CJD

* Philosoft, can we punt it while including our previous posts?


* Read the following slowly: I am challenging the notion that the creation account is chronological; that is, I think it is written in a literary framework, employed to emphasize its theology, namely, that God is the Lord of creation--and there is no other, that he will remain utterly faithful to his covenant, and that his people must follow his example and live "holily" in the land (that they were on the verge of possessing). Genesis 2 falls into this construct, as well.

Hawkingfan, the way I see it, we have two choices. 1) The main author of this portion of Scripture intended to write a chronological creation account, and then proceeded to write another one that completely contradicts the chronological order of the first. OR 2) The creation account was purposefully dischronologized to emphasize theology (in which case it is moot whether the author had any scientific understanding of the universe).



* Was the sun shining brightly during the Ice Age? (I really do not know). If you accept the framework thesis, then this tension is resolved, that is, we are not talking chronology, we are talking theology.

This brings up another question for me. I strive to show the complimentary nature of theology and science, but I am no scientist. As such, I would expect someone adept at science to engage this discussion, and discuss whether my understanding of the text is completely implausible with the geological record. Instead, I am bantering back-and-forth on biblical issues with an atheist. I mean, after I go through what is the case regarding how to read this text, will someone like he or she even accept my starting point (one, I remind the reader, that has not been flippantly pulled out of the air). Anyway, just a thought.


Logic might require us to infer that either 1) said plants were not in the garden OR 2) (which is most likely the case) God is seen here giving edible herbs and fruit to the man and woman to sustain their life. Remember, they were put in the garden to till the garden, and eat the fruit of their labors, which probably did not include hemlock, buckeye whatever, yada.

* "If you accept the framework thesis, then this tension is resolved, that is, we are not talking chronology, we are talking theology."

* Now, here you have gotten down to it. Two accounts, two conflicting chronologies. What gives? It is dis-chronologized. I understand that this structure could be missed in the English versions, but that is no real excuse, is it?

Just as chapter one began with a problem (unproductive, chaotic and uninhabited earth), so does chapter two, starting at verse 5: there was no wild vegetation, because there was no rain; and there was no cultivated plant, because there was no cultivator (i.e., man and woman). Likewise, just as chapter one offers a resolution to its problem (God comes in and subdues the chaos, makes the land productive, and inhabits it with living beings), so, too, does chapter two provide a solution. The first solution to the problem was that a rain cloud coming from the horizon (as they often do) watered the whole face of the ground (thus producing wild vegetation); the second resolution was that creation of man (v. 7) to cultivate the ground. We can see, at this point, how this ties in to the first creation account, namely at Day 3b (vegetation) and Day 6b (humanity). A geographical reading of the creation account, then, becomes necessary to make sense of this text. Ironically, it is largely overlooked by a lot of folks, and I am willing to guess that it is because they do not approach the text as an Ancient Near Easterner would (not that any of us can fully, but we can get closer than we have). The tensions you mention, Hawkingfan, all but disappear when the creation account is handled this way. The way you want it to read is obviously absurd. Do you honestly think I do not see that? The framework interpretation, then, becomes quite plausible in the face of such absurdity.

The same goes for the dis-chronologization of Gen. 2:8-25. The structure of this portion of Scripture serves to accentuate the creation of woman. In this section we see the creation of man and animals; then we see a big parade and the naming of all the animals, but alas, "no suitable helper was found among them." Poor Adam. God, of course, fully aware of all that is, puts the man to sleep and fashions the woman. Adam wakes up and (the Hebrew text reads this way) delightfully shouts, "This one! Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh! etc." What, then, is the theological point of all this (I have alluded to it above).

This portion of Scripture was to be the prologue to the history of the Israelites. As they were about to enter a land whose pre-eminent god was Baal, the message here was simply, "Listen up, folks, Yahweh is Lord of the rain and the grain." What's more, the God of Israel was also the God of the Patriarchs, and what is even more, that very same God is the Creator. Yahweh, in other words, is the Creator and has been Lord of the rain and the grain (and hence, all of life) since the very beginning.

Quite obviously, I have skipped over many intricate points, but this is where I believe the text leads us, and forgive me, but I do not see where this conflicts at any point with science. Sorry if it sounded more like a bible study than a refutation of Hawkingfan, but one aims for their audience, you know.

* Okay, you win.

Thanks for the discourse,

Hawkingfan

You wouldn't guess that the purpose of the creation story was theological only, if you didn't know that it doesn't make sense chronologically. The writer at the time did not know it doesn't make chronological sense. The only reason you can say that it is not intended to be choronological is because it is wrong that way. Ironically, the creation story is a PERFECT example of chronological writing. On the first day such and such happened. On the second day such and such happened. On the third day... I wonder if there is a better example of chronology in all of "literature". The above example is exactly what chronology is. Anyway, the writer (speaking as god), could have and should have been accurate chronologically. The theology behind Genesis 1 and 2 is that god created the universe, but that's it. It does not go into "there is no other", "he will remain utterly faithful to his covenant" "his people must follow his example"...

Hawkingfan

1)Why purposely contradict himself? That ruins his credibility. That's what liars do.
2)How does being chronologically incorrect emphasize theology?

How about choice 3)The author of Gen 1 wrote chronologically by using phrases like "The first day, the second day, the third day..." but was scientifically incorrect. It is not clear if he was being literal or theological. The writer of Gen 2 is not the same writer as Gen 1.

