Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

hi cheryl,

I assume John is still working on the next section of his post above, and I am working on my last installment as well. Then I’m hoping John and I can have some back-and-forth over the evidence for evolution.

So, stay tuned…

Gabe,

Are you more of a turn of the previous century (1900) theistic evolutionist that believes we can see God’s design, purpose and control in and over the process of evolution, or more of a turn of this century (2000) theistic evolutionist who, like F. Collins, believes that the process of evolution looks random from our point of view, but controlled from God’s perspective?

Regards
John

gabriel,

Maybe you mentioned this while I was gone–I’m still nowhere nearly caught up on this thread.

I find myself wondering if you believe in special creation for humans or are they, in your opinion, part of general evolution?

cheryl,

the evidence is quite clear that humans are part & parcel of evolution. The evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes is very strong, for example.

john,

my views are very similar to Collins’ views, but I would have to know your definition of “design” to know for sure how I fit into your framework.

gabriel,

So, what do you believe it means in Genesis when it says that God created us in His image?

Hi cheryl,

do you think that passage is talking about our physical form? I don’t, and I have yet to find a theologian who does, although perhaps there are.

being made in the image of God means we are His regents – we represent His rule / kingdom on earth. We have a subset of His attributes – self-knowledge, free will, et cetera. How we were made is beside the point – the passage is talking about how we function in God’s creation.

gabriel,

We also have an immortal spirit. That is the big difference, as I understand it between man and other animals and perhaps the main factor in what it means to be created in His image.

If you believe in that difference between man and the animals, then how do you believe that it came about? Did it just spontaneously or gradually evolve? Although I certainly can’t see how an irrmortal spirit can evolve. Or did God at some point intervene and give the evolving animal which became man this spirit?

Or do you maybe believe that there is no difference between man and any of the animals in their immortality?

Hi cheryl,

Indeed, humans have a soul, animals don’t. This is given by God, of course. When and how that happened, I do not know, but I know it was God who did so.

Even now, in the present day, we don’t know when or how “ensoulment” works. We believe it is the gift of God (I hold it happens before or at conception, others may differ).

The point I was trying to make is that the mechanism by which God made our mortal frame is irrelevant to receiving His image. You yourself believe that God made you through “natural” means and provided you with a soul, do you not? Why is this ok for you and everyone else alive today if not for Adam? Are you any less made in God’s image because you were formed through the natural processes of cell division and development in your mother’s womb? God works through these “natural” processes every day (Ps 139), does he not?

Of course He works through natural processes every day. But is there not possibly a difference between being born today through natural processes and Adam coming through natural processes over billions of years of time?

Do you not find it significant that in Genesis 2, God says He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils and man became a living being? That is a description of the beginnings of man that is not shared with the description of the beginnings of any other form of life on this earth. Everything else basically came about because God said, “Let there be…”

If man is simply the product of evolution of some form of animal life that God had already created, why would He give such a detailed description of man’s creation? I don’t think He just set out to confuse us, do you?

No, I don’t think God set out to confuse us. I think He inspired Genesis to fit exactly with an Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) view of the cosmos and creation.

When it comes to the mechanics of how humans were made, I don’t think Genesis 1-2 has a dog in that fight. If you’d like to see how I view Genesis, you can watch the video by John Walton I linked to back in post #697.

Gabriel,

I watched about the first 20 minutes of the video you mentioned and then I had to stop.

I just have one comment at this point and I hope I can say it in a way that it makes sence.

I guess I just don’t understand how it is that God has said that He gave us all Scriputure by His inspiration and that it is to be used for teaching (doctrine) correction, etc. like he speaks of in II Timothy. If everyone has to completely understand and get into an ANE mindset in order to have the slightest clue as to what is going on here, how is it that He expected all of that to take place? Most of the world doesn’t have a clue as to what the ANE mindset was and probably doesn’t think that it was important. A very large share of the world has been reading Genesis for centuries now without the benefit of that knowledge. And now we are being told that we have all been totally wrong because we haven’t known that and we have had no way of knowing that. I’m sorry, but I also can’t help but wonder how we can be so absolutely certain that we are 100% right in our understanding now of that ANE mindset so that we can say with finality, “This is the way they thought,” or “this was absolutely not the way they thought.”

I guess it just seems to me that when God gives us a book and expects us to read it and says it is His Word to us, that He doesn’t speak in such a way that it is totally impossible for a very large share of the world to read it and have any idea at all of what He is talking about. That is like telling a kid your instructions to him in a foreign language and then wondering why he doesn’t understand what you are talking about.

cheryl, I understand your concern – but flip it around: do you think God should have communicated Genesis to the original ANE audience in a way that naturally fits with our 21st century scientific concerns? it would have made no sense to the original audience.

