Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Steve, sorry, I just forgot to reply. I’m open to any discussion with anyone interested and can be reached at CreationMythOrMiracle-at-att.net

Eric, well we can agree to disagree. Given what you’ve written, what part of Genesis 1-11 do you think is historically accurate?

More on the intended meaning of creation and flood accounts.

Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis

‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

Reference James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

Regarding the Genesis 4:20-21 verses, could someone with some knowledge of Greek please respond to this question I have?

According to a lexicon I checked, the verb forms in both of those verses could speak of either past, present or future action. Is that correct? In other words, are those verses perhaps saying that those folks were the father of those that had in the past (preflood) dwelt in tents, etc.?

It seems to me that this could be possible time wise. If I counted correctly, Jabal and Jubal were the 6th generation from Cain and Noah was the 8th generation from Seth. There were long lifetimes in those days and the chance to do a lot of living in the time of those generations!

One reason that I have stated that YEC has no scientific support in favour of a young earth, is that they have no method for dating any of the earth’s. They cannot date one rock at 4,000 years and another at 6,000 years, etc.; they cannot date rocks at all. According to YEC ALL the rocks that make up the earth were created within 1657 years of each other, because there are 1657 years from the first day of creation to the last day of the flood (assuming no gap before or during the days of creation, and no gaps in the Genesis geneologies).

Did you get that? Every single rock you can pick up. Every single rock drilled up from the earth. Every single one was created within a period of 1657 years, and only two events created all rocks: 1st day of creation and the flood.

Christian scientists who are open to various interpretations of Genesis (i.e., not irrevocably committed to an interpretation that the earth is youg or old), are not precommitted to a particular type of geology or particular results for dating the earth. The same goes for most atheist scientists and scientists of other religitions that also have creation stories. These scientists have their results published, and critiqued by other scientists, and are persuaded by developing science.

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, the YECs (young earth creationists for those just joining) are committed to undermining the reliability of radiometric dating because they are precommitted by their interpretation of Genesis to a young earth. YECs must make sure that NONE of their ‘research results’ (I use that term loosely) offends their theology, and cannot scientifically deal with any honest and carefully performed research that fails to support their biblical interpretations.

Although all science is in a state of development, some areas understand and know quite well the order and regularities that God has designed into the universe and earth. Dating is one such area. Thousands of radiometric datings are made every year and very few have problems of calibration, etc. that YEC’s make so much of. Challenging the hard science of the date of the earth would be like saying that science will overturn our knowledge that the world is a globe (not flat), or overturn our understanding of the body’s circulatory system, or our understanding of nuclear fusion in the sun.

The last example is quite apropos, because at one time people thought that the sun was burning gas (like a gas stove), or that the heat was caused by the slow collapse and contraction of the sun. Those theories were overturned by the 1930’s as scientists began to understand nuclear fusion. No one has been to the sun, but no one will dispute the science dispute the science behind our understanding that it works by nuclear fusion (well, except for YEC nincompoops like Hovind, who was trying to promote the sun collapse theory as late as the 1990s).

#John

Greg

In post #185 (to Richard) you expressed doubt about what I meant by the word “evolution.” In #117 you said to me, “I think you misunderstand the scope of the TOE. It has nothing to do with the origin of the world, only the origin of species.”

Techinically, you are almost correct. For the most part the TOE is indeed concerned mainly with the development of life. Ignoring the matter of inorganic/chemical evolution, there is one major exception to this general truth, however: the origin of life. Generally speaking, the TOE describes the processes by which one species of life evolves from another. However, at the point of life’s initial origin such a description is not possible, for life does not exist at this point. One of the fundamental laws of science is biogenesis, the principle that life begets life. It has never been disproven, At the point of life’s origin, however, evolutionists assume that life evolved entirely through random natural events from nonliving chemicals – in direct contradiction to the law of biogenesis.

One can avoid this potential dilemma, of course, by claiming that the TOE does not address the origin of life – out of sight, out of mind. Such a claim would ignore the fact, however, that virtually all high school biology textbooks teach the theory set forth above – that life evolved through random natural events from nonliving chemicals. One may claim that the origin of life is outside the TOE, but in the textbooks our youth are learning from, the two subjects are inextricably linked.

to be continued …

Greg (continued)

The real question here, though, is not exactly what period of the earth’s history the TOE does or does not cover. The real question is whether its proponents, especially those responsible for producing its teaching materials, believe that a supernatural Being, a Creator, had anything to do with the process they are promoting. And it is perfectly obvious from the textbooks on the subject that they do not, that they believe that the world evolved, from the very beginning (think Big Bang), through random natural events. Such an opinion, of course, is in direct contradiction to Scripture (as well as the evidence from nature, I – and many others – believe). Looking a t the big picture, one group believes that God, or a Creator, had absolutely nothing to do with the creation, while the other claims that He was its primary source.

What about you, Greg? Do you believe that a supernatural Being had anything to do with the creation/development of the natural world, whether of living species or anything else? Do you believe that the DNA in a human cell, containing information equivalent to that contained in 25-30 complete sets of the Encylopedia Brittanica, evolved from nonliving chemicals completely through random natural events? If you do believe that a Creator was involved in the process, could you please tell me exactly how and where you believe this involvement occurred.

thank you kindly

Steve

Richard

I tried the address you gave me and it didn’t work.
Here’s what I tried:

CreationMythOrMiracle.at.att.net
I tried it both with and without caps.

Please help!

Thanks

Steve

Steve, replace “.at.” with “@”

Obiviously in my last comment I meant someone with a knowledge of Hebrew, not Greek! Think I’m tired this a.m.

YEC’s commonly criticize radiometric dating by bringing up geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is challenging. These difficult sitations are either naively or misleadingly characterised as the norm, rather than as the exceptions they are.

There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric dating of a rock will yield. The lab data are determined by the rocks themselves, not by preconceived notions. Radiometric rock dating data are found thousands of times a year, most of the time it is not controversial and there are known and reasonable explanations for the dates obtained. When data is obtained that is inconsistent with other dates obtained for the same type of rock or the same geological formation, scientists look for explanations. But they don’t automatically accept or reject the dates obtained (unlike YECs).

Because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current methods of dating, and the current understanding the earth’s rocks, and because there are known reasons for variation in isotropes (essentially, the radioactive stuff used in dating), it is statistically likely that an explanation will be related to the isotrope system. But the geologists and geophysicists do not assume the answer, they investigate and look again at the data, reanalyse the sample, collect more samples, rigorously look for contamination, etc.

