Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Resource Links

List of resources on Genesis 1, a kind of electronic 'reader'.

In the Beginning God by Hoeksema, a brief book on the biblical theology of Genesis 1.

Reformed articles on Creation

The Framework Hypothesis: from the Reformed site.

Creation or Evolution?

Evolution, Long Periods, or Days?


A collection of articles from Spindleworks (note, I've not linked to those articles that do not accord with the views of this blog):

Creation

Genesis 1 vs the Framework Hypothesis


The length of creation days


Another look at the Framework hypothesis.

From the Biblical Hermeneutics site:

Critical review of the Framework hypothesis

Historical review of Genesis comment.

Pipa's critique of the Framework idea


Gerhard Hasel on the Days


Text and Truth in Genesis Creation Story


A couple of articles by E J Young on the days of genesis 1

here

and

here

These links come by way of the excellent Biblical Studies website.

Interestingly, Young deals with the framework hypothesis back in 1963. I note that at an ISCAST talk a few years ago an Anglican minister: John Dixon, gave a talk that was completely oblivious to Young's work, and trotted out the same tired old arguments for the framework that Young deals with. One would at least expect a level of interaction with the literature in a putatively scholarly paper! But no. Not in Sydney!

Also refer to a paper by McCabe in the Detriot Baptist Seminary Jrnl on the days of Genesis 1.

McCabe has published a couple of long articles on the framework hypothesis that are also worth a read, but not yet published on the DBS website.


The six days of creation
from Banner of Truth

In the beginning God from Banner of Truth


On the days of Creation
from the Banner of Truth (Framework view discussed)

Genesis: literal or literary (Banner of Truth)

The significance of creation
(Banner of Truth)


Review of a 6 Day Creation conference
(Banner of Truth)

36 comments:

neil moore said...

Eric, thanks very much for these helpful links.

Neil Moore

geoffc said...

just a quick question concerning John (or whoever he is). do you all agree with everything he says, and the manner in which he carries himself?

I get the vibe you don't, but I view you all as in solidarity with one another. So I'm not sure.

I'm also keen to hear you all post on penal substitutionary atonement, as I've asked previously. Syd Angs treasure this doctrine, yet I've read before that John (and I assume you all) don't. It perplexes me actually, both whypeople with a high view of scripture disbelieve such doctrine, and why it is not another focal point on this blog along with Israel and Evolution.

John said...

Ah yes, the divide-and-conquer tactic.

Let me ask you something: Do you uphold the dishonest approach that the majority of SADS have toward the plain meaning of Scripture and how keen they are to invest time and effort in inventing unholy theories that make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar and/or con artist?

Re, substitutionary atonement, we are not here to be dictated the terms of engagement by you guys as though we have been called to explain ourselves to some sort of papal panel of inquisition.

The irony is that regardless of my slant on atonement, the clarity of any view on this matter is less perspicuous than what the Scriptures say about origins. Yet, you can't even read a straightforward historical passage that Moses wrote that even atheists can understand as saying what it means and meaning what it says. I mean, for example, look at the rubbish Dave Lankshear is now writing. Poor Dave thinks God is reactive and waited until the pagans wrote a fairytale called the Enuma Elish and then hundreds of years later got some unknown Jewish "idiot" to copy, kind of, that tale, make some changes, and presto, here's Genesis 1, the Jewish slant, though not exactly an accurate account of things.

Of course my tone is not acceptable to you guys. Why would I endeavour to be two-faced. With me, what you see is what you get. When you traduce God and his word and then whisper to each other to see who can appear more righteous, and every opportunity that presents itself you put a knife in some guy's back, while piously smiling at him, do you really think I'd have a polite tone toward you guys. White-washed tombs with dead men's bones!

All these demands from a guy whose singular purpose was to exculpate Mr Rudeness himself, that's right folks, Mr Anti-Semite 2008, that armchair naturalist, Gordon Cheng.

