Dean Anderson

You have to look at it in the context of the writers.

Like us, they could wander around during the day with the sun behind clouds, and still see because it is still light.

Like us, their experience was that at dawn it first starts to get light - and then the sun rises.

So - not knowing what we know now about optics and physics - the obvious conclusion is that the day is naturally light (even without the sun) and the night is naturally dark.

So by their cosmology, God first creates the light day and the dark night, and then makes the sun rise for the first time - the sun (by their cosmology) being an inhabitant of the light daytime sky, but not being solely responsible for said daylight (merely adding to it - as evidenced by the fact that you can still see when the sun is behind mountains or clouds).

So whilst their idea that the light is created before the sun does not correspond to what we now know about physics and how the solar system works, it was not a stupid thing to think, given the knowledge that they had.

Mihilz

I know. Creationists should know better in this day and age though.

Gamera

If you have evidence of the exegetical method existing before Philo, give it to us. Otherwise, why should we accept this bizarre retrojection of 1st and 2nd century hermeneutics to a much earlier text?

spin

My comment was not about Philo's time, but you. Exegesis is meaningless when one won't read what a text says literally to start with.

In fact, you've already indicated that you cannot know what a text says, by rejecting the necessity of starting with the literal content of a text. As I said:

Thing is, you wouldn't know. You don't have any criteria for dealing with the text.

And while we're here, can you supply any necessary connection between the thoughts of a writer who was 1st c. Alexandrian Jew (who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophical ideas) and the significance of the book of Genesis as conceived by those responsible for its content?


spin

Gorit Maqueda

Interestingly enough, our current understanding is that light (photons) did exist before stars... but that's another story.

Gamera

You have seemed to have missed your own point. You're assuming an exegetical understanding by the authors of a text at a time when the exegetical method arguably did not exist. The earliest evidence I know of the exegetical method is Philo, and perhaps the Dead Sea Scroll (as some poster suggested)

But I know providing evidence of your claim won't stop you from assuming things.

spin

Don't you love it? Consistent grind: "you missed the point".

1) By excluding the literal significance of a communication you, Gamera, exclude yourself from exegesis.

2) Do try to look beyond your nose with your assumptions about when exegesis came into existence: it smells like you rigging your understanding of exegesis to justify your own datings.

A translator of a text is an exegete, for they have to come to terms with the meaning of the source text in its context before it can be translated. Think of it, all the torah translated into Greek before your beginning of exegesis. Then there is all the reuse of Hebrew literature inside and outside the Hebrew bible, which requires exegesis, discussions of deeds of patriarchs, acts of god. Why do you overlook all signs of exegesis before Philo?


spin

davidbach

I think that I generally agree with Spin here. But even he misses the point. We should not be arguing (bickering?) amongst ourselves on this. Basically, the genesis story(ies) make no sense literally, so why debate? There are so many inconsistencies that a day or two or a billion years or two are not really relevant.

From the point of view of the fundie/literalist, (s)he is clearly uncomfortable with the firmly established fact that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years. So (s)he has to modify the meaning to conform with science.

Now, it is not my business to tell anyone what to think. They can think that the moon is made of green cheese. But to modify the thesis to conform with reality is a step in the right direction. Conceding the first error is the hardest - it should get easier to admit a second error or inconsistency. and before long the whole genesis story becomes an interesting but erroneous ancient theory. Then we and the bible bashers have something that we can agree on.

David.

Mihilz

So you're saying, let them think that Genesis refers to ages rather than days? This may be true, actually. I started off as a young earth creationist who found atheism laughable, then I became an old earth creationist who found YEC laughable, then I became an atheist who finds all creationism laughable.

Jedi Mind Trick

If I'm not mistaken there is a hebrew word for "age". I think it is "Olam". So if the author of genesis meant age he would have used the word Olam but didnt.