the 14th century Israelites? Beyond the general themes of God's sovereignty and omnipotence, the question is, what? And whatever that is, how does the construction of the various verses in the accounts portray that?

I do not know what Walton's theory is. Is this commentary on the creation similarly aligned with Walton's?

From Strand Study Bible:
The creation story in Genesis makes use of two contrasting words that are often confused in the English translation of the Bible —the English words create (bah-rah - vs. 1) and made (gah-sah - vs. 7). Whereas bah-rah (create) means to call into existence something out of nothing, gah-sah (made) means to allow or to assemble. A carpenter, for example, can make (gah-sah) a chair out of wood, but he is quite unable to create (bah-rah) the wood itself.
In the beginning (whenever that was) God created the heaven and the earth. Then, due to Lucifer's rebellion (Isa 14:12-15 and Ezk 28:11-15), a terrible catastrophe affected the entire universe, which included the original earth. Subsequently, the original earth had to be remade. Exodus 20:11 says,

“For in six days the LORD made (or, remade) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…”

J. Vernon McGee, in his book called Thru the Bible Commentary: The Law (Genesis 1-15), noted,

“There are several thing here that I would like to call to your attention. In Exodus 20:11, it reads 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them is…' There is nothing in that verse about creating. It says 'made'; God is taking that which is already formed and in these six days He is not 'creating' but He is recreating. He is working with matter which already exists, out of the matter which He had called into existence probably billions of years before.” 7

Thus, Genesis 1:1 and the work of original creation is not to be confused with Genesis 1:7 and the work of the First Week, which starts with verse three (Gen 1:2c). Therefore, the first four days of Genesis (verses 2-19) are not records of creation, but records of reassembly (i.e., the releasing from restraint of certain materials that were once under bondage). What is found in the remainder of Genesis 1 refers not to the first earth but to the restoration of that first earth, which had fallen into ruins due to Lucifer's fall (Isa 14:12-15).

(This Bible is soon to be in print and is available for preorders at http://www.strandstudybible.com)

YLT,

That's not the same view. McGee is advocating the Gap Theory, in which 1:1 is seen to be the initial creation, and then, some undetermined time later, God refashioned the earth that "had become" formless and void thanks to Satan's Fall.

Walton, on the other hand, doesn't even think Gen 1 deals with creation anywhere. For him, the entire thing is about appointing existing parts of nature for certain purposes. He takes bara' to mean "established" or "appointed." So 1:1 teaches that God set the universe in its proper functional order; it has nothing to do with the actual ontological creation of the universe itself. Every event of every day is understood as God saying "this is for that purpose" and "that is for this purpose." The days are analogous to man's and are not to be taken either as days or ages.

I have a lot of methodological problems with his view, which means I'm not able to accept his conclusions. With that said, the lecture is most definitely worth listening to, because he brings up some rather important literary aspects of the text that we need to consider (i.e., the possibility that it is a temple text is a frame that should be developed).

Jac,

What is your opinion on the Gap theory. It seems to leave 'Yom' as one day, but also explains othe issues.

Do you see any scriptural confilcts in the Gap Theory?


Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff,

Depends on what one makes of Exo 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them."

The word "made" there is not the same word as "created" in Gen 1:1, but the question is whether or not 20:11 is meant to capture the entirety of Gen 1:1-2:4. It seems to me that it is, so I'm not inclined to accept the Gap Theory. Besides that, you also have to decide how seriously to consider objections rooted in Jesus' and Paul's claims that man came about "in the beginning" of the creation. I'm inclined to take those passages in their common sense terms, that man did exist at the beginning of the creation, which would seem to preclude a gap, but that's not definitive. Other readings are acceptable.

TL;DR - seems to me that one can make the GT work, but since it doesn't just jump out at you, and sense nowhere else in Scripture implies it, I have a hard time justifying that as being the original intent. With that said, it's grammatically possible.

So with busy being an understatement, I've just been catching up on the threads and listened to the Walton lecture and the light goes off. "Hey, I have that book!" Actually, I have two of his books, but "The Lost World of Genesis One" was in between "The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew" and "A History of Christianity in Asia," so it went to the top of the list. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with Walton after reading the book. The lecture, while informative, barely glosses the the study behind the book. I recommend it.

warhoop wrote:So with busy being an understatement, I've just been catching up on the threads and listened to the Walton lecture and the light goes off. "Hey, I have that book!" Actually, I have two of his books, but "The Lost World of Genesis One" was in between "The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew" and "A History of Christianity in Asia," so it went to the top of the list. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with Walton after reading the book. The lecture, while informative, barely glosses the the study behind the book. I recommend it.

Is this the book http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian ... 1570751625 for a History in Asia? The topic sounds very interesting. Especially given many new age assertions that Jesus traveled to Asia and India.

ageofknowledge wrote:

warhoop wrote:So with busy being an understatement, I've just been catching up on the threads and listened to the Walton lecture and the light goes off. "Hey, I have that book!" Actually, I have two of his books, but "The Lost World of Genesis One" was in between "The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew" and "A History of Christianity in Asia," so it went to the top of the list. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with Walton after reading the book. The lecture, while informative, barely glosses the the study behind the book. I recommend it.

Is this the book http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian ... 1570751625 for a History in Asia? The topic sounds very interesting. Especially given many new age assertions that Jesus traveled to Asia and India.

I'm hoping to get to that book by the end of the year, but who knows. A few years back I read a book called "The Jesus Sutras," and the piqued my curiousity about Asian Christianity. Most of the apostles essentially stayed put in the Near East and Europe and we have a pretty comprehensive understanding as general Christians with regards to growth of the Western Church, but the Eastern Church is not as nearly prominent. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Have not read all of the thread, so hard when you come in halfway through. Not sure but have you discussed the possability of "Parallelism" in regards to this subject ?

Topic, would you care to clarify what you are referring to? Thanks!