Within the last few weeks we've been dealing with the faulty interpretations of Exodus 20:11 by one Ken Gilmore in a particular article, "Evolutionary Creationism: A Christadelphian Perspective." Christadelphians are a sect of Christianity that claims that they are a return to what the original disciples believed, which implies that everyone else has turned away from it, but they hold to some odd beliefs, which may also account for some unusual ways in which Gilmore applies the word "inspiration" but then insinuate that sections of Scripture are made up, or are "later traditions."
Gilmore appears to be a theistic evolutionist, and believes in what is called the Temple Inauguration View of Ex. 20:11. He hasn't given his particular perspective yet in the content we've already covered and evaluated so far, but I do expect he is getting ready to in his article. He spent nearly half of his article attacking the traditional interpretation of Ex. 20:11, but in them he contained logical fallacies, misrepresentations, factual inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, and even speculations and poor exegesis. He claims there is a wealth of evidence for his view, but we've yet to see him present any. Maybe he will make the attempt as we read further. We shall see.
His comments will be in red, and mine will be in black. I will present a conclusion at the end of this post, also in black, but will be separated from the main text. The link to the full article is above. Let's see if Gilmore can backup his claim with well-reasoned arguments.
Gilmore: There is one further reference to creation in six days which occurs in Ex 31:12-18, and the acid test for this argument would be whether we see a shift from first person to third person. We do: [He cites Ex. 31:12-18.]
Brian: Gilmore cites Ex. 31:12-18 which does reference the creation of the heaven and the earth. However, he claims, here, another shift from first person to third person as he did in our last review of this article. However, as we had seen, there is strong historical grounds, both inside of Scripture and outside of it, to understand that the ancient world has a practice called illeism which is where you might speak or write in the third person, although you are speaking or writing about yourself. To see my full recap of the evidence involving this click on here. This was a common practice in the ancient world, which he does not seem to know.
Gilmore wishes to argue that because of the switch from first person to third person he thinks someone else is writing and editing on this passage, but this was how people spoke and wrote back then. This practice was so well known it was done without any explanation that was what they were doing. People would've had no doubt that it was God who was speaking about himself. In fact, v. 18 goes back to the writer who is telling the story showing a clear distinction between who was writing about what God was saying and God who was saying it. Gilmore hopes by claiming someone is adding some sort of commentary that the statement must be made up, but even if that was the case it would still be an inspired commentary as I have previously shown.
Gilmore: Once again, we see the same shift from first person to third person providing the six day aetiology [sic] for the Sabbath. We can see that nowhere in the first person narrative do we see a specific declaration from YHWH that the heavens and earth were made in six days. In fact, when we omit the third person comments in Deut 5 and Ex 20, the two narratives are quite similar, arguing against the assumption that Deut 5 and Ex 20 are variant forms of the ten commandments: [Once again he cites Deut. 5 and Exodus 20 in a side-by-side comparison.]
Brian: There is actually only one reference in the third person in Ex. 31:12-18, and this passage does explicitly identifies that God created the heavens and the earth in six days (v. 17). He must've seen this because he switches immediately from discussing Ex. 31 back to Ex. 20 and Deut. 5. Then why bring up Ex. 31 if he knew that it didn't really support his personal view? Did he bring it up just to reference it in hopes of reverting your attention the other way would be better?
Since he cites a side-by-side comparison of Ex. 20 and Deut. 5 (again) I am forced to assume that this is now the passage he is referring to. If so, then he must be trying to argue from silence again, and assume the lack of mention in Ex. 20:11. However, Ex. 31 seems to argue against his thesis since it does have the reference. If a later "compiler" added the reference in Ex. 20:11, then did that same later "compiler" added the same reference in Ex. 31:17? Or was it a different "compiler" altogether? Again, this is all speculation. He has no evidence of anyone adding in this reference, and its inclusion elsewhere seems to argue against his these, but its exclusion in other places does not help to support his view.
We have already discuss how the ancient world practiced illeism. This "switch" was so commonplace that the writers and people within the narrative never had to even explain what they were doing. They already knew.