Excuse me while I throwup!

Dave Lankshear said...

Wow... so John now the gospel itself is less important than reading Genesis 1 literally? Cool.

Oh, and I never called Moses an 'idiot' or put it in quite the wonderful way you manage to twist things with your own slipperiness.

So, for all your regulars... this is why John is in such a cranky mood. My comment over at Craigs blog...

"Oh, really?

Re-writing a known parable/myth for Christian purposes, as well as reinterpreting the moral of the story ALSO magically turns the myth into literal truth?

Wow! If only I could get someone to invent a myth about how David Lankshear became a billionaire, and then I 'converted' their myth for Christian purposes. Cool!

John, 'inter-textual reference' means that Genesis 1 is actually reinterpreting and referencing the Enuma Elish and therefore is a category of writing that CANNOT be literally true. To read it 'literally' is to ignore the literary category. You asked me why a literary device means it cannot also be literally true — simply because this literary device of inter-textual reference to another pagan creation myth declares this passage to be metaphor and symbolism.

(edit to fix typo..) Reading it literally is to misread it. Moses no doubt had more than pagan perceptions of time to correct. He rebukes their worship of the stars, illustrates God's perfect control over the world and water which is controlled by God's voice alone, not by God having to go to war... and many other important theological points.

In contrast, reading it literally not only loses these important rebukes to the surrounding pagan cultures, but renders the passage strange and arbitrary. No wonder Philo and others thought it was symbolic and that God actually made the world in an instant! Why on earth would it take our God 6 'days' to fashion a world?

Getting this wrong has put you guys at war with modern science, created stumbling blocks where there were none intended, misunderstood Genesis and worst of all — divided God's kingdom. The absolute hatred all over your site is not strongly worded theology stemming from pious concern for your brothers — there's no love there whatsoever. It's vindictive "get them!" language the whole time, and some of the pieces are shameful, even smutty, and you guys should be ashamed.

I await your 1000 books on why the Enuma Elish does not predate Genesis about as excitedly as I await Mormon books trying to prove all their whacked-out kingdoms actually existed in South America. It's hard to be objective when you fear your very soul might vanish into nothingness as a result of suddenly losing your faith... with you creationists, Genesis 1 HAS to be literal or the whole bible loses it's focus... and I feel sorry for you living in a world like that, where any new science report proving evolution risks flushing your whole world-view down the toilet. That must be an awful way to live."

John said...

Dave,

If there is one thing that has really irked me about you from the beginning it is this:


"with you creationists, Genesis 1 HAS to be literal or the whole bible loses it's focus"

Dave "it's" is the copulative, not the possessive. You mean "its".

John said...

No, honestly, old buddy, I'm going to Culburra for the w/e and will get back to you...but you haven't yet grasped my argument!

Dave Lankshear said...

D'oh! Typos when tired...

(I know I know I know, but sorry that I've given you more to HATE)

The Economist recently had a podcast piece on the way modern technology was speed orientated rather than accuracy orientated... and so text message abbreviations, punctuation rules, sentence structure... everything is changing.

Sadly, typos while making a point quickly is something you'll just have to get used to John in the modern world. Their not go in airway, even whiff modern spell chequers.

neil moore said...

Dave, was God using a literary device when He spoke to Moses as recorded at Exodus 20:11?

Neil Moore

Dave Lankshear said...

Not relevant to this particular discussion Neil.

neil moore said...

Dave, vitally relevant.

Please indulge.

Neil Moore

neil moore said...

Dave, vitally relevant.

Please indulge.

Neil Moore

Dave Lankshear said...

If I say "slow and steady wins the race" do I also have to believe a bunny rabbit raced a tortoise?

If I say "a stitch in time saves 9" do I have to have a pair of stockings to darn?

If I say "make hay while the sun shines" do I have to be harvesting?