I would argue that Genesis does present a timeless message: God made it all, He made it for His pleasure, humans are specially made in His image, we fell into sin, and we need a redeemer. That much should be obvious, and I would argue easy to understand across cultures.

This is not what you are concerned about, though: you want to press Genesis 1-2 for the material details of how it was all done. Again, the evidence from the ANE context suggests that this question wasn’t even on the radar screen of the original audience.

does that help?

No, I don’t think He should of communicated in a way that makes sence to us and not to them. However, He IS God, and if He wants folks to understand what He is talking about, it seems to me that there are surely ways to communicate it to all concerned in a way that doesn’t leave a large share of His audience completely confused and totally not having a clue. That is my concern.

Assuming for the moment that I agreed with what you are saying here, the only logical conclusion that I could come to is that it is really not very important to God if we understand what He is talking about or not. And somehow I don’t think He went to all the trouble of communicating it and speaking of His Word in such a way that shows He obviously places great value in it for that to be the case!

Gabriel,

The ANE perspective was brought up forcefully earlier, but no one attempted to explain how it is that an ANE is unable to understand certain concepts. These concepts are what God choose to tell us in scripture, so nobody is pressing anything into the text. Can you explain why an ANE is unable to understand:

1. months, days, and cubits
— unless these terms are unintelligible to an ANE, the idea of a local flood defies the laws of physics (see posts 247, 367, 417, 421)

Richard,

Just a quick question. Did you listen to John Walton’s presentation that Gabriel refers to above? It presents another whole concept into this discussion unlike any of what I have read discussed here before–unless of course, I missed it while I was gone.

758.gabriel on 22 Jun 2009 at 4:02 pm # wrote:

Hi cheryl,
.
Indeed, humans have a soul, animals don’t. This is given by God, of course. When and how that happened, I do not know, but I know it was God who did so.
.
Even now, in the present day, we don’t know when or how “ensoulment” works. We believe it is the gift of God (I hold it happens before or at conception, others may differ).

gabriel: I think if you study the Hebrew text of Genesis 1&2 and the words the Hebrew Bible uses for soul, living soul, etc. (nephesh, neshamah, etc.) you will find that the main distinction between man and animals is that man is created in God’s image and animals are not. It has nothing to do with “ensoulment” or “having” (or not having) “a soul.” I have not been able to establish or substantiate the concept of “ensoulment” from the Scriptures. Did it originate in medieval Catholic or Scholastic thought or Greek philosophy?

I guess I just don’t understand how it is that God has said that He gave us all Scriputure by His inspiration and that it is to be used for teaching (doctrine) correction, etc. like he speaks of in II Timothy.

Paul or the unknown author of II Timothy said that. Whether God said that depends on one’s theology and/or doctrine of Scripture (would that be called graphology?), I think.

EricW,

Does that mean that you don’t believe what the Bible says there? If God inspired all Scripture like it says, and II Timothy is part of Scripture, how could it be that God did not say it?

What I stated has nothing to do with what I believe or don’t believe.

1. The verse can be translated as “every Scripture inspired by God…” (not that I necessarily agree with that translation).

2. The author of 2 Timothy considered the LXX to be the “Scripture.” His only quotes from the OT are from the Greek text. If you accept his statement and his doctrines of Scripture and inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, do you also accept his text (i.e., the LXX, including where it differs from or disagrees with the Hebrew Masoretic Text)? Why or why not?

Because of 3. and 4., should 2 Timothy be Scripture? Why or why not?

3. Per the margin notes of Nestle-Aland 27, the author of 2 Timothy quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture. Do you accept his canon (i.e., the Old Testament + the Apocrypha) and Scripture as your Scripture? Why or why not?

I meant to write:

(after 3. and not before it):

4. Because of, or in spite of, 2. and 3., should 2 Timothy be in the canon of Scripture? Why or why not? Is he wrong to believe the Greek translation of the Scriptures to be the inspired OT text? Is he wrong to quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture? Does the assertion of the LXX as being God-breathed Scripture mean that English translations are also God-breathed Scripture?

Sorry I took this discussion way away from Creation vs. Evolution. Maybe just ignore my posts on 2 Timothy. :^)

EricW,

I think I need to apologize for my harsh tone in my last comment. What you said just utterly surprised me.

I honestly do not know the answer to your technical questions above. But I honestly believe that if we are going to start questioning whether all parts of the Bible are God’s Word to us and therefore the authority for our lives, we are on a slippery slope that can only lead us to disaster with no ultimate authority to stand on anywhere.

John Walton’s ANE presentation.

