Nice touch, Ed-

Have you had opportunity to read The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walter?  http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref...

If so, you'll know that Walter is one who believes in verbal inspiration of scripture and its inerrancy, and must annually sign this belief to retain his position as OT Profession at Wheaton. That is a good deal more straight laced and literal than the SDA position on scripture.  Right?

Well, Walter believes that Genesis is perfectly in harmony with pretty much all of evolution science, his term, with the exception of Adam and Eve, whom he argues Genesis affirms were created by the hand of God--which he is also required to sign off on annually to retain his professorship at Wheaton.

If you've read his book, you'll know that Walters looks at the words and finds (not interprets) that the word 'create' is utterly misused, even abused, by those who believe Genesis describes material creation.  Instead, he persuasively argues that the Hebrew word translated 'create' has either a 'functional' or a 'material' use, and not once in scripture is this word unambiguously used to describe material creation.  It is always used to describe functional creation, or it is ambiguous in its usage.

Oh, and Walters, as you would know if you have read his work, has a great chapter on the Sabbath, which clearly is not a material creation.  And, as is his pattern with each of the other chapters, cites inspiration and technical support, in this case citing two references, one of which is the PhD disseration of one Neils-Erik Andreasen, president of Andrews University.

So, Ed, supposing Walters is onto someting, just how would you suggest apporaching those who are locked into Genesis as describing material creation, and a GC President who is on record as wanting to accelerate the church train down that track?

Bill

Hi Ed,

You said: 

"I'm saying that if we want to know what makes biblical truth timeless, we must first ask what made it timely. If we begin to understand what the author intended his audience to receive, then we begin to understand its meaning and significance for our day."

You make it clear you believe "Genesis intend[s] to clearly establish the relationships between God, Humanity, and the Earth" and show "that Man, Woman, and Earth need each other to fulfill God's plan for their greatest happiness." Ok, but what about the details of the creation account? For example, the author talks about six days of creation, certain kinds of animals being created on particular days, God resting on the seventh day, etc.

The message I'm getting is the details of the creation week aren't necessarily important. They might have had some meaning for the audience of that time, but not necessarily to us today. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe it's abundantly clear the author of Genesis intended to communicate that God made the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. The author also made it clear what was created on each day of creation. It also seems evident that the audience of that time also understood it that way too.

I'd also be interested in hearing more about what you mean by a literary approach to the Bible. I believe the Bible is more than just great literature. It is divine revelation and thus must be approached differently than any other book and must be its own interpreter.

Shane Hilde 

Greetings Ed,

I remember you guest lecturing for a class I took with Dr. Paulien in the seminary a few years ago. I appreciated your thoughts.

With that being said, you raised this point:

If we begin to understand what the author intended his audience to receive, then we begin to understand its meaning and significance for our day.

I am glad that Dr. Richard Davidson cautioned me against this "authorial intent" ditch that so many get into when studying the Bible. Simply put: we have no idea what the author "intended" his audience to receive because we simply do not have that information. Moses - or whomever one would like to say wrote Genesis - is not sitting next to us, explaining what he meant by what he wrote. The only thing we have to go on is the text itself. We get into enough trouble trying to interpret the intent of those who are living today, never mind  those living 6000+ years ago. So let's allow the text to tell us what it means, not what we think Moses had in mind. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise in subjective interpretation. I posted some thoughts on this issue on my blog about a year ago here: http://newenglandpastor.blogspot.com/2009/05/intent.html

Together with that, although the text was written thousands of years ago and was supposedly intended for its original audience, we also know that "all scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). So, in many ways, the original Author's - the Holy Spirit's -  audience was not just them, but us as well. This is not to say that Genesis addresses all of our scientific questions, as you have pointed out, but that we, too, are the "original audience" and can glean from it as the Holy Spirit directs us.  

Shawn,

Your comment nailed it on the head. Your comment expressed what was swirling around in my head after reading Ed's article. I couldn't put my finger on how exactly to word it. 

Shawn,

I also believe the Bible is more than great literature. But it is literature, the product of a human mind (yes, under divine inspiration), written in one way rather than another. Some things are included, others omitted, and by examining these we can approach what the author and audience were getting from the text.

"So let's allow the text to tell us what it means, not what we think Moses had in mind. Otherwise, it just becomes an exercise in subjective interpretation. I posted some thoughts on this issue on my blog about a year ago."

We know of other writings-- epistles mentioned by Paul, etc. -- that were not preserved for us in Scripture. So, if we believe God was in charge of the overall project, we have to believe that the ones preserved and included in the canon were preserved for a purpose (I am not here addressing the topic of how the canon came about). 

So when we address a particular book, like Genesis, we have to look at the purpose of that particular book. Yes, it fits into the Pentateuch, etc. But Genesis itself has a purpose, at least some of which can be deduced from what is written there. 

