Interesting serious starting on PT

[Teallaura]

My definition of truth, requires some sort of experimentum crucis (crucial experiment). This comes from my grad school days in philosophy, as I said earlier. Without some means of determining which view is correct, truth can't be achieved. In theology there are no crucial experiments to perform. Because of that, claiming this or that theology is the true theology is meaningless. There is no way to determine truth without going to observational data. Observational data then becomes the only way to test between two views.

How would you test between the Framework theory and the anti-Egyptian theory or the Day-Age theory of what Genesis 1 is about?

P.S. after several years at the philosophy weekend at my ranch, I am amazed we have some kind of agreement on what it is that we should research.

for those listening in, I have a yearly philosophy weekend at my ranch. Jim and Kirk Bertsche of TW have attended for what 4 years?. It is an intellectual feast of argumentation and debate. No one agrees on much and it is quite fun.

Heh, Philo 101 was why I left the faith for ten years...

Okay, seriously, you're defining truth by methodology? So you don't accept that truth exists independent of methodology or did I read you incorrectly?

[grmorton]

Heh, Philo 101 was why I left the faith for ten years...

Okay, seriously, you're defining truth by methodology? So you don't accept that truth exists independent of methodology or did I read you incorrectly?

I think truth exists independently. But our ability to ascertain that truth requires a methodology. I have spent my life theory building. Professionally, I build theories of why oil might be found at a particular spot. We look at the data, develop sedimentological models, structural models, migration of hydrocarbon models, we look at the far offsets of seismic records, like a Roman priest studied the entrails of goats, in order to determine if the seismic shows a signal of hydrocarbon presence, we study the timing and connectivity of faulting etc etc etc. But all of that doesn't tell us the truth. We still don't know if there is oil down there. We have to perform the expensive experiment of drilling the well before we can KNOW that there is or isn't oil where we have surmised it to be. We compare the results with what we predicted. We almost never are 100% right, even when we find oil, the sands are different or there are faults we didn't know about. etc.

There are loads of different interpretations of Genesis 1 that are unverifiable. I love the Marxist interpretation where the landlord throws the tenants out on their ears for a minor infraction. There is Day Age, there is one that suggests these are seven visions given to the writer, there is the Framework view, there is the literal view.

All of them can't be correct at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.If they are all correct at the same time, then the account is like what Paul Steinhart said about inflation theory--the account is truly meaningless because all meanings can be derived from it.

What I was asking of Jim is what is his methodology to determine that the Marxist, day Age etc, are false and his interpretation is the true one. The traditional YEC interp can and is falsified because one can compare their predictions to actual history and see that it is false, but that comparison is exactly the crucial experiment, the drilling of the well. But how does one do that when the claim is that it really isn't about anything historical?

[oxmixmudd]

My definition of truth, requires some sort of experimentum crucis (crucial experiment). This comes from my grad school days in philosophy, as I said earlier. Without some means of determining which view is correct, truth can't be achieved. In theology there are no crucial experiments to perform. Because of that, claiming this or that theology is the true theology is meaningless. There is no way to determine truth without going to observational data. Observational data then becomes the only way to test between two views.

How would you test between the Framework theory and the anti-Egyptian theory or the Day-Age theory of what Genesis 1 is about?

P.S. after several years at the philosophy weekend at my ranch, I am amazed we have some kind of agreement on what it is that we should research.

for those listening in, I have a yearly philosophy weekend at my ranch. Jim and Kirk Bertsche of TW have attended for what 4 years?. It is an intellectual feast of argumentation and debate. No one agrees on much and it is quite fun.

Hi Glenn,

I have not gone silent, but I am in Ca for my son's graduation from seminary. So my posts may be a bit sparse the next few days.

This post of yours does hit at a fundamental difference in our approaches. Where my focus lies is in validating the truth of the TYPE of literature Genesis is. Only by first understanding that can I understand what type of interpretive paradigm should be applied so as to understand what kind information is contained therein, and as a consequence, what kind of message I should expect. We (the Christian Church) do this all the time. We rarely apply a scientific filter to the psalms because it is poetry. We expect the language to be figurative and the truth statements to often be of a metaphysical or abstract nature. Likewise when we come across prophetic literature. We apply yet another filter to that, even recognizing that many times prophesies in scripture have multiple correlation, even a primary and secondary fulfillment. Understanding the type and form of the literature, it's culture and so forth is critical. So my use of data and information in the assessment of the text and my understanding of the text starts there.