Richard’s so-called problem: “KBS tuff” near Lake Turkana in Africa, which is a layer of redeposited younger volcanic ash (source of young dates in testing) and contains a mixture of minerals from the eruption and from older eroded rocks (source of older dates). It was problematic to date in 1969, not only because it is “young” rock nearer the lower limit of potassium-argon (K/Ar) dating, but also because of the more primitive technology available in 1969. However, it is an ATYPICAL sample, i.e., not a typical sample. The vast majority of samples are not like this and are much eaiser to date and most samples do not give rise to any debate among scientists at all (and note that even the “young dates” are too old for YEC to work). The only reason that scientists spent so much time debating the dates of these young rocks was because of the associated hominid fossils found in them. Note: the problems of dating these rocks is a unique fact related the particular geography of the area and do NOT throw in doubt the dates othousands of other rocks.

Kevin R. Henke, PhD: “Why do some geologists lose their patience with YECs? It’s because we work hard to solve environmental problems (e.g., use of radiometric dating to estimate the long-term stability of nuclear waste sites, Fleck et al., 1996), locate oil and ore deposits and try to meet the other needs of our society. In response to our hard work, young-Earth creationists just fill up their car tanks with gasoline found by applying the geologic time scale and spit in our faces . . .”

For anyone interested, John’s post 206 is yet another in which he attacks a YEC strawman. The claims he makes about what YECs believe are simply false (and I should know as “I are one”). Also he continues to make adamant claims about the reliability and accuracy of radiometric dating techniques without even making any attempt to deal with the specific secularly published data that I presented in my posts 152 and 166. John just claimed that the 212-230 Myr K-Ar age calculated for KBS Tuff was wrong because of the “primitive technology” of 1969, but notice that he provided no documentation for this. Also, if true, then all pre-1970 K-Ar dates are to be doubted?? Give me a break.

When a date less than .9% of the calculated K-Ar date is the one accepted, a skeptical person will take notice.

For anyone truly interested in what YECs think and why, I’ve provided several links…check it out for yourself. Or post questions here if you wish. I’ll repeat a couple of links here:

Dating of Skull 1470: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Potassium-argon method: http://creation.com/how-potassium-argon-dating-works

Q & A about radiometric dating: http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers — here are many specific examples of anomalous radiometric dates being calculated.

I assume that John, Greg and probably many others believe in the big bang (I’m happy to be corrected!). I used to Notice that I showed from secular literature that the existence of stars can’t even be explained in that model and, again, not one single attempt at replying.

So you’ve got specific documentation of severe difficulties with the OE models and their underpinings, vs adamant declarations that no such problems exist.

Eric

I’ve been following the interesting discussion of Gen. 4:21 & 22, and it occurs to me that you may have overlooked something quite critical. The description of Jubal as “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe” cannot be literal, for Jubal was obviously not the physical father of all those who play the lyre and the pipe. Like, he certainly wasn’t the actual father of David … or Elvis Presley!

One of the dictionary definitions of “father” is “a person who has originated or established someting: [like] the father of modern psychology [Freud], the father of our country [Washington], or the father of Rock and Roll [Chuck Berry, Alan Freed, Elvis, Bill Haley … take your pick]”
A similar use of the word is found occasionally in the Bible, as in Gen. 17:4, in which God said to Abraham: “As for Me, behold My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.”

Taken in this sense, Gen. 4:21 could simply be saying that Jubal was the first in a long line of musicians who play these instruments, just like Chuck Berry (or whoever) was the originator (i.e., father) of Rock and Roll.

I hope this is helpful!

Steve B.:

That might be helpful. I’ll see if the Hebrew “father of” in that text and context can be understood that way, or if other explanations are also valid.

Eric

I know a little Greek, but no Hebrew. I’m interested to see what you discover.

Here is one of the definitions from Thayer’s Lexicon of the word for father in that verse: “5) originator or patron of a class, profession, or art”

What are you finding, Eric?

The phrasing in Genesis 4:20-21 does seem unique to these two. I.e., pretty much all the other “father of”s in Genesis 1-11 have a specific person’s or persons’ name(s) following the “of,” not a “those who” or “all those who.” Genesis 10:16-18 extends it to tribal names, but that’s still not the same as “people who do” such and such.

FYI, I used the NASB, not the Hebrew text, for the above, but it’s a pretty literal translation.

cheryl u: I think you mean Brown-Driver-Briggs, not Thayer (which is NT Greek, not OT Hebrew).

Steve B. and others who suggest that the phrasing that Jubal and Jabal were or could have been trade-originators, not literal fathers, may be right. Thanks.

EricW,

Thank you for the correction in your comment above.

Richard, post 213, “without even making any attempt to deal with the specific secularly published data that I presented in my posts 152 and 166. John just claimed that the 212-230 Myr K-Ar age calculated for KBS Tuff was wrong because of the “primitive technology” of 1969, but notice that he provided no documentation for this. Also, if true, then all pre-1970 K-Ar dates are to be doubted??”

Sigh. I did not claim it was wrong because of the technology used. What I stated was that the KBS Tuff was a difficult type of rock to date (because it was composed of both younger and older materials) and that the difficulty was greater in 1969 than today because technology was not as advanced 40 years ago. It does not logically follow from what I said that all pre-1970 dates are to be doubted, it only logically implies that the technology in 1969 was better than in earlier decades and not as good as now.

Richard does not address the fact that most rock types are dated without dispute by potassium-argon (k-ar, using the abbreviations for those elements) or argon-argon.

The dating of the KBS tuff was debated for about a decade, and then scientists converged on a date, and this debate can be followed in the pages of the journal Nature. For example, Nature 283, 368 – 372 (24 January 1980), “KBS Tuff dating and geochronology of tuffaceous sediments in the Koobi Fora and Shungura Formations, East Africa”, R. E. Drake*, G. H. Curtis*, T. E. Cerling†, B. W. Cerling† & J. Hampel* *Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, California, †Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, “Over the past decade, tuffaceous horizons within these two sedimentary formations have been mapped and dated by K−Ar and fission-track techniques . . . We report here new 40K−40Ar dates and revised values for previously published dates which give a mean age of 1.8plusminus0.1 Myr for the KBS Tuff. This estimate suggests contemporaneity between the KBS Tuff and Tuff Units H2 and H4 in the Shungura Formation, lower Omo River Basin, Ethiopia, and with Bed I at Olduvai Gorge.”
[cont.]