Hawkingfan

Yet, logic does not require us to infer that 3)the writer knew nothing about botany and made a big mistake by making an all-inclusive statement. You do not know for certain if the said plants were not in the garden. The rest of your post is more unproved assertions. Reason #3 is based upon exactly what is said in the bible.

CJD

* This is a great question. Have you ever heard of a chiasm? If not, go to that library I mentioned. Narrative gets to the point not only in what it says, but how it says it. If a text is dischronologized (as I think the first 2 chapters of Genesis quite obviously are--whether there were two writers or not makes no difference, for the second one would have seen the chronology of the first account, and it would make no sense to contradict him or her); Once again, if a text is dischronologized, then the actual arrangement of the words serve to accentuate one thing or another. Re-read my post about the arrangement of Gen. 1. If that framework is correct, then Day 7 stands at its centerpiece, and that metaphorical Sabbath taken by God is emphasized for those who were to take a literal Sabbath every seventh day of the week. Remember, this was not an option for these folks. If they didn't practice the Sabbath, they were cut off. This is one way in which dis-chronologization works to emphasize theology. To get into further detail would be difficult in an html-coded post. It requires pictures and the like (note that ANE peoples used a far more picturesque way of speaking and writing than we in the linear-West do). But this brings us to another point: Don't you see that you impose your linear-Western reading upon the ancient text? Are we all not products of our culture? These are the things I am trying to challenge here, you know, those things that we seldom think of, because the lay beneath the surface of our thinking. To me, it seems ludicrous to demand comformity to Western standards from a text that has nothing to do with the West.

Philosoft

As this seems to be entirely a scriptural discussion now, I'm sending it to BC&A...

Hawkingfan

CJD,

Apparently, we just have to agree to disagree. I think your interpretation requires a lot of assuming. And to me, the creation story is clearly chronological by its very wording. I am not willing to stretch my imagination and add in assumptions about hidden meanings that aren't there. I would have to ignore certain things the bible says and add in words in certain passages in order to believe you.

CJD

We can agree to disagree on our fundamental epistemological starting point, namely, that I think God exists and you (I think?) do not. One of us is wrong about that. One of us is also wrong about the creation account and how to read it. The meanings are not hidden, but they are definitely harder for a Westerner not schooled in the history, culture and languages of the ancient text to see. I admit that. As long as you know there is an Xian out there who does not reject the creation account for reasons as lame as noting the obvious chronological problem in Genesis 1 and 2.

Thanks again for the conversation, and I apologize for being unnecessarily sharp at times.

Asha'man

Hmm, gotta chase this thread down with a net, it keeps running away…

But that makes no sense in the long run. Why should the Bible be hard to understand? If my only chance for salvation comes from reading and accepting the Bible, and I am turned off because of obvious contradictions with science, isn’t that God’s fault? Why was he so apathetic about his holy book that it has so many obvious problems? Shouldn’t it be so perfectly clear that an average 6 year old could understand every word?

If a poorly written book causes even one soul to go to Hell, hasn’t God let that person down? With all the miracles that God was tossing around a few thousand years ago, why couldn’t he come up with a more perfect book that would survive a translation or two? For that matter, why should a holy book even need translating? It should be perfectly clear to every reader, no matter what languages they are able to read. It should be utterly free of confusion, with no possible disagreements over what it means. What kind of lame, lazy, incompetent supreme being are we talking about?

Actually, it was a liberal mixture of Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist. However, I finally came to the conclusion that the fundies were actually correct about one thing: the Bible is either entirely correct, or it is just a bunch of old myths. It simply makes no sense for God to produce such a flawed book, not if our eternal salvation is at stake.

The Bible clearly states that it was a global flood, covering the entire earth, including the tallest mountains. If it wasn’t global, then it wouldn’t be destroying all of humanity (except Noah and family), which was the entire point! If it wasn’t global, then there would be no need to build an ark with a breeding pair from every species of animal, since the animals would just repopulate from around the edges. A local flood simply makes no sense, theological or otherwise.

And the geological record is perfectly clear, no such global flood ever happened. The biological record is also perfectly clear, there is no way we could have the current distribution of species if they all emerged from a single point in the middle east 4500 years ago. Every coral reef in existence would be destroyed, but we have reefs that are clearly tens of thousands of years old. We have tree core records that extend past 4500 years ago, and even a single living pine tree that is that old. We have ice core records that extend long past previous ice ages, we have dried mummies and written records from Egypt that are older than that, and we have records of Chinese civilization that is older than that.

You should be looking for the archeological remnant of 3 million people spending decades in the Sinai Peninsula. You should be finding broken sandals, fire pits, tent poles, latrines, etc. We have managed to trace the silk road through the Gobi Desert using satellite images, and the silk road probably never saw 3 million people over it’s entire lifetime. 3 Million people should leave a mark that any amateur archeologist could spot a hundred miles away.

You should be explaining how 3 million pedestrians could cross the Red/Reed Sea in anything less than a month. I suggest you look at the most efficient mover of manpower in the ancient world, the Roman legions, and find out how far they moved a few thousand men in a day. Then try to explain how the ancient Jews managed to beat the Romans by orders of magnitude, despite having an inexperienced society with everything from the old and sick to pregnant mothers and newborn babies. (There is a thread here about this somewhere, I’ll try to find it again.)

You should be reading ancient Egyptian records and finding a massive cataclysm, with massive destruction of cattle, crops, horses, the entire army, and every single firstborn child in the country, followed by the loss of a million man slave labor force. Egypt should have been economically devastated for more than a century, but there is no hint of such an event in the continuous records kept by Egypt.

Asha'man

Ahh, found the thread about marching Romans here