We are going to be continuing our series and our evaluation of Ken Gilmore's article and arguments about Exodus 20:11. He takes a position known as Functional Temple Inauguration view which is the same position as John Walton concerning Gen. 1-2 and Ex. 20:11.. In this view, so far, Gilmore claims that he thinks that the Israelites were more concerned with God showing that He establish a working Creation rather than in the act that God created everything. His primary verses for this we found to be Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8, which says nothing about Creation, nor what the Jews emphasized. He tries to draw a connection between the temple, cosmos, and divine rest, but as we saw there were no mention anywhere in these texts to Creation, the Hebrew words us for "rest" were different, with the Hebrew word in Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8 being a complete different word from Gen. 2:2 and Ex. 20:11, translated as "place of rest" which indicated a totally different emphasis from Gen. 1-2 and Ex. 20:11, namely, the emphasis being on the presence of the Lord, not on God's act of resting the way it is in Gen. 2:2 and Ex. 20:11. In addition to that, Genesis and Exodus are historical narrative which is an entirely different literary genre from Psalms (poetic narrative) and Isaiah (prophecy) of which metaphors and figurative language abound. These differences often gets ignored by the ones who hold to this position.
Now, Gilmore is going to advance further forward into his arguments, spelling out his positions and reasons more clearly. He is also going to be trying to make a connection between ANE literatures. We will see if his further advancements into this will pay off, or will it crash and burn like his previous arguments?
His comments will be in red as before, and mine will be in black. I will be presenting a conclusion at the end of this post, separated from the rest of the main text, also in black. The link to the full article is above. Now we will continue our discussion moving forward, hopefully getting into the heart of his arguments...
Gilmore: The idea of rest in the ANE world as Walton observes carried with it the concept of freedom to rule, and this is seen clearly in Psa 132 which links the temple at Zion with the place where YHWH rests, enthroned as ruler.
Brian: The "freedom to rule" concept is mention nowhere in Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8. Once again Gilmore, with the help of his faulty appeal to authority, John Walton, is committing eisegesis. Also, there is a bit of circularity here. Apparently Gilmore wishes to imply that the Israelites were imitating the poetic style of the writings of the ancient near-eastern world without even bothering to present any evidence for it. In reference to Psalms, if this was true, then we would expect Akkadian (the original language these ANE literatures were written in) poetry to look the same as Hebrew poetry (the poetic narrative of Psalms), but they don't. They look very different carrying very different themes. In addition to that, as already mentioned in Part 3, Genesis and Exodus are historical narrative which is a different literary genre altogether from ANE literature.
As mentioned in my last article, the context of Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8 are emphasizing the presence of God. There is nothing in the text that would indicate rule. Besides, look at what Isaiah 66:1-2 says:
Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word (Is. 66:1-2, ESV, underline and bold added for emphasis).
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?" (Acts 7:48-50, ESV, underline added for emphasis).
The emphasis was not to draw a connection between Creation and the building of Solomon's temple, nor was it designed to emphasize the rule of God, but it was intended to emphasize the presence of God. God's presence cannot be contained in a physical building. Stephen understood this, and he took it for granted that the Jews he was speaking to did as well.
Gilmore says that this was to emphasized his place of rule in the temple where he was enthroned as its ruler, but the text indicates the opposite. The temple cannot contain the presence of God, no physical building can, which is the very opposite of Gilmore's/Walton's point!
Gilmore: The final element in this argument would be a clear link between a temple-cosmos and Genesis 1, and Walton argues (persuasively in my opinion) that temple-building language is used in Genesis 1. It is hardly coincidence then that the seven day motif occurs in the dedication of Solomon's temple with a seven day dedication followed by a seven day feast: [He cites 2 Chronicles 7:8.]
Brian: This passage says, "At that time Solomon held the feast for seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt" (2 Chronicles 7:8, ESV). Gilmore tries to link Genesis 1 with the number seven references in 2 Chronicles 7:8. However, despite him claiming that this is a "clear" reference, in reality, it is not only not "clear" but its nonexistent. The Pentateuch, which includes the book of Genesis, was written when the Jews was lost in wilderness for 40 years. The Temple of Solomon wasn't built until over 400 years after these events had transpired. If there was any "imitation" it would've been the other way around. Moses wouldn't have used "language" from a temple that wouldn't have been built until over 400 years later.
