xjwsforChrist

http://biologos.org/blog/comparing-inte ... -genesis-1

An exert:

Summary of Several Interpretations of Genesis 1
In concordist interpretations, God made the earth using the sequence of events described in Genesis 1. In non-concordist interpretations, God created the earth using a different timing and order of events than those described Genesis 1.


How should Christians go about choosing among all of these interpretations? Such a decision should be based on consistent principles and prayerful reflection, not just on “what sounds good.” Here are our own conclusions.
Weaknesses in Concordist and Non-Concordist Interpretations
Both concordist and non-concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 arise from good motives, a desire to show that the Bible does not conflict with nature’s testimony. But both types of interpretations have their pitfalls.
For concordists, the temptation is to interpret every Bible verse to match the current scientific picture. The meanings of particular phrases can be bent out of shape to match a particular scientific finding. For example, Hebrew words that literally meant birds or plants to the original audience are redefined to meet some modern scientific category such as insects or single-celled organisms, just to make the order of events line up. By focusing on trying to match the details of the ancient text to twenty-first century knowledge, the concordist may miss meanings in the passage that were clear in the original cultural context, including important spiritual insights. Moreover, concordists can be forced to regularly change and update their interpretations as modern scientific knowledge grows and changes. For instance, the Gap Interpretation twisted the meaning of Genesis 1:2 outside its original intent; later it failed to match new scientific evidence.
For non-concordists the temptation is to interpret every Bible verse that appears to disagree with science as figurative without first studying the text. By interpreting a text that was intended tobe understood literally as metaphoric, they may bend the meanings of particular phrases to refer to purely spiritual ideas and ignore the historical meanings they had in the original cultural context. At one extreme non-concordists can apply the same strategy to all Bible passages and even interpret Jesus’ miracles and resurrection as spiritual symbols simply because they think that miracles are scientifically impossible.
For both concordists and non-concordists the temptation is to let science drive the interpretation of Scripture more than it should. When an apparent conflict arises between science and a biblical text, it can and should motivate us to consider a biblical passage more closely. The scientifically discerned testimony from God’s book of nature can even be a useful tool for deciding between two or more biblical interpretations that are otherwise equally valid. But the interpretations themselves are not determined by science; they must be driven by theological considerationsand be consistent with the rest of Scripture.
To avoid these risks we need to look at what the best biblical scholarship has to say about the passage rather than at how it fitswith science. Finally, we must take care that the desire to resolve conflicts does not distract us from the main message God has forus in the text. Our primary calling as Christians is to live our lives according to the clear messages of God’s Word; it is a lesser calling to debate the subtleties of interpretation of less clear passages.
Genesis 1 in Its Original Context
To choose among the various interpretations, we recommend using a consistent approach based on the principles of biblical interpretation discussed in chapter 4. The first principle, that each passage should be interpreted in light of the rest of the Bible, provides some guidance. For instance, the Bible’s teaching on God’s truthfulness and his glory displayed in creation might lead us away from the Appearance of Age Interpretation. The differences between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts might point toward a non-concordist interpretation.
The second principle of interpretation gives more direction. It reminds us first to work out what the passage meant in its original literary, cultural, and historical context, and then figure out what meaning it has for us today. How do the various interpretations fit this principle? Of the four concordist interpretations discussed in chapter 5, the Young Earth Interpretation seems to come closest to what ancient peoples would have heard in the text. The Gap and Day-Age concordist views would have baffled the original audience, since these ancients would have had no concept of geological ages; if they could not fathom time periods of millions or billions of years, the text must have meant something different to them.
Of the four non-concordist interpretations of Genesis discussed in this chapter, the Proclamation Day Interpretation, while it has some basis in the text, seems least likely to be the meaning heard by the original audience. The proclamations are implemented as soon as God says them, and there is no reference to a different timing or sequence of events in terrestrial time. In our view a combination of the Ancient Near East Cosmology, Kingdom and Covenant, and Creation Poem Interpretations come closest to what the original audience would have heard. The differences between the Genesis text and the pagan stories highlight the sovereignty of God and the goodness of creation. The elegant poetic structure and inspired phrases reinforce the theological messages of the Kingdom and Temple interpretations.
Genesis 1 for Modern Readers
With a better understanding of what the original audience heard,we have insight into God’s message for them and thus for us. If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we should not look here for scientific information about the age or development of the world. For modern readers, as for the original audience, the message of Genesis 1 is its powerful theological truths. God does not use theBible to teach us the physical processes he uses to make the rainfall or the earth orbit the sun or to form the mountains. Instead, in a beautifully crafted and impressively short text, God teaches us all about
his sovereignty.
the goodness of creation.
the honored status of humankind as his image bearers.
God has given us a text that speaks of the physical world in simple terms, based on how it appears, in order that all peoplemight understand it. The common language of this text has made it accessible to people of many times and cultures, aiding the communication ofthe gospel around the world.
Does a non-concordist interpretation of Genesis 1 mean that we have sacrificed a literal understanding of the gospel? No. TheGospels were surely heard by their first audience as historical eyewitness accounts by the disciples, and everything about the emphasis and tone in those books indicates that Jesus’ resurrection and miracles are essential events in the story. That is how we should read the Gospel stories still today. In Genesis 1, on theother hand, the first listeners heard nothing new about the physical universe; all the emphasis was on who created the world and humanity and why they were created.
What does this mean for science? It means that Genesis 1 is not a science textbook. The text was never intended to teach scientificinformation about the structure, age, or natural history of the world. Thus, comparing Genesis 1 to modern science is likecomparing apples to oranges. Or perhaps more accurately, comparing Genesis 1 to modern science is like comparing Psalm 93:1 (“The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved”) to modern astronomy. Genesis is neither in agreement nor in conflict with the sequence of events found by astronomy and geology.
As scientific knowledge increases and changes over the centuries, its understanding of the physical structure and historyof the earth will change. But through all of those centuries the theological truths of Genesis 1 remain the same: there is one sovereign God who makes light from darkness, creates an ordered world from chaos, and fills an empty world with good creatures. Humans need not fear the capricious whims of a pantheon ofgods but can instead trust in the one true God who made us in his image and declares us “very good.”