If I use an analogy about an Irishman, an Australian and a jar of peanut butter in this argument, and then you reinterpret it to favour your own argument, does that mean an Irishman and Australian really did defuse an Atomic bomb with a jar of peanut butter?



The really relevant bit is the bit where you disprove that the Enuma Elish was the primary inter textual reference that was being 'corrected' at the time, where you prove it was not read once a year every year in a very ceremonial way, and where you disprove that the introductory phrases in Genesis would not have immediately rung bells in the ancient world as powerful as any national anthem today.

The very nature of it being an intertextual reference rebuking and changing a pagan myth means that it is OF COURSE a myth, but with truth in the myth as much as there is truth in many of Jesus stories.

neil moore said...

Dave, are you a Christian?

Neil Moore

Warwick said...

Neil DaveL wrote 'but with truth in the myth as much as there is truth in many of Jesus stories.'

There is truth in many of Jesus stories.' Two points;

I have found many of the SAD use the word truth to mean something quite different to the dictionary meaning. Truth to them simply means something that has value, whatever that means.

To describe an historical reality they use 'true truth.' You realy have to define terms when dealing with some devious people, don't you!

If he says there is truth in some of Jesus stories he is also saying that there is no truth in others. Therefore as I see it he isn't Christian, setting himself above Scripture.

Secondly if he is of the 'true truth' variety he is saying Jesus stories are not historical fact so still is not a Christian.

Maybe he did not mean to write what he did. We all make mistakes.

Dave Lankshear said...

Oh, now I'm not a Christian because I recognise different literary forms in the bible? Wow... so are Psalms poetry or do I take 'trees of the field' clapping their hands 'literally'? Will I go to hell for questioning that verse? (So much for being saved by grace, faith, Christ, and scripture alone!)

And thanks for the nice strawman about me saying some of Jesus stories were not true... ha ha! Shows you guys are still up to the same old SAH nasty tricks.

Exactly where did I say that?

John said...

Here goes Dave again, high on Gordon Cheng's crack cocaine, inventing, transforming...oh, what the heck...I'll-say-the-first-thing-that-comes-into-my-head kind of response: "You asked me why a literary device means it cannot also be literally true"

No, Dave, I didn't ask that. In fact, that was not even what John Dickson's case was. He more "rigorously" argued that Genesis 1 couldn't be an historical narrative because it contained literary devices.

What I asked for was why, NECESSARILY, do literary devices signify ahistoricity?

Come on Dave, spell it out. After all, you've accused me of attacking Dickson himself and not addressing the weakness of his argument and claimed that since John has a PhD in history he must know more about the subject than I. You, Dave, the defender of Dickson's case, must be able to tell nall of us here at SydAng Heretics why this is so.

Dave Lankshear said...

You haven't answered my question. If I rewrite Alice in Wonderland to illustrate the differences between his worldview and mine, at what point does the looking glass become real?

Dave Lankshear said...

I'm still waiting to hear if John actually believes in the atonement... or is the gospel "trust in a literal Genesis 1 or thou shalt be damned to hell"?

Hmmm, Jesus' death and resurrection and atonement for sin features highly on this list!

I think we should rewrite that old song...

"Amazing Genesis, how sweet the sound, that saved an evolutionist like me...
I once was lost, but now am found, was evolved by now I'm created in 6-literal-days-even- though-god-could-have-done-it-in-a-nano-second!"

You have to really rush that last bit... never said I was a great song writer.

geoffc said...

"Ah yes, the divide-and-conquer tactic."

No. It really intrigues me, almost leaves me dumbfounded actually. I was describing this website to a friend and what it stood for, but mentioned the atonement, his reply was "So they're not even fundies?!".

His confusion was the same of mine. Most of those who reject the atonement are from the liberal camp, who often downplay the importance of the scriptures, while those who are in the creationist camp have a very high view of scripture (which is why in my view they are worthy of respect and ought to be listened to). So surely you can see why am I little confused.

