A Different Look at Genesis

[StanJ]

What on earth are you on about, Stan?
Do you even realize that you basically agree with the very point I was making here? 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the Old Testament. It can’t possibly refer to the NewTestament, because there was no canonized New Testament yet, when this Epistle was written.
Did Paul predict that there would be a New Testament and that some of his own occasional letters would become part of this Sacred Scripture? Very unlikely. He thought that the end was nigh.

Both Paul and Peter knew they were writing scripture. Read 2 Peter 3:16. Paul said all scripture because he meant all scripture... if he meant just the Torah/Tanahk he would have said the Torah/Tanahk.

If you want to talk about the authorship of the Pastoral Letters, that are widely considered to be pseudoepigraphs: Even though I do have the “Graecum” (a certificate for proficiency in ancient Greek) and even though I am acquainted with the basic methodologies of textual criticism and can at least understand the given arguments, I’m certainly not versed enough in this field to make any meaningful contribution to this discussion myself. And – no offense meant – I’m pretty sure you are even less of an expert than I am. A letter, whose Pauline authorship is utterly uncontested, gives very good advice for us both, Stan: “Do not think that you are wiser than you really are.” (Rom. 12:16b)

Another fallacious assertion from your liberal perspective. The following link is what the majority of Christian Scholars think. http://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html
I am versed enough and so are the scholars that I quote. I've been studying the Bible for over 45 years. How long have you been studying and have you been studying the Bible? FYI there are no books and the commonly accepted Canon of scripture, that is the 66 books commonly accepted, that are considered pseudepigrapha.
Many authors of the New Testament wrote with a sense of imminent expectation and many Christians today live with a sense of imminent expectation. I myself when I was first saved had that sense of imminent expectation and there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to live with that sense of intimacy that Christ could return any day but the fact is even though we may live as if he is coming back any day we don't stop working or paying our bills are doing everything else that is normal for our everyday lives. Reading the Bible is no different.
Now how about you actually address my last post you stop all this deflection?

 

[StanJ]

Whoever is concerned,
Young Earthers assume that the Night and Day spoken of in Genesis is a earth Night and Day even though earth did not have a night and day until the Forth Night and Day. That is a false assumption as that idea breaks Scripture unless you also assume Genesis 1 is not a literal account. The later assumption is itself contrary to the Young Earther's doctrine.
I favor the idea that Genesis is God laying out his plans and Genesis 2 is more of account of how things occurred.
I primary evidence support this conclusion is that even though God saw the vegetation grow and fill the earth in Genesis 1 it did not actually come up until after it rained in Genesis 2.
If I remember correctly, Philo of Alexander had a similar view 2000 or so years ago.

Actually day and night were created on day 1 in verses 3-5. Day 4 in verses 14-19 depict God fine tuning the the Heavenly (cosmic) lights, including the sun, moon, and stars, by allowing them to filter through the canopy of water he created in verses 7-8 on day 2.

 

[kerwin]

StanJ,

I realize that God created time on the first Night and Day as before that it was the eternal Night. It is possible the light would have been the light from the big bang. I doubt that since where is the Night-Day cycle.

The Sun, moon, nor stars were lighted on the Fourth Night and day so no earth could not lighted by the Sun as it revolves in a 24 hour cycle. In addition the Son and Moon were set to rule the night and day of earth and divide the earth night from the day night.

I am aware of what scientists say which can bias my viewpoint but Philo of Alexandria employed a teaching that reconciled the apparent disagreements between chapter 1 and chapter 2. His solution seems reasonable to me considering the words of Scripture.

 

[kerwin]

StanJ,

I have heard of the canopy of water doctrine but I see it as more likely the water above is the water vapor in clouds after all we know the clouds condenses into rain when God chooses to open the floodgates of heaven.

 

[epostle1]

Good point. Divine truths are expressed in limited human language. There is no "divine Greek".

on not only contends that Augustine revered Scripture as divinely inspired, but also writes that, “For Augustine, God’s majesty surpasses the Scriptures…Scripture uses human authors and words, and it features the same rhetorical devices that are found in all discourse: figures of speech, staged dialogues, and shifting verb tenses.”3 Augustine certainly presented the Bible as God’s Word, both to his congregation and in his bitter polemical struggles with those he deemed heterodox. Yet, Augustine nuanced his perspective by recognizing that Scripture’s human authors acted under divine inspiration, but their writings, expressed in mere human words, could not fully encapsulate God’s infinite nature.” (Robert A, Ziegler: Augustine of Hippo’s Doctrine of Scripture: Christian Exegesis in Late Antiquity)[/size]

I can imagine how the modern Evangelical belief in verbal inspiration can provide comfort in this world’s uncertainties. However even if one – against all biblical evidence to the contrary – believes in Biblical inerrancy, one is still left with the problem that none of us is inerrant when trying to make sense of the Bible. Sorry to the Catholics out there: but not even the Pope.