As indicated by the next citation, the KBS tuff controversy has been settled, and a number of tuffs in Africa have now been dated and the relationships between them described.

“Sequence of tuffs between the KBS tuff and the Chari Tuff in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia”, Brown, Francis H., Haileab, Bereket, and McDougall, Ian. Journal of the Geological Society, 2006, vol. 163 (1), pp. 185-204. Abstract of article: “This paper describes a sequence of tuffs between the KBS and the Chari Tuff of Omo Group formations in Kenya and Ethiopia. These tuffs have recently been shown to be 1.87 ± 0.02 Ma and 1.38 ± 0.03 Ma in age, respectively. The sequence of tuffs that is derived is consistent with 40Ar/39Ar ages reported separately, and provides the stratigraphic framework for interpreting those ages. Further, new correlations are established to the Konso Formation in southern Ethiopia. As drainage from the Ethiopian Rift to the Omo-Turkana Basin developed after deposition of the Konso Formation, pumice clasts in tuffs of the Omo-Turkana Basin probably were transported there by the Omo River. The tuffs are divided into five groups on the basis of their stratigraphic position in relation to extensive ash layers. The sequence of tuffs has import for the placement and age of archaeological sites in the Koobi Fora Formation, and for ages of mammalian faunas (including hominids). Many tuffs were deposited during a 90 ka interval during which Mediterranean sapropels are lacking, suggesting that Nile flow was reduced, and that the level of a lake that occupied the Omo-Turkana Basin at the time was low. Thus the record of climatic influence on deposition in the Omo-Turkana Basin, previously shown for the Kibish Formation (≤200 ka). extends at least to early Pleistocene time.”

Tuff is challenging to date because it involves volcanic sediment, and the KBS tuff involved sediments of several different ages, which made it even more challenging. The KBS Tuff was particularly famous because of the personalities involved (Leakey, etc.), which also made the dispute unusually contentious. However, the normal process of publication of results and the investigation of those results by other scientists (i.e., the normal scientific process) worked. What the resolution of the KBS tuff controversy indicates is that while difficult, the difficulties can be overcome and dating is possible.

YEC does not have any scientific method for dating rocks that shows that rocks were formed in two events, spaced about 1700 years apart, with the first event occurring about 4004 years ago (if they are consistent in using geneologies for dating) or about 10,000 years ago (some YECs allow for geneological gaps). The YEC scientists cannot get their work published in standard geological journals because their claims are like UFO abduction stories.

Rock dating is a hard science and becoming more precise and well founded as the decades roll by…

Steve,

Re: #208

“What about you, Greg? Do you believe that a supernatural Being had anything to do with the creation/development of the natural world, whether of living species or anything else? Do you believe that the DNA in a human cell, containing information equivalent to that contained in 25-30 complete sets of the Encylopedia Brittanica, evolved from nonliving chemicals completely through random natural events? If you do believe that a Creator was involved in the process, could you please tell me exactly how and where you believe this involvement occurred.”

One of my main points has been an emphasis on correctly interpreting the scriptures free of any influence of modern science. I am all about understanding its original meaning, and to do that accurately you must adopt an ancient worldview.

I am a Christian, and have been for ten years. I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of the Living God. I read Genesis as Moses intended, as the ancient Israelites just after the Exodus read it, to the best of my ability. I see a creation account, similar to other Ancient Near Eastern accounts, which focuses on the creation of functions and functionaries. I see the pagan mythology of the day replaced with Yahweh as the supreme Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos. I see nothing of nature, but only God working and ruling the universe from the vantage point of His cosmic temple above the heavens. I see God creating things, not physically, but functionally. To the ancient Israelite, a thing didn’t begin to exist until it had a function and a name.

This is seen throughout the entire creation account. God assigning function and names to things over and over again, each day. This was important to the ancients. This meant everything to them (as an aside, notice how Adam, made in the image of God, spends the 6th day naming animals. He is a representative of God here on earth, and so acts like Him in a limited capacity).

Steve, have you ever read Genesis and noticed the significance of God naming things and assigning them functions? This is what the creation account is all about! Yet if you never saw that, how can you expect your interpretation of it to be correct? We tend to focus on the origin of physical things, and that misleads us.

We have to remember its not about us. We have no right to impose our requirements on scripture in any form. We cannot define a narrow definition of truth independent of the historical and cultural context and expect it to adhere to it. Interpreting scripture does not work that way. The ancients don’t even believe something exists in the same way we do, so what makes us think our narrow, Western, post-Enlightened definitions of truth are the same as theirs?

[Continued]

[Continued]

I see the world as the ancients saw it (described in post #68), and understand the way it functions as the ancients understood it. I understand the significance of the days of creation and what it meant to them, not us. I know the purpose of the creation account, used to give the newly freed Israelites hope and reassurance that their God will take care of them so they need not return to the gods of Egypt.

First and foremost, the creation account was written and received by people steeped deeply in Ancient Near Eastern culture and knowledge. They did not know of the world as we do now. God did not try to reveal it to them. Any hermeneutic that tries to find modern knowledge in ancient scripture is doing violence to the text. My #155 post to Richard highlights one of these aspects of the ANE view of the world. This presents a difficult interpretation for a YEC because it very clearly reflects the worldview of the ANE. That is what they believed about the world.

Interpreting Genesis is not an easy thing to do. We need to be aware what the significance a creation account had to an ancient person. We have to know their worldview, how they believed the gods acted in creation, how they saw the heavens and imagined the world to be. We need to know their literary conventions, how to recognize them and make sense of them. In a word, we need to understand their entire worldview and find out what was important to them and how they expressed it.

Only after all this can we finally look at Genesis and declare what is going on. If we ignore all the above and look at the plain text, accepting it “literally”, then we will end up with a sorry understanding of its meaning, one that’s highly invested in our own worldview and devoid of any ancient meaning originally ascribed to it.

Young earth creationism, gap-theories, progressive creationism, any old earth creationism that finds modern science in scripture or scripture revealing modern science, anything at all that is the sole product of modernistic and Post-Enlightened ways of thinking is all wrong in relation to Genesis.

Genesis was written TO the Israelites FOR our benefit. It answered and spoke to THEIR questions and concerns in life, not ours. It’s not about us, at all. If we do not understand that, then we do not understand Genesis.

A YEC can argue all they want about radiometric dating or whatever, and it will still all be wrong. Their entire starting point is wrong. Any position that does not start with the ancient perspective will be wrong. The problems all start with worldview. If that is off, then the end result will be also.