But I must scoot now. I'll try to add more, or respond to any comments you have on this, within the next 24 hours.


Jim

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn,

I have not gone silent, but I am in Ca for my son's graduation from seminary. So my posts may be a bit sparse the next few days.

This post of yours does hit at a fundamental difference in our approaches. Where my focus lies is in validating the truth of the TYPE of literature Genesis is. Only by first understanding that can I understand what type of interpretive paradigm should be applied so as to understand what kind information is contained therein, and as a consequence, what kind of message I should expect. We (the Christian Church) do this all the time. We rarely apply a scientific filter to the psalms because it is poetry. We expect the language to be figurative and the truth statements to often be of a metaphysical or abstract nature. Likewise when we come across prophetic literature. We apply yet another filter to that, even recognizing that many times prophesies in scripture have multiple correlation, even a primary and secondary fulfillment. Understanding the type and form of the literature, it's culture and so forth is critical. So my use of data and information in the assessment of the text and my understanding of the text starts there.

But I must scoot now. I'll try to add more, or respond to any comments you have on this, within the next 24 hours.


Jim

Congrats on your son's graduation. I well remember my son's seminary graduation. I was wondering if he was going to be able to support himself with that degree. Gladly my worries were baseless and he has done well in ministry and I am proud of him. I am sure your son will do well too.

See post 242 for what I am looking for with your methodology. I wrote there:

"What I was asking of Jim is what is his methodology to determine that the Marxist, day Age etc, are false and his interpretation is the true one. The traditional YEC interp can and is falsified because one can compare their predictions to actual history and see that it is false, but that comparison is exactly the crucial experiment, the drilling of the well. But how does one do that when the claim is that it really isn't about anything historical?"

I tire of the constant raising of Psalms as if that answers anything. Psalms clearly is praise literature. Genesis 1 2 and 3 are NOT about praise, even from internal evidence--see Gen 2:1. "2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." The word, Thus, is very important because it basically means this is what happened.

No Psalm has the phrase: "4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Genesis 2:4 That clearly demarcates this literature from Psalms. We can say no it doesn't and yes it does to eachother thousands of times, but if that is all we can do, then your methodology can't prove it. Observational data is what allows one to conclude an argument and not have it end in yes it does no it doesn't repetition.

And here is where I think you implicitly claim to know the purpose of Genesis--when you claim that it isn't about anything historical. To hold your view, you simply have to hold it by believing that the purpose can't be anything historical

In logic,if one assumes the consequence, the conclusion is not proven. By always claiming that Psalms is the kind of literature that Genesis 1, 2 and 3 are you seem to be assuming the consequence. They don't look the same at all to me, and they discuss the lives of particular people, Adam and Eve. Psalms, if they do discuss an individual's life it is done as a thanksgiving for saving my rear end kind of thing.

Before you try to say I am assuming the consequence, and throw this back at me, I would point out that what I did was attempt to see if there is a way it can be read as a historical document. I think I succeeded. You may not agree that that is actually what happened, and I can't prove it happened as I outline, but I did create a concordistic interpretation that matches science. If there were a mis-fit between actual events and my scenario then you could say I am assuming the consequence. The test of my view is whether or not it matches reality. There is no crucial test of your view other than that you think Genesis is like psalms. That is a belief, not a datapoint.

[Jorge]

Jorge is a fideist. Best to ignore him because data doesn't matter to him and your blood pressure will remain low.

I took the time to thoroughly explain why your characterization of me as a "fideist" is wrong.
Is it that you people are comprehension-impaired? Do you need to hear things multiple times?
Or is it something far more sinister such as outright dishonesty? Go on, tell me what's up.

Jorge

[Roy]

I took the time to thoroughly explain why your characterization of me as a "fideist" is wrong.
Is it that you people are comprehension-impaired? Do you need to hear things multiple times?
Or is it something far more sinister such as outright dishonesty? Go on, tell me what's up.

No, no, probably.

But any outright dishonesty is considerably more likely to emanate from Jorge, who has repeatedly been caught in the same falsehood on multiple occasions. There's an example here.