It's not the function of the Pope to infallibly interpret every verse of the Bible and force feed it. Guidelines are given and freedom to self interpret is there, within rather wide parameters, much wider than sola scriptura.

So please at least consider the possibility that you might just be terribly wrong when interpreting the Bible, and cut yourself off from 21th century science and what it tells us about God’s amazing creation for no good reason at all. And in the interest of all those well-educated sceptics out there, to whom views such as yours are a stumbling block, I (again) ask modern-day creationists to heed the ancient warnings that Augustine gave in his commentary on Genesis:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

Augustine was the most advanced theologian of his day. But doctrinal development didn't stop with him.

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people"
(Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are"
(CCC 159).

 

[kerwin]

StanJ.


Genesis 1:14-15 New King James Version (NKJV)

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

With just this verse I can see where it is plausible to believe the Sun, moon, and stars may have existed previous to the Fourth Night and Day even though unlit but the words " to give light on the earth" rules out the claim that they gave light to the earth earlier and earth's 24 hour day is the result of the Sun giving light to the earth. So just the refinement of the Sun, moon, and stars giving light to the earth rules out the idea that the Night and Days are earthly night and day.

Note: This is a repeat of what I said earlier but I have an internal need to test my own doctrine. Please bear with the redundancy.

 

[StanJ]

I realize that God created time on the first Night and Day as before that it was the eternal Night. It is possible the light would have been the light from the big bang. I doubt that since where is the Night-Day cycle.

The creation account is depicted in three parts in Genesis.
1. Gen 1:1
2: Gen 1:2 - 2:3
3: Gen 2:4 - 25
Number 2 gives detail to number 1 and number 3 gives more detail to number 2.

The Sun, moon, nor stars were lighted on the Fourth Night and day so no earth could not lighted by the Sun as it revolves in a 24 hour cycle. In addition the Son and Moon were set to rule the night and day of earth and divide the earth night from the day night.

The Stars which includes the Sun forgiven existence and light on day 1. The Moon is not let it reflect light. What verses 14-18 shows is 'flight's being allowed to shine through the water ABOVE the sky. It was not water vapor, is evaporation that have not yet started. It was a solid water canopy which is why people at the beginning of time lived so long because they were in effect living in a greenhouse environment. This also dispels the notion that there were huge glaciers at the beginning of time on Earth because there were not. The glaciers happened after the flood. In fact Genesis 2:5-6 shows that in the beginning it didn't rain but that water came from below. There was no evaporation because of the canopy of water and that is what God used to flood the Earth at Noah's time.

I am aware of what scientists say which can bias my viewpoint but Philo of Alexandria employed a teaching that reconciled the apparent disagreements between chapter 1 and chapter 2. His solution seems reasonable to me considering the words of Scripture.

I don't see any disagreements between chapter 1 and chapter 2. If one cannot hermeneutically exegete Genesis 1 & 2 properly then that can be cause for concern, but exegeted properly, it is not problematic.

 

[junobet]

junobet,

You wrote to Trekson,

It seems to me that you are ignorant of a fundamental of systematic theology in this statement.

Verbal, plenary inspiration is common language in systematic theology to demonstrate that the Bible is inspired. Verbal means that every word is inspired and plenary refers to all of the Bible being fully authoritative.

• Irenaeus wrote: 'The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [i.e. Christ] and His Spirit' (Against Heresies, 2.28.2).

• Jerome supported the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible with his statement that 'the individual sayings, syllables, phonetic markings, and punctuations in divine Scripture are filled with meanings' - which I think is using hyperbole (Patrologia Latina, ed. J P Migne, vol 26, p. 481, cited in Gordon D. Lewis & Bruce A Demarest 1987. Integrative Theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, p. 136).

