Genesis, Material vs. Functional Ontology, and a Confession.

[Chase]

Alright, so quick warning. This discourse will be about the interpretations currently living people make and the intended interpretation of the writer of the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Jewish Torah, or Christian "Old Testament." and thus first book of the "Bible." - if that doesn't interest you - don't waste your time reading any further.

If seeing Hunter possibly admit being wrong about something he is extremely passionate about to the point where debate/heated argument ensued in previous discourses is your thing - PLEASE DO READ. It will be fun for all of us... maybe.

---

What if I told you - that today's biblical scholars - skeptic to fundamentalist believer - read Genesis 1:1 onward with the INCORRECT thought process?

One of the burning questions of the universe is simply the question of it's existence to begin with. "Who or what caused this to happen" is the question everyone seems to try and answer using ancient texts and scientific discovery, be it exclusively to the point where both sides are up in arms over what is gospel and what is irrelevant and mythical - or inclusively - using the supernatural to explain what the natural doesn't, or rationalizing the divine's capabilities in working in natural or apparent processes.

In other words - we have the question that perhaps is the most prominent when it comes to Existentialism.

In the book of Genesis, we are given what appears to be a creation story - or what on the surface, appears to be such an attempt to answer the "Who or what" question posed above. This passage is the source of many popular debates and is the bastion evidence for the "Creationist" - or those who claim we were put here by the divine - argument.... However, while we could definitely point to the wording of this text to compose our arguments for God - what if we are doing so without paying respect to the intention of the Genesis author?

Did the author have the same material ontology we did? Is he talking about the cosmos at all, or is it possibly a literary embellishment? And what does this mean about Hunter's faith-based, science supported stance on the issue of Creationism vs. Evolution? Was I (and possibly many of you) wrong in interpreting the creation account?

---

Before I get there, let me lay the groundwork by addressing a few popular stances.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM - The belief that God created the universe - quite literally - in seven days. Days being 24 hour increments. The PRO in having this stance is that YE Creationists have a bit of a better glance on the ancient text here than those of other stances. The CON in this stance is that it doesn't mesh well with recent scientific discoveries.

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM - The belief that God created the universe - somewhat literally - in "seven days". Days being in seven time increments that are "not necessarily" 24 hour time frames. The PRO in having this stance is that you can remain quite solid in textual interpretation while being able to avoid being shot down by scientific evidence.

DAY AGE CREATIONISM - The belief that God created the universe - literally - in seven "days" - a time period that is more akin to years. This stance is the perfect middle ground on the time-scientific evidence scale, but as I've regretfully had to come to terms with, isn't as serviceable to the text as I had hoped. My mentor and I previously called ourselves "Day Age Creationists." Day Agers do not have to be accepting of evolution in any capacity - but are the most liberal non-evolutionists out there.

EVOLUTION - The belief in the evolutionary theory that organisms "evolve" from previous lifeforms - or the process quite simply being how organisms change over time.

---

With those stances out of the way, let me explain what my previous stance was.

I was a Day Age creationist largely due to two reasons: Evolution is a very well substantiated theory from the mind of Charles Darwin - that is now being backed up with genetics and new "missing links" being found regularly. Because of it being a theory though, I wasn't really ready to say "It's law - evolution is the way of the world" - despite being seemingly so in many respects.

The other reason though is my personal field of study - Theology. I'm one who is personally much more interested in the idea of God and the texts that support His existence than I am the scientific details. This means I spend more of my time pouring over the Bible than I do watching the Discovery Channel or taking life science courses. Truth be told, it's actually the texts that lead me away from Young Earth creationism - particularly because the proof isn't found in your go-to English translation. The word "Day" in Hebrew is quite loaded with various meanings, with some literally meaning "a while." - which, when you look outside the bible for fossil data that out-dates the age of the Earth from the Y.A.C's interpretation - means you don't have to ascribe to a pole.

So there you have it. I was looking for the stance that didn't force me to eat the evolutionary pie due to it being potentially -not- the way it works -and- worked with the text.