Covers fact that ‘bara’ is always performed by God, and can be used for non-material objects. Then states ‘bara’ is “never used in context where materials are mentioned”. His discussion is unclear. It sometimes appears that he is speaking of that which is used to ‘bara’, but other times it seems he means that which results from ‘bara’.

At any rate, ‘bara’ is used in the context of material in Gen 1:
1:1 heavens and earth,
1:21 first nephesh life
1:26,27 first man and woman

Walton says “‘bara’ means to establish function or operation” … “that’s what the usage tells us” and does not mean to “create ex nihilo”.

However, it is a new position, explicitly presented by Walton to resolve what he understands as conflicts between “science” and scripture.

If he’s correct then all of these folks are wrong:

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1195-1270) [Just try to claim that he’s laboring under our modern scientific worldview — which is the entire thesis of the ANE argument presented in this blog.]
Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity, The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word “bara” (created).
…
The purport of the verses is thus: In the beginning G-d created the heavens from nought, and He created the earth from nought….
…
In Hebrew, chiddush (new), thus implying that G-d created a new world out an absolute void. (Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Genesis, pages 23, 27, 332, footnote 162, Shilo Publishing House, Inc, NY, 1971).

Theologically, bara is one of the most significant. The action involved with the word is the first activity of biblical history. It is used exclusively to refer to God’s creative work; it refers to creating things “ex nihilo”, or out of nothing.” (“The Complete Biblical Library, The Old Testament, Hebrew-English Dictionary”, word # 1282, page 578,)

[Adam Clarke (born 1762) — not a modern scientific]
Caused existence where previously to this moment there was no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language are unanimous in asserting that the word “bara” expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or egression [sic] from nonentity to entity…..The supposition that God formed all things out of pre-existing, eternal nature, is certainly absurd…..” (Clarke’s Commentary – The Holy Bible…., by Adam Clarke, Vol 1, page 29, footnote)

My summary: a conflict is seen between Genesis and science, so words in Genesis are redefined to remove the apparent contradictions. I did not listen to the entire presentation, but I never heard Walton attempt to support his assumption about the meaning of ‘bara’. He simply said “if this is what it means”.

EricW wrote:

Per the margin notes of Nestle-Aland 27, the author of 2 Timothy quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture. Do you accept his canon (i.e., the Old Testament + the Apocrypha) and Scripture as your Scripture? Why or why not?

This is a non-sequitur. The fact that an inspired author might quote a non-inspired source does not then imply that the source must be inspired. It is simply a tool that is used by the inspired author to communicate the truth that he/she wants to communicate.

This could apply to the case you mentioned, the LXX, the pagan poet quoted by Paul in Romans, etc…

I honestly do not know the answer to your technical questions above. But I honestly believe that if we are going to start questioning whether all parts of the Bible are God’s Word to us and therefore the authority for our lives, we are on a slippery slope that can only lead us to disaster with no ultimate authority to stand on anywhere.

And that’s one reason many Protestant Evangelicals become Catholic or Orthodox. They realize or experience the slippery slope of the “every man a pope” potential of Sola Scriptura, and hence seek a surer foundation than “private interpretation.” They turn to “the church” as the pillar and support of the truth (see the other Timothy, i.e., 1 Timothy 3:15) and the faithful repository of the Apostolic Message and Faith, and trust that when Jesus said He would build His church, He would also ensure that the Holy Spirit would guide it into all truth, and keep it that way.

And so they cross the Tiber or swim the Bosporus. 😀

hi eric,

yes, I am aware that I am painting with a broad brush here, and there is a lot more Plato in the average churchgoer than most know or care to admit, but I’m accommodating my language to my intended audience. 🙂 To do otherwise would muddy the waters, don’t you think?

Richard:

2 Timothy 2:19 seems to be an amalgamation of Numbers 16:5, Isaiah 26:13, and Sirach 17:26, and these words are said by the author to be the seal of God’s firm foundation. He quotes these words as Scripture and as God’s word, not as the words of a pagan poet.

EricW,

2 Timothy 2:19 seems to be an amalgamation of Numbers 16:5, Isaiah 26:13, and Sirach 17:26, and these words are said by the author to be the seal of God’s firm foundation. He quotes these words as Scripture and as God’s word, not as the words of a pagan poet.

I’m not trying to be flippant, but so what? What conclusion do you think this leads to?

Cherl writes:

But I honestly believe that if we are going to start questioning whether all parts of the Bible are God’s Word to us and therefore the authority for our lives, we are on a slippery slope that can only lead us to disaster with no ultimate authority to stand on anywhere.

Are you saying that God’s word cannot stand up to honest questioning? Would you rather believe in something that might not be true just because you’re afraid to question it? That’s a scary thought.