Roy

[klaus54]

I took the time to thoroughly explain why your characterization of me as a "fideist" is wrong.
Is it that you people are comprehension-impaired? Do you need to hear things multiple times?
Or is it something far more sinister such as outright dishonesty? Go on, tell me what's up.

Jorge

Jorge,

Your Genesis interpretation ...err... reading... trumps any and all evidence that you can't force fit into it. Reason and evidence only matter when they conform to your presuppositions.

That's about as fideistic as one can get.

Unless you concoct your personal definition, and of this I wouldn't be surprised.

This is my observation, and I'm sure the observation of many others here.

Please respond carefully.

K54

[Teallaura]

I think truth exists independently. But our ability to ascertain that truth requires a methodology. I have spent my life theory building. Professionally, I build theories of why oil might be found at a particular spot. We look at the data, develop sedimentological models, structural models, migration of hydrocarbon models, we look at the far offsets of seismic records, like a Roman priest studied the entrails of goats, in order to determine if the seismic shows a signal of hydrocarbon presence, we study the timing and connectivity of faulting etc etc etc. But all of that doesn't tell us the truth. We still don't know if there is oil down there. We have to perform the expensive experiment of drilling the well before we can KNOW that there is or isn't oil where we have surmised it to be. We compare the results with what we predicted. We almost never are 100% right, even when we find oil, the sands are different or there are faults we didn't know about. etc.

There are loads of different interpretations of Genesis 1 that are unverifiable. I love the Marxist interpretation where the landlord throws the tenants out on their ears for a minor infraction. There is Day Age, there is one that suggests these are seven visions given to the writer, there is the Framework view, there is the literal view.

All of them can't be correct at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.If they are all correct at the same time, then the account is like what Paul Steinhart said about inflation theory--the account is truly meaningless because all meanings can be derived from it.

What I was asking of Jim is what is his methodology to determine that the Marxist, day Age etc, are false and his interpretation is the true one. The traditional YEC interp can and is falsified because one can compare their predictions to actual history and see that it is false, but that comparison is exactly the crucial experiment, the drilling of the well. But how does one do that when the claim is that it really isn't about anything historical?

Okay, got it. Thanks!

[grmorton]

I took the time to thoroughly explain why your characterization of me as a "fideist" is wrong.
Is it that you people are comprehension-impaired? Do you need to hear things multiple times?
Or is it something far more sinister such as outright dishonesty? Go on, tell me what's up.

Jorge

Jorge, I don't agree with your self assessment.

[Jorge]

Jorge, I don't agree with your self assessment.

It is, of course, your right to agree or disagree. I'm only telling you that I do not in any way conform to the classic, accepted definition of Fideism. I won't argue that there may be some resemblances. But the same can be said of many things. For example, a row boat resembles, in some ways, a battleship (e.g., both are used for transporting people over water, etc). But only an idiot, or someone less-than-honest, would refer to the latter as being the same as a former.

Oh, I know -- perhaps you're using the New Age Dictionary definition of 'Fideism'?

Give it up, GR - ya ain't gonna 'win' this one.

Jorge

[klaus54]

It is, of course, your right to agree or disagree. I'm only telling you that I do not in any way conform to the classic, accepted definition of Fideism. I won't argue that there may be some resemblances. But the same can be said of many things. For example, a row boat resembles, in some ways, a battleship (e.g., both are used for transporting people over water, etc). But only an idiot, or someone less-than-honest, would refer to the latter as being the same as a former.

Oh, I know -- perhaps you're using the New Age Dictionary definition of 'Fideism'?

Give it up, GR - ya ain't gonna 'win' this one.

Jorge

Disagree. I pointed out that you fit the definition of fideist to a "T".

K54

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith.

[oxmixmudd]

Congrats on your son's graduation. I well remember my son's seminary graduation. I was wondering if he was going to be able to support himself with that degree. Gladly my worries were baseless and he has done well in ministry and I am proud of him. I am sure your son will do well too.

Thanks Glenn

See post 242 for what I am looking for with your methodology. I wrote there:

"What I was asking of Jim is what is his methodology to determine that the Marxist, day Age etc, are false and his interpretation is the true one. The traditional YEC interp can and is falsified because one can compare their predictions to actual history and see that it is false, but that comparison is exactly the crucial experiment, the drilling of the well. But how does one do that when the claim is that it really isn't about anything historical?"