In addition to that, numbers do have symbolism in the Bible. It never takes away from the context nor the literality of a passage, but there is meaning within Scripture's use of numbers. The number 7 is God's favorite number, and is used constantly, either as "7" or a multiple of sevens, throughout the Bible. This never means a passage is dependent upon another passage for its interpretation and meaning, but could use as evidence of God ultimately being behind the Scriptures because all of the Bible is inspired of God, which makes God its ultimate author. The use of the number 7 does not mean a connection between the Temple and the text in question.
For example, would he argued the same for other passages (and there are many) that use the number 7 or multiples of 7s throughout Scripture? Joshua was told by God to tell the Israelites to march around Jericho for six days and that seven priest should dance around the city seven times and blow their trumpets seven times. It even has a better "Genesis seven-day motif" since it also makes a reference to six days unlike the 2 Chronicles passage that he quoted (see below). In the book of Revelation whenever God sent the seven bowl judgments (Rev. 16) was this "temple-building language" too? The point is the fact that the Scriptures mentions the number seven with an event or action doesn't mean it is using some kind of "temple-building language" there.
Lastly, I would disagree with the claim that it is using any "temple-building language" here in accordance with 2 Chron. 7:8. God didn't create the world in seven days, He created it in six days (Genesis 1). The seventh day, which followed after Creation, was when God ceased from work (Gen. 2:2; Ex. 20:11). So there is no clear connection even if one tries really hard to ignore the literary date of Genesis versus 2 Chronicles and the building of Solomon's Temple, the language does not look even similar. Apparently, the reason that Gilmore finds this so "persuasive" is because it fits his preconceived notions really well, not because there is an actual obvious connection between the two passages.
Gilmore: In integrating these themes of creation predicated on a functional ontology, creation as temple-cosmos, and the deity entering a temple to rule on the seventh day, Walton speaks eloquently: [He cites Walton again.]
Brian: His reliance on John's Walton's arguments, at this point, is exhausting. Citing Walton, Gilmore cites him as saying:
As is the case in temple construction, the mere completion of the material construction phase does not produce a functioning temple. Only when the functions are identified, the functionaries installed, and the deity has entered the temple does it begin to function. This is creation as it was understood in the ancient Near East. Even in the biblical picture of creation in Genesis 1, the manner in which the material stuff of the cosmos came into being and the time involved in this process had little significance. The amount of time is unspecified, and the manner in which the material stuff came to exist is also unspecified. Creation takes place when the cosmos/temple is made functional for its human inhabitant by means of the presence of God (John Walton (Gilmore's source is unnamed), p. 182; cited by Ken Gilmore, http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-exodus-2011-is-not-proof-for.html, accessed at 09/17/2022).
Walton, as cited by Gilmore, seems to think that the functionality of the temple is based upon whether God or gods are present there, but this doesn't make any sense. Why isn't its mere existence not enough? Why do others must recognize its functions for it to function? Wouldn't that mean that it had to already be functioning for its functions to be recognized by others? In the citation Walton claimed that this was also according to ANE literatures, but no examples were given. I guess the assumption is to just take Walton at his word without any demonstration of this as Gilmore had done. In the ANE literature that I had, such as Enuma Elis, I could find no examples of this being their emphasis. In fact, in Enuma Elis gods even created other gods as they do in many other myths. This presupposes that existence of reality did not require the presence of other gods.
Also, Walton's argument assumes, once again, that Genes imitated the content of ANE literatures, but this argument is circular and without merit. Walton has failed to provide any justification for this and he, like Gilmore, has just assumed that Moses is writing according to the content in these literatures. However, fundamental differences are ignored for the sake of superficial similarities. Genesis is historical narrative. This is demonstrated as such by its use of the series of waw consecutives in Gen. 1 in the verb form called waviqtol which are commonplace within historical narrative. The use of irrelative details such as its use of genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, which do not exist in ANE literatures. The use of very specific and precise details are not commonplace among ANE literatures. Most of these texts are written in poetic narrative, whereas Gen. 1-11 is not. These texts has gods creating from preexisting matter whereas Gen. 1:1 shows that God is creating from nothing. There is no change in literary genre from Gen. 12-50 indicating they're the same genres, but the ones who hold to this position will often, at least, admit that Gen. 12-50 is historical narrative, yet these sections are connected by waw consecutive, showing that these sections leads to the others. Gen. 1:1's phrase "In the beginning..." is unique to the Genesis account. There aren't any examples of ANE literatures that start out with this kind of phrase.