It is a fair question to ask exactly what scriptures were being referenced in 2 Tim. After all, most conservative evangelicals would say some NT books hadn’t even been written yet when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, including all of John’s books. And the canon would not exist in it’s present form for a couple hundred years. And what about the LXX? What exactly did Paul mean? That’s a fair question. Maybe, in a sense, even a mandatory question.

I said in an earlier post that pretty much all theologians reject a dictation theory of inspiration, yet most evangelical christians act as if each word come directly from the lips (so to speak) of God, which, of course, would be dictation. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways. If scripture is a product of both God and human authors, exactly what part did humans contribute, and does that have any effect on your approach to scripture?

Regarding the ANE worldview, a primary principle of hermaneutics is to consider “What did it mean to the original readers?”

Dave Z,

II Peter 1:21 says, “because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Granted, that is speaking about OT prophecy. However, it certainly makes a case for Scripture, at least that part of it, being a direct word of God, doesn’t it? I don’t care if we call it dictation or whatever, it is still God speaking.

And at some point, don’t we have to accept that God led the folks that determined the canon of Scripture if He wanted His Word preserved? Granted, there is not chapter and verse to support that belief. Not that there being one would evidently make any difference because you could all still argue that the verse in question may never have come from God in the first place!! But I seriously wonder, where are you going to settle on any authority for life if you don’t at some point accept that Scripture is indeed God’s Word to us?

Richard,

However, it is a new position, explicitly presented by Walton to resolve what he understands as conflicts between “science” and scripture.

My summary: a conflict is seen between Genesis and science, so words in Genesis are redefined to remove the apparent contradictions.

You do the same thing Richard. Anyone who isn’t a geocentrist does exactly this.

Its hypocritical of you to criticize him, or anyone, of doing this when you do it too. Stop it.

See post #358

Science doesn’t determine our interpretation. At least not this one you are criticizing. A progressive creationist may use science in that way, but I have been consistently against any model that does so. Science can inform us of incorrect interpretations and we can use that information to search for better ones. You believe this too, as I pointed out above.

Its perfectly valid for someone to search for an alternative interpretation when previous ones have been shown to be implausible. It would be good for you to take that suggestion to heart. Aside from that, Walton’s work is scripturally based through and through, more so than YEC’s model. At least he is attempting to understand scripture according to its original audience. A YEC, like yourself, and those other interpreters you mentioned, all look at it from their own viewpoint. That’s their problem; not how much science they know.

That is a major flaw regardless of how much you deny it. The clearest interpretation of a text is what the original author intended the original audience to understand. In as much as you don’t understand that, you don’t understand scripture.

Genesis 1 is about functional origins. Not material origins. That is what you want it to be about because that is the framework you think in. The Israelites, and everyone else in the ANE, thought in terms of functions. It is not at all surprising once we know how to recognize this that we see it over and over again in the creation account.

If you want to know more about this, I listed resources in posts #322 and 323.

Cheryl U,

I understand your concern. As Gabriel said, the message in Genesis is timeless. We can get the main gist of the argument without knowing about the ANE. But when we get into a discussion like this, then that is when a deeper knowledge of what scripture is really saying is necessary.

But this is how all scripture study works. Haven’t you read a certain passage a dozen times without really studying it, only to find a host of hidden treasures when you finally dig deeper? I know I have.

Peter, when talking about Paul’s letters, even admits that they are hard to understand sometimes (2 Peter 3:16), and he spoke the same language and lived in the same culture and time period as Paul! Whenever we are removed from the original context, we have to take extra steps in order to facilitate understanding. This is true for anything really. Peter probably wasn’t on the receiving end of any of Paul’s letters, so he had to work with limited information just as we do.

Now for all this, think about what is going on here: With Genesis we have a text that was written 3,500 years ago, in a language that isn’t spoken anymore (modern Hebrew doesn’t count) and by a culture that doesn’t exist and which we moderns are wholly unfamiliar with.

Bridging these gaps require a tremendous amount of work on our parts! Even translating from Hebrew to English is a monumental task that requires language scholars spending thousands of hours studying the words, their meanings, and the literary intent of the passage before it can be accurately translated into English.

Because of our readily accessible English translations, we sometimes forget the amount of work that went into it. Someone out there had to spend hundreds of hours learning Hebrew just so we could read it in English.

The language of scripture is a HUGE barrier to people understanding what it says, to say nothing of the Ancient Near Eastern culture! We could just as readily ask the question “Why did God give the scriptures in a language that a huge majority of the world will never be able to understand?”

Thankfully we have translators who can bridge the gap between the two languages.

And thankfully we have people like John H. Walton who can bridge the gap between the ANE culture and our own.