If some were inclined, I imagine they could start a blog entitled "Sydney Anglican Heretics Heretics", and write about how you are sliding into liberalism on this blog and it is happenening without you noticing (but they notice!).

Divide and conquer? No. But from my view it seems you all could not be united from your view of scripture, but rather your hatred of Sydney Anglicans and and obsession with creationism, so much so that you overlook a fundamental to the gospel. If those who contribute on the blog come to realise this, then yep, I am glad I am bringing it up and I hope it divides you and will lead to repentance.

Having said that, you may choose to set some of our confused minds straight and blog about what you actually disagree with in regards to the atonement, and why you can hold to this view and still maintain a high view of scripture. Because at this point in time you look like liberals obsessed with creation science.

Dave Lankshear said...

Absolutely Geoff. It's a very strange vibe now.

Anyway, sing along...

"Doing it all for the glory of creationism,
Doing it all for the glory of creationism,
Doing it all for the glory of creationism,
doin' it all, all, all all.....
Doing it all for the glory of creationism!"

Warwick said...

Someone purporting to be DaveL wrote: 'but with truth in the myth as much as there is truth in many of Jesus stories.'

If there is 'truth' in 'many' of Jesus stories this does mean you reject the rest as truth!

BTW by truth do you mean the idea that something can have value (Anglo-truth) without being historical reality. Or do you mean AngloSpeak 'True Truth', that is are you talking of historical reality or some airy-fairy concept of His words having 'value' while at the same time not being historically true?

Which is it DaveL?

BTW I did commemt that you had possibly miss-written, but apparently not.

I have never heard anyone here say that belief in the historicity of Genesis is vital for salvation. Not once have I heard this, only as a straw-man claim, from the likes of you, so I charge you with deceit, with constructing dishonest straw-man arguments.

How do you plead? I suggest you do the honest thing and fess up, unless you can show your claim to be true.

However as the first chapters of Genesis really explain what real sin is,how it really happened, what the real penalty upon mankind was/is, really bringing about the real need for a real Saviour to really come, to really die upon a real cross, and really rise again, really alive, really paying the price of real sin from the beginning, so that we may be really saved really tells me Dave that we should accept it as Really Real to put it into AngloSpeak.

How much of Scripture can any one person reject or bend out of contextural reality before becoming an enemy of His Word Dave?

As the apostle said it is by faith that we understand how the world was created. And that which is not of faith is sin. Is yours a position of faith in Genesis which Jesus and the apostles claimed was historical truth? Or more likely isn't it a position of unbelief brought about by having man as your authority, not the Creator.

geoffc said...

"'but with truth in the myth as much as there is truth in many of Jesus stories.'

If there is 'truth' in 'many' of Jesus stories this does mean you reject the rest as truth!"

My goodness, surely you can understand what Dave is trying to say here without having to resort to claims like this.

I can answer this one. THere is truth in the story of the prodigal son, and the parable of the sower, the good samaritan,and many more of the things Jesus said, but they aren't all historical are they?

Neil, you asked before of examples of you guys being not very good at engaging in discussion, here is another.

Dave Lankshear said...

Thank you Geoff.

Warwick, as we debate this, let's remember to 'stay on target' and that a 'stitch in time saves nine' and not to use too many 'straw man' arguments.

Oh... sorry... did I communicate or not?

Did I just tell you to shoot at a target, darn some stockings and build a pagan wicker-man? I'm confused... what genre of literary style was I using? Did the context of my style in our overall debate indicate how I was writing? Did the surrounding culture in which we live indicate that those words were to be taken literally or not? Do we all understand the literary styles involved or not?

Gosh this is confusing... maybe to be a faithful Christian I'd better throw out ALL the different literary devices and styles used in the bible and just read EVERYTHING literally. So I'll be looking for trees that clap their hands... not quite sure which trees HAVE hands but they MUST be there! The bible said so. In fact, I can see a whole new field of apologetics opening up right there because the BIBLE SAID TREES HAVE HANDS SO I'D BETTER GO OUT AND PROVE IT!