If we believe in inspiration, then we believe that God had some reason for inspiring Moses to write Genesis, something that his contemporary audience needed to know.  By examining the text, we can approach (note that word) an understanding of what its importance was at the time.

Keeping in mind all the time that "we kinow in part, and we prophesy in part," is a help in all this. But I reiterate that if we do not know what made the message timely, then we have little basis for understanding why it was preserved for us, and what makes it timeless.

You spoke of "a ditch," and I agree that balance is important in all these things. But Adventists in particular are all too quick to interpret symbols in Revelation, for example, with newspaper headlines. Yes, God was talkiing to us in the Bible. But He was not speaking only or exclusively to us. It meant something to its original audience, and the closer we can approach that meaning, the more clearly we will be able to apply it to today's needs.

My specific point in the discussion of Genesis 1&2 is that it is easy to say that one is the product of Elohists, and the other the product of J,P, or D. I simply propose that we ought to at least entertain the idea that both chapters are part of an organic whole, not necessarily competing narratives by contending schools of thought.

Hi Ed,

I think you're confusing Shawn Brace and myself. Shawn and Shane are often confused, so its not a big deal other than it would be clearer who you're talking to if you used my name. 

I agree that Genesis 1 & 2 are not "competing narratives by contending schools of thought."

You said: "Yes, God was talkiing to us in the Bible. But He was not speaking only or exclusively to us. It meant something to its original audience, and the closer we can approach that meaning, the more clearly we will be able to apply it to today's needs."

I could be wrong, but its my understanding that there are some prophecies that were specific to God's end time church (his remnant). There are prophecies that had dual application such as in Matthew.

You said: "I'm saying that if we want to know what makes biblical truth timeless, we must first ask what made it timely. If we begin to understand what the author intended his audience to receive, then we begin to understand its meaning and significance for our day."

I believe one significant fact that makes the Bible timeless is because "God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation" (GC d4). This theme speaks to everyone at all times. I believe the Bible transcends its cultural backgrounds to serve as God’s word for all cultural, racial, and situational contexts in all ages. We should recognize though that the Bible, despite being relevant to all people throughout time, it was given to specific cultures and times. So I 'assume the transcultural and transtemporal relevancy of biblical instruction unless Scripture itself gives criteria limiting this relevancy" (Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 85, 86).

Shane 

"I could be wrong, but its my understanding that there are some prophecies that were specific to God's end time church (his remnant). There are prophecies that had dual application such as in Matthew."

The only book that was "sealed" for the time of the end was Daniel, and we know that the book was read by exiles in Babylon. It is a fascinating example of how literary structure communicates truth.

Revelation was specifically intended to be understood by its contemporary audience, as evidenced by Rev. 1:3 It is impossible to "heed" or "take to heart" that which cannot be understood. 

And Matthew is one of my favorite examples of how literary structure illuminates the author's use of preceding scriptural sources.

I take it as a given that the Bible is filled with timeless truth. But when we see the acceptance of slavery, or women as chatte in the Old Testament, is that timeless turth?

If we just say "no," without some consistent hermeneutic for doing so, we simply claim that we know better than that. Then we can easily "know better" than to accept a six-day Creation, or any creation, for that matter.

What I call "the critical error" regards the Bible as a merely human document. Indeed, many who make this error treat it worse than most other human documents, dicing and slicing as they would never do with another work.

In reaction to that came the "fundamentalist error," which essentially regards the book as solely divine. Every word in the original, so this idea goes, was chosen by God himself.

That's why I find the approach of Ellen White to this topic refreshing. She uses the Incarnation as her model of inspiration, thus making the Bible wholly human and wholly divine. The words of men become the Word of God. 

God did not choose to write all his communications with humans with his own finger, in letters of fire on tables of stone. He chose to include humans. I'm suggesting that we should recognize this human element in the foromation of scripture..

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson

"The only book that was "sealed" for the time of the end was Daniel, and we know that the book was read by exiles in Babylon."

 Would you mind sharing the evidence for the exiles in Babylon reading the Book of Daniel?  If it is true that nearly all Bible scholars and historians agree that this book was not written until late in the 2nd century, fragments of which are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Daniel is mentioned in the book of the Macabees, what evidence is there for an earlier date? 

Actually, the evidence is far stronger for  a sixth century BC date for Daniel. Here's on easy link to examine some of the evidence.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.htm

As time goes on archeology uncovers more and more support for the early date for Daniel.

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson

Ed,

I was just reading that very same paper about the dating of the book of Daniel. I have not finished it yet, but so far it's very good. It's interesting that with the Isaiah scrolls this argument does not work because the carbon dating at the very least dates the scroll to over 100 years before Christ. So even if I conceded to someone that Isaiah was not written during the 8th century, that person would still have to contend with the evidence that shows the scrolls we have today to still be at least 100 years before Christ.

But scroll dates are off topic for this thread.

You've made some good points in your comments that have further clarified to me where you're coming from. There are still some areas that are vague to me. 