[Continued]

[Continued]

Steve, how do you read Genesis? Through your eyes or ancient eyes? What do you think is the most important?

Concerning your question: Scripture does not speak on those things and science cannot detect divine actions within the created order. So I do not have an answer to your question on exactly how and where God’s involvement occurred. That is unanswerable.

Here is what I can say with certainty: God is totally sovereign. He orders, works, and plans His creation as He sees fit, whether that be ordaining various laws of the universe to work towards His overall purpose or whether He guides every particle of matter in creation. I don’t know which, and aside from divine revelation we can never know that. All I know with certainty is that He’s got the whole world in His hands, and I like it like that.

Genesis is not vested in the modern debate on the origins of the cosmos, world, or life. Not as we want it to be. Genesis answers question relevant to an ancient Israelite. He didn’t replace all that they already believed about the cosmos. He took all that and reinterpreted it in light of Himself. God accommodated Himself to those He created; He spoke their language; He used conventions they would understand and find meaning from. His revelation reflected Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology because that is what they knew. Communicating God’s total control over the universe is the reason why the creation account was given.

Because of that, I am free to believe what the science reveals about God’s created order at present. I have no theology invested in science, and I don’t have to fight a useless and loosing battle with any and all science I have a bone with.

In short, I accept God’s special revelation through Holy Scripture and His general revelation through the created order. The only conflict in my life that exists between special and general revelation is that which YEC, OEC, etc. cause in their persistence to conform scripture to their own ideas.

[Finished]

Richard,

Re: #186

Do you believe that the Genesis flood covered the entire planet earth?

Yes, according to the cosmology of an Ancient Near Eastern person.

Do you believe that the author of the flood account intended to communicate that it covered the entire planet earth?

See above.

Do you believe that the author of the flood account intended to communicate that the entire planet was dry in 8:14?

Of course not. That contradicts scripture and experience. What I did do was show how YEC is hermeneutically inconsistent. Put through that method of interpretation, we get this obvious contradiction. I’m not trying to undermine the authority of scripture. I wanted to highlight an inconsistency in the YEC hermeneutic.

You are insisting that the text itself in Gen 8:14 can ONLY mean that the entire planet dried out.

ONLY according to the YEC hermeneutic of face-value literalism devoid of the above mentioned contexts.

Given your hermeneutic, it appears that the flood account *is* historically inaccurate.

Reminder: this is according to a YEC hermeneutic. That has been my original assertion since I first asked you to interpret the flood account passages. I wanted you to use the YEC method and paint yourself into a corner. You did that and that’s all I needed.

I disagree with your linguistic analysis and assertions.

Can you show me where I’m wrong?

Further, interpret Post #155 please. I’ve had to ask you twice now.

On Worldviews:

1. universe and earth have been proven ancient by science

Science doesn’t prove, it gathers and makes sense of evidence. Evidence highly suggests an old universe and earth. Its possible all this may be overthrown tomorrow, but not very probable.

2. author of Genesis had an ANE worldview

Of course. Why wouldn’t he? What sort of worldview do you think he had? A western one?

3. an ANE worldview for author and audience makes it impossible to communicate historically accurate information about the creation and flood.

Only according to our western worldview. Its wrong to impose our standards on scripture. I believe he communicated cultural and theologically accurate information about the creation and flood according to that which God divinely inspired him to do. All God intended to communicate through those accounts were accurately and faithfully conveyed to the original audience. This was done in a manner they would understand and which would speak to their particular situation.

To the ancients, gods ruled the functions of the universe. Thus, their survival depended on pleasing these gods (hence sacrifice). Egypt believed this, and the Israelites spent 400 years there. Of course they adopted this understanding (Joshua 24:14). After the Exodus they were wandering in the wilderness, a desert wasteland hostile to life. They needed reassurance God was in control of the functions of the world and He would protect them, and that Egypt’s gods were useless.

[Continued]

[Continued]

The creation account established that fact. It took their ANE cosmology, rejected the pantheon of gods ruling the functions and reinterpreted it in light of the one True God. Moses wasn’t stupid. He knew what the Israelites needed, so under divine inspiration he gave it to them in a way they could understand.

The whole account makes sense in light of this.

Your Worldview:

1. science has not proven the age of the earth or universe

See my answer to #1 above. John seems to disagree with you, and I think we are both waiting on positive evidence for a young earth.

2. the author of Genesis includes the inspiration of God, and is NOT restricted to an ANE worldview such that falsehoods must be communicated

Can you explain post #155 to me? What other worldview would make sense to the original audience? Why would God not speak to them accordingly? Because He needs to satisfy the definitions of “truth” according to a 21st century audience?

And what of these falsehoods? Their ancient cosmology worked for them because it answered all the questions they needed answered. As civilization progressed, harder questions needed answering, so our views changed. We do the exact same thing today. See below.

3. the is nothing in the ANE worldview, nor the Hebrew language that prevents accurate communication of the events of creation and the flood. Please see my post 141 for an ANE and Genesis vocabulary compatible account of the big bang and evolution.

I read it, and it would have been completely useless to the Israelites. The version you gave is the product of a foreign worldview. It answers nothing that the Israelites were asking. Why would God have given them something they couldn’t understand? God would need to overthrow their entire worldview if he gave that account. Everything, from their definition of ontology, their understanding of creation, cosmology, theology, how the world works, “nature”…..everything.

Why would God even give them that version? Why not the 18th century version of cosmic origins? Or the 19th century, or 22nd, etc. etc.? At one time all those were (or will be) the “correct” versions, only to be overthrown or modified down the line. What makes you think what we believe today through science will be the same a century from now? Science has always been incomplete and will always be incomplete. What works is what is real, until something better comes along.

Should God just update his revelation every century to conform to the “modern” science? This is ridiculous. Genesis was written for ancient Israelites in the ANE, not post-Enlightened moderns. An account like that would benefit no one except those who could understand it.

[Continued]

[Continued]

Since the creation account is about functions and functionaries, which all humans throughout all times experience and deal with, the account we now have is all that is necessary. It speaks to the universal human experience and so transcends time, space, and culture. It is not about physical origins. Stop reading it like that. It is about the creation of functions relevant to humanity.

That is the beauty and elegance of God’s divine revelation.

So it seems that you believe that either the author of Genesis was unable or unwilling to communicate historical events correctly. At this point the OE folks I’ve encountered usually say one of two things:

Do you believe either of these?

I don’t understand how you jump from the creation account to the entire Bible. It is good to interpret each book according to its original intent and then draw application from it.