John, literary devices alone do not indicate the 'actuality' of the subject or not.

The many different literary devices in Genesis 1 alone do not tell us if it's an 'actual' account or 'poetic metaphor', but when we do our hermeneutics and look at the surrounding culture and use of language in that context, we see that Genesis 1 opens with 7 words (indicating form), has 7 'days', (indicating inter-textual reference) and opens with almost exactly the same chaotic world as the enuma elish... even down to mankind being created on the 6th day where Enuma has mankind being made on the 6th tablet! In other words, we realise that the highly symbolic literary style of Genesis 1 is entirely consistent with it being an 'inter-textual reference' which quotes memes so powerful in the middle-eastern ancient world context that it is as if Genesis 1 opened with "Australians all let us rejoice!"

They got together every year to have the whole 7 tablets read out!

See my post for more comparisons between Enuma and Genesis.

Warwick said...

Davel I don't remember mentioning literary devices, and being a writer I have no problem with them. Use 'em all the time me old sock!

In your rush to jump to conclusions you apparently missed that I asked you to define what you mean by truth but true to form you ducked that!

You wrote of Jesus stories and I, silly me, was unaware what you meant by stories or truth. However good 'ol GeoffC has leaped to your defence, informing me that you actually meant to say parables. Why didn't you think of that first Dave? And your new mate Geoff has informed me that they aren't all historical events. Gee Geoff you think that possibility hasn't occurred to me? But DaveL is a sometimes sloppy writer,as in this occasion, not advising what he meant by Jesus stories. Communication isn't helped by ambiguity.

BTW how do you know the parables, the telling of them an historical event, were not about historical events?

And true to form as a ducker & weaver DaveL hasn't even attempted to answer my questions.

Just like you GeoffC as you have written confidently or rather boldly, about dating methods supposedly proving the earth is millions/billions of years old. To see if you knew what you were talking about, or just parroting what you've read on some anti-Christian site, I asked you to explain how they work. No answer, and again no answer, and again no answer = don't have an answer. Squark!

Warwick said...

GeoffC, Quelle horreur, I must repent that in a caffeine deficient haze I directed a comment about radiometric dating in your direction when it should have been directed at Healeyhatman.

My apologies.

Ktisophilos said...

Yes, I think Moses likely had access to documents that were ancient even by his time. That's why the current Genesis has many editorial comments to explain it to Moses' fellow Israelites.

But this is totally different from claiming that it's just a silly rewriting of a pagan account, replacing one ahistorical account with another. Yeah, that's some polemic; that will really show those pagans!

It was very common for legends to be written about history. But there is no historical parallel to what Dickson and his thralls are claiming: that legend turned into historical narrative.

See also Did the Babylonian Creation Account Influence Genesis?

Ktisophilos said...

An example of very ancient writing where Moses left it unedited is Genesis 10:19: "in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah". This is just a matter-of-fact landmark, clearly written in ancient times when these cities of the plain were still flourishing.

Similarly, if you read a tourist guide to NY which describes a street as "leading to the Twin Towers", it's a pretty good bet that it predates 11-9-2001.

Dave Lankshear said...

My reply to John's Enuma Elish article by Holding.

Ktisophilos said...

Stick to peak oil paranoia.

Dave Lankshear said...

I intend to, as a hobby. I just had a politician contact me and ask me to look at their peak oil brief. I'll achieve a lot more for the good of my fellow Australians doing that than wasting my time on stubborn people that ignore science, ignore good theology, and spend their time encouraging hate of a church and people I know personally.

I've been disappointed with Christians before, but, sadly, you guys take the cake.

Warwick said...

Dave what science do the bloggers here ignore? Be specific please.

Dave I also am disappointed in Christians, especially myself. I just never live up to my expectations but God says He loves me anyway, and He sure blesses me!