IMO, when trying to interpret ANY ancient text we must start from here:
WHO wrote it.
To WHOM.
WHY.

That is a good place to start, dear P (good day and peace to you!); however, I think many who still misinterpret start there. May I suggest an even better place to start, a surpassing one? That is... with God. Which means... with Christ. Because interpretation belongs to God, not us. So, no matter what we might (think we) "know" as to "who wrote" a text "to whom" and "why"... do we REALLY? Many texts are attributed to one person, yet were written by someone else entirely. Genesis is among these. Many believe it to have been written by Moses (perhaps through Joshua), but it wasn't. It was written by Joseph during his time in prison and in Pharaoh's employ... and found by Moses when he was in Pharaoh's house (where such writings remained until found by Moses, who was familiar with some due to the teachings of his birth mother).

We know Luke wasn't inspired but written to Theophilus, yet many claim it to be inspired and thus "scripture." We know "John" was actually written by Lazarus. We know some of the letters attributed to Paul were penned by others (who most assuredly added some of their own dicta). And we know that the "false stylus of the secretaries" wreaked havoc among them all, the OT scriptures and the NT writings.

IF, however, we go back to the One who TOLD His servants to write... what... and to whom... and ask HIM... then we are not leaning upon our OWN understanding, but upon HIM. That One is the MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies, and we can go to HIM by going to the One to Whom He has given ALL authority: His Son and Chosen One, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH. If we do this, then we SHOW that we are not trying to glorify ourselves as having knowledge and/or knowing anything, but wanting to know the TRUTH, such as only can be received FROM Him.