I read Genesis as the Israelites who received it read it. I interpret it in its historical, cultural, and literary context to understand its original intent. Then, in ways remaining faithful to its meaning, I draw application from it. For example, from the creation account I get something like this: http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/h005.html

P.S. – My response to Steve deals more with my understanding of the creation account from the perspective of an ancient Israelite. (Post #222-224)

Sometime tomorrow I will make a list of resources that explain this subject further, many of which can be listened to or watched online.

I’m getting weary writing all these responses. If you’d like to look into the resources and draw your own conclusions, I’d be happy to draw the discussion to a close. Its been good talking with you.

[Finished…Finally!]

Thank you Greg for the effort you put into your latest series of posts. It was quite interesting and informative, and a usefully different approach from the one I’ve been taking.

I’m going to do a post on sedimentary rock, and then a further one on light, which I think should suffice for the science end of things.

My list of dating methods in post 147 was intended to indicate that there is a wide range of phenomena that is used for dating, and that there are many lines of converging evidence. That such phenomena exists is inherent in the way God designed the universe. He is a god of order, not chaos, and has designed the universe with inherent order and regularity. It is so orderly that scientists, everyone, uses the words “laws” and “constants” in their description of the universe. Thus we take about the law of gravity, Planck’s constant, Newton’s gravitational constant, etc.

These regularities include many things that allow us to learn about the earth’s history, and to give dates to objects—-including rocks. As I noted in post 153, an excellent overview of dating the earth is given by Dr. Roger C. Wiens at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.

The lack of science supporting the YEC position on the age of the earth (the flood and evolution are separate issues), results, in part, from their fundamental approach. Among the options for interpretation of Genesis chps. 1 & 2 that have been developed by and are held by evangelical scholars who believe in an inerrant Bible, the YEC’s choose seven 4-hour days. Then, although a belief in seven 24-hour days does not necessitate a concomitant belief in either an old or young earth (i.e., either is possible, neither is excluded), they choose young.

[cont]

Greg,

Our discussion has been enlightening as you have explained your reasoning for your conclusions. Thank you.

——————–

In the claimed contradiction in Gen 8:14, you wrote:

Reminder: this is according to a YEC hermeneutic. That has been my original assertion since I first asked you to interpret the flood account passages. I wanted you to use the YEC method and paint yourself into a corner. You did that and that’s all I needed.

You think the YEC hermeneutic leads to contradictions if consistently applied to the flood account. It’s a shame that you didn’t read my post 174 as you are NOT using the YEC hermeneutic, but one you’ve made up to force a contradiction.

——————–

You wrote:

Do you believe that the Genesis flood covered the entire planet earth?

Yes, according to the cosmology of an Ancient Near Eastern person.

Do you believe that either the flood covered the entire planet or it did not, and precisely one of those possibilities is true? Or do you not believe in objective truth at all? If you disbelieve in objective truth, then it’s logically impossible to have a meaningful discussion about what did or did not occur.

You’ve made it very clear that you believe that someone with an ANE worldview *must* believe falsehoods, they are incapable of understanding reality even if it is told to them. Including something as simple as whether or not the flood covered the entire planet. Many (you included?) believe that the flood was not really global, but of limited extent, but that the ANE worldview prevented God from communicating that simple fact to them. Rather he had to tell them a falsehood to satisfy their worldview. This is absurd…please tell us what part of the ANE worldview prevents understanding a limited extent flood; especially since the Egyptians (and Israelites) were VERY familiar with this type of event!

——————–
(cont.)

[continued]

earlier in post 68 you wrote:

We must remember all of this when we interpret the flood and the creation account. The moment we allow unrelated modern scientific knowledge to directly influence us, we do violence to scripture and move from exegesis to eisegesis. Don’t even think about the age of the earth when you interpret Genesis, or what a day means, or where evolution and dinosaurs and starlight and global floods and continents and fossils all fit in.

That’s all our stuff. Its none of their stuff. All this meant nothing to them, and the best thing we could ever do in this whole debate is remember that.

“Its none of their stuff. All this meant nothing to them” — this is your assertion and is foundational to the entire position that you take. You are claiming that God did not communicate accurate history to them for this reason, and furthermore, even if He’d tried, they would have been unable to understand it. First, I don’t buy your assertion. Second, even if true, it does NOT prevent God from communicating history accurately.

——————–

Re the creation account, you wrote:

It took their ANE cosmology, rejected the pantheon of gods ruling the functions and reinterpreted it in light of the one True God. Moses wasn’t stupid. He knew what the Israelites needed, so under divine inspiration he gave it to them in a way they could understand.

The whole account makes sense in light of this.

First, notice that you have Moses as the primary source deciding what should be communicated….

Consider this possibility:
The ANE cosmology was indeed false, and God told what really happened in Genesis. This dose of reality gave the Israelites what they needed, ie. a proper understanding of who God is in relation to His creation (including man). It also automatically rejects the false pantheon of gods. The whole account makes sense in light of this.

——————–

You believe God communicated falsehoods via scripture, but “what of it”

And what of these falsehoods? Their ancient cosmology worked for them because it answered all the questions they needed answered.

You believe He could not have done differently, because the original audience was incapable of understand the truth (ie “what really happened”).
——————–
(cont.)

[continued]

Post 141 shows that God could have used Genesis-like terminology and concepts to communicate something like the big bang and evolution. You wrote

I read it, and it would have been completely useless to the Israelites. The version you gave is the product of a foreign worldview. It answers nothing that the Israelites were asking. Why would God have given them something they couldn’t understand? God would need to overthrow their entire worldview if he gave that account. Everything, from their definition of ontology, their understanding of creation, cosmology, theology, how the world works, “nature”…..everything.

So your assumption is that ones worldview prevents “understanding” anything not contained within that worldview
(hence ANE couldn’t understand post 141)

Why would God even give them that version? Why not the 18th century version of cosmic origins? Or the 19th century, or 22nd, etc. etc.? At one time all those were (or will be) the “correct” versions, only to be overthrown or modified down the line. What makes you think what we believe today through science will be the same a century from now? Science has always been incomplete and will always be incomplete. What works is what is real, until something better comes along.

I used that version precisely because many claim that science has proven the big bang and/or biological evolution, and that these truths could not have been communicated to the original audience of Genesis. Despite your objections, this version refutes that claim. (note: I’m not saying that you’ve claimed that.)

Should God just update his revelation every century to conform to the “modern” science? This is ridiculous.

Of course not. His revelation does not need updating as it is true.