And I was in the process of trying to answer that, but did not have time till now to lay out anything more than a preview. Below you have tried to deal with some of that, but you've also gone off on your own an tried to deal with what I might say, or perhaps what you've interpreted me to say in the past. Those arguments are not where I was headed - at least not directly.

I tire of the constant raising of Psalms as if that answers anything. Psalms clearly is praise literature. Genesis 1 2 and 3 are NOT about praise, even from internal evidence--see Gen 2:1. "2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." The word, Thus, is very important because it basically means this is what happened.

Psalms and Revelatary literature are mentioned simply because they represent a common ground where we can both agree on the necessity of properly understanding the context and type of the text itself. If we approach a text with the wrong understanding of it's type or thrust or cultural context, we are very likely to apply an invalid standard or interpretive paradigm to it and end up in a place inappropriate to its content. To try to use Psalms to derive a scientific perspective of the Earth would be a mistake, and most everyone would agree with that. But I am not saying Genesis is a Psalm. Most would agree it is not.

So what do I actually see the data and the culture and the language and the structure saying about what type of literature Genesis?

First of all - a definition of terms. When I say "Genesis 1 as history" or Genesis 1 is history", I mean in the sense of providing a recounting of real events in the process of creation, in the history of the universe. In the most mundane sense, as a Christian, God created the universe. In that sense we can all agree Genesis 1 is history. That is NOT the sense I am discussing here.


As you have mentioned, my first turn towards my current view came with the realization that YEC is a failed interpretation. The Earth is old. The Universe is older still. Any simplistic reading of the text that tries to directly derive a timeframe for the Earth and Universe is going to arrive at a flawed, false conclusion.

I sought several ways to concordantly deal with the text. Gap, day/age, Hugh Ross's view, even though of what you have accepted, some sort of pre-temporal 'plan' as opposed to an actual historical description of the events of creation. None set very well primarily because of the eisegesis/exegesis problem. I'm looking for concepts I can overlay on the text to 'make it fit' what I know rather than going to the text to understand it what it says about itself and how it functions in its cultural context.

What my studies (and prayers) next led me to was the issue of how to discern from the text if Genesis 1 was a literal or a figurative accounting of creation. Were there any clues in the text itself that could help settle that question? The first real breakthrough for me there was the issue if the raqia. The firmament as it is translated in the King James. Here the Bible describes the creation's physical structure in a way that conforms to the ideas of ancient peoples, specifically the ancient peoples from whom the Israelites emerged. So I dove into that to try to understand every nuance of the Hebrew in that text and that surrounded the use of those phrases surrounding what the raqia was and what the waters above are. I found that the waters of heaven are referred to throughout the OT and are treated as part of what heaven itself is. We discovered at your ranch that the ancient Hebrews in translatiing the text of the Flood to Greek used waterfalls or cliffs to describe the openings those waters fell through for the flood, again implying they understood the raqia to be a solid, strong dome holding back these waters. Seely's articles on the Firmament were brought to my attention and his research which shows that not only was the idea of the sky being a dome or rigid surface common to the local ancient people's near Israel, it is a common conception in most pre-industrial cultures. I also stumbled upon the fact that though genesis translations often describing the birds as flying 'in' the heavens, the text literally says they fly 'before the face of' the raqia.

Further, textually, the word itself is used only elsewhere in the OT to describe a crystal dome in a vision in Ezekiel. Again - dome/hard.

To me this was the key piece of data. IF the account in Genesis 1 is written in a way that describes the sky a hard dome holding up a sea of waters, then to type it as a kind of text that allowed for the direct deduction of technical data (space or time) is wrong.

The next key piece of data is the structure of the text itself. The refrain in Hebrew "and the evening and the morning was the <nth> day" is structural. Genesis 1 is not simply prose. It has the kind of rhythm and structure in it more like a song or Psalm. Not completely, but it is there. Structured text like this is often also NOT of a technical nature though it could be historical or tell a story. But to make the text fit the structure, liberties are often taken. While this doesn't preclude the text being some sort of history, it certainly says it would be foolish to treat it like the YEC's do.

Finally, enter the structure of the Egyptian creation narrative and the fact the Genesis 1 narrative appears to be patterned after it, only reversing many of the elements.