That last part was a bit of circular reasoning. He assumes that if you omit the portions of the text that includes the creation of the heavens and the earth, they would be identical. This is true, but the argument is circular. He must be assuming that Ex. 20:11 doesn't belong there to begin with. However, Deut. 5 is a recap of the Ten Commandments so we'd expect similarities, even to the point of being almost exact. However, this does not mean that ever statement, term, word, and phrase has to be exactly used. Again, Ex. 31 is probably a more "precise" recap since it is in the same book and close to the verse in question both in time and in written literature, and it does have the reference which argues against his thesis.
Gilmore: The absence of any explanation for the Sabbath in the first person narrative does not mean that the Exodus aetiology [sic] is of no value, but it certainly argues against the naïve belief stemming from an unsophisticated, motivated, and literal reading of the text that God Himself decreed that the universe was made in six literal days, particularly when a careful, honest examination of the natural world shows that the universe is ancient and evolving.
Brian: He claims its absence doesn't mean that it is of no value. However, what "value" does he think it have if it was made up later and what it says is false? I think he is foreshadowing his particular view which he is fixing to tell us about. However, a fictional statement would have no value at all. It'll be like someone taking Harry Potter as "fact" but then claiming it has value in a source that is presenting it as "fact" when it is not.
He has a lot of question-begging epithet fallacies in this statement. Remember, a question-begging epithet fallacy is where you use emotional language to persuade others. This is usually found in emotionally-charges words, or loaded words. He claims that our view of taking Ex. 20:11 as discussing a literal six-day creation as "naïve belief" coming from an "unsophisticated" in a literal reading of Ex. 20:11 that God had said it (which we'll come back to), and claimed the alternative is the "honest" approach, implying that our approach was, in some way, dishonest, which seems to infer that we knew about the "truth" of the other position, but took our position anyway, which is false. There was lots of others errors here, and I'm fixing to unpack them.
First, how is it a naïve approach when that's what the text says? Who is speaking within the text? It is God who is speaking, so it is not a naïve view to hold. Although one would have to make that question mark on the other foot since Gilmore is assuming although God is speaking, this was a later addition without any evidence supporting it. Arguments from silence from Deut. 5 will not work, since missing evidence is not evidence. Secondly, the word "motivated" seems to imply a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy that he doesn't quite unfold, but may be on the edge of his mind.
Thirdly, how is taking a literal reading of Ex. 20:11 "dishonest"? This is what the text says. Are we to pretend like the text really doesn't say Ex. 20:11 doesn't say that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth"? I would say the other approach seems to be more dishonest. Gilmore knows what the text says, but he is choosing, by his own admission (he's the one that says that "literalism" is a choice) to ignore the text because he favors an alternative interpretation.
Lastly, he claims that "when a careful, honest examination of the natural world shows that the universe is ancient and evolving." Once again, he claims this without providing any evidence nor justification for this statement. He would have us taking his word for it that such evidence exist, but failed to provide any at every turn. All evidence has to be interpreted within a framework called our worldview. All worldviews has presuppositions that come with it. Since the past cannot be empirically examined, then everyone will apply their assumptions to the evidence. The only way to show such inconsistencies in one's own conclusions with their present assumptions without arguing in a circle is to do what is called a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is what I did back in Part 1 of this series.
Assuming their views of naturalism, no Flood and uniformitarian assumptions most of the evidence would support a young universe and earth. This would include, but nowhere near exhaustive, helium inside Zircon Crystals, C-14 in diamonds and other things assumed to be millions of years old, the decaying of Earth's atmosphere, blood cells found in dinosaur bone, comets in our solar system, the abundancy of blue stars, the winding up dilemma, etc., etc. So, I think by "honest examination" of the evidence, he means one that agrees with evolutionary scientists on the age of the universe, but that's neither "honest" nor representative of a critical thinker.