Genesis was written for ancient Israelites in the ANE, not post-Enlightened moderns. An account like that would benefit no one except those who could understand it.

A few points arise from your reasoning:
1. Scripture was given only to answer the questions the audience was asking.
2. Information not conforming to a receiver’s worldview can not be understood.
3. item 1 precludes God communicating what He chooses to communicate.
4. From a current vantage point 1000’s of years removed, you think you understand the Israelite worldview.

However, you admit that our understandings of science move change and move forward. This new information was understood within the previous worldview and in fact modified that worldview. This proves item 2 is false, and removes your reason for God communicating falsehoods in scripture.

——————–

Greg,

I agree with Richard that your idea that God deliberately communicated falsehoods in Scripture because they couldn’t understand anything else and it would change their whole world view if he did to be a bit absurd and contradictory to Scripture itself and even to your own statements.

You have said that God reinterpreted what was happening in light of Himself–changing people from believing in the paganistic view of the day. Was that not changing their world view?? And much of Scripture is written precisely to change our world view from a secular one to one based on true knowledge of Him and His ways. Why do you automatically assume that God could not or would not change their world view in other ways? There is certainly some inconsistency in what you are saying here as far as I can tell.

Greg wrote:

#227: … Sometime tomorrow I will make a list of resources that explain this subject further, many of which can be listened to or watched online.

I’m looking forward to your list of resources.

It seems to me that if one extends/applies your reasoning/viewpoint of the creation account to the accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden and the Fall, it could create problems for Paul’s and the NT’s soteriology and Christology.

Anyway, thanks for the lengthy explanation of your hermeneutic.

Greg,

Do you honestly believe that everything that God has communicated to us in the Bible is only to answer the questions we have been asking? God does indeed know what we need, and sometimes we may very well need to be told things that we were not asking about! He is the one that makes the decisions about what He needs to communicate, not us or our “felt needs” to use a modern term.

Greg

In #129, Richard records this exchange between you and himself:

Richard: Do you believe that the Genesis flood covered the entire planet earth?
You: Yes, according to the cosmology of an Ancient Near Eastern person.

You have gone to great (!!!) lengths to defend your position that Scripture, particularly Genesis, was written to people of the Ancient Near East, and that it must always be interpreted with this fact in mind. Your reply to Richard suggests that you believe that although the Genesis account of the Flood would have been interpreted by the people it was written to as worldwide, in reality it was not.
Your perspective ignores the simple truth that there is objective reality. As Richard pointed out, in regards to the Genesis Flood, in other words, either it ACTUALLY WAS world-wide, or it was not. The TRUE extent of this flood is not dependent upon anyone’s interpretation of an account of it.
Similarly, either God ACTUALLY created the world – as the 1st verse of the Bible claims – or He had nothing to do with it (as the theory of evolution claims (and I mean the TOE in the broadest sense here, of course)).

Recognition of the existence of ABSOLUTE TRUTH is fundamental to the search for any truth. For example, belief that the Genesis Flood could actually have been both world-wide and local reveals a fundamental flaw in one’s approach to logic. It ignores the reality of absolute truth. The Flood either was worldwide or it wasn’t. It cannot have been both.

I must add here that you have shown remarkable resilience defending your position, and I will not be at all surprised to see your disappearance from this blog at any moment. If this event is imminent, but you still read this comment, I wish you the very best in your continuing quest for the truth!

Steve

EricW: “It seems to me that if one extends/applies your reasoning/viewpoint of the creation account to the accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden and the Fall, it could create problems for Paul’s and the NT’s soteriology and Christology.”

Yes. And precisely why I emphasized a historically factual Adam and Eve in my previous comments.

“Theistic Evolution” and a historically factual Adam and Eve are a lovely combination.

K-Ar dates and precision, an example:

Regarding the age of the Devils Postpile basalt, Dalrymple calculated a K-Ar age of 0.94 ± 0.16 million years. Notice the stated precision of the age. However, there is more (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/geology/publications/pp/554-D/sec4.htm)

A potassium-argon age determination of 0.94±0.16 million years was reported by Dalrymple (1964b) for the andesite of the Devils Postpile. A redetermination on a second split of the same sample yielded an age of 0.63±0.35 million years. Because the amount of potassium in the sample and the percentage of radiogenic argon relative to total argon are so low in both of these determinations, they indicate little more than that the age of the andesite probably is between a quarter of a million and a million years. It is thus possible to reconcile these data with an age of approximately 0.7 million years for the tuff of Reds Meadow, which the andesite unconformably overlies.

Now notice that the *same sample* yielded two differing calculated ages, but there is overlap. If the stated precisions of the ages meant what such precisions normally mean, then the proper conclusion would be that the age is actually in the overlap, which is .78 to .98 Myr. However, that is not what is concluded, rather they say the age is “probably” between .25 and 1 Myr, and thus reconciles with an approx .7 Myr age for the associated tuff. In this example the stated precisions are not believed to be factual. These precisions result from the application of the K-Ar measurement techniques and age determination algorithm, so where does the fault lie? If it’s the measurement technique, then they did not know the precision of their own instruments. The algorithm has many assumptions which must be made related to the geological history of the sample…these assumptions are not known to be true, thus they can be adjusted later to allow different conclusions to be reached.

Notice that the USGS now says that age was “seriously in error” (http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/depo/dpgeol4.html):

Less than 100,000 years ago, basalt lava, which was to become the Devils Postpile, erupted in the already glaciated valley of the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin River. The age of volcanic rocks can be estimated by study of the radioactive decay of elements in the rocks. Previous estimates for the age of the Postpile basalt, ranging from about 600,000 years to nearly a million years, are now thought to be seriously in error. Although an exact age for the Postpile flow still is not known, we believe that an age of less than 100,000 years, based on radiometric age determinations on rocks thought to be correlative, is more reasonable.

Notice that the new much younger age is not a function of the originally dated samples at all….it has been determined because rocks are “thought to correspond” to the erroneously dated basalt.

[continuing post 228 by #John1453]

The YECs then take their young earth position and claim that it is the only permissible one for evangelical inerrantists, and claim that because their (fallible) interpretation is correct, God has therefore declared that the earth is young. If God has declared that the earth is young, then, obviously, any science that disagrees with that fact must be wrong and will eventually be overturned or will succumb to the miracles of God that prevent dating to be derived from the regularities that God has embedded in the nature of His universe.