In addition to all of that, Genesis through Deuteronomy was written whenever the Jews were lost in the wilderness for 40 years after leaving Egypt, which was not in the Near-East. They were not raised in the Near-East and therefore would've not have been exposed to such literatures before these books were written. They would've been exposed to the Egyptian culture, but this culture understood what history was, but the ANE did not have a concept of history until the Israelites brought history to their region of the world. For Walton, Gilmore, and others to claim such connections and dependencies they would have to show a causal connection and they would then need to demonstrate such a connection. Simply showing similarities won't do. They need it to show historical evidence without assuming their position, but none exist, so both Walton and Gilmore just assume their position of literary dependency without demonstrating it, and this is what we are seeing here.
The claim by Walton that time had little involvement is another speculation without warrant. Genesis 1 consistently speaks of a timeframe for Creation Week, starting with Gen. 1:5 which, in the Hebrew, even defines what a day is. It may be true of ANE literature to not be as concerned with time, but it isn't true of the Genesis account. Walton's claim that such timeframes and the material creation of matter had little significance is another speculation since the account of Gen. 1 is all about Creation. You take away Creation from Gen. 1 and you don't have Genesis 1 at all. The first two chapters of Genesis are focused on nothing more than creation, but this is especially true of Gen. 1.
Why does Walton think that material creation and the timeframe is unspecified? Within the quote, neither Gilmore nor Walton gives us an answer to this. Instead, this is eisegetically claimed, but the text makes explicit references to these very things that Gilmore and Walton is denying. It seems they hope you'll accept that this is true without any real justification for it. However, anyone who can read can read the text for themselves and conclude that this is not true. The texts makes constant references to specified timeframes and the creation of the material world, universe, and life. Any claim denying this is without merit and unjustified.
Gilmore: It is no accident that in the final chapters of the NT the temple-cosmos motif returns for one final time. Rev 21 describes the New Jerusalem descending from heaven to Earth: [He cites Rev. 21:9-16.] A city shaped like a cube 1500 miles in dimension is clearly not intended to be taken literally, but the stupendous size suggests the possibility that the city was coterminous with the known world. If so, then as Rikki Watts observes: [Cites Rikki Watts.]
Brian: Revelation 21 says nothing about a "temple-cosmos motif" but, in fact, doesn't even say anything at all about a temple. Rev. 21 is about the coming of New Jerusalem. At the time the book of Revelation had been written Jerusalem had already been destroyed in AD 70, and hadn't been rebuilt, so they looked forward to a new city that was promised by God. Some take this as literal and some take it as figurative. Although I am open to a literal interpretation, I am inclined to think this is figurative for the Church, which had already been raptured at that point. The same text indicates that this is "the bride of Christ" (Rev. 21:9) which is the same title given to the Church and referred to as marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-8, 19:7, and v. 9). In fact, not only does these passages not reference any such "temple-cosmos motif" but this context says that God's dwelling place is with mankind (Rev. 21:3) which is the exact opposite of Gilmore's position here. There is nothing in Rev. 21 that would support his view here.
He seems to think that it must be nonliteral because of its enormous size. However, there are cities much larger than that. The largest city in the world today, Chongqing in China, is over 5,000 squared miles in diameter. The size of the city has to do with its content not its style nor language in which its being expressed in. Although I would agree that its likely considered nonliteral because of the way this city is being presented (people make up the Church, but, although cities have people in them, people don't make up a city. A city would still be a city even if everybody left), but this wouldn't mean it bears the interpretation he is claiming. He would need to show internal reasons as I did above that these passages are referring to a "cosmic-temple motif" not just assumed it like that. Once more he is practicing eisegesis, not exegesis.
