Some one asked the question of the title, above, as a comment to a past post.
This is a blog, not an answer service, so I don't answer questions, just for the record.
I will admit comments that are considered comments or reasoned discussion that has a concise and thoughtful point to make, but nothing else, I am not interested in word count contests.
All I can suggest to the dinosaur man is that he considers Genesis 1:24, 2:16 and 7:17ff and then consider if he thinks that the Bible refers to the real world, or the world of the mystic to be arbitrarily referred to this-world events at the readers' convenience.
25 February 2009
11 February 2009
Genesis & date information
As an exercise I did a rough analysis of the arrangement of Genesis 1-11 in respect of the occurance of date information.
Others might like to analyse this further, to see if it leads anywhere in particular, but I found that about 19% of verses in Genesis 1 are concerned with dating the action reported, and again about 19% of verses in Genesis 1-11 have the same concern, with a couple of major groupings as though they were calibrations of the timing of action.
See the diagram I prepared.
Others might like to analyse this further, to see if it leads anywhere in particular, but I found that about 19% of verses in Genesis 1 are concerned with dating the action reported, and again about 19% of verses in Genesis 1-11 have the same concern, with a couple of major groupings as though they were calibrations of the timing of action.
See the diagram I prepared.
Things we Learn from Genesis 1...
What turns on our view of Genesis 1? That is, what if it were a direct relation of actual events that occurred in our space-time frame of reference? Or, what if it were a metaphor for a naturalistic origination of the world, but the Israelites wanted their God to have a slice of the action, so they composed a litany that reflected their belief? The world, of course would be really other than how it is presented in Genesis 1, so it would be difficult to hold that it told us any more than the belief-content of ancient Israel culture.
There are a range of positions between these two poles, with differing shades of theistic reliance and belief, with differing underlying views of the cosmos and its history; many however, even though theistic in language and ostensible reference, are in fact materialist, and presuppose, even if implicitly, the existence of the cosmos in its own terms. Frequent reference to ‘nature’ can be a dead give away to this line of thinking, as it rejects at the outset that we live in a ‘creation’ rather than a ‘nature’. Nature implies a level of independence of a creator that flies in the face of the direct intent of Genesis 1, and much else in the Bible. It buys into naturalism, then pretends to find naturalist postulates a convincing cause of a meta-analogical interpretation of Genesis 1. Some theologies are that screwed up as to what they believe and what it means that they think the obviously opposing positions of evolution and creation are able to be harmonised. Not so, of course, and the trace of the history of modern evolutionary thought is a large scale demonstration of the divide between the two.
Much of what I say will be on the surface uncontroversial, even with the less orthodox, but even if that is the case at the surface level, my contention is that if the direct meaning of Genesis 1 is rejected, then it can have no relation to events in this time-space field that are congruent with relations between processes and entities that we understand because the only things it sets out to describe are such events contingent on that very field. If it is in fact describing some other events, we would not know and could not know, so would have no reliable way of making such a second order reference.
Thing 1
God is the author of the cosmos, would be a pretty obvious thing that we learn here. Consequentially, the cosmos is not self-sufficient and thus is contingent. It also has a beginning, so history’s ground is a continuum of events and relations that require a primal event initiated from outside the cosmos and that the underpinning primal relationship for all subsequent events is with God.
Thing 2
God’s existence is presumed, but not proved. It may be that retroactively the very existence of the cosmos is such a proof (else how there could be something, moreover something contingent, rather than nothing must be otherwise proven. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such a proof, incidentally, but this may be a limitation of my reading, rather then anything else). By extension, I think we can surmise that God is uncaused and therefore without beginning. A beginning requires time, and it would seem that time is a dimension of the physical creation, so the question implodes.
Thing 3
Not only is the cosmos, specifically the earth, itself contingent, but within it are systems of interdependency that indicate a cascade of dependency of parts (beings and non-beings) with each other. The sequence of creative acts on the days in the light of what we can see as to the operation of the world in sustaining life seems to indicate this (starting with space and energy, ending with mankind, via earth, plants, animals which Adam is called to name as a first act of a) knowing himself and his need for companionship, and b) knowing the world he is to superintend with that companion). This cascade of reliance on other factors, processes or beings for the sustenance of the life of any particular being would seem to provide clues to Adam and Eve and their progeny in their work of superintending the creation. They are the first scientific information about the creation. Domains and relationships are clearly set out in Genesis 1 and the nature of procreation is also set out (after their kind, a broad category of a creature’s type, not to be confused with our modern construct of ‘species).