That this is the case is readily acknowledged by YECs, “For Bible-believing Christians, God’s Word is our starting point: our presupposed foundation through which we interpret and balance fallen man’s ideas, including those derived scientifically. Although some may consider this a foolish faith, everyone has such faith in something. But which is foolish: faith in the unmovable Word of the omniscient creator God or faith in man’s fallible, changing ideas?” at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science

Consequently, no matter what results are obtained, the YECs will reject them if they do not correspond to their allegedly “Biblically derived” age of 4004 years, or 6,000 years. The rejection occurs regardless of the science, regardless of how carefully experiments are done, regardless of the continually supported theoretical grounding of so-called secular science. [I used quotes around because of their assumption that there is only one acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2]

YECs frame the debate as if the issues of worldview that they raise are relevant to the dating of physical specimens and that the difference between them and so-called secular science comes down to one of “worldview”. Not even in the same ball park. Christian evangelical geo-physicists who believe in an inerrant Bible and atheists and Bhuddists, and Hindus, etc. do not reject young dates for rocks because of a pre-commitment to a belief in an old earth. Christians and atheists, etc. follow the science that is based on the observed regularities and constants and processes that can be observed (regularities, etc. that God put there).

In addition, the age of the earth and evolution are not of necessity bound together. It is possible to both reject evolution in favour of creation and still accept an old earth. The only relevance of world view in the physical sciences is that one work within the constraints of the physcial world as one finds it and observes it. A pre-existing commitment to a specific age of the earth is not, and should not be, a part of the world view of scientists engaged in the hard sciences. Scientists should (and do, except for YECs) follow what God has put before them to observe.

Regards
#John

Cherylu and Richard, please read Greg more carefully and take the time to understand what he writes. He is NOT stating that God lied to Moses, etc., or that God fed them falsehoods or that God deliberately mislead them, or that God did not think that they could not handle or understand the truth.

Greg is recognizing that ANE peoples had their own way of framing and talking about the truth, etc., and that God would have and did talk to them from within that framework. That framework is not our framework. An ANE person would not have said or believed that God was misleading them or giving them falsehoods.

But since Greg is doing a good job of dealing with the issues of language and culture, I’ll let him respond when he gets time.

Greg, you did a lot of work, and deserve a breather, but please do give us more. I have heard of or read about some of what you are writing about, but not all and you are presenting them well.

Regards,
#John

John,

I read Greg very carefully and thought about what he said.

You wrote:

Greg is recognizing that ANE peoples had their own way of framing and talking about the truth, etc., and that God would have and did talk to them from within that framework. That framework is not our framework. An ANE person would not have said or believed that God was misleading them or giving them falsehoods.

You are saying that an ANE person, even though told something that is historically inaccurate, would not believe that they’d been misled. So it appears that you are also saying that an ANE person is incapable of understanding some rather straight forward propositions. Either the entire planet was covered, and all persons outside the ark died, or that did not happen.

I guess there may be one other logical possibility. The ANE might not have a concept of truth capable of distinguishing between historically accurate vs inaccurate accounts. That would certainly NOT be the case, however, for an OT Biblical worldview as they were told to distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet by the correctness of their predictions. This requires that their worldview be capable of such a distinction. Scripture is quite clear that its audience is capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, including in Genesis.

To borrow a phrase from Jack Nicholson, you both seem to be saying to the ANE, “You can’t handle the truth”

Richard quotes, “are now thought to be seriously in error.” as if that disproves all radiometric dating of rocks. He ignores the fact that such errors do not occur in the thousands of datings that are done around the world. YECs point out the relatively few datings that are disputed as if that invalidates the entire methodology. Not only does that seriously misrepresent both the methodology and the history of its use, but it fails to acknowledge how and why the disputes are resolved.

The disputes result from published work that is held out for the review by, and challenge by, of their peers. The result of this process is that the scientists learn more about dating and why formerly suprising dates are obtained (once the nature of the apparent “problem” is understood, the result is no longer surprising and would be expected in similar circumstances in the future.

Even though some of the ancient Greeks figured out that the world was a globe and not flat, that assertion was still disputed for hundreds and hundreds of years. Some Biblical commentators or teachers even pointed to the use of “four corners of the world” in the Bible as proof that God was telling us that the world was flat. God said it, so evidence and reasoning to the contrary must be wrong. Eventually, however, the evidence for a spherical (actually, not a perfect sphere, more like a squashed pear, but I digress) earth continued to pile up. Now no Christian disputes the fact that the world is a sphere.

The same is true with respect to the dating of rocks. Not only is the direction of our learning only going one way–to an old earth–but the science behind it has been confirmed for so long that it is on par with our knowledge that the earth is a sphere. YEC is not an option that is on the table and it is a serious misteaching for anyone, especially those who hold themselves out as giving a teaching or advice in this area, to state otherwise.

The fact that a young earth is not an option for Christians is a separate issue from the interpretation of Genesis (unless one goes beyond the language used therein and uses certain assumptions to infer a young age). With respect to interpretation, it is entirely warranted to state that one can have leanings but not be absolute (at this time). Indeed, that is the conclusion that the 1982 evangelical conference on inerrancy came to with respect to the interpretation of Genesis (and the Chicago statement on inerrancy, etc.). The leading lights of evangelicalism agreed that one can believe in inerrancy and not be dogmatic about one specific intepretation of Genesis.

Regards,
#John

Before I move on to a post about sedimentary rock, I will briefly respond to Richard’s post 240 [as an aside, I observe that some bloggers write in the first and second person, while I write in the third person. My style is a result of my educational and work background, and I would hope that no one infers anything from the use of different relational vantage points in the posts on this thread].

Greg may wish to express things differently, but from my understanding of the type of interpretation he has put forward, an ANE person transported to the present day would not say that he had been lied to or mislead. He would respond with something like, ” Greece, Egypt, and Babylonia [i.e., insert scope of knowledge] was the entire world in my time. And that is what “the whole world” [i.e., the corresponding ANE term] meant in my time. We had no idea there was anything else. Whole world meant to the limits of what we knew, not some bizarre sphere thing. But it’s not even like we spoke of limits, and presumed that there was a limit beyond which there was something else. We did not have maps with “there be dragons” around the edges.”

A bit wordy, but like Mark Twain wrote, it takes time to write a short letter / reply.

Because it is possible to interpret the Bible as consistent with either a universal or local flood, and hold to an old earth, I am not taking any position on the scope of the flood in this thread. I believe that the propagation of YEC beliefs in a young earth is a far more serious problem, and I’ll stick with that topic.