• The defense of the verbal inspiration of the canonical Scriptures was promoted by Augustine of Hippo. He supported the position that the biblical authors write using their own mind and initiative at the command of Christ, but 'For I confess to your charity that I have learned to defer this respect and honor to those Scriptural Books only which are now called canonical, that I believe most firmly that not one of these authors has erred in any respect in writing' (Augustine to Jerome, Letter 82.3).

• Augustine claimed that the authority of Scripture extended to discussions on natural science and history and by virtue of divine inspiration, Scripture is endowed with indisputable authority. His language was that 'Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold' (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.37.1).

I suggest to you that it is not Trekson who is in error about the nature of verbal inspiration but that junobet needs to be brought up to speed about the nature of the Bible's verbal, plenary inspiration as articulated in systematic theology. Trekson is spot on in support of the Bible's verbal inspiration.

See Wayne Jackson, 'Are the Scriptures "verbally" inspired?'

Oz

As I’ve already pointed out to Trekson in a previous post, the big difference between the Churchfathers’ view on scripture and the modern 20th century notion of verbal inspiration, that creationists hold, is that the former favoured allegorical interpretations of scripture whereas the latter favour a literal interpretation.
Also the churchfathers held reason in high regard and tried to make light of the meaning of scripture with the best ‘scientific’ reason available to them at their time, whereas Trekson – alas - has a clear disdain for reason.
Now, the preference for a literal reading of Scripture is a product of the reformation. But even the reformers interpreted Genesis very differently than modern day creationists do and held the natural sciences in high regard. For example here’s just a short overview of Calvin’s views on “accomodation”: https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/02/04/theories-accommodation-theology-john-calvin/
Accordingly many contemporary conservative Protestants, who believe in verbal inspiration, do no more see a need to reject evolution than they see a need to reject heliocentrism in defense of their view of scripture. IMHO creationism has less to do with being ‘bible-believing’ and more to do with American cultural prejudice that falsely equates evolution and atheism.

 

[junobet]

Both Paul and Peter knew they were writing scripture. Read 2 Peter 3:16. Paul said all scripture because he meant all scripture... if he meant just the Torah/Tanahk he would have said the Torah/Tanahk.

Sorry Stan, but this is nonsense. As far as I’m aware of, the Hebrew words Torah/Tanakh are never used in the Greek NT. As for 2 Peter: here again you and I have very different ideas about authorship and date. IMHO by the time that epistle was written Paul's letters were already regarded as "scripture".

Another fallacious assertion from your liberal perspective.

​

I don’t even have a ‘liberal perspective’ here, Stan. If you feel the need to put people into theological boxes, you may want to call me neo-orthodox.

The following link is what the majority of Christian Scholars think. http://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html
I am versed enough and so are the scholars that I quote. I've been studying the Bible for over 45 years. How long have you been studying and have you been studying the Bible? FYI there are no books and the commonly accepted Canon of scripture, that is the 66 books commonly accepted, that are considered pseudepigrapha.

If you have a look at its statement of faith you’ll find that the site you linked doesn’t represent the majority of Biblical scholarship, but has a very clear bias. You’ll find a rather neutral summary here: “There is wide consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether Ephesians and Colossians are the letters of Paul; however, the remaining four–2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles–have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
(Again, let me make clear that disputed authorship doesn’t imply a lack of theological value. If you choose to think the Pastoral Letters were written by Paul, that’s fine with me, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that your opinion is universally shared among actual NT-scholars.)

Now, Stan, I’m not even 45 years old yet, but I suppose you and I had very different starting points than you had when we began to ‘study’ the Bible. You see, over here in Germany children are taught evolution in biology classes and Genesis 1-2 are used as an example for the documentary hypothesis in the church-approved curriculum for Protestant religion classes in state-schools. All my church’s pastors are trained in historical-critical exegesis, and I never heard any of my pastors claim that Genesis 1-2 opposes natural science.

Many authors of the New Testament wrote with a sense of imminent expectation and many Christians today live with a sense of imminent expectation. I myself when I was first saved had that sense of imminent expectation and there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to live with that sense of intimacy that Christ could return any day but the fact is even though we may live as if he is coming back any day we don't stop working or paying our bills are doing everything else that is normal for our everyday lives. Reading the Bible is no different.

I agree that it’s good to remember that we might meet our maker any second, be it because of the second coming or be it because we unexpectedly get hit by a bus on the way to work. My point was that Paul did not write theological treatises, but occasional letters that give us a glimpse of his theology. The recipients of these letters would have identified “scripture” here with the OT. The NT did not exist yet. The need for a NT that could be passed on to future generations of Christians came later.