Ignoring the original culture’s influence on scripture in favor of our own is as bad as ignoring the original Hebrew because we prefer English. Things will get lost in translation, and when you are trying to develop broad doctrines, such as ones that require you to reject all of modern science, this is never a sign of sound hermeneutics.

It descends into an eisegetical free-for-all according to one’s own standards and beliefs with no foundation.

Re post 762, etc.

Yes, I agree that there are things in the Bible that are impossible for the average churchgoer to understand without knowing the original languages. That’s why I took Greek and Hebrew and why I teach them to my kids. I think the manner in which the American church has denigrated knowledge of the original languages is irresponsible (Oh, we don’t really need to know all that to understand what the Bible means to me, and anyway it’s boring and difficult) and to arrogantly assume that the Bible can just be read in American English with no regard for the original languages and original viewpoints and understandings of the original readers and hearers. It has been irresponsible for preachers and teachers of the Bible to treat it so and to treat their churchgoers as either dolts, or people who should be entertained and not challenged in case they move to the church down the street.

Even the Apostle Peter noted in 2 Peter 3:16, not all words of Scripture are easy to understand. Peter writes that Paul’s epistles are hard to understand, “. . . There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. . . .”

The basics of salvation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that He is the only way to the Father, and that we need to believe on Him to be born again–yes, those things are easy to understand. But other things are not.

As I wrote earlier, 2 Peter 3:5 is, when read in a “straightforward manner”, a warning against a belief in a young earth: “for this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old.” In this regard note also that in Habakuk 3:6 the mountains are described as “everlasting” and the hills are described as “perpetual”. What’s the “straightforward meaning of that? The Hebrew words ‘ad and ‘owlam mean “long duration”, “ancient”, “forever”, and “continuous existence”.

So, I disagree with Richard and others who think that the ANE Hebrews would have read Genesis and thought that God used 144 hours to create the universe and world. No, they would not have thought that. They would have thought that God was speaking to them through their normal, oral, story-telling conventions and that he was telling them about creation in a topically organized format that directly contradicted the creation stories of the Egyptians and the Babylonians.

Richard can disagree, and present arguments in favour of his view and against the other options, but that is part of the point. In each case, including the YECs, we are dealing with the fallible interpretations of fallible humans. In evaluating these various interpretations we have access to God’s revelation in nature, and what God tells us in nature is that the YECs are without a doubt wrong about the age of the earth.

Regards
#John

John wrote:

So, I disagree with Richard and others who think that the ANE Hebrews would have read Genesis and thought that God used 144 hours to create the universe and world. No, they would not have thought that.

I understand what you think, but you have presented *no* evidence for this. Did Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1195-1270) quoted in post 773 share our modern scientific worldview? Explain why you think he is wrong about the meaning of the Hebrew.

Greg wrote:

Its perfectly valid for someone to search for an alternative interpretation when previous ones have been shown to be implausible

meaning YEC. However, this has *not* been shown to be implausible.

Its hypocritical of you to criticize him, or anyone, of doing this when you do too. Stop it.

If it makes me *wrong*, then it would also make Walton *wrong* …

The Israelites, and everyone else in the ANE, thought in terms of functions.

Unsubstantiated. Further, to make the point you’re trying to make, you must show that they think *only* in terms of functions. I read John Waltons Koinoniablog about “bara” and he makes similar unsubstantianted claim (see below)

Walton writes:

The grammatical objects of the verb can be summarized in the following categories:

Cosmos (10, including New Cosmos)
People in general (10)
Specific groups of people (6)
Specific individuals or types of individuals (5)
Creatures (2)
Phenomena (10)
Components of cosmic geography (3)
Condition (1: pure heart)

What is obvious from this listing is that grammatical objects of the verb are not material in nature, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them.

An obvious reach. Since when is the cosmos, people, creatures, etc *not material* in nature??

It should be noted that a large percentage of the biblical contexts require a functional understanding. If the Israelites understood the word bara’ to convey creation in functional terms, then that would be the most “literal” understanding that we could achieve.

Nonsense — unless words can have only a single limited meaning, which is denied by Walton early in this blog. Considering that the creation account is by definition a “one of” event, it should surprise no one that it might be the only account in which ‘bara’ is employed to denote the creation of material objects. In fact, this would be expected.

Greg, Gabriel, John and all push ANE, but continue to avoid my challenge to explain why the terms of time and distance measurement in the flood account can’t be properly understood. The only response so far was a smart aleck comment from Greg. So someone please take up the challenge in post 765, or simply admit that the interpretative position you’re pushing is unable to handle the details of the accounts.

How is our scientific knowledge of genetics supposed to inform or shape our understanding or interpretation of Genesis 30:25-43?