He ends this section by quoting from Rikki Watts. Watts in Gilmore's citation believed that Revelation is not the destruction of all things, but the unification of heaven and earth, but this, again, fails to take in all of Revelation, even within that very chapter:
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there (Rev. 21:22-25, ESV).
This passage not only shows that Watts as he was cited by Gilmore is wrong, but this defeats Gilmore's whole reason for citing the passage in the first place. These same verses (v. 22 in particular) indicates that the Temple was no longer even standing, so how can this be used as any motif involving the Temple of Solomon, which was destroyed in 596/597 B.C.? This shows how far Gilmore is willing to go to stretch his eisegetical view.
Gilmore: With the temple-cosmos creation motif in mind, the language of Hebrews 4, where the elect of God will finally enter into YHWH's Sabbath resonates strongly. The literalist view that YECs insists should be normative for all believers does not even begin to explore this theme.
Brian: Gilmore wants you to continue thinking about his eisegetical interpretation of his "temple-cosmos motif" which he hasn't demonstrated yet was even a "thing" with the Jews or expressed within the text, and then try to interpret Hebrews 4 in light of this view. Hebrews 4 says:
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:1-13, ESV).
This passage does refer back to Exodus and understands that God's rest, not the day itself, continues to this day. This is why Ex. 20:11 tells us that everything that was created was created within those six literal 24-hour periods of time back in Genesis 1. God is not still creating today because God has ceased from all labor and this became the pattern of the work week, plus the Sabbath Day. However, God's rest is also spiritual. Jesus said, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Matt. 11:28-29, ESV). God does offer spiritual rest to those who are saved, so we abide in God's rest as a result of what Jesus did on the cross for our sins.
How does these verses prove a functionality or temple-cosmos motif that he is claiming here? These passages never speak of the temple. They do refer back to Ex. 20:11, but using the correct interpretation of this verse which is not in support of his view. Maybe he is trying to draw a connection that would make you think Ex. 20:11 is nonliteral, but the writer of Hebrews assumes a literal reading of Ex. 20:11 since we cannot enter into God's rest if He never rested. The writer assumes a literality of this event.
Lastly, we don't explore it because it is completely absent from any of the texts that Gilmore had cited. Let's recap. Gilmore cited Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8 in our last evaluation of his article. These passages use different Hebrew words to emphasize different things from Gen. 1-2 and Ex. 20:11, but these verses do not refer back to neither Genesis nor Exodus, and mention nothing about Creation nor any such motifs. He cites Rev. 21, but these passages do not mention the temple except to claim that it was now completely absent from view. There is also nothing about this motif in either of these verses. Now, he references Hebrews 4 which does refer back to Exodus 20:11, but assumes its literality, doesn't mention nothing about the temple nor anyone's emphasis within this verse, and this temple motif is still absent from the text. He has no evidence that such emphasis was made by the Jews, and certainly no Scriptural support for this. It seems to me that it is the "nonliteral approach" with Gen. 1-2 and Ex. 20:11 that don't have a leg to stand on.
Gilmore: The structure of the six day motif, combined with internal inconsistencies which arise when a hyper-literalist hermeneutic is forced on the first chapter, proves devastating to a YEC interpretation. The fact that days 1-3 and days 4-6 form two triads in parallel detailing the creation of domains, and domain inhabitants has long been appreciated: [He presents a chart comparing days 1-3 and Gen. 4-6.]
Brian: Gilmore claims that days 1-3 and 4-6 are allegedly "inconsistent" because parallelism exist between them. Parallelisms do not mean inconsistencies. You can sectioned off the Ten Commandments in the same manner. The first five commandments are sins directly dealing with sinning at God, while the last five have to do with sinning to others. This doesn't mean the Ten Commandments is some kind of allegory or other nonliteral language. There is some truth to days 1-3 and 4-6 being in some kind of pattern, but this would not take away from its literality, nor make it inconsistent. Why does he think that if patterns or sections can be categorized that would make them inconsistent with itself if taken literally? Again, he uses the strange term of "hyper-literal" which is a strawman fallacy. Although we take the passage literally, how do we take it as "hyper-literal"?
