@BruceAlderman Yes, it is true that the question of genre is more complex than simply looking for a "this is not history" tag at the beginning of a paragraph. I am in agreement there.

@BruceAlderman Agreed.

@BruceAlderman From Dr. Constable's exegetical notes (commentary): "The "vault" or "circle" of the earth probably refers to the heavens above as people perceive them (cf. Job 22:14) or, perhaps, to the horizon (cf. Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27). Isaiah was not revealing that the earth is round."

@Jas3.1 I'm not familiar with Dr. Constable.

@BruceAlderman He teaches at DTS. For what it's worth, he's one of the more reliable Bible commentators in my opinion.

@BruceAlderman I think we need to start by asking "what did he mean by that" before we assume it was informed by a false cosmology. "the ends of the earth" is a phrase still used today, and it certainly doesn't imply the person saying it believes in a flat earth. Similarly "the earth cannot be moved" is a common construction in Scripture that does not speak to cosmology at all.

...the Bible isn't a science textbook, after all.

@BruceAlderman I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps some, but how do you know the faithful men of old would have misunderstood? Truth has seldom been the most popular view.

@Jas3.1 The "ends of the earth" doesn't imply a flat earth today, just as "sunrise and sunset" don't imply a geocentric universe today. But according to most Bible scholars I've read, the ancient Israelites (like most landlocked ancient peoples) believed in a flat earth.

@Jas3.1 Misunderstood what?

@BruceAlderman perhaps

@BruceAlderman whether they did or not does not speak to the accuracy of the text, only to the misconceptions of the interpreters

@BruceAlderman what was meant by "the ends of the earth"

(sorry, I may have assumed we agreed on something that we did not agree on...)

@Jas3.1 I'd say "preconceptions" rather than "misconceptions".

@BruceAlderman Do you believe that a cloud received Jesus out of their sight?

The images I've seen of ancient Israelite cosmology typically look like these.

@Jas3.1 That's what the text says. I have no reason to doubt that's what the disciples saw. And I also have no doubt they believed the cloud carried him on up to heaven.

And they're not wrong for believing that.

@BruceAlderman The text says nothing about the cloud carrying Him up to heaven, does it?

@BruceAlderman I need to come back to this, but I want to read through the rest of your prior comments first.

@Jas3.1 It's implied. Where was he headed? If the cloud received him, where else would it convey him to? I see connections with Daniel 7, where the Son of Man comes "with the clouds of heaven".

@BruceAlderman It's a complex question, to be sure, but I'm still curious how you're deciding what to relegate to "unhistorical" and what to take as reliable representation of history.

@BruceAlderman A tricky question, to be sure... I want to think about it a bit more before I respond.

@CharlesAlsobrook If it could be established exegetically that there was time between Gen 1:1 and 1:3 then I would agree, but I'm not sure that's what is happening in the text.

@CharlesAlsobrook I'm not sure that is "as far as we know" ... that is one way of reconciling Gen 1 with "science" but it is certainly not the only idea on the topic

@BruceAlderman When did it begin to change?

@Jas3.1 It's not just one thing. I think the weight of the evidence shows that Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be taken as history. I've already posted a list of things that don't read like history.

@BruceAlderman Probably. Without delving into the details of inspiration, I believe the Bible is God-Spirited human communication, and not dictation, puppetry, prophecy, or "the word of God" in the sense people often think of it

@BruceAlderman Hermeneutics, right?

@Jas3.1 As far as we can tell, it started with Abraham. But who knows? None of the people named in Genesis 10 (post-flood, pre-Abraham) have ages given.

(ok I'm done with the backlog)

@BruceAlderman Take a look at Shem, Arpachshad, and Peleg

@Dan Howdy

mind if I butt in with a quick (but non-related) question>

I am writing an answer to your meta post @Jas3.1

@Dan do you want me to come over to BH.SE to talk?

And I am trying to find a good word to capture the idea of 'not dismissive of'?

I only have one question

@Dan ok

i.e. a Protestant who is not dismissive of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspectives

there is a better word

but it is late and my brain not functioning :P

@TRiG You there?

haha I just tried to wake up the English room

I should have pinged him since he is in there

@Dan what do you mean by "not dismissive of"?

meaning they don't have to agree with those perspectives, but they also are not hostile towards them and won't try to supress them because they are 'wrong'

as a moderator

@Dan idk... sorry

@Jas3.1 no prob

sorry for butting in!