All of these data points tell me a historical view of Genesis 1 is likely wrong. This is something else. A creation epic, yes. But not one that has as its necessary goal the recording of literal history. And one that has been structured to read rhythmically, a bit like a poem or a psalm, but not really either.

Having followed the data to establish what kind of text Genesis 1 is, I can now answer your question:

How would you test between the Framework theory and the anti-Egyptian theory or the Day-Age theory of what Genesis 1 is about?

Well, first of all, Day-Age is an attempt at historical concordism. As I've already pointed out, the data tells me that is not what Genesis 1 is. As such I can eliminate Day-Age, or Hugh Ross's attempt at concordism, at least in terms of a first level reading.

But the other two? Well, they are not mutually exclusive. Genesis 1 can be an anti-Egyptian polemic and written in a form of parallelism (making/filling) that allows for 'days' 1-3 to be overlayed on days 4-6. But attempts to use the framework hypothesis to make the account directly historical don't make much sense as the text is not history in that sense.

Now, to sum it all up:

1) Is Genesis 1 true:

a) As history: not really: only in the sense that God made the universe, i.e. not in the sense YEC's take it
b) As a polemic: Yes. Absolutely true. It takes the Egyptian creation epic and parallels it but undoes its theology in concordance with other teachings of scripture.

2) what does the data most strongly indicate Genesis 1 IS as literature, irrespective of its truth: A song like polemic against polytheistic views of the cosmos.

Final conclusion: Genesis 1 is true in respect to what the data indicates is its primary purpose and function. And that is all that is necessary for it to be.


This is the paradigm I use, the way I assess the 'truth' of Genesis 1.

Jim

[Truthseeker]

Hey Glenn! You perhaps thought you'd never have to read posts by that goofball Augustine2004 again. A reason for your return. Heh! Or maybe he wasn't that bad but you simply forgot him. Oh, well.


Actually we all are fideist, though we can be at least in theory be ranked from most rigid to least in terms of refusal to abandon one's beliefs in light of evidence that seem to go against them. Each of us has a working philosophy, a set of beliefs about the universe that one uses in making decisions about what action to undertake. Initially the beliefs are quite fideist, but may change depending on what one decides to do with evidence that he sees (so to speak). I don't think that anyone can be sure he knows the truth. Oh, one could be sure that he is alive, he eats, sleeps, is typing a post, etc. But in general, "facts" that he thinks he knows are subject to change and doubt. For one thing, sometimes appearances can be deceiving. One ought to watch good magic shows once in a while.

Lest anyone draw a wrong conclusion from the above, I side with Glenn much more than with Jorge, though I question whether science can be successfully applied to any event or series of events in which God plays a role as reported in the Bible. Let me explain.

I hold a book in the air and say, "See, I am breaking the Law of Gravitation. Therefore, science is wrong!" Scientists would rightly ignore or scorn me as a nut. Science is supposed to be about the workings of Nature, when humans are not present (excepting the workings of their bodies, of course). Now that I have attempted to make a point with the book, I would add, "And when God is not apparently present also."

Glenn's efforts and Jorge's to find scientific accounts of Genesis are ultimately fruitless IMO because we cannot know the precise details of God's involvement or actions. For example, we cannot know for sure if the Days of Planning and Design are temporal or not.

[klaus54]

...

I hold a book in the air and say, "See, I am breaking the Law of Gravitation. Therefore, science is wrong!" Scientists would rightly ignore or scorn me as a nut. Science is supposed to be about the workings of Nature, when humans are not present (excepting the workings of their bodies, of course). Now that I have attempted to make a point with the book, I would add, "And when God is not apparently present also."
...

Nutty analogy. It's anthropomorphic. We know when humans aren't present in a process. We don't know whether God is present in a process.

That's the biggest fallacy with so called "intelligent design". Who or What is the Designer and how does the Designer work and how is he/she/it detectable?

And we're not "all fideists" either. That's a bastardization of the term, like using "slavery" in a minimum wage argument.

K54

P.S. Are you saying your former handle was "Augustine2004"?

[grmorton]

And I was in the process of trying to answer that, but did not have time till now to lay out anything more than a preview. Below you have tried to deal with some of that, but you've also gone off on your own an tried to deal with what I might say, or perhaps what you've interpreted me to say in the past. Those arguments are not where I was headed - at least not directly.