Any notion that “normal days” in Gen 1 is a recent invention due to a modern scientific worldview is completely refuted here (and many other places):

Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition
by Paul James-Griffiths

After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers? …

… I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, …

Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. … After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.

I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

In fact, in the preface it says, ‘Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.’ …

..on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, ‘One day refers to the movement of the sphere.’…The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, ‘The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet …’….

I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days.

…

Turning to some of the more modern Jewish scholars, I discovered a stubborn refusal to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. Professor Ginsberg had this to say:

‘There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation of the expression “day”?. On the contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively demands that “yôm”? should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word “day”? in common parlance, i.e. as a natural day.’

Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).
…
My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal.

[complete article here: http://creation.com/creation-days-and-orthodox-jewish-tradition%5D

But we know from Jesus and Paul that the Jews misunderstood the Scriptures. When they read the Torah, there is a veil over their eyes. And only those who have received the Spirit from God can properly understand/comprehend/examine God’s thoughts. 🙂

N’est-ce pas?

Shesh, it takes like five minutes to load this page!! Can’t believe it is still going. 🙂

re post 786

Whoopee. Some Rabbis a few thousand years after Genesis was written think that the creation week was 144 hours! Wow, I give up. But of course, I also assume Richard is willing to accept all their other interpretations too–like geocentricity. But wait, the Rabbis disagreed about divorce, the after life and Jesus. And many rabbis interpreted the Bible as declaring a geocentric view of the universe.

With respect to geocentricity, Rabbi Louis Jacobs of London, for example, while writing of the biblical model of the universe, states that “the Biblical picture is clearly geocentric.” (Jacobs, Rabbi L. Jewish Cosmology, in Ancient Cosmologies, ed. by C. Blacker and M. Loewe, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.) [more such quotes, from various centuries, could be added, but one should be sufficient to make the point] Maybe the YECs should try being consistent with their interpretations and accept geocentricity as well as a young earth.

But maybe rabbis are not such a good authority. Maybe quoting Rabbis is also and example of the fallacy of authority and the fallacy of tradition. Note to Richard and other YECs: once again you are using fallacious methods of reasoning that prove nothing. You look for and pronounce as correct anything and anyone that agrees with your predetermined answer, and reject anything that does not agree with your predetermined answer. Your approach, Richard, is no different than other YECs, like J. Sarfati.

It is in fact much more likely, and demonstrable, that the Rabbis that Richard quotes are using unsophisticated, errant, fallible, and inappropriate methods of interpretation in regard to Genesis. In interpretation the quoting of other interpreters is not decisive at all. Rather, what is important is one’s methodology.

Why not–instead of using fallacies to “prove” one’s point–use testable facts about God’s observable universe. Facts that no YEC is able to overcome. Facts like the sedimentary layers, the sediments on the bottom of oceans, tectonic movements of the earth’s lithosphere, ice cores, the Green River Formation.

Regards,
#John

Too bad John didn’t read the first sentence of my post….his non-response ignored it completely. The point stated still stands.

Any notion that “normal days” in Gen 1 is a recent invention due to a modern scientific worldview is completely refuted here (and many other places):

Instead of addressing this statement, John builds another strawman…ie., that I must now believe everything that they concluded. I know John can think more clearly than this.

http://scheinerman.net/judaism/ideas/creation.html
In the Rabbinic period, the Creation narratives become the subject of numerous and multi pronged interpretations, ranging from mystical approaches to polemical approaches (e.g. refuting gnostic claims that God is not the sole Creative force in the universe). The Rabbis were also concerned with reconciling the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis to one another, for they contradict one another in a number of details. Two examples will suffice: Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai argued about the order of Creation, Bet Hillel claiming that earth was created before the heavens (on the basis of Genesis 2:4) and Bet Shammai claiming the opposite (on the basis of Genesis 1:1). They had a similar disagreement concerning whether God thought about each proposed act of creation by night and created by day, or vice versa. Concerning both disagreements, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is reported to have responded, “I am astonished! How could these great sages differ on this point? First, both [heaven and earth] were created simultaneously like a pot and its cover; and second, the intention was during both day and night while the actual fulfillment was in the waning of the sun.” Shimon ben Yochai, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba, living during and after the last great revolt against Rome, reflects the need in his generation to curtail excessive metaphysical speculation that threatens the unity of the community. Nonetheless, metaphysical speculation was rife and continued through the ages.
Much was written through the ages to explain the Creation narratives and extend Jewish cosmogony in many directions. Overall, the narratives were not interpreted literally, but rather seen as touchstones for delving into the core issues of life: mortality, ethics, human free will, the purpose of life, the relationship between God and humanity, human suffering. Jews did not concern themselves with whether God created the world in precisely six days, but rather with the religious meaning which can be derived from the stories, and the interpretations which could steer life in a better direction. The discrepancies between the two accounts (e.g. names of God, whether God initially created two sexes, or just one man) have long been recognized, but were not seen as impediments to interpreting the texts in such a way that people could use them as springboards to living their lives more fully and ethically. This was true for early mystics, medieval philosophers, the classical commentators, and modern scholars.
There is no conflict between Jewish cosmogony and modern science. Jews are deeply involved in the intellectual pursuits of modern physics, and do not promote the ideas of “Creationism” which we find intellectually shallow, narrow, and based on fundamental misunderstandings of the biblical text. Hebrew Scripture does not purport to be a scientific textbook about how the world came to be; it is a work of religious art concerning why the world came to be. Modern people would do well to learn to read the book on its own terms, particularly those who hold it to be the literal word of God.