There is nothing about patterns in Creation that, if taken literally, would be devastating to the YEC view, unless he is assuming the strawman fallacy, which I think he just might be. He is both making and trying to tear down a strawman argument. However, I have no problem, both in my view and as a YEC, understanding that God created everything using a certain pattern to Creation which is even obvious and may even be discoverable in nature (such as with the Fibonacci Sequence), but this wouldn't make something nonliteral. Perhaps he is hoping you'd assume as such if such passages had some kind of literary arrangement, but this is inaccurate, and flawed logically. Just because you can assess a logical arrangement to something doesn't mean its figurative, nonliteral, symbolic, nonfactual, nor inconsistent. Something that is factually and historically true can still be found with patters and a logic to how it was designed. Honestly, I don't think he could keep this line of reasoning up throughout Scripture consistently. Since the Bible is the Word of God, patters can be found throughout its pages because God is the ultimate author of the Bible, but patterns just shows consistency not inconsistency.
Gilmore: The fact that Gen 1:14 states that one of the main functions of the sun and moon was to separate day from night and regulate time not means that prior to day 4 there was no such thing as day and night if we read this as a literal account of origins, thus contradicting the literalist reading of Genesis 1, but points us towards realizing that rather than dealing with material origins, we are dealing with an account of functional origins.
Brian: Genesis 1:14 does say that was the purpose of the Sun, but Gilmore is committing a word study fallacy called the Word Count Fallacy. This is a fallacy in word study whereby you assume only one definition in every context. He is making it with the word "day" which can mean a 24-hour period of time, but here the context is indicating daylight hours versus nighttime hours (12 hours in each cycle), so it is not referring to the same thing as, say, Gen. 1:5 by the word "day." It may also mean that Gilmore is equivocating on the word "day" by changing what is meant by the word in mid-context.
The Sun is not required to make a day in the sense of Gen. 1:5 (a 24-hour period of time). God does not need the Sun to do this. In fact, even in astronomy a planet can have a "day" if it has a rotating planet and a light source. God called light into being on day 1 (Gen. 1:3). God also created the earth on day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5), and, therefore, would've set it into motion. I do not know why Gilmore and other OECs think God has to have the Sun to make a day. After the Sun was destroyed in Rev. 21 God Himself produced our light (Rev. 21:22-24). There are some who sincerely think that you can't have a "day" without the Sun, but there are astronomical examples of non-suns providing light to extrasolar planets. I have light inside my home, but I don't have the Sun in here. All you need is a light source, so why assume that you have to have the Sun to produce light?
This does not contradict a literal reading of Genesis--in fact it fits very well as a literal reading of the text, but it does expose the logically fallacious, but common, argument of OECs and theistic evolutionists. "Day" and "night" cycles were already established back in Gen. 1:5 which, in the Hebrew, defined what a "day" is, which included an "evening and a morning", but the light established in Gen. 1:3 was only temporary, whereas the Sun was a permanent light source. Much of the ancient world worshipped the Sun and the Moon, so this could be the reason why God created the Sun and the Moon on Day 4 instead of Day 1, as well as failed to call them by name, because it was to show the ancient world that these were just products of Creation, not things to be worshipped and praised the way that they did.
Gilmore's last statement here is very odd. How does this "prove" that we are not dealing with material origins, but just functionality? Was it not the Sun and Moon and the stars that were created on Day 4? Even if this passage was nonliteral, and there is absolutely nothing within the texts nor context that would indicate this, this would not prove that their emphasis was more on functionality than material origins. The entire book of Genesis is about origins, starting with the material origins of all things (Gen. 1-2). There are people who do view these passages figuratively but still understand them to regard God creating all things. So, it seems, that Gilmore is trying to reach for "evidence" that is not there.
Gilmore: This is underlined by the bipartite structure of two groups of three days, in which the first three days detail the description of domains, and the second three days the domain inhabitants and their function.