What evidence does he think exist for the universe "evolving." There's no evidence of this, unless he is referring to the normal lifecycle of a star, but that isn't the universe "evolving" in the sense of formation. We have never seen any star or galaxy form. There are also problems with star formation theories. Gases resist compression. Once the gases expanded out from the alleged "big bang" it would've keep expanding outward. It wouldn't collapsed backwards into clumps to form stars and galaxies. The natural tendency for gas is to expand outward. In addition to that, there is nothing to hold it together. Once it gets to a certain size gravity would hold it together, but not beforehand. Some thought dust might've been able to keep it together, but dust is made up of heavier elements which are suppose to be fused within the star. Once the star starts to spin, it will build up heat which would cause it to resist further compression. It would also cause a magnetic field to form which would push the gas cloud apart like the same poles of a magnet. In addition to this, all stars have heavier elements in them. The first stars claimed by the big-bang model would've had nothing but Hydrogen, Helium, and trace amounts of Lithium in them. These were later labeled as Population 3 Stars, but none has been found. All stars that we have ever observed have always shown to have some heavier elements in them.
Where is this evidence of an "evolving" universe? I just don't see it. Maybe he means the fact that the universe is expanding, which no one disputes, but this doesn't prove the big-bang model. This model was created to explain the expansion rate. However, there is no logical reason to think that the universe expanded from a point unless you assume that God doesn't exist, which he seems to, at least, agree that God exist, so it would be inconsistent of him to think that the universe expanded all the way back to a point. He seems to be making assertions without backing up what he says again. Now, he is about to get into his argument on how and he interprets Ex. 20:11 the way that he does. Let's see what justification he gives for his particular interpretation.
Gilmore: There is a further element to Genesis and the seven day motif which is completely overlooked by the hyper-literalism that YECs have forced onto the Genesis narrative, and that is the link between temple and cosmos, and the concept of divine rest. Walton has shown that in the ancient Near East: [He cites John Walton.]
Brian: He uses the term "hyper-literalism" again which is a strawman term use to describe what we are not arguing. He seems to be using that term along with "literalism" synonymously and interchangeably, but we have already shown that Gilmore doesn't fully understand our positions on this, so these are false terms that he is applying. Also, YECs have not "forced" anything on the text. Whether, we are just agreeing with what it says. Ironically, it is the theistic evolutionist that is trying to force something on the text that it does not actually say.
We didn't overlook anything, the text says nothing about such connections. He cites John Walton, another theistic evolutionist and Christian Mythicist for the support of this position. A Christian Mythicist is one who thinks that Gen. 1-11 is a kind of "myth" imitating its existence from ANE literature which many of them think that the writer of Genesis, at least in regards to Gen. 1-11, is somehow dependent upon. For Gilmore, this is another faulty appeal to authority. How does Walton's opinion on this make this claim and conclusion true? Also, he failed to take into account Walton's worldview and personal beliefs.
In the citation of John Walton that Gilmore had cited, Walton had concluded that temples and deities were connected, and often resides in temples. Even if this was true, however, how would this be connected to Ex. 20:11 which says nothing about temples? This "connection" seems like a stretch, peppered with eisegesis. Let's see how he tries to make this connection from here.
Gilmore: As Walton notes, Isa 66:1-2 and Psa 132:7-8, 13-14 unambiguously link temple, cosmos, and divine rest: [cites Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8, and Ps. 13-14.]
Brian: These passages do not link these three things. In fact, these verses do not claim anything about Creation, nor does it describe some kind of artificial link nor emphasis between these things. First, Ps. 132:7-8 & Is. 66:1-2 says nothing about "cosmos" nor Creation. This is just Gilmore, and possibly Walton, eisegetically inserting their views into the text where it does not mention it. There is also nothing within the text that would indicate that they were more concerned with emphasizing "temple cosmos" nor this alleged emphasis on their functionality view of Gen. 1-2 or Ex. 20:11. There would not be any evidence within the text nor its context that would indicate this.
This is them comparing apples and oranges. These text do not mention anything about Creation, nor refers back to Creation the way that Ex. 20:11 does, so they cannot be used to interpret Gen. 1-2 nor Ex. 20:11. Ex. 20:11's callback to Gen. 1-2 is comparing apples with apples since Ex. 20:11 is referring directly to it.