More on Rabbis and the Old / Young Earth

Well, it appears that Richard’s research was a little one sided, citing only evidence from some Rabbis who favoured a young earth. But what about other Rabbis? Here is what Rabbi Herschel Billet stated in his column “In My View”, in The Jewish Star of Feb. 6, 2009 / 12 Shevat 5769, which was titled that day as, “Opinion: Rabbi Herschel Billet on The age of the Earth and Jewish tradition”

“There is a phenomenal essay found in the Yachin U’Boaz edition of the Mishnah in Volume I of Seder Nezikin. It is called Drush Or HaChaim, written by the 19th century Torah scholar, Rav Yisrael Lipschutz, author of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah. This essay is found in the Bais Midrash of every yeshiva in the world.

He suggests that indeed the world may be as old as science suggests because the Midrash, in Bereishit Rabba, says there were periods of time before our period of time, and that Hashem built worlds and destroyed them. This means that on the planet Earth, Hashem created pre-historic forms of existence like dinosaurs, mastodons etc. and destroyed those life forms. Each time He created a “new” world, He built it on top of the ruined one. Hence the layers and the millions of years of existence before the form of Earth that we live on. The Talmud (Shabbos 88; Chagiga 14) also speaks of 974 generations before Adam. This may account for the prehistoric humanoid remains that have been discovered hidden in caverns and layers of time.

He explains that the Torah in Genesis 1:1 tells us that an undetermined number of years ago Elokim created heaven and earth. It then skips the history of the previous forms of life on this globe and tells us how, in six days, the chaos that the Earth was in after the latest life forms were destroyed, was ordered into the Earth as we know it. On day six, Man was created.

When we speak of 5769 years, it is, as the Rambam says, from the creation of the homo sapien Adam who was bequeathed by Elokim with the unique gift of intelligence and speech.

This very rational approach enables us to accept scientific dating methods that indicate that previous worlds may have existed on Earth billions of years ago. At the same time, it affirms Jewish tradition that maintains 5769 years since the creation of Adam –– in the last world that Hashem created on this Earth. . . .

A Jew must choose faith (emunah) above all else when there is no alternative. But where reason and faith can live together, that is ideal. Faith is greatly strengthened when scientific reality confirms the Torah reality that we all believe to be true. Rabbis, even great rabbis, should choose the moments where they must preach faith exclusively. At other times they should take a step back and think before they speak.”

Rabbi Herschel Billet is rav of the Young Israel of Woodmere.

Which Rabbi should we follow?

Wouldn’t a rabbi that lived in the 11th century have been likely to understand an ANE mindset at least as well as we do today? Or would he have been totally unaware of how his ancestors thought and processed information?

If they were aware and did indeed understand the ANE worldview, is it not significant that at least some of the rabbis from this time saw the Genesis days as literal? After all, a good share of this argument is that no one that Genesis was written too would think in a literal way about this at all.

from: http://creation.com/josephus-says-genesis-means-what-it-says

Josephus (clearly an ANE) wrote of scripture:
‘For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; … ’

As always, Josephus cuts to the heart of the matter. No further explanation is needed to clarify his plain words. He explicitly states that man had been around for only 3,000 years by the time of Moses. He goes on to say that Jews hold Scripture so sacred that they would rather die than add to, subtract from, or change any of the divine doctrines of Scripture!

In the preface to Antiquities, … Josephus further explains his interpretation of Scripture. …

‘Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upward to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things; … while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explanation plainly and expressly.’

After explaining his methodology, Josephus launches into the Creation account. He quickly established that he considers Moses’ account to be quite literal. He comments, ‘And this was indeed the first day’ and ‘in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made.’ Josephus gives no indication that he considers these words to be enigmatic or allegorical…

Josephus writes next of Eden, the Fall, and then the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Josephus allows no room for gaps between Adam and the Flood, as shown above with the 3,000 years between Moses and Adam. Several times in his discourse on the Flood (which he records as global with ‘no place’ uncovered), Josephus confirms the absence of gaps in the Genesis 5 genealogies.