Brian: Once again he is assuming that sectioning groups with some kind of contrast or parallel verses means that these were intended to be nonliteral, but that is simply not the case. This would be tantamount to assuming that the Ten Commandments are nonliteral because they can be sectioned off into two sections (of which he calls "domains" here) as well, but this is not what determines that something is nonliteral. Rather, context determines literality and non-literality, as well as the text, language, and literary genre. It would not be enough to say that because you can find some kind of pattern, order, or structure to a series of passages means it should be taken figuratively. All of the texts, context, language, and literary genre of Gen. 1 indicates this should be taken as literal history. Finding patterns in it proves nothing but structure, but not literary intent.
Gilmore: As Old Testament scholar John Walton persuasively argues, in days 1-3 we see God bringing into existence the three prime functions that would be of importance to any ancient society: time, weather, and agriculture: [He cites John Walton again!]
Brian: Gilmore seems very reliant on John Walton's Functionality thesis. You would think that there would be loads of Old Testament scholar, even among the OEC variety, that would take this position, if true. However, this view is mainly centered around theistic evolutionists, whom do not even completely agree on this, and always comes back to John Walton. He seems to use the "persuasive" a lot, but this is a subjective term. I don't find his, nor Gilmore's arguments persuasive at all. Plus, the majority of Old Testament scholars, even ones that are OECs, would reject this view. This is why Gilmore keeps coming back to John Walton's speculations regarding his Temple-Cosmos Functionality perspective. He is the first one, as far as I can tell, that has come up with this thesis, and it's not a very popular perspective. Of course, this alone does not make this view false, but it may expose that this position is based upon a speculation which has no Scriptural, externally historical, nor archaeological support. It is a position without any Biblical basis nor evidential support.
Both Gilmore, and Walton within the citation presented by Gilmore, tries to make a connection between familiarity with agriculture, time, and weather with the idea of a Functionality thesis. However, there is no reason that God can't use their familiarity with such things as He is creating everything. Besides, wouldn't we expect the origin of agriculture, time, and the weather cycles to be about those things as well?
Also, God has a purpose in everything that He does so we would expect that God would give us His reasons for His creation of those things. For example, He creates the stars on Day 4 for the purpose of being "signs" in the heavens (Gen. 1:14-19). This does not take away from the literality of God's creative acts. If anything, it further support it. If such material creations didn't actually exist, this would render the idea of even needing to express functions or purposes for those material objects being created redundant. In order for their purposes to be true, their physical components within Creation must also be literally true or their purposes would be rendered useless. The material creations would justify the purpose of which was given to why God created them in the first place.
We would expect these areas to have a point of origin, but this does not take away from their literality. Marriage's origins can be found in Genesis 3, and later treated as literally true by Jesus (Matt. 19:3-9; & Mk. 10:2-9) but this wouldn't make the view is false, historically untrue, or mean that the Jews, or Jesus, was only emphasizing its function or purpose whether than its literal creation, because one would have to be based on the other and Jesus rooted, or grounded, marriage and the purpose of marriage in the historical reality of how God first established marriage (Matt. 19:8; & Mk. 10:4-6).
Gilmore: Objections to the bipartite structure have focused on the apparent lack of obvious link between the creation of plant life in day 3 and the creation of humans on day 6. The second creation narrative suggests an obvious answer. Gen 2:5-7 states [Cites Gen. 2:5-7.]
Brian: This is true, that there are things between these accounts which have no obvious parallel, although I wouldn't argue that this is the only reason wrong with this view (see above). He cites Genesis 2:5-7 which states the following:
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (Gen. 2:5-7, ESV).
He cites these passages in order to show that such parallels exist between plants and humans. However, keep in mind, what I said before would still stand even if this is the case. However, Genesis 2 in a different context from Genesis 1, although Gen. 2 does zero in on a specific creation when God first formed Adam and Eve. Ironically, Walton and others who take his Functionality thesis, such as Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy, would see chapter 2 as a sequel to Gen. 1, and I think he does as well. However, if true then, and its not, but if so then Gen. 2 account cannot be used as a parallel to anything in Gen. 1, so these two view that Gilmore and Walton has on trying to find paralleled accounts would be rendered self-refuting. In addition to this, this passage has been taken out of context. This referring to the Garden of Eden which did not exist as a garden yet because it hadn't rained on the earth up to that point. However, after Adam was created God created the vegetation and set them in a garden:
[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it (Gen. 2:7-15, ESV).