Secondly, Ps. 132:8 and Is. 66:2 uses a different Hebrew word for "rest" or "place of rest." It uses the Hebrew word מְנוּחָה (transl. menuchah; pron. mā-nuch-a). This word is used in both passages, and differ from the Hebrew words used in Gen. 2:2 and Ex. 20:11. The word, in Hebrew, means "place of rest" and can be used figuratively, as well as literally. Gen. 2:2 and Ex. 20:11 also uses different Hebrew words for "rest." Gen. 2:2 the word is שָׁבַת (transl. shabath; pron. Shaw-vath), and Ex. 20:11 the word is נוּחַ (transl. nuach; pron. nu-ăkh). Both of these words means "to rest" or "to cease from labor." The BDB Hebrew-English Lexicon puts it this way, "to settle down and remain" (BDR, p. 628). שָׁבַת means "to cease" and "desist" or "to rest" (BDB, p. 991). These two words are just two forms with the same meaning, with the later in the Qal Perfect tense with the addition definition of to be "repose" "to be quieted" and "have rested" (BDB, p. 628). The emphasis of God here is on the act of of ceasing to work, be calmed and quieted in one's actions, in this case God's. The emphasis is not on his presence as it is in Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8.
Thus, the emphasis here is not on the act of "resting" but on the place of rest, which suggest, along with both passages context, the emphasis is actually on the presence of God. This is why Stephen in Acts declares, which he cites Isaiah 66:2 for support of this, that God dwells in a house, which he says, was not made by hands (Acts 7:48). The emphasis here is that God's place of dwelling cannot be contained in a physical building. In Judaism they considered the Inner Sanctum, the Holy of Holies, to be the very presence of God on earth. So, the emphasis here, despite what is claimed by the so-called functionality view, is on the presence of God. Any "connections" between Creation and these passages is purely in the imagination of the interpreter, who is eisegetically inserting their personal views into the text in order to avoid the straightforward reading of Gen. 1-2 and Ex. 20:11 which are not compactable with evolutionary nor deep-time assumptions.
Thirdly, These text are written in different literary genres. Both Genesis and Exodus are historical narrative, while Psalms id poetic narrative and Isaiah is considered prophecy. Metaphors abound in prophecies, especially in visions and revelations from God. Figurative language, figures of speech, and metaphors also are in existence on poetic narrative. The reason for this is because of the way these pieces of literatures are and reads. It is different from historical narrative which reads like the minutes at a meeting but in story form, giving constant factual information of what historically happen. Figures of speech can, even then, exist in these literary styles, but they are far fewer, and are heavily contextualized and obvious within the text and context that is what they are. Otherwise, the proper way to read historical narrative is a literal work of what took place unless indicated otherwise by the text or context. These means that it would be perfectly OK to read Is. 66:1-2 and Ps. 132:7-8 as nonliteral passages, but it would nor be OK, nor exegetically sound, to read Genesis and Exodus that way.
He seems to be appealing to John Walton's authority a lot, but he is making a logical fallacy here. Normally it would not be a fallacy to get one's information from an expert source. That is how we typically get our information from, as well as rely on that scholars to know the facts, issues, and be aware of the evidence, even if he doesn't outright present it, unless it is obvious that he's stating his opinion. However, in this case, Walton's position has been challenged by numerous scholars, Old Testament and Hebrew alike, as well as other exegetes. In addition to that, Walton's position claims that the Jews did not concern themselves with the creation of all things, and therefore Gen. 1-2 does not refer to God creating the universe. However, where is Walton getting his information from? There is nothing in the Old Testament that claims this, nor any historical source nor archaeological inscription that tells us this. This appears to be pure conjecture. A lot of theistic evolutionists has picked up this conjecture and ran with it.
As we've seen, Gilmore is using a lot of eisegetical methods and conjectures that has been used by other theistic evolutionists to propagate this position. Gilmore holds to the same conjectures as John Walton, but has failed to present clear evidence in favor of it. As we should see next time, Gilmore will attempt to get more involved in presenting his case from ANE literature as we continue our series on evaluating Gilmore's faulty interpretation of Ex. 20:11.
Commenti