From THERE, then, when we read, we can HEAR that Son "interpret" FOR us the things written. No longer, then, are we relying on our own (very limited and insufficient) understanding, but on the One He appointed to speak FOR us... and TO us, the One He told us to listen to! As that One, Christ, who is not only the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Light, but is also the personification of Wisdom:

“To ​YOU, O men, I am calling, and my voice is to the sons of men. O inexperienced ones, understand shrewdness; and ​YOU​ stupid ones, understand heart. Listen, for it is about the foremost things that I speak, and the opening of my lips is about uprightness. For my palate in low tones utters truth itself; and wickedness is something detestable to my lips. All the sayings of my mouth are in righteousness. Among them there is nothing twisted or crooked. All of them are straight to the discerning one, and upright to the ones finding knowledge. TAKE​ my discipline and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than corals, and all other delights themselves cannot be made equal to it." Proverbs 8:4-7

If we can learn... to ALLOW... ourselves to go to him and listen to him... O, how much MORE we can LEARN! But we have to get past our FEAR: Of being "unworthy." Of not receiving a response. And most importantly, of appearing "foolish." To others... and to ourselves. We have to learn to "despise shame", push PAST it, indeed, SURPASS it... with love. For God and Christ. If you LOVE someone... you lend your ear when they speak... and you LISTEN to them. Hence, we have to be WILLING to be "foolish" things, because these things are related to the SPIRIT, not the flesh, and so appear as foolishness to those still solely OF the flesh.

But considering who wrote what, to whom, and why, is good. It at least provides a basis to start and so one MIGHT come to some understanding. If one wishes to come to ALL truth about a matter, however, there truly is only one Way to do that. John mentioned it in his letter at 1 John 2:26-28.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

Shellama

And when people get different understandings from God?

People don't get different understandings from God, dear one (good morning and peace to you!). People get different understandings from their different understandings of God. Which is why one shouldn't lean upon their own understanding.

If, however, they go to, look to, and listen to the ONE that God appointed for all to approach, hear, and see Him THROUGH, then all would get the same "message." I am just now reminded by our dear Lord that that is why the Prophets had virtually the SAME message and saw the same things: such came from the same Source.

The MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies, is the same, dear one: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. While our understanding... whether of what we THINK we know... or of Him... changes... HE does not. Which is why "new light" wouldn't occur, at least not to the extent it changes from "old" light. The truth is the truth.

In that light, understanding received FROM the Truth, Christ (John 14:6)... does not change. As that One says of himself and the understanding received from HIM:

“To you, O men, I call,
And my voice is to the sons of men.
O you simple ones, understand prudence,
And you fools, be of an understanding heart.
Listen, for I will speak of excellent things,
And from the opening of my lips will come right things;
For my mouth will speak truth;
Wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
All the words of my mouth are with righteousness;
Nothing crooked or perverse is in them.
They are all plain to him who understands,
And right to those who find knowledge." Proverbs 8:4-9

The problem is that most really don't believe he speaks, that HIS mouth utters ANYTHING... LITERALLY. But he does and it does! Had those "hired men" to whom such truths were entrusted TOLD us all that... FROM THE BEGINNING... NONE of us would be doubting it. They didn't, though. They made God into a "mystery"... because He was and is a mystery... to THEM. They can't tell you/me of what THEY don't know themselves.

That was another reason why our dear Lord came in the flesh, dear one: to bear witness to the TRUTH.

All one needs is faith... the size of a mustard seed, which amount one can ASK for if one is lacking... so as TO hear the One who speaks "from the heavens." Hebrews 12:25 But ask, without doubting. Because doubt cancels out faith. Where one doubts, one should not suppose they will receive anything (James 1:5). Because doubting SAYS, literally, that one lacks faith.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ, always,

Shellama

Indeed, but isn't that a bit of a circular argument?
If I get an understanding from God that is different than your, then you say it is MY understanding OF God that is incorrect, what is to keep me from saying that it is YOURS that is incorrect?

I don't think so, but I understand why you/others might, dear one (again, peace to you!). Let's see, though:



I think the issue lies with your question, dear one, which is inaccurate. The ACCURATE question would be:

If I [think I] get an understanding from God that [I think] is different than yours, then you say [you think] it is MY understanding OF God that is incorrect, what is to keep me from saying that it is YOURS that is incorrect?

Right? Because CAN you get a different understanding FROM GOD than my understanding FROM GOD? Or I you? If that is so, is not God divided? And is not holy spirit speaking truth to one of us but not truth to the other? But how can that be? If one understanding is different than the other, then, is it not the truth that ONE is correct and one is NOT?