Thing 4
The real is not finally or ultimately material, but as it has its source in an act of will, by one who is love (1 John 4:7). Two considerations come from this. Firstly, material is not a prime constituent of the cosmos; it is not fundamentally real or holder of its existence in itself (follows from Thing 1). Secondly, and as the corollary, the real is finally and fundamentally personal. Love therefore is not whim, or of no final or basic significance, but is part of the basic property of relations within the cosmos. Paul tells us that all that will survive is love (1 Cor 13:13 and prec.). Nevertheless, the material is real, substantial and in itself good: Adam was created out of clay, and the domain of the material is the one in which we are called to covenant in terms that make sense only in that domain.
Thing 5
The effect of God’s word is immediately effective in creating and ordering material. This supposes, of course, that the text means what its direct grammatical sense indicates, and that natural providence is not operating during the 6 days.
Thing 6
The connection between God’s word and its creative effect is unmediated (except by Christ, of course: John 1:1-3)
Thing 7
Extending from Thing 3, all creation has both a logical and personal dependence on God. From this flows the strength of God’s chief claim in relation to us that he is our creator.
Thing 8
God created us for action in his cosmos on our own account, but in relation with him, both filial and dependent, but not, I suggest deterministically. God had set us as vicegerents over creation with, it would appear delegated ‘authority’, exemplified in Adam’s naming of the animals. This had a couple of purposes: developing the grounds for Eve’s creation, and introducing Adam to his relationship with the creation: to analyse, understand a creation that is comprehensible and subject to examination and enquiry.
Thing 9
The creation is the setting of God’s relationship (covenants) with we, his creation. This underpins all aspects of our relationship with God, gives the significance of the fall, and provides the pivot on which turns God’s action to overcome the fall and restore relationship…in a recreation of the world, not in some ethereal non-physical setting. The fact that the creation provides the setting for covenant brings the point of the creation: it is the field of action between God and man, intended for action denominated in love and harmony, but broken so that the action is denominated in strive and trouble.
Thing 10
The last major thing that I see (at the moment) is the most potentially confounding for systems that have their thought forms moulded by the western tradition: or any paganistic tradition, for that matter: we cannot get behind particulars to abstract universals, in the platonic sense: the particular is germane to consideration of it in its relationships. It is the system of relationships that provide the grounding for our thinking about life, and it is only realist approaches that meet both the demands of love (I think of Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" that shows what wickedness follows when ideas, ideals and theories are put before the welfare and benefits of one's fellows) and reflect the characteristics of this world as indicated in the Bible in its continuous realist implicit reference to the world created as reported in Genesis 1, as being the very world, from the word of God which is suitable for the formation of, for the grounding and circumscribing his covenant to lead to to final joy in his presence.
Notably the terms that delimit the covenant, its grounding (ultimately in Christ, of course), and its structure are those that are coterminous with our everyday life experience, where we action is bounded in every way by space and time.
There are a range of positions between these two poles, with differing shades of theistic reliance and belief, with differing underlying views of the cosmos and its history; many however, even though theistic in language and ostensible reference, are in fact materialist, and presuppose, even if implicitly, the existence of the cosmos in its own terms. Frequent reference to ‘nature’ can be a dead give away to this line of thinking, as it rejects at the outset that we live in a ‘creation’ rather than a ‘nature’. Nature implies a level of independence of a creator that flies in the face of the direct intent of Genesis 1, and much else in the Bible. It buys into naturalism, then pretends to find naturalist postulates a convincing cause of a meta-analogical interpretation of Genesis 1. Some theologies are that screwed up as to what they believe and what it means that they think the obviously opposing positions of evolution and creation are able to be harmonised. Not so, of course, and the trace of the history of modern evolutionary thought is a large scale demonstration of the divide between the two.
Much of what I say will be on the surface uncontroversial, even with the less orthodox, but even if that is the case at the surface level, my contention is that if the direct meaning of Genesis 1 is rejected, then it can have no relation to events in this time-space field that are congruent with relations between processes and entities that we understand because the only things it sets out to describe are such events contingent on that very field. If it is in fact describing some other events, we would not know and could not know, so would have no reliable way of making such a second order reference.