Now how about you actually address my last post you stop all this deflection?

What do you want me to address?

 

[junobet]

http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

Augustine was the most advanced theologian of his day. But doctrinal development didn't stop with him.

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people"
(Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are"
(CCC 159).

Hi there kepha,
yes, I’m from a Lutheran/Reformed/United background myself, but I must say the Catholic view on Biblical inerrancy makes much more sense to me than that of some of my fundamentalist fellow-Protestants. And the Catholic view on evolution certainly makes more sense, too. By the way, I just love how evolution somehow harmonizes nicely with Aquinas' notions of creation’s potentiality.

 

[StanJ]

As far as I’m aware of, the Hebrew words Torah/Tanakh are never used in the Greek NT. As for 2 Peter: here again you and I have very different ideas about authorship and date. IMHO by the time that epistle was written Paul's letters were already regarded as "scripture".

I know that, I was using Torah/Tanahk because that's what they were called back then, not the Old Testament.
As far as time frame is concerned it's obvious that Paul wrote his letters before Peter did given the fact that Peter mentions them.

I don’t even have a ‘liberal perspective’ here, Stan. If you feel the need to put people into theological boxes, you may want to call me neo-orthodox.

I'm afraid you do and people put themselves in Theological boxes when they begin to espouse their theology

If you have a look at its statement of faith you’ll find that the site you linked doesn’t represent the majority of Biblical scholarship, but has a very clear bias. You’ll find a rather neutral summary here:
Again, let me make clear that disputed authorship doesn’t imply a lack of theological value. If you choose to think the Pastoral Letters were written by Paul, that’s fine with me, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that your opinion is universally shared among actual NT-scholars.

I don't have a problem with the statement of faith @ 'I got questions' and I don't always agree with everything they write, but I definitely am not going to take anything Wikipedia has to say about theology with much credibility.

Now, Stan, I’m not even 45 years old yet, but I suppose you and I had very different starting points than you had when we began to ‘study’ the Bible. You see, over here in Germany children are taught evolution in biology classes and Genesis 1-2 are used as an example for the documentary hypothesis in the church-approved curriculum for Protestant religion classes in state-schools. All my church’s pastors are trained in historical-critical exegesis, and I never heard any of my pastors claim that Genesis 1-2 opposes natural science.

Yes we indeed do have different starting points. Here evolution is talk in schools and at home I taught my children the Bible and how Evolution was wrong. That's the difference I didn't leave it up to the school system educate my children in their faith. If any Pastor receives proper training in hermeneutical exegesis then they would never arrive at a conclusion that Genesis 1-2 is not literal in form or content. If they are trained that evolution is fact and therefore the Bible must line up to evolution, then there's the problem. In my opinion the one good thing about North America is that we separate church and state.

I agree that it’s good to remember that we might meet our maker any second, be it because of the second coming or be it because we unexpectedly get hit by a bus on the way to work. My point was that Paul did not write theological treatises, but occasional letters that give us a glimpse of his theology. The recipients of these letters would have identified “scripture” here with the OT. The NT did not exist yet. The need for a NT that could be passed on to future generations of Christians came later.

They identified it as scripture plain and simple and the fact that some people decided it all had to be bound up together as one collection or Bible was a good thing. That is done now and the majority of Christianity except the current tenant of scription as just that.

What do you want me to address?

Whatever you didn't.

 

[OzSpen]

As I’ve already pointed out to Trekson in a previous post, the big difference between the Churchfathers’ view on scripture and the modern 20th century notion of verbal inspiration, that creationists hold, is that the former favoured allegorical interpretations of scripture whereas the latter favour a literal interpretation.
Also the churchfathers held reason in high regard and tried to make light of the meaning of scripture with the best ‘scientific’ reason available to them at their time, whereas Trekson – alas - has a clear disdain for reason.
Now, the preference for a literal reading of Scripture is a product of the reformation. But even the reformers interpreted Genesis very differently than modern day creationists do and held the natural sciences in high regard. For example here’s just a short overview of Calvin’s views on “accomodation”: https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/02/04/theories-accommodation-theology-john-calvin/
Accordingly many contemporary conservative Protestants, who believe in verbal inspiration, do no more see a need to reject evolution than they see a need to reject heliocentrism in defense of their view of scripture. IMHO creationism has less to do with being ‘bible-believing’ and more to do with American cultural prejudice that falsely equates evolution and atheism.

junobet,

The facts are that not all of the ECF favoured allegorical interpretation.