I am a chess player. I always try to anticipate what the other guy is going to respond with. One guy that worked for me told another fellow that "Glenn's questions would seem off the wall but that he was about 10 steps down the road and he would be laying traps for you." That guy captured me well.

Psalms and Revelatary literature are mentioned simply because they represent a common ground where we can both agree on the necessity of properly understanding the context and type of the text itself. If we approach a text with the wrong understanding of it's type or thrust or cultural context, we are very likely to apply an invalid standard or interpretive paradigm to it and end up in a place inappropriate to its content. To try to use Psalms to derive a scientific perspective of the Earth would be a mistake, and most everyone would agree with that. But I am not saying Genesis is a Psalm. Most would agree it is not.

Jim, agreeing that pomegranates and tomatos are fruit is not very relevant when discussing trucks. Who cares about agreement on an irrelevant topic? My problem with your approach is that you are going to be the one to tell me what type of literature Genesis 1 is. I have no freedom to decide that for myself. There is no crucial experiment which can decide between our two views and that is a HUGE problem with literary analysis. There simply is no way we can ascertain the truth unless it is stated in the literature itself. And I think Genesis 2:1 and 2:4 clearly state what the text is about. But you ignore it.

So what do I actually see the data and the culture and the language and the structure saying about what type of literature Genesis?

. I'm looking for concepts I can overlay on the text to 'make it fit' what I know rather than going to the text to understand it what it says about itself and how it functions in its cultural context.

What my studies (and prayers) next led me to was the issue of how to discern from the text if Genesis 1 was a literal or a figurative accounting of creation. Were there any clues in the text itself that could help settle that question?

Pardon me Jim, you may have mis-written but these two sentences seem quite contradictory (you are going to get mad at me before this is all over). First you look for concepts apart from what the text says. If you do that, then why all the hullabaloo about what kind of text it is?

The first real breakthrough for me there was the issue if the raqia. The firmament as it is translated in the King James. Here the Bible describes the creation's physical structure in a way that conforms to the ideas of ancient peoples, specifically the ancient peoples from whom the Israelites emerged. So I dove into that to try to understand every nuance of the Hebrew in that text and that surrounded the use of those phrases surrounding what the raqia was and what the waters above are. I found that the waters of heaven are referred to throughout the OT and are treated as part of what heaven itself is. We discovered at your ranch that the ancient Hebrews in translatiing the text of the Flood to Greek used waterfalls or cliffs to describe the openings those waters fell through for the flood, again implying they understood the raqia to be a solid, strong dome holding back these waters. Seely's articles on the Firmament were brought to my attention and his research which shows that not only was the idea of the sky being a dome or rigid surface common to the local ancient people's near Israel, it is a common conception in most pre-industrial cultures. I also stumbled upon the fact that though genesis translations often describing the birds as flying 'in' the heavens, the text literally says they fly 'before the face of' the raqia.

But the root word for Raqia is not something hard. Brown-Driver-Briggs says this about Raqa--to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch. Space stretches. That is the expansion of space.

As to Seely, he was the proximate cause for the deepest phase of my crisis of faith. His book is the best argument for atheism I have ever read.

Further, textually, the word itself is used only elsewhere in the OT to describe a crystal dome in a vision in Ezekiel. Again - dome/hard.

Ezekiel what? I am clearly going to have to re-install Logos on my computer. I have been away from this area for 4 years

To me this was the key piece of data. IF the account in Genesis 1 is written in a way that describes the sky a hard dome holding up a sea of waters, then to type it as a kind of text that allowed for the direct deduction of technical data (space or time) is wrong.

Really? What a logical jump. We talk about the North and South Poles, the setting of the sun, even in technical literature. This just seems to me to apply a different standard to them than we apply to ourselves.

The next key piece of data is the structure of the text itself. The refrain in Hebrew "and the evening and the morning was the <nth> day" is structural. Genesis 1 is not simply prose. It has the kind of rhythm and structure in it more like a song or Psalm. Not completely, but it is there. Structured text like this is often also NOT of a technical nature though it could be historical or tell a story. But to make the text fit the structure, liberties are often taken. While this doesn't preclude the text being some sort of history, it certainly says it would be foolish to treat it like the YEC's do.