You are durn right Dave we are stubborn, just as Jesus calls us to be.

Don't forget my question!!

Dave Lankshear said...

See, there you go again! Sydney Anglicans and Phd's in history & theology have a different interpretation to you for 2 Chapters of the bible, and you're yelling "liberal" while we stand up for the bible as the authoritative, sufficient word of God!

We are not 'disproving' Genesis, or 'dismissing' Genesis, or out to extinguish it's meaning or pour scorn and contempt on it. Yet you call me liberal. Thanks a lot mate, I'm quite appalled.

Oh, and the science bit on this blog that's just plain wrong? According to the consensus of the majority of modern disciplines, from astronomy to geology to finding oil to biology all confirming that the universe is incredibly large and incredibly old and life on earth has taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve... and you ask me WHICH BIT of the 'science' on this blog is wrong?

But my primary concern is reading Genesis correctly and the fantastic insights we gain into the rich THEOLOGY of the passage when we read it correctly with the right hermeneutics. You can turn it into an engineers guidebook supposedly answering the dry 'how' of God's creative work, but I think the theological reflections on why God created, and for whom God created, and the relationships within creation are what really make this passage important. We only find out just HOW important when we compare it to the culture of the day.

Warwick said...

You sound like an angry young man Dave. Let Dr Warwick prescribe some rest.

I think it time you spent your energies elsewhere. You have nothing to add here.

You have it so wrong I would not know where to start.

John said...

Dave said: "Oh, and the science bit on this blog that's just plain wrong? According to the consensus of the majority of modern disciplines, from astronomy to geology to finding oil to biology all confirming that the universe is incredibly large and incredibly old and life on earth has taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve... and you ask me WHICH BIT of the 'science' on this blog is wrong?"

You see, Dave, this is your problem. You have this uncritical faith that the human project to understand the universe cannot make errors on the large scale. The whole history of the science project contains several episodes of paradigm shifts.

But these aside, surely you aren't so naive to think that scientists don't come to the wrong conclusions occasionally?

That you have a fundamental distrust of God is reflected in your above statement. Man just wouldn't be able to work out by science how long God took to create the earth. God instead provided Moses with the correct account. He said he did it in 6 days. These days are defined in Genesis 1 as consisting of 1 evening and 1 morning. He even tells us again in the 4th commandment. He then tells us yet again in Exodus 31 that he took 6 days. He tells us face-to-face, so to speak, yet you say this can't be because the human science project tells us more accurately.

Dave, are you seriously mad or are you just plain stupid?

And you say you trust God. No you don't. Your own words convict you. You believe men's account of things supersede the Creator's revelation. Sure, you try to "intellectually" justify this collossal stupidity by invoking further stupidities, like "intertextual reference", but in the end it just is another execise in trusting men and not God.

Your hypocrisy is further demonstrated by your attacks on us that we spend so much time researching and discussing the young earth. Yet you, mate, have spent pages here and elsewhere trying to prove to Christians and the atheists, that Moses utilised a pagan myth. Do you really think, if your and Dickson's theory is wrong, that (i) it glorifies God (ii) that God finds this pleasing.

You see, Dave, if you're right and we're wrong, our excuse is that we were literary illiterates and didn't recognise the genre. What's your excuse going to be when you meet the Creator and have to explain how you refused to read plain words as plain words i.e. 6 days with each day consisting of 1 evening and 1 morning repeated 6 times on the one page, and decided to run with a borrowed pagan cosmology theory instead? And what's worse, what's your excuse going to be for teaching others this error and on top of it laughing at brothers who read Genesis 1 as the vast majority of Christians have read it, including Calvin, Luther, AQuinas, Theophilus, Lightfoot etc etc?

gwen said...

I suspect the politician who contacted Dave was from The Greens. They have no difficulty giving out the wrong information on environmental issues so they would be happy to run with whatever Dave says, after all, Dave has diploma in something or other.

Gwen

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,