Regards,
#John

John

In your comment #242 you stated:
Because it is possible to interpret the Bible as consistent with either a universal or local flood, and hold to an old earth, I am not taking any position on the scope of the flood in this thread.

As I stated in #235 there is such a thing as objective reality. In other words, the TRUTH is that the Genesis Flood either was worldwide or it wasn’t. Like I said, this truth is completely independent of what was written about it or how people interpret what was written … and the truth about this matter makes all the difference in the world in arriving at a proper understanding of God’s Word.

Steve

John,

You completely missed the point of my post on K-Ar dates. The point is that the technique itself can be properly applied by practitioners such as Dalrymple and generate erroneous results. The fact that the results are erroneous CAN NOT be determined from within the technique. The “serious errors” can only be detected when the calculated dates are compared to something else.

Thus radiometric dates are not an absolute chronometer.

In logic, when an algorithm has been shown to produce erroneous results it is disproved and no longer used. You can’t overcome this by continuing to use the algorithm and getting results that seem good. As the old saw goes “even a broken clock is correct twice a day”.

If I gave you a rock, and the K-Ar results from a lab showing a calculated age of, say 3.5 ± .25 Myr, would you know how old it really is? If you say yes, then what if the results had been .94 ± .16 Myr as in the case of Devils Postpile?

The truth is that if a particular age is expected, then the calculated age is compared to that and discarded if it disagrees. See the KBS Tuff example. If the initial K-Ar result (Fitch, Miller 69) had been 2.5 – 3.0 Myr it would have been accepted, but it was 212 – 230 Myr and so discarded as being the result of remixing. Again, the calculated result does not stand on its own. The technique by itself can’t detect “bad” results.

Furthermore, there are numerous documented cases of discrepant dates calculated, including those of rocks of known age. Of course, there have been attempts to explain away most of these, but often even these explanations tend to illustrate the problem.

So we differ in our approach of what we accept as compelling evidence. I recognize the inherent limitations of radiometric dating. You keep mentioning the “thousands” of datings which are not disputed. The fact that they are not disputed does not mean that they are correct. Dalrymple’s K-Ar date for Devils Postpile were wrong even BEFORE it was disputed.

Also, I’d recommend you read the actual RATE project reports and not just Henke, et al’s analysis of them.

BTW, don’t repeat talkorigins or Wien’s work for my benefit. I’ve already read them. BTW here is a response to the Wiens article http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf.

Re post 243 and objective reality.

Like anyone else that is afraid to walk in front of a speeding bus, I believe in an objective reality.

The question with respect to Genesis 1 & 2, is what “objective reality” is described therein. Based on language alone, one cannot at present definitively exclude either a young earth or old earth. The language used is consistent with / can be understood as describing either a young earth or old earth objective reality, in so far as we currently understand the language used (ancient Hebrew).

So yes, God knows what in fact did happen. The language (I don’t mean language = “Hebrew” but language = the words and literary style) He used in Genesis does not provide sufficient information to conclusively determine whether the earth is old or young.

However, the regularities and physical nature of reality that he designed does allow us with great confidence to discern the age of the earth. Furthermore, apart from the confidence we have in the age (i.e., confidence expressed as an age +/- some years), we know for certain that the earth is not young. As certain as we know that the earth goes around the sun, and that the heme circulatory system is composed of the heart, arteries, veins and capillaries and that oxygen exchange occurs in the lungs.

Regards,
#John

Richard,

It still seems you are missing the point in what Greg is trying to say.

Let me ask you this question (and please correct me Greg if this isn’t the direction you were trying to go):

If I say to you, “the sun rises in the morning and set in the evening?”

Would you say yes or no?

If you say yes, does that make you a liar (since we know its the earth thats rotating around the sun and not vice versa)?

Don’t both “yes” and a “no” to this basic question ring true depending on the context in which it is asked? Or would you claim someone a liar if they told you that the sun sets in the evening?

The cultural context of the question is just as important as the cultural context of the answer and it seems impossible to think that ANE people thought in the categories that you are demanding since they are of modern inventions.

I think thats what Greg was trying to get at. Its not a matter of them being “stupid” its just a matter for them thinking in different categories based upon their cultural and historical context. I mean you can see this reality just by looking at the vast difference between Western society and Eastern Society (although globlization has caused this divide to diminish). They just think differently on A LOT of things than we do; and its not even that they simply disagree with us, its that the questions that we ask (and vise versa) just wouldn’t “come up” in their minds because they think in different categories.

Your brother in Christ,

-Joshua

John wrote:

Greg may wish to express things differently, but from my understanding of the type of interpretation he has put forward, an ANE person transported to the present day would not say that he had been lied to or mislead. He would respond with something like, ” Greece, Egypt, and Babylonia [i.e., insert scope of knowledge] was the entire world in my time. And that is what “the whole world” [i.e., the corresponding ANE term] meant in my time. We had no idea there was anything else.

Once again this implies that God, whose knowledge is NOT limited as you imply for an ANE, is incapable of communicating accurately. It’s also not as easy as just trying to define what you think “whole world” meant to an ANE. The flood account uses many more absolutes. Here are some examples:
————-
all people,

all life under the heavens,

every creature that has the breath of life in it,

I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made,

all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered,

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet,

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died,

I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth
————-

In fact it’s hard to image what else God could have said to make the point that it is global. Furthermore, it it were local, then God’s covenant has been broken as we’ve had many very serious local floods since. (although I suppose you could argue that His covenant only meant another local flood of equal magnitude wouldn’t happen…pretty weak)

Also, if that weren’t enough, Jesus himself said:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.”

John, please explain how a local flood covers all the mountains to a depth of 20 feet for weeks at a time? This defies the laws of physics.

Richard writes:
“Furthermore, there are numerous documented cases of discrepant dates calculated, including those of rocks of known age.”

Just wondering what dating method you accept to arrive at a “known age” for a rock.

( I don’t know how you guys post those block quotes with the bar on the left. And italics and other formatting. Wish I did)

Dave Z,

I was referring to rocks formed from volcanic flows that were witnessed. We really do know when that happened.

To get the quote bar just put
[blockquote] to start it, and [/blockquote ] to end,

but replace ‘[‘ and ‘]’ with the “less than” and “greater than” symbols respectively.

Thank you for the tips Richard.

So, while the volcanic rocks may be new in form, the minerals they’re made of are as old as the earth. It’s just a change of state. Does that affect dating methods? Is the half-life (or whatever) clock reset to zero? Do they count as new rock or just solidified magma?