Ed,

 You've got a great sense of humor.  Check the link for a good laugh!

Shane,

Thanks for your interest. Vagueness is inevitable with a 600 word limit, and trying to limit my replies so as not to filibuster.

Elaine,

Sorry for the problem, somehow the "l" got off the end of the link.

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson

Elaine,

Try this link. It works for me:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html 

It looks exactly the same as the link Ed gave you, but the actual hyperlink is still missing an "l". It works just fine for me. If all else fails, cut and paste the link above.

Shane 

O.K. that link finally worked!

According to the Jewish theologians and historians (after all, they are the ones from whom we received the book of Daniel), there are two distinct portions of Daniel, perhaps written centuries apart.  The anachronisms give evidence that the writer was much later than 500 B.C.  The Jerusalem Bible gives the dates 167-164 B.C. with this note:

"The historical setting of the story undoubtedly disregards known facts, persons and dates and contains anacrhonisms in detail; the meaning of the book for its first readers was to be found in its insight into the present and the future in the purposes of God.  It is the last expressions of messianic prophecy in the Old Testament."

In chapters 1-6, Daniel is spoken of in the third person; in chapters 7-12, Daniel speaks of himself in the first person,"I, Daniel..."  The majority of modern scholars agree that the focus of attention is on the very end of that succession, that is, on the very time when the author of Daniel ws composing cahpters 7-12 a time in the second century B.C. when the land of Israel, having been ruled previously by the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, were under the oppresive control of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  It was Antiochus  who set up an altar consecrated to Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem and forced Jewish participation in pagan religious rites upon pain of death.  The book of Daniel seems to have been composed shortly after that time.

This also agrees with the "Interpreter's Bible" on Daniel.   

That's certainly the traditional argument. But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Here's one piece from the site listed earlier: ""The very fact that the book was translated by the Septuagint translators in 285/2 to 246 B.C. also tells us that the book could not have been written in 164 B.C.** And the fact that these translators did not know how to translate various Persian words indicates that the book was originally written long before the early third century B.C

If indeed the 'majority of scholars' date the composition of Daniel in the second century B.C., then they apparently believe in a miracle, since the Septuagint translators somehow translated it a century before it was composed.

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson

Most commentators agree that there are two separate parts of the book of Daniel, one is written in first person "I, Daniel" and part is written in the third person.

Both the Jewish and Catholic Encyclopedias conclude that Daniel is dated in the late 2nd century, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. While the story of Daniel and the fiery furnace is recorded in the Macabees, the desecration of the altar describes very accurately Daniel's account. 

Being neither Jewish nor Catholic, I try to look at all the credible evidence I can find.

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson

Yet, inevitably, we have to rely on both the Jews and the catholic church to have both written and preserved the Book of Daniel.  We all choose what we prefer to call "credible evidence." 

They have given us these books, as well as the entire Bible:  From the Jews we got the OT, and from the catholic church we got the NT:  both of them compiled, edited, redacted and gave us those books, so we should at least give them due deference in interpreting their own writings, shouldn't we?  

How is "credible evidence" determined?  Admittedly, we all have preconceptions about what we read, but for the historical evidence we are completely dependent on contemporary evidence: Philo, Josephus, and others.  Additionally, literary and linguistic analysis aids us. 

What evidence have you determined to be credible and what was the deciding factor to choose one over the others? 

One of my favorite observations about God's revelation is the following: "God speaks to us not so much to inform us as to evoke a response." The scholarly study and analysis of scripture, stimulating and rewarding as it may be, should never blind us to its overarching themes. God's word is not given to us as a problem to be fixed or a puzzle to be solved. It is a plea from beyond time and space, set in a temporal context, for a relationship of love and trust with our creator and His creation.

I think, in His passion for freedom, God has built into His creation data that can feed doubt as well as data that feeds faith. It is our choice. God's revelation seldom comes to us as the coercive logic of mathematics. It can be viewed as informational, transformational, or sometimes both. But in the faith community, if our questions and answers are not primarily feeding the life of faith and trust, they are probably feeding distrust and doubt, undermining our relationship with God.   

A conclusion that I came to some years ago is that the entire Bible is an explanation of the first 4 chapters of Genesis. Go to absolutely any book in th Bible and you will find connections to these first 4 chapters if you know what you are looking for.

What is really needed is a conference where papers can be presented on the subject. We do know that one had better have a good working knowledge of the entire Bible before one seeks to understand Revelation. It is the same for Genesis.

 Want to have some fun? Study Genesis and Revelation together. The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, shed enormous light on each other.

A major problem is that, imo, most people don't really know what's going on in the first chapters of Genesis. Beale and Kline have done some exciting work in terms of explaining Genesis.

chris mack,

Agree with you. Warren Austin Gage also has done some very interesting work in "The Gospel of Genesis."  Protology and Eschatology. Fascinating.

Ed Dickerson, AToday Web Columnist

http://www.atoday.com/cw/dickerson