What is wrong with this that would make celebrated YEC's reject it?

.

I sent the following to multiple celebrated defenders of YEC, but the only reply I got to it was of unexplained rejection. Can anyone here tell me why any YEC would reject it? Am I a flake? Is that it? I don't get it.

Organizations such as CMI and AIG represent a particular kind of YEC advocacy. Like all YEC advocacy, this kind wants for the secular world to accept Genesis 1 as historically true. But, just like that secular world, this particular kind of YEC advocacy assumes that the Genesis 1 text consists in little more than what it spells out.

This kind of YEC advocacy also assumes that particular parts of Genesis 1 either or both are (a) fairly ancillary to its author's main purposes, or (b) primarily of 'spiritual' intent. If we allow (a), then we are denying that Genesis 1 ought to be an irreducibly complex account. Then we are rendering the account as something thrown together, even if we hold that much of it is of a single piece.

Amy Orr-Ewing explains how the four books of the Gospel are far more than what they spell out. Specifically, Orr-Ewing shows that these books bear the nuanced marks of actual histories. This is as opposed to works of fiction, and to careless or presumptuous accounts.

Evolutionists can make their just-so stories. And they can have those stories accepted as reality by so many people. But, unless Genesis 1 and 2 are an irreducibly complex pair, per at least every detail of Genesis 1, then that foundational part of the Christian story has no real linguistic or literary superiority to the language and patterns of any false story.

But, given what is widely known today of human language capacity (i.e., the history of modern hand Sign Language), it ought to be granted by every YEC today that God created the human kind with the natural ability to create a language from conversational scratch: from bio-semantic, enviro-semantic scratch. It therefore would be odd, and unnecessary, for God to have 'front-loaded' a complete basic language in the minds of Adam and Eve. It even would be counter-productive therewith to the historiography of any first one or two accounts that Adam and Eve preserved in prosthetic record.

But, it seems it is taken for granted by virtually all YEC's that there ought to be little or no historiographic (and thus apologetic) difference whether Genesis 1 was (x) composed by Adam, or, instead, (y) is the word-for-word self-report on the part of God of everything He said and did ONLY at all the points at which He said and did them.

H M. Morris III* admits that Adam was made naturally flawless in cognition. But Morris, in considering the fact that Adam knew that Eve had been made from part of himself (Genesis 2:23), presumes to have properly determined the answer as being that which his own fallen and 'educated' cognition finds to be by far the easiest to imagine:

This particular information, of course, must have been imparted to Adam by God in later discourse with Adam.

* Morris, H. M. 2000. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood. http://intelmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BiblicalCreationismL... page 22.

Is it that hard to see the implicit obvious thereto that comprises Genesis 1? The Genesis 1 account bears every mark of Adam's knowing this by indirect providential means. Even Genesis 1:1 by itself implies this in two ways. (If you want me to specify those two ways for you, let me know.) So God didn't have to spell it out for him. Adam saw God's character thereto in the entire created world. We do not need to render God some kind of nutcase: despite His stating that He had created the human person in His image, He cannot have stooped to Adam's non-omniscient level by creating the world so that it was perfectly coherent.

But Morris, in his introduction to his above-linked book, reasons:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).


This simple declarative statement can only have come by divine revelation. Its scope is comprehensively universal, embracing all space (heaven), all time (beginning), and all matter (earth) in our space/time/matter cosmos. It is the first and only statement of real creation in all the cosmogonies of all the nations of past or present. All other creation myths begin with the universe already in existence, in watery chaos, or in some other primordial form. Evidently man, [what about unfallen man?] with unaided reason, cannot conceive of true creation; he must begin with something. But Genesis 1:1 speaks of creation ex nihilo; only God could originate such a concept, and only an infinite, omnipotent God could create the universe.


This revelation was given initially by God Himself to the very first man and woman and has been transmitted down through the ages to all their children. God either wrote it down with His own finger on a table of stone, as He later did the tablets of the law (Exod. 31:18), or else He revealed it verbally to Adam, who recorded it.