---

Functional Ontology - or the intended purpose for existence - is different from material ontology - or the make-up of existence. Today, we tend to have a materialistic ontology - asking "what is it made of?" proudly - which plays into the popular arguments of making something out of nothing I've spouted on in other threads.

However, ANCIENT peoples don't hold material ontology at all. Ancient in this case meaning, the writer of Genesis.

---

Here's an exercise. If I were to point at a seat, you would probably call it a "Chair." - but if I were to point at a seat, an ancient human being wouldn't know what to call it until you SAT on it.

This applies to the things in Genesis - the question that the ancients asked wasn't "What is this made of"....but "Why?" or "What's the point?".

---

Breaking some of it down.

Day and Night: Genesis quite clearly demonstrates God providing light ("And the Lord said, "Let there be light.") - but it goes on to determine that God also establishes the separation of DAY and NIGHT using the light or it's absence. Meaning, the writer weren't looking for the damn magic lightbulb that was called the Sun - they were establishing that the light's purpose was to establish what time it was. This means two things.

1. God doesn't necessarily have to physically create light here.
2. God explicitly provides the given light with a PURPOSE - to establish Day and Night.

This is where those crazy Young Earthers actually do a very good job of providing good exegesis. (And it was evening, and it was morning - the first day.)

Water: Fun Fact: Did you know that the wording of Genesis might hint that water was materialistically speaking ALREADY in existence? In fact, water is clearest example of functional ontology. ("God hovered over the waters." > "God moved them so that they separated the sea from the land."

The text actually only focuses on giving water a PURPOSE in that it now separates land and sea.

Humanity: The most elaborated part of man's creation is that man was created for TWO purposes. Dominion and abundance.

---

Here's the pattern. We're not dealing with "what is it made of" in Genesis. This means that if you look at Genesis as evidence for your existential questions beyond purpose - you're not doing the text appropriate justice at all.

I was wrong in doing so - and some of the revelations have led me to start re-thinking my stance. I -was- wrong in making Genesis evidence for God's existence in that I did it without reading the text with the author's original intent in mind.

What about you guys? What do you think of all of this?

[mde2001]

I was wondering what your revelation was when you mentioned it.

While I am most definitely an atheist and that isn't changing any time soon I am quite interested in your new thinking. I think that literally interpreting Genesis isn't doing it any justice. While I don't believe in the Bible I have a lot of time for the type of interpretation that you discussed.

I might post back here with more detail at a later point when I have a little bit more time but I'm glad you've been able to adapt! Sorry if this post is really weird. I'm super tired for some reason.

[Chase]

Literal vs. Abstract interpretation is part of the mix too, Mde - I'm glad you mentioned that.

The other stance many scholars have is the LITERARY EMBELLISHMENT stance - which claims that Genesis is explicitly meant to be poetic and points more toward the abstract theological concepts than it would something like the actual cosmos.

Unfortunately, holding that position ALSO means you are mishandling (to an extent, as it is told in a story format) the text's meaning - as the wording plainly gives the impression of discourse on cosmology.

So, I think that taking the text literally to AN EXTENT is -indeed- a good thing - but at the same time, you DO have to realize that it is an ancient account on creation and that it isn't going to be written like a non-fiction work would be today - specifically because ancient humans didn't exactly think the same way we do - as explained in the ontological difference above.

---

Here are my findings a bit more plainly (as far as revelations go.)

• I still -do- hold that an intelligent designer is feasible.
• The Genesis Creation Story no longer plays into that holding. Genesis provides no evidence for God creating the universe at all, but that He provides things IN that universe with a purpose, which is effectively a creation of relevance.
• Now knowing that ancient near east humans saw things differently, the book of Genesis has a whole new look and feel when reading it.
• Because of my findings, I am now able to explore other stances, such as Evolutionary Creationism, or Theistic Evolution, or merely just holding Intelligent Design, or ...perhaps the most compelling to me now - Progressive Creationism - which is essentially more accepting of God using "evolution" as scientific process.