Dr John Millam has written a 5 part series that examines the interpretations of the ECF in regard to the early chapters of Genesis, Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers’ Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5).

It could be your advantage to read his scholarship.

Verbal inspiration is not a doctrine of creationists. It is doctrine derived from Scripture. I have addressed some of these aspects in my article, The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals.

There are severe dangers to the church and its theology through allegorical interpretation.

Matthew Allen, in his article, 'Theology Adrift', wrote:

Clement became the leader of the Alexandrian school in AD 190. He saw the literal meaning of Scripture as being a "starting point" for interpretation. Although it was "suitable for the mass of Christians," God revealed himself to the spiritually advanced through the "deeper meaning" of Scripture. In every passage, a deeper or additional meaning existed beyond the primary or immediate sense.40 "The literal sense indicated what was said or done, while the allegorical showed what should be believed."41

Origen, Clement's successor, took his approach to new levels. Origen (along with Augustine) has been considered the most nimble, creative mind of the early church.42 Schaff called him "the greatest scholar of his age, and the most gifted, most industrious, and most cultivated of all the ante-Nicene fathers."43 Origen was a pious man. He "rarely ate flesh, never drank wine; devoted the greater part of the night to prayer and study, and slept on the bare floor."44 He was tortured and condemned to the stake in the Decian persecution, and was saved from martyrdom only upon the death of the emperor.45 For his faith, then, Origen is to be commended. For his theology, however, he is to be severely castigated.

Schaff's delicate suggestion that Origen's "great defect" was the "neglect of the grammatical and historical sense and his constant desire to find a hidden mystic meaning" in the text of the Bible is sheer understatement.46 While Origen did not deny the literal meaning of the text, that most certainly was not his emphasis. Rather, he taught that Scripture has three different, yet complementary meanings: (1) a literal or physical sense, (2) a moral or psychical sense, and (3) an allegorical or intellectual sense.47

To Origen, much of the Bible, if read literally, was intellectually incredible or morally objectionable. An allegorizing interpretation was used to make objectionable passages palatable.48 However, as Bruce has observed: "this approach was largely arbitrary, because the approved interpretation depended so largely on the interpreter's personal preference, and in practice it violated the original intention of the Scriptures and almost obliterated the historical relatedness of the revelation they recorded."49 Farrar similarly declared:

When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter. . . .
Unhappily for the Church, unhappily for any real apprehension of Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest, were completely victorious.50

The dangers of an allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture are nowhere more evident than with regard to Origen himself. Origen taught the pre-existence of souls, universal salvation and a limited hell, doctrines for which he was posthumously condemned as a heretic.51 Despite his late condemnation, the damage had long been done. Through Augustine, Origen's allegorical hermeneutic became the backbone of medieval interpretation of the Bible.

Allegorical interpretation is parallel to postmodern interpretation in the 21st century. It allows any interpreter to invent what he/she wants the text to mean. I don't read your post on this forum in that fashion and neither should I read Scripture with that kind of invention. Imagine what would happen if you read any legal document allegorically?

Oz

 

[kerwin]

StanJ,

The canopy hypothesis is a flawed 19th Century teaching that attempts to explain how all the earth was flooded when according to Scripture the "all" is relative since Arafat and is companion mountains are not highest above sea level.

There is a scientific hypothesis that a hotter core temperature would cause the oceans to become shallower and water within to cover the earth. The continental crust would have also spread making it lower and flatter. In short there would be no need for a water canopy but only a need for the core to heat up and cool up a couple hundred degrees Celsius in a relatively brief period of time. It would be cataclysmic but then the flood was.

Testing such a hypothesis depends on God supplying the evidence otherwise it remains speculation.

What I do know is there is no real Scriptural support for the canopy doctrine but why argue with those that seem not to require it because they choose to suspend disbelief.

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,
The canopy hypothesis is a flawed 19th Century teaching that attempts to explain how all the earth was flooded when according to Scripture the "all" is relative since Arafat and is companion mountains are not highest above sea level.
There is a scientific hypothesis that a hotter core temperature would cause the oceans to become shallower and water within to cover the earth. The continental crust would have also spread making it lower and flatter. In short there would be no need for a water canopy but only a need for the core to heat up and cool up a couple hundred degrees Celsius in a relatively brief period of time. It would be cataclysmic but then the flood was.
Testing such a hypothesis depends on God supplying the evidence otherwise it remains speculation.
What I do know is there is no real Scriptural support for the canopy doctrine but why argue with those that seem not to require it because they choose to suspend disbelief.