@Dan ttyl

I will now disappear as quick as I came :P

@Dan lol

@Jas3.1 Oh, I forgot about the genealogies in Genesis 11. I'll have to give this some more thought. But I still see Abraham's 175 as being a lot closer to today's maximum of about 130 than to any of the pre-Abrahamic genealogies.

@BruceAlderman I better head out for the night. I'll catch up with you later ok?

@Jas3.1 Sounds good.

@Jas3.1 I'm asleep.

@Dan I'm not sure where this line of thought started... But "impartial" seems to fit what you're looking for.

@DavidStratton yes and no - it certainly includes that

but I'm looking for a word that says they don't necessarily have to agree with another perspective, but must be respectful of it, not attempt to suppress it, and not treat it with disdain or mock it

See this meta post/answer

I've already posted it now

I'll probably just leave it be

but thank you

@fredsbend Isn't that a contradictio in terminis?

@parvus I don't see anything contradictory about it.

@parvus Bruce is the guy to ask. I personally see many issues with it, however, he does not see it that way. Basically, it means that God chose to create through evolution.

@Jas3.1 You quoted Dr. Constable saying "Isaiah was not revealing that the earth is round." According to Dr. Constable, what shape did ancient Israelites believe the earth was?

Collecting my thoughts...

There is a huge difference between accurately describing something from a human perspective, and accurately describing it from God's perspective. (Or even from a "scientific" perspective.)

We have to leave room for figures of speech and other normal modes of communicating. For example, Judges 7:12 is not making a scientific claim about there being an infinite number of camels. But that doesn't make the observation unhistorical. There really were camels... a lot of them... too many for the observer to count... and that's what he was saying.

I think we need to stop focusing so much on how an ancient Hebrew might have interpreted it and more on what the author was actually saying.

The fact is, we have an accurate account of the observation of the disciples. They saw a cloud engulf him as He ascended. Ancient eisegesis is irrelevant... the text conveys exactly what the disciples observed. In other words, it provides us with reliable history. That's not to say it fully explains all of the scientific questions we may have about what happened next... it certainly does not... it's just to say we can trust the account.

Of course, what makes Gen 1 different is that it wasn't a human's account of their first-person observation; rather, it's a claim about what happened, and the information could only have come from God. (Granted, it is clearly provided from the frame of reference of the earth, but it did not arise from human perception.)

@BruceAlderman ...and I have responded to everything on the list. But my point is, simply making an observation about what the text says is not "evidence that it's meant to be read non-historically" ...it's just an observation of what it says. I'm wondering why you and I agree on what it says, and yet you think it's a "clue" that we're not supposed to read it as history.

@BruceAlderman Is it fair to say that your "clue" is that it doesn't sound like something that would literally happen today?

@BruceAlderman If you plot the ages, you'll see some variation pre-flood, but they're all around 800 years old when they die. After the flood you'll see the ages gradually declining over the generations until they end up somewhere around 100-ish. The dividing line is the flood, but the transition -- even after the flood -- is very gradual.

@BruceAlderman I don't know, but the point is that the Bible was not making a scientific claim about the shape of the earth. In other words, the claims of Scripture do not present the misconceptions of the culture as truth.

...actually it is unfortunate that passages like that were ever even brought into the debate (since they don't even speak to the topic), and I fear it was Creationists who brought them in, trying to show that the Bible was making progressive claims that were only recently realized as fact. (I have heard it argued that people used to think the earth was flat, but that Isaiah revealed what we now know to be true: that it is round. (But Isaiah wasn't saying anything about the shape of Earth.)

@BruceAlderman I'll wait for your response on that block of comments...

@Jas3.1 OK, it seems we are further away from understanding each other than I thought we were. I don't even know what you are arguing against with a lot of these.

@Jas3.1 I don't see a difference between these two things...unless you're claiming it was intended to be misunderstood?

@Jas3.1 I thought we'd already agreed the Bible uses figures of speech.

@Jas3.1 When you say "reliable history" are you saying that we should read the Bible as a history book? Or that all the Bible's references to historical observations should be taken as fact? Or something else?

When you say "ancient eisegesis is irrelevant" do you mean we should not try to understand what the Bible meant to the original readers/hearers? Do you not agree that knowing how they read it will help our own understanding of the text?