The problem comes in as to how one can know WHICH one is true (and, thus, from God)... and which is NOT. But it's really not hard to know: one only need ASK. If, however, one does not yet have faith sufficient to ask and/or hear an answer, then one can test the (inspired) expression, yes? And how does one do that? Easily:

1. Against Christ, first and foremost (i.e., WOULD Christ have said/done/shown... the thing/matter in question...?). Because HE is the image and exact representation of God, right? And if one cannot (yet) "see" Christ in the viewpoint (perhaps because one still lacks faith);

2. Against love (i.e., WHERE is the LOVE in the thing said/done/shown...?). For God IS love, right? And if one cannot see love in the viewpoint (perhaps because one has not yet come to know what love TRULY is, because one has not yet seen Christ... and thus, God... or... love...);

3. Against what is written which may or may not be in the Bible... so long as what is written is tested against... and succeeds when held up to... the first two. If one cannot see Christ... or love... in the thing written, how can it have originated with God? I realize some believe that everything written in the Bible is "from God," but that is NOT true. It was for that very reason that Jeremiah prophesied about the "false stylus" of and Christ condemned the words of the secretaries/copyists/scribes ("WOE, to you... scribes... hypocrites!"). There is MUCH in the Bible that didn't originate with God, to begin with, and much that did but was subsequently tampered with by the pen of the copyists.

Easy-peasy. The problem comes in when we try to determine what is FROM GOD by means other than Christ and love. All kinds of people have and will say they received what they did/do directly from God. If so, they're LYING... because beyond the Prophets and Christ himself, NO ONE gets anything directly from God (and even the Prophets recognized receiving what they did from/through the Word, which Word IS Christ, now). Like the Prophets, those who DO receive FROM GOD get it, IF they truly DId get it, from CHRIST, the WORD of God. Because HE is God's ONLY spokesman. Always has been, always will be.

Now, I realize that not all recognize/receive/accept that. What can I say? That's okay. They must believe as they believe. I would wonder, though, how they can hear/see God without, say, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, etc., who are all dead. Christ, however, is NOT dead: he is ALIVE, risen FROM the dead... and speaking from the spirit realm, his voice being to the sons of man. God is a spirit, and so it takes spirit to "speak" with Him. That is why the Prophets were "inspired" - IN SPIRIT - when He spoke with them.

Of course, no one has to take my word for ANY of this, dear P. Not even you (I know you know this). But just like we cannot assume that all who claim to hear "God" are telling the truth, we shouldn't assume that all are lying, either. If we truly WANT to know we can go and ask for ourselves or, if we lack faith to do that (yet)... test what we are told to have originated with God (but not necessarily came directly FROM Him but rather, THROUGH His Son).

For me, if the claim overlooks/denies the Son, and/or does not purport to have come from or through that One, but directly from the MOST HOLY One of Israel (God)... I would have to absolutely reject it. Because (1) it does not glorify the Son, and so (2) does not glorify JAH, and so (3) MUST be false. One could not go directly to Pharaoh for grain but had to go through Joseph. Even today, one cannot go directly to a monarch or other world leader but must go to and through such ones' agent(s).

If the claim shows the bearer as kissing the SON, however... by means of acknowledging and glorifying HIM... then I would receive it, yes. Unless I heard from my Lord that it was NOT from him but someone perhaps trying to "transform themselves into an angel of light." In which case, again, I would reject it.

It really isn't hard to tell, dear one. At least, not once one has been trained BY the One speaking. As he is recorded to have said:

"MY sheep KNOW... MY voice."

His sheep do not listen to voice of strangers because they have LEARNED his voice. Do they start OUT knowing it? No. But like young lambs... babes... they are TAUGHT:

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

...

"These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." 1 John 2:20, 21, 26, 28


I realize that I have written a lot here, dear one, but it really isn't that much: faith, in Christ, so that one can hear HIM... as he speaks... THROUGH his blood (and so God's)... holy spirit... to OUR blood. It is the blood that speaks, dear one. All we need do is LISTEN.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

Well said Shel