Well I wasn't born in the 19th century, I was born in the 20th century and I learned about the canopy of water in my Bible having read Genesis one many many many times.
Like all scientific hypotheses or theories, I don't accept them if they go against the word of God.
The windows of Heaven was the force that God used to hold back the canopy of water from flooding the Earth. The Bible tells us that clearly and I have no problem with accepting its veracity or anything the Bible has to say. When the Bible tells me that the whole world was flooded with water I believe it despite what scientists and geologists like to theorize.

 

[kerwin]

Stan J.

Well I wasn't born in the 19th century, I was born in the 20th century and I learned about the canopy of water in my Bible having read Genesis one many many many times.

I heard it first in a documentary but I see no sign of it in Scripture.

I do see where individuals can misinterpret the words of Genesis 1 that way even today there is water above and it is clouds. Of course considering firmament includes space there water above those clouds.

Genesis 8:1-3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

8 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Heaven did not run out of water but rather the rain was restrained by God. Rain falls from clouds even to this day.

There is not need to invent a canopy to explain as the present existence of rain clouds is an explanation.

Speculating:

If there was any canopy is was simply a denser cloud cover than we had today. If so then the earth would be warmer than it is today and something would have to keep the temperature regulated. The same is true a canopy.

 

[junobet]

junobet,

The facts are that not all of the ECF favoured allegorical interpretation.

Dr John Millam has written a 5 part series that examines the interpretations of the ECF in regard to the early chapters of Genesis, Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers’ Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5).

It could be your advantage to read his scholarship.

Verbal inspiration is not a doctrine of creationists. It is doctrine derived from Scripture. I have addressed some of these aspects in my article, The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals.

There are severe dangers to the church and its theology through allegorical interpretation.

Matthew Allen, in his article, 'Theology Adrift', wrote:

Allegorical interpretation is parallel to postmodern interpretation in the 21st century. It allows any interpreter to invent what he/she wants the text to mean. I don't read your post on this forum in that fashion and neither should I read Scripture with that kind of invention. Imagine what would happen if you read any legal document allegorically?

Oz

Well, Oz, the only postmodern philosophy I am halfway familiar with is poststructuralism. Applying it when interpreting the Bible I would not arrive at questioning the Bible so much, but I would ask myself in how far my interpretation of Biblical texts is influenced by the discourses and traditional ideas that shaped my lines of thinking. Likewise I would ask for the discourses and worldviews that shaped the original authors’ thinking. In case of Genesis 1 that would be the experience of Babylonian captivity that led small Israel to boldly declare that their God is the only God there is, who created everything including those things the super-powers around them worshipped as Gods. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story
https://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf
I must say you showed an ironical lack of poststructuralist self-critique, when in your article you claimed that you arrived at the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy by your own independent study, only to mention the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in the very same paragraph.
Now, coming from a modern German mainline Protestant family, I was never taught that all Biblical stories are historically factual. But even if I assumed they are, the Bible itself would clearly point me to it, that its accounts aren’t inerrant. So what do you suggest I should have told my Sunday School kids: Did God create plants first and then human beings (Gen 1:11/Gen 1: 27) or did He create people first and then plants (Gen 2.4-9)? Did Noah bring “two of each living creature” on the ark (Gen 7:15), or did he bring “seven pairs[b] of every clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of the unclean animals, a male and its mate; 3 along with seven pairs[c] of the flying birds, male and female” (Gen 7:2)? Did God tell David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), or was it Satan (I Chronicles 21:2)? What’s the outcome of that census? Were there 800,000 men trained for war in Israel and 500,000 in Judah (2 Samuel 24:9) or 1,100,000 men trained for war in Israel and 470,000 in Judah? (I Chronicles 21:5) … etc. etc.
As for the church fathers: not sure which literal interpreters you have in mind, but you are surely right that some of the churchfathers’ allegorical interpretations could go to ridiculous lengths. However, if you reject their allegorical interpretations altogether, that leaves me with the question I entered this thread with: how come then, that you believe – well, I suppose you believe - that God created everything out of nothing, which is an Augustinian doctrine based on a highly allegorical reading of Genesis?