As fo "ancient eisegesis", I certainly wouldn't classify it that way.

The ascension marks the end of Jesus' earthly ministry (including post-resurrection ministry) and his return to heaven. In the eyes of ancients, heaven was located above the dome in the sky. Of course they would see him rise into the clouds, because as we've already agreed, God uses the language of the culture to express truth. I would add that this includes non-verbal language.

If the ascension were happening today, Jesus might instead just fade to invisible, or disappear in a puff of smoke, and we'd understand where he went. To the ancients, these methods would not convey the same meaning.

What I'm saying is that the event itself is part of the cultural language. Jesus had to rise into the air, because to his disciples, that's the direction to heaven. I'm not arguing whether the account is or is not "reliable history". I'm saying the whole thing is couched in culturally-conditioned language, including Jesus' body language.

But that doesn't mean Jesus can't get to heaven without first ascending into the sky. And it doesn't mean we need to put ourselves within the ancient Hebrew cosmology to understand the passage.

I'll try to put this another way. Jesus' rising into the air conveyed something a little different to the original audience than it does to us...not so different that it changes the overall meaning of the passage, but to the early Christians, his being "received by a cloud" meant something a little more specific than it does to most of today's readers.

Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don't. I really don't want to argue the details of this specific case. I only brought this up as an example where our culture and the ancient Israelites read the same passage with different connotations, yet both can still understand the essential message. And I think we agree on that, but I'm not sure.

@Jas3.1 OK, let's leave Isaiah alone for now. I think it's becoming a distraction. We both agree that Isaiah was not making a scientific statement about the shape of the earth.

@Jas3.1 With the post-flood generations, I don't really see a gradual decline. I see a decline from Shem ~600 years, then three generations of a little over 400 years, then five generations of a little over 200 years (with the exception of Nahor, who gets short shift with only 148). Then Abraham, whose 175 years cover more chapters than the entire history of the world up to that point. So really, there's a couple of sharp drops and not a gradual decline.

But anyway...

My essential point is that the message of the text is different from the cultural assumptions that the original hearers would bring to it, and is also different from the cultural assumptions that we bring to it. Maybe I didn't need to go into such a long digression make the point, maybe you already agree with that. But that's my starting assumption for understanding Genesis 1 as something other than history.

Genesis 2-11 is a different story (pardon the pun), and I'll come back to that later.

@BruceAlderman Oh, I wasn't necessarily arguing, just collecting my thoughts. I don't like to leave loose ends, so as I read over our prior posts, I made some notes there so I wouldn't forget what I wanted to talk more about. So that last block of comments was intended as a "clear screen" on the prior comments, if that makes sense.

@BruceAlderman When a person speaks, they mean to convey something. The Biblical authors had a message to communicate. It is the job of the audience to hear, comprehend, and respond appropriately. In the case of Scripture, the audience (and readers) often do not do their part well. The Bible is very often misunderstood. That does not mean that the Biblical author was trying to convey the misunderstanding, only that the interpreter is failing to grasp the authorial intent.

@BruceAlderman I mean that when the Spirit-led author of the sacred Scriptures makes an historical claim, we can trust it. (No, the Bible is not a "history book," but it does teach history, among other things.)

@BruceAlderman It is sometimes helpful, but the doctrine of inspiration does not claim that the audience's perception was God-breathed and inerrant, nor should it. The audience very often misunderstood the authorial intent. Think of Jesus speaking with the Jews or with His disciples (e.g. throughout John.) Practically everything He said was misunderstood! Jesus spoke of the Spirit and they thought He meant "water"... that shouldn't lead us to claim that He meant "water."

@BruceAlderman When we speak of "what the audience would have (mistakenly) thought based on their culture" and their impressions are not explicit or implicit in the original text, then "ancient eisegesis" is an appropriate term to use.

@BruceAlderman Agreed.

@BruceAlderman I agree with all of that.

@BruceAlderman If you graph it, keeping in mind that these are only data points, you can see the trend of the gradual decline.

...point being that it isn't as if we have "symbolic ages" and then a division in the text, and then "realistic ages"... what we have is "900-year ages prior to the flood" and then "a decline after the flood, eventually ending up around modern-day ages"

@BruceAlderman I agree, although I don't yet follow how that leads you to deny the historicity of the Genesis account.