Gilmore and others that use this argument would've realized this if they took the position in context which there wouldn't even been an issue. Apparently, Gilmore thinks that the use of this passage to create Man shows a parallel between the creation of plants and Man in Genesis 1, except these are not the same references that are in Genesis 1 to plants, but rather, they are a second creation of plants to establish the garden of Eden by which Man was placed. However, to why God did it this way is a matter of speculation. Some have conjectured that perhaps He wanted Adam to visibly see that it was God, Himself, who was doing the creating. This view is certainly feasible, but there is no way to know for sure since the text does not tell us. It just says that God did create this second creation of plants in order to place Adam in it to cultivate it. This is very explicit within the text and context of this passage.
Gilmore: Hebrew scholar Mark Futato notes that what we have here is a statement of two problems, the cause of these problems, and their solution: [He cites Mark Futato's comparison between no vegetation to no rain to God sending rain; and then to no cultivated grain to no cultivator, to God formed a cultivator.]
Brian: There are a number of problems with Mark Futato's and Gilmore's comparisons. First thing worth noting is that there is no comparison between no rain and God making it rain, because there was no rain at all. Instead the text tells us that God raised up a mist which God had used to water the ground (Gen. 2:5-6). If there was a literary connection here then why does the text use a mist instead of rain? Mist are created from the ground, not from the sky. Plus, the mist is used to solve the problem of the lack of vegetation. Any such literary connection appears imaginary. The text actually does not mention grain at all, just no plants. Again, we have the problem to the solution of the problem. This doesn't show parallelism, only the way things were, and are. We have problems, but then we have solutions or resolutions to the problem. It appears that Futato and Gilmore are reading more in this text then Moses, himself, did.
The last one of God forming the cultivator as a solution to tilling the ground is an almost laughable one. God formed Man first before these "problems" even arose (Gen. 1:26-28, & 2:7-9). God placed Man into this garden which He made after Adam's creation as a solution to cultivate it. I think Gilmore is seeing more into his objections than are actually there. It might be that he sees chapter two as a sequel to Gen. 1, but even in Gen. 2 Moses has God creating Man first before Eden was created, so this has Gilmore seeing more into this text than is intended by the original writer.
Gilmore: Not only do we see a specific link between plants and humans in these words, we also have an allusion to two of the three main functions outlined in Gen 1; weather and agriculture. Far from being a case where the domain-domain inhabitant parallel falls down, it provides the means by which the two creation narratives can be linked, as well as providing a further example of how a creation predicated on functional ontology is arguably more important than mere material origins.
Brian: This last part in his statement is his opinion and pure speculation. Any how, paralleled accounts doesn't prove non-literality, nor does it prove, or provide evidence for, Walton's Functionality thesis. Why would this prove emphasis of any kind? Chapter two is already "linked" to chapter 1 since it is the writer zeroing in on a specific event, namely, the creation of Man. Trying to link specific events is much harder since these event are being portrayed as literally, historically happening. Some can be easily paralleled, while others much harder to see any connection at all, and makes the interpreter, such as Gilmore, look like he is reading his theology and ideology back into the text, whether than look for what is actually there. However, there is nothing within either Genesis 1 or 2 that would imply or, for that matter, explicitly says anything about them emphasizing functionality over material creation. In fact, this is the very thing that these two chapters are about in the first place.
We do not see a specific "link" of any kind between plants and humans. Humans are created in the image of God which is why they are separated from the creation of animals and why the writer zeroes in on their creation in chapter two. There is no link that's noticeable. How does weather and agriculture can link chapter 1 exactly? The garden of Eden isn't even mentioned in chapter 1. There is a lot of specious reasoning going on in this last statement that we evaluated and that Gilmore had made.
Gilmore: In light of this, given that Ex 20:11 (and Ex 31:17) are not part of the original first person divine narrative but are commentary on it by a later author...