Thing 1
God is the author of the cosmos, would be a pretty obvious thing that we learn here. Consequentially, the cosmos is not self-sufficient and thus is contingent. It also has a beginning, so history’s ground is a continuum of events and relations that require a primal event initiated from outside the cosmos and that the underpinning primal relationship for all subsequent events is with God.
Thing 2
God’s existence is presumed, but not proved. It may be that retroactively the very existence of the cosmos is such a proof (else how there could be something, moreover something contingent, rather than nothing must be otherwise proven. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such a proof, incidentally, but this may be a limitation of my reading, rather then anything else). By extension, I think we can surmise that God is uncaused and therefore without beginning. A beginning requires time, and it would seem that time is a dimension of the physical creation, so the question implodes.
Thing 3
Not only is the cosmos, specifically the earth, itself contingent, but within it are systems of interdependency that indicate a cascade of dependency of parts (beings and non-beings) with each other. The sequence of creative acts on the days in the light of what we can see as to the operation of the world in sustaining life seems to indicate this (starting with space and energy, ending with mankind, via earth, plants, animals which Adam is called to name as a first act of a) knowing himself and his need for companionship, and b) knowing the world he is to superintend with that companion). This cascade of reliance on other factors, processes or beings for the sustenance of the life of any particular being would seem to provide clues to Adam and Eve and their progeny in their work of superintending the creation. They are the first scientific information about the creation. Domains and relationships are clearly set out in Genesis 1 and the nature of procreation is also set out (after their kind, a broad category of a creature’s type, not to be confused with our modern construct of ‘species).
Thing 4
The real is not finally or ultimately material, but as it has its source in an act of will, by one who is love (1 John 4:7). Two considerations come from this. Firstly, material is not a prime constituent of the cosmos; it is not fundamentally real or holder of its existence in itself (follows from Thing 1). Secondly, and as the corollary, the real is finally and fundamentally personal. Love therefore is not whim, or of no final or basic significance, but is part of the basic property of relations within the cosmos. Paul tells us that all that will survive is love (1 Cor 13:13 and prec.). Nevertheless, the material is real, substantial and in itself good: Adam was created out of clay, and the domain of the material is the one in which we are called to covenant in terms that make sense only in that domain.
Thing 5
The effect of God’s word is immediately effective in creating and ordering material. This supposes, of course, that the text means what its direct grammatical sense indicates, and that natural providence is not operating during the 6 days.
Thing 6
The connection between God’s word and its creative effect is unmediated (except by Christ, of course: John 1:1-3)
Thing 7
Extending from Thing 3, all creation has both a logical and personal dependence on God. From this flows the strength of God’s chief claim in relation to us that he is our creator.
Thing 8
God created us for action in his cosmos on our own account, but in relation with him, both filial and dependent, but not, I suggest deterministically. God had set us as vicegerents over creation with, it would appear delegated ‘authority’, exemplified in Adam’s naming of the animals. This had a couple of purposes: developing the grounds for Eve’s creation, and introducing Adam to his relationship with the creation: to analyse, understand a creation that is comprehensible and subject to examination and enquiry.
Thing 9
The creation is the setting of God’s relationship (covenants) with we, his creation. This underpins all aspects of our relationship with God, gives the significance of the fall, and provides the pivot on which turns God’s action to overcome the fall and restore relationship…in a recreation of the world, not in some ethereal non-physical setting. The fact that the creation provides the setting for covenant brings the point of the creation: it is the field of action between God and man, intended for action denominated in love and harmony, but broken so that the action is denominated in strive and trouble.
Thing 10
The last major thing that I see (at the moment) is the most potentially confounding for systems that have their thought forms moulded by the western tradition: or any paganistic tradition, for that matter: we cannot get behind particulars to abstract universals, in the platonic sense: the particular is germane to consideration of it in its relationships. It is the system of relationships that provide the grounding for our thinking about life, and it is only realist approaches that meet both the demands of love (I think of Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" that shows what wickedness follows when ideas, ideals and theories are put before the welfare and benefits of one's fellows) and reflect the characteristics of this world as indicated in the Bible in its continuous realist implicit reference to the world created as reported in Genesis 1, as being the very world, from the word of God which is suitable for the formation of, for the grounding and circumscribing his covenant to lead to to final joy in his presence.
Notably the terms that delimit the covenant, its grounding (ultimately in Christ, of course), and its structure are those that are coterminous with our everyday life experience, where we action is bounded in every way by space and time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)