No, it is not foolish the way the YECs treat the scripture. It is foolish that they tie it to a false science. Frankly, I think the YECs treat the creation with great respect, but then make it all wrong by saying stupid stuff scientifically speaking. The thing that makes what they say false is not the genre of the literature but the falseness of their statements about nature.

Finally, enter the structure of the Egyptian creation narrative and the fact the Genesis 1 narrative appears to be patterned after it, only reversing many of the elements.

Lots of authorities think it was Babylonian Gods, not Egyptian gods being mentioned:

“There has been an increasing disinclination to interpret the concepts contained in v.2 in terms of the mythological conceptions of neighbouring religions. The Hebrew word for ‘primeval flood’ (tehom) probably has linguistic affinity with Tiamat, , the Babylonian dragon of chaos. A more direct connection, amounting to a ‘borrowing,’ cannot be assumed. Nor can it be assumed that the Hebrew bohu goes back to the Phoenician mother-goddess Baau. Bohu is a noun (always connected with tohu) which means emptiness, desolation.” Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1972), p. 50

“Smith was struck by the uncanny similarity between the opening lines of the
Babylonian creation myth and the initial two verses of the first chapter of Genesis, which he had memorized in boyhood:


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and void; and the darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

“The cuneiform glyphs on the tablet he had just dusted off and was now reading spoke with an identical idiom:

When above, were not raised the heavens:
and below on earth a plant had not grown up;
the abyss also had not broken open their boundaries
The chaos (or water) Tiamat (the sea) was the producing mother of the whole of them.

“Smith could barely trust his own decipherment. Both narratives not only shared a story line, but also incorporated the identical word, chaos (a primitive sea monster), to connote the watery deep Tehom or Tehomot in Hebrew and Tiamat in Akkadian. In Smith’s translation of the Babylonian creation account, the sea monster Tiamat is slain and her body is cut in two with one half placed in the firmament to prevent her waters from ever flooding the earth. The saltwater terror is kept in abeyance for perpetuity. The exact same image, a bolt shot across a gate; is found in the Book of Job.
“Other intriguing literary comparisons also became evident. The ‘Tree of Life’ in the Garden of Eden was almost certainly the sacred grove of Anu (the ancient Mesopotamian sky god who was the prime mover in creation, and the distant, supreme leader of the gods), which the Nineveh tablet described as ‘guarded by a sword turning to all the four points of the compass’. The divine tree was often embossed on the sculptures of the palaces at Nimrud and Nineveh as well as on cylinders used to make royal seals for temple documents. In pictorial representation the sacred tree was invariably accompanied by a serpent.
“The Babylonian tablets thus raised for Smith and his peers, schooled in the Scripture, a team of challenging questions: How could the texts from Mesopotamia have such striking parallels with Scripture, including the essence of their shared myth, the use of vocabulary with nearly the same pronunciation, and phrases worded almost identically? Was the Bible no longer the original historical source of human creation?” ~ William Ryan and Walter Pitman, Noah’s Flood, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), p. 50-51


Abraham came out of Babylon, not Egypt and it should be him carrying the creation account to the Hebrews. There are other Babylonian connections in early Genesis:

“As we have learnt, Enki (‘Lord of the Earth’) was called Ea in Akkadian (East Semitic)—that is to say the Babylonian tradition. Scholars have determined that Ea was vocalized as ‘Eya’. So, when Moses stood before the burning bush and asked the name of the god of the mountain, did he really reply ‘I am who I am’ (Heb. Eyah asher eyah)? This puzzling phrase has long perplexed theologians but now there is a simple explanation. The voice of God simply replied ‘Eyah asher Eyah’—‘I am (the one who is called Eyah’—the name of Ea in its West Semitic (I.e. Hebrew) form. Scholars have simply failed to recognise that this is another of those characteristic puns in which the Old Testament abounds. ‘I am (Eyah) he who is called (asher) Ea (Eyah)’ is a classic biblical play on words. It also explains God’s apparently nonsensical instruction: ‘This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you’. God’s words should really be translated as ‘Eyah has sent me to you.’
“’Eyah’ or simply ‘Ya’ is the hypocoristic form of the name Yahweh found as an element of so many Old Testament names.’” David Rohl, Legend: The Genesis of Civilization, (London: Arrow Books, 1998), p. 196-197

Jim, quite simply, if these guys are right, your anti-Egyptian polemic goes right out the window. Prove them wrong!