Throughout his writings, Josephus notes any Jewish sect that holds a different view from the mainstream position he records. Though he speaks of differences in doctrine between Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots, he records not even a single dissenting Jewish voice on these key interpretations of Genesis 1–11. Clearly, for Josephus, if there were any dissent, it was not even worth mentioning, because he had shown how the meaning was unambiguous.

cheryl u:

Judaism radically changed with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The Pharisees gained the ascendancy, and their teachings and traditions replaced the other Judaisms they formerly competed with, morphing into what we have come to know as rabbinic Judaism, with its teachings and traditions collected in literature like the Talmud (of which there are two, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem; the Babylonian Talmud is considered the superior one). So an 11th-century A.D. heir of the rabbinic tradition(s) would be versed in only one stream of Judaism, a stream that in the first century was itself more than 2,000 years separated from Abraham.

And the Talmud is a notoriously slippery source for information. Jacob Neusner, the prolific Jewish scholar, who himself has translated both Talmuds in toto, wrote a book about the unreliability of the the rabbinic literature when it comes to what it can teach us about the New Testament and NT times: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/dmdneus.html

One should buy and read Neusner’s book if only for the first chapter (I think that’s it) where he scathingly describes what the reliability of the NT would be like if it conformed to the Talmud’s standards.

If anyone on here has ever explained what makes you all so sure that you understand the ANE mindset so well, I have missed it. If it is here, could you please point me to the right spots?

I just keep hearing “this is the way it was” and “they wouldn’t of thought this way at all.”

How do you know that with 100 % certainty? And what about the writings of Josephus as quoted above?

Josephus had his mindset, his agenda, etc.

But I suspect you’re right about too-self-assured-sounding claims that we know or can clearly know what was the ANE mindset.

But some theories about what ANE’s thought are certainly more probable than others, I would think.

EricW,

Good grief. You say Josephus had his own agenda and mindset! But if he was ANE, and I don’t see anyone claiming he was not even if not as far distant as Moses time, doesn’t the fact that he thought and believed the way he did bear any weight on ANE thinking?

And you have admitted that you and others are probably too self assured about your knowledge of the ANE mindset. But a whole series of arguments has been based extensively and solely on the fact that the ANE mindset is known and you and others understand it! I don’t find it too comforting to know that what has been stated as absolute fact over and over for the length of this blog is a “theory that is more probable than others, I would think”!

So much for objectivity!

cheryl u:

Josephus was NOT ANE. That’s my point. Josephus lived after Jesus, i.e., Josephus was a cosmopolitan Hellenized Jew. ANE = Ancient Near East. That’s referring to the time of the patriarchs, and even before (i.e., Genesis 1-11), I believe, as well as for some centuries afterwards.

And … I am not claiming to know the ANE mindset. That’s what some of the other posters are claiming for themselves or for some scholars. I know too little about the ANE to say anything about how a person in 2200 B.C. or 1400 B.C. (i.e., Moses’s time) understood the creation accounts.

http://www.viswiki.com/en/Chronology_of_the_ancient_Near_East

The chronology of the Ancient Near East is a framework of dates for various events, rulers and dynasties of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.

The following periods need to be distinguished:

1. Early Bronze Age: A series of rulers and dynasties whose existence is based mostly on the Sumerian King List besides some that are attested epigraphically (e.g. En-me-barage-si). No absolute dates within a certainty better than a century can be assigned to this period.

2. Middle to Late Bronze Age: Beginning with the Akkadian Empire around 2300 BC, the chronological evidence becomes internally more consistent. Essentially, for this period, a good picture can be drawn of who succeeded whom, and synchronisms between Mesopotamia, the Levant and the more robust chronology of Ancient Egypt can be established. The assignment of absolute dates is a matter of dispute; the conventional middle chronology fixes the sack of Babylon at 1591 BC while the short chronology fixes it at 1531 BC.

3. The Bronze Age collapse: a “Dark Age” begins with the fall of Babylonian Dynasty III (Kassite) around 1200 BC, the invasions of the Sea Peoples and the collapse of the Hittite Empire.

4. Early Iron Age: around 900 BC, historical data, written records become more numerous once more, with the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, enabling the certain assignment of absolute dates. Classical sources such as the Canon of Ptolemy, the works of Berossus and the Hebrew Bible provide chronological support and synchronisms. An eclipse in 763 BC which anchors the Assyrian list of imperial officials.

Eric,

You know what, I was confusing your quotes with Greg’s. I’m sorry. I don’t know how I did that.

But unless someone can prove to me that they know for sure what the ANE mindset was, my objections still stand as I stated.