Brian: Here he assumes his conclusion. These are the things he has not yet demonstrated. If you recall, Gilmore thinks that this was brought on by a "later editor" and was not the original words of God in Ex. 20:11 and 31:17 because of the switch from first person to third person. However, as I had demonstrated back in Part Two of this series we've been doing, this was a common ancient art in the ancient world which was used often in the ancient world called illeism. There is both biblical and extrabiblical examples of this. He has no evidence of this being a later tradition, so he had just assumed it. God speaking in the third person would not mean someone else was writing. Even if Moses wanted to put words in the mouth of God that He did not say, this wouldn't be evidence of a later tradition trying to squeeze in here. Ex. 31 clearly did not support Gilmore's position, and neither does Ex. 20:11 which is the real reason he wants to jettison these passages from Scripture. In addition to that, Gilmore admits he thinks that this is a divinely-inspired "commentary" on Ex. 20:11, but this would make God the one who is ultimately behind the statement. Gilmore has a strange understanding of the doctrine of Inspiration. Even if it was a "commentary" it would still be an inspired commentary just like many passages in the Gospel of John. However, all of the internal evidence leads us to the conclusion that God said it. Without any evidence for this, Gilmore can only assume his position whether than demonstrate it.
Gilmore: [I]t is not unreasonable to argue that an ancient Hebrew, steeped in an ancient Near Eastern worldview which was more interested in functional origins than in material origins, would have seen creation in six days as being the time in which the three main functions critical to their society were called into existence, and the functionaries responsible installed into their domains.
Brian: Yes, it is, because it is pure speculation. I wonder if Gilmore understands that he has the burden of proof. If he claims that a "later ancient Hebrew" did this out of an ancient near-eastern world then he needs to support this with actual evidence. Also, assuming that the writer was more interested in functional origins than they were interested in material origins is circular reasoning. He hasn't demonstrated that yet, just assumed it.
Again, his claim of seeing "six days as being the time in which the three main functions critical to their society were called into existence" is also speculation. These are the kinds of things he has yet to demonstrate, just assumed and eisegetical read that interpretation back into the text. In addition to that, the "functions"--of what I assume he means time, agriculture, and weather--are not the most important aspects to the Jews. They would emphasized the creation of all things. The "functions" of something would be meaningless without the thing by which gives the "functions" rise. If God did not set the weather patterns and cycles of nature into motion then one would have to wonder if such things like weather would even have a function? If God didn't create time, would just the concept of time matter? If God didn't literally create plants would harvesting and cultivating of agriculture make any sense? These things are grounded in their literal, historical reality.
Gilmore: Unlike the YEC distortion of the narrative, this view does not conflict with what we know of the age and origin of the Earth as it is predicated on the origin of function. Furthermore, by decoupling questions of material origins from the creation narratives, it relegates the lesser questions of how creation took place to the scientific domain. Genesis has more important questions to answer.
Brian: No YEC distorts the text of Genesis 1-2 and Ex. 20:11 for their own purpose. That's what OECs do, and that is certainly true of Gilmore. He assumes his position, and then claims what they "know" of the age of the Earth as billions of years doesn't conflict with it. Of course it don't once you take away the creation of all things. Actually, if you were going to base what we "know" on secular scientists' opinions about the age of the universe it would be far remove from this perspective since even the belief in the big-model is closer to these opinions and to the Bible than his Functionality thesis.
This last statement reflects Gilmore's true purpose. He wants to open the door to allow for secular scientists' views without feeling that the Bible restricts him or anyone else from accepting such opinions about the past, including the Theory of Evolution. He is also trying to lessen the importance of material origins in the process, at least biblically. However, the Bible does oppose these views, and that is clear from the text, but Gilmore has yet to demonstrate such views. Instead he just assumes it.
Gilmore's arguments, thus far, has been very unpersuasive. He has assumed his position instead of demonstrating it. He has yet to produce any evidence toward the truth of his position. He makes a lot of logical fallacies, word study fallacies, and statements that incorporate specious reasoning. He has, evidentially, moved forward thinking he has demonstrated his position when, in fact, he has not, but only assumed it. he is overdependent upon John Walton for his information whose argument, itself, is fallacious. Maybe he will try to produce some evidence next time. In our next, and final, evaluation of Ken Gilmore's arguments ion his article, Gilmore will be targeting the age of the earth more, and his "scientific" objections to our position. I can't wait.
留言