All of these data points tell me a historical view of Genesis 1 is likely wrong. This is something else. A creation epic, yes. But not one that has as its necessary goal the recording of literal history. And one that has been structured to read rhythmically, a bit like a poem or a psalm, but not really either.

I would doubt that it is an epic of any kind. It is too short.

Having followed the data to establish what kind of text Genesis 1 is, I can now answer your question:



Well, first of all, Day-Age is an attempt at historical concordism. As I've already pointed out, the data tells me that is not what Genesis 1 is. As such I can eliminate Day-Age, or Hugh Ross's attempt at concordism, at least in terms of a first level reading.

What I think is that you have assumed the consequence. You think it must be an anti-egyptian polemic. But you have not even begun to deal with all the other interpretations people have made of this, based on the idea that it isn't any form of history.

But the other two? Well, they are not mutually exclusive. Genesis 1 can be an anti-Egyptian polemic and written in a form of parallelism (making/filling) that allows for 'days' 1-3 to be overlayed on days 4-6. But attempts to use the framework hypothesis to make the account directly historical don't make much sense as the text is not history in that sense.

Well are the following interpretations compatible with the two above?

"Some have gone further and claimed the geographical
allusion is to a fantasy. For Cassuto, 'The Garden of Eden
according to the Torah was not situated in our world.'
Skinner claimed: 'it is obvious that a real locality
answering the description of Eden exists and has existed
nowhere on the face of the earth...(T)he whole
representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic
knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have...a
semi-mythical geography.' For Ryle, 'The account...is
irreconcilable with scientific geography.' Radday believed
that Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-
cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that 'the
geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never
land.' Amit held the garden story to be literary utopiansim,
that the Garden was 'never-known,' with no real location.
Burns' similar view is that the rivers were the entryway
into the numinous world. An unusual mixture of views was
maintained by Wallace, who held that the inclusion of the
Tigris and Euphrates indicated an 'earthly geographic
situation,' but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a
garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the
earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly
from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological
literature. The variety in these recent proposals is more
than matched by the variety put forward during the Christian
era prior to the middle of the nineteenth century; W. Wright
covered this history in detail in 1860.
"If actualism in Eden's geography is considered
doubtful, then the story may be interpreted as a homiletic
exposition built on primeval residue, or as a late
sociological commentary. It might be a 'picture of
paradisal beatitude,' the idyllic goal of life in obedience
to the Torah. One interpreter saw it as a faint
recollection of the conflict involved in the transition from
hunter-gatherer to farmers. Another found from its
Sumerian/Akkadian parallels an allusion to the royalty of
gardener-kings: man is not a servant of the gods but has
been made a king himself. Other interpreters found in it a
political allegory dealing with conflict between the
Judahite royal social and economic elite and the peasant
class, or a sexual allegory, or a polemic against Canaanite
religion, or a parable of the deposition and deportation of
a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of 2:10-14)/
Differences from the Sumerian paradise myth and the
Gilgamesh epic led Bledstein to perceive the Eden story as
intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' In Genesis both '(m)an
and woman are equally human...' and their creation lacks the
usual Middle Eastern fertility cult overtones." ~ John C.
Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130

Which one should I believe, you or one of the ones listed above?

Now, to sum it all up:

1) Is Genesis 1 true:

a) As history: not really: only in the sense that God made the universe, i.e. not in the sense YEC's take it
b) As a polemic: Yes. Absolutely true. It takes the Egyptian creation epic and parallels it but undoes its theology in concordance with other teachings of scripture.

2) what does the data most strongly indicate Genesis 1 IS as literature, irrespective of its truth: A song like polemic against polytheistic views of the cosmos.

Final conclusion: Genesis 1 is true in respect to what the data indicates is its primary purpose and function. And that is all that is necessary for it to be.


Jim

Don't you think what the Genesis account says of itself is in any way important? It describes itself as an account of creation, not an anti-anything polemic.

In math or philosophy or symbolic logic, truth values only apply to things that can be demonstrated. It is kosher to say it was true that Washington was a General. It is not kosher to say it is true that the only true interpretation of Faulkner's light in August, is a Freudian one. You are trying to say that the only true interpretation of Genesis is as a anti-Egyptian polemic