 

[OzSpen]

Well, Oz, the only postmodern philosophy I am halfway familiar with is poststructuralism. Applying it when interpreting the Bible I would not arrive at questioning the Bible so much, but I would ask myself in how far my interpretation of Biblical texts is influenced by the discourses and traditional ideas that shaped my lines of thinking. Likewise I would ask for the discourses and worldviews that shaped the original authors’ thinking. In case of Genesis 1 that would be the experience of Babylonian captivity that led small Israel to boldly declare that their God is the only God there is, who created everything including those things the super-powers around them worshipped as Gods. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story
https://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf
I must say you showed an ironical lack of poststructuralist self-critique, when in your article you claimed that you arrived at the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy by your own independent study, only to mention the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in the very same paragraph.
Now, coming from a modern German mainline Protestant family, I was never taught that all Biblical stories are historically factual. But even if I assumed they are, the Bible itself would clearly point me to it, that its accounts aren’t inerrant. So what do you suggest I should have told my Sunday School kids: Did God create plants first and then human beings (Gen 1:11/Gen 1: 27) or did He create people first and then plants (Gen 2.4-9)? Did Noah bring “two of each living creature” on the ark (Gen 7:15), or did he bring “seven pairs[b] of every clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of the unclean animals, a male and its mate; 3 along with seven pairs[c] of the flying birds, male and female” (Gen 7:2)? Did God tell David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), or was it Satan (I Chronicles 21:2)? What’s the outcome of that census? Were there 800,000 men trained for war in Israel and 500,000 in Judah (2 Samuel 24:9) or 1,100,000 men trained for war in Israel and 470,000 in Judah? (I Chronicles 21:5) … etc. etc.
As for the church fathers: not sure which literal interpreters you have in mind, but you are surely right that some of the churchfathers’ allegorical interpretations could go to ridiculous lengths. However, if you reject their allegorical interpretations altogether, that leaves me with the question I entered this thread with: how come then, that you believe – well, I suppose you believe - that God created everything out of nothing, which is an Augustinian doctrine based on a highly allegorical reading of Genesis?

junobet,

If you had read the link I provided to Dr John Millam's article, you would know who the literal interpreters were in the ECF. However, many of the church fathers from about the third century (with Origen) moved to allegorical interpretation, thus imposing their own views on the text. I would not dare to read and respond to your post in an allegorical way, would I?

I suggest you become familiar with postmodernism. It has some relationship to post-structuralism in Christianity. If you want to see how postmodernists change the meaning of biblical texts (like allegorical preachers do), take a read of some of the Jesus Seminar folks such as John Dominic Crossan and the late Marcus Borg.

Oz

 

[kerwin]

Junobet;

Did God tell David to take a census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1), or was it Satan (I Chronicles 21:2)?

Both, since Satan has to get God's permission to tempt either all or certain people.

On topic:

The apparent dependency between Gen 1 and 2 is that God created plants and the foresaw what would occur when conditions were right for the plants to spread throughout the world.

 

[JPPT1974]

God created the heaven and earth. It is about how He created the world. And how He created the heaven. Plus how His perfect world went into sin. With the very first sin by Adam and Eve and the very first murder of Abel by Cain.

 

[StanJ]

I heard it first in a documentary but I see no sign of it in Scripture

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201%3A6-8&version=NET;NIV;NRSV;NLT;HCSB

I do see where individuals can misinterpret the words of Genesis 1 that way even today there is water above and it is clouds. Of course considering firmament includes space there water above those clouds.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201%3A6-8&version=NET;NIV;NRSV;NLT;HCSB

Genesis 8:1-3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
8 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abate
Heaven did not run out of water but rather the rain was restrained by God. Rain falls from clouds even to this day.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+8%3A1-3&version=NET;NIV;NRSV;NLT;HCSB

There is not need to invent a canopy to explain as the present existence of rain clouds is an explanation.

It's not an invention, it's what the Bible says and you're forgetting about Genesis 2:5-6 which explains there was no rain, nor rain clouds for that matter, up until the flood came. Because of the canopy of water their were no clouds because there was no water evaporation.

Speculating:
If there was any canopy is was simply a denser cloud cover than we had today. If so then the earth would be warmer than it is today and something would have to keep the temperature regulated. The same is true a canopy.

I don't speculate and neither does the Bible... what it says is true!