Here Morris deduces that the account implies that God designed humans deficient in terms of conceiving of creation ex nihilo. But that would mean that, despite what the Scripture says, humans have no normal, God-given capacity to recognize even that a Creator must exist!

Therefore, Morris renders humans little more sensible than simulating computing devices that need to be explicitly programmed with the concept of this 'true creation.' Morris conflates

(a) the very human nature that God designed,

with

(b) the tendency of every wayward fallen human culture.

But, the fact that even most atheists normally imply the essence of (a) by the term 'common sense' is not a fact that ought to be twisted to serve the kind of Christian-chauvinism that denies even the God-given common humanity of the minds of Christians.

Morris deems himself to be little better than such a computing device, and this is why he presumes that Deuteronomy 29:29 implies that whatever the Christian canon spells out about a given thing constitutes the greatest extent to which, in this life, we are meant to know or understand about that thing:

What does it mean that God “created” in His own “image”? Theologians and students of Scripture have been pondering this concept for millennia. What hints can we find in the Bible? (…) Just what is God's image? There are a number of hints in the Bible, but not enough to be completely sure. Some things remain secret with God; God told Moses that way back in Deuteronomy chapter 29: 'I've given some things for you to know; I've revealed them to you. But the secret things belong to me.'%

Deuteronomy 29:29 is specific to the Law of Moses. It does not include the book of Genesis, or even Moses's own personal history. The Bible is not being deliberately reticent. Rather, its writers, beginning with Adam, took for granted that their readers would find certain things abundantly obvious in its words.

So all three Morrises render God akin to the insane kind of Drill Sergeant who wants to 'break you into a Pile of Nothing so that you will be mindlessly compliant to his every command.' This is a most grievously erroneous way of thinking of God. God did not give to humans their divine image-bearing only to take it from them as a means of making them godly. We are not ever to be robots serving God's verbatim, for otherwise we are no better then the Pharisees whom Jesus opposed.

% Morris, H. M. III. 4. Day Six---Made in God's Image. http://www.icr.org/article/9476/202 @ 02:22-02:56.

Views: 93

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Whats wrong is its too wordy and drifting in intent.

The only point I would deal with is about language.

I don't think God gave adam a language. Instead Adam instantly used sounds to express thoughts. Being intelligent it only took moments.

I think language is merging spirit and thought with sounds. 

Robert Byers said:

I don't think God gave adam a language. Instead Adam instantly used sounds to express thoughts. Being intelligent it only took moments.

Who started the first conversation between God and Adam, Adam or God?

Assuming there is a way to determine which, what would the answer imply for how to interpret both

(a) the five reports in Genesis 1 of God's naming things,

and

(b) the report in Genesis 2 of Adam's naming things.

?

Robert Byers said:

I don't think God gave adam a language.

Neither did God give Adam a cultural environment that included atheistic cosmologies. Theophilus and Basil (in the early first millenium AD) faced such an environment, which is the only reason why they were determined to interpret Genesis 1:1 by long retroactive appeal to a fully present-tense notion of vs. 14-18.

If the creation account was first possessed by humans by way of hearing it spoken, then this retroactive appeal would not have been possible until the speaker had arrived at that portion that specifies the luminaries.

But even then, the Hebrew hermeneutic recipe seems to imply for v. 2 both:

(x) dense cloud (see
Luke 23:44, Exodus 14:20, Deuteronomy 4:11, Joshua 24:7, 2Samuel 22:12, Job 3:5, Job 17:12, Job 22:11, Job 38:9, Psalm 18:11)

and

(y) the location of God's next action as the conjunction between the deep and that cloud.

But the common language of today is at once simpler and more complex than is the Hebrew of the Bible.

To begin with, the main concern of modern global English is trade, with an additional formal concern for the basics of mechanical engineering and architecture. Of all language, it has the least possible orientation either toward the life-support system which is Earth or the human-life-system which is marriage.

Complicating this gap in language for modern Bible readers is that most people today reason from Genesis 1 on the basis of its textual instantiation. This allows (i) every bit of the account to be considered all at once, (ii) each bit compared, and (iii) each bit variously weighed relative to what each bit-in-isolation seems to say for itself.

This is a text-chauvinistic approach to Genesis 1. It has tended toward the impression that the account originally was given to humanity as a data file, rather than as an unfolding narrative that originally, and primarily, was to be heard.



Daniel Pech said:

Robert Byers said:

I don't think God gave adam a language. Instead Adam instantly used sounds to express thoughts. Being intelligent it only took moments.

Who started the first conversation between God and Adam, Adam or God?

Assuming there is a way to determine which, what would the answer imply for how to interpret both

(a) the five reports in Genesis 1 of God's naming things,

and

(b) the report in Genesis 2 of Adam's naming things.

?

Adam thought right away and so could talk right away from using sounds with spirit and thoughts.

God does not have a language. Adam did not speak Gods language. The language was just what Adam was talking.

I see it as simply adam putting thoughts quickly into sounds and this memorized right away because the sounds represented thoughts/spirit.

just that quick.

Robert Byers said:

God does not have a language. Adam did not speak Gods language. The language was just what Adam was talking.

It is not clear what you are implying here. Didn't Adam notice, as quickly, that he was as yet without a mate of his own? Didn't he notice that all other fauna had mates, and that he was the only one of his kind?

If Adam noticed this right away (and I think he did), then what all else did he notice right away about everything? And did what he notice suggest to him as to how, or even if, he was to obtain a mate of his own kind?

That's why I ask who spoke first, God or Adam, and what was first said by whomever spoke first?

Surely God already could talk so as to be understood by Adam?

After all, if Adam was made in God's image, and if God made Adam and Adam's ability to 'linguate'...

...then God could talk to Adam, and be understood by Adam.

So, again, who spoke first, and what was said?

Did God not want to fulfill His own side of the relationship? Did God not want to actually have it be that Adam found himself related to by God in language?

Here was Adam, the only one of his own kind. And here was Creator God, the only one of His own kind. Adam surely noted the analogy here.

Yet Adam also had every intuition that, unlike the Creator, he himself ought to have a mate.

The closest analogy to a 'mate for God' is humanity, and the Church.

But Adam was mainly concerned for his own place in everything. So he had to have noticed everything in terms of that concern. My question is what did he notice in that regard, and did God ever say anything to him that so much as 'led the way', so to speak?

So, again, if God could speak to Adam so as to be understood by Adam, did God speak first, or did Adam speak first.

One might suppose that it does not matter which. But if Adam was made in God's image, then it does make more sense to think that God was the one who spoke first, and Adam replied.

In other words, it makes only a poor sense to say that Adam spoke only to be talking to himself, like some unfallen Dagwood Bumstead.

Surely, God is not the example-follower, not is Adam merely exercising his language. He is in conversation with the only other language-able being who is present. Did Adam just begin 'gushing' his thoughts and observations?

I don't think so. I think he began actually to develop a language. Not by trial-and-error, mind you. But actually developing one none-the-less.

And my question, in that regard, is what word or idea did God say to Adam to begin with? It's a conversation, not a lecture. God said something, and Adam replied.

Adam's reply constituted Adam's first act of developing a language.

And God replied to Adam's reply.

And so on.

.

.

...or, were Adam's first words just so much random 'gushing'?

.

.

.

Daniel Pech

God does not have a language. His talking to Adam if audible would have to be in a language. Including Adam replying back in same language.

So the language must be from adam.

Instantly adam with thoiughts/spirit, used sounds to speak. In fact a original pure language that man was meant to speak./ our languages are corrruptions of the original I think.

Not just different ones. there is ONLY one language. Then twists off it.

So this language is not made up but is a natural response from a human being using sounds.

There was not ten minutes that adam could not speak in language.

Its about what language is, and what it was originally, and if that was unlike our present ones.

 

The reason for the creation of all things is communication between God and Man. The first use of words took place before the creation of man - when God said, "Let their be light" (Gen. 1:3) on Day One. And the first recorded interpersonal communication using words was when God said "Let us make man in our image. . ." (Gen. 1:26).

The first record of man being involved in communication was when God blessed them (Gen. 1:28):

And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, . . ." Genesis 1:28

Then there is the record -apparently before Eve was created - of Yahweh speaking to Adam (Gen. 2:16). It is clear from the narrative that verbal communication was initiated by God.

It is clear from the narrative that verbal communication was initiated by God.

But nowhere in the Bible, including in the Creation Account, is it spelled out that 'God initiated the first speaking that occurred between God and any human'. The account normally is assumed to explicitly-directly express just the main things---both the main things said by who to whom (and more-or-less when) and the main things done by whom in what sequence. In other words, most people who study the Account and the Bible assume that the Account is just an overview of an at least somewhat-more detailed set of events. This is all the more sure within the view that humans did not always have an 'infinite' supply of time and materials for recording events, ideas, and one's Every Banal Action. LOL.

And this is supported by the fact that even the entirety of the book of Genesis most obviously seems to be nothing but the high points of the lives of the persons of whom it tells. Either that, or it is an impossibly/miraculously masterful bit of fiction made to bear every likeness of being such an actual historical set of records.

So one could be excused for intuiting that Adam's first 'linguation' was that of both human adult and human infant: effectively possessing a full ready language, yet inclined to seeming babbling about anything and everything. That, therefore, God just stood by and watched in silence, as would many a human parent if their infant's first vocalization was a burst of semi-articulated language. Adam didn't begin his life with crying or cooing, because he wasn't a baby. But he did begin his life. And, since he begun it as a fully functional adult, one might feel that he must have begun it in a burst of activity. One might even feel that he must have begun by running this way and that, shouting and jumping and speaking all at once.

...and thus that he only calmed down once he had gotten used to being alive.

One might, therefore, intuit even that he may well soon have got bored without a TV to watch, and that God was just being aloof for not having created a TV. LOL

This is not unlike how Hugh Ross sees Genesis 2.* Ross intuits that the relation between God and Adam was at least similar to that between a College Professor Parent and his 'Little-Scientist'-of-a-early-adolescent-son. Ross was that son, but Ross had books and school teachers for a Science Parent.

Henry Morris Sr. sees that relation much like Ross sees it, but from a YEC perspective on Genesis 2. Where Ross sees a fair likelihood that Adam was mate-lessly working the garden for as much as many years, Morris at least recognizes the naturalness to which a human will take an initial once-over analysis of a purely hospitable new world in a matter of hours. Where Ross seems to leave Adam to have to fend off large carnivores, Morris gives Adam at least the best possible environment of which God is capable in which to fulfill the implicit purposes of the 'assignment'.**

* Ross, H.. Talk on the question, 'How long are the creation "days" in Genesis 1?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-syxid39kg  (time code 03:12-04:39)

** Morris, H. M. 2000. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood. http://intelmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BiblicalCreationismL... pg. 23 second paragraph.

 

Robert Byers said:

God does not have a language. His talking to Adam if audible would have to be in a language. Including Adam replying back in same language.

So the language must be from adam.

I would say that anything that God spoke to Adam was spoken in Adam's language, yes. But it is not clear to me as to exactly what it is that you are imply by this. Are you suggesting that God's speaking to Adam was limited to a selection from the set of words that Adam had already spoken?

Suppose God wanted to say a given thing to Adam, 'xcw woi ip avf byaafdttyw'. But suppose Adam had not yet uttered byaafdttyw, either in any multi-word sentence, or as its own complete thought. Would God then have had to wait until Adam had used byaafdttyw? In other words, did God not know that particular word until Adam had uttered it?

Robert Byers said:

Instantly adam with thoiughts/spirit, used sounds to speak. In fact a original pure language that man was meant to speak./ our languages are corrruptions of the original I think.

I think so, too. Though I suppose that I may differ on exactly what would constitute a 'corruption' in that regard.

Robert Byers said:

Not just different ones. there is ONLY one language. Then twists off it.

I may agree. I think there is only one proper original human language. But I think it was developed, as opposed to having instantly appeared, in whole, essentially ex nihilo, in Adam's mind.

I think it was developed in (1) relationship with God, environment, and complex active organism which is the human body and senses, (2) further in relationship between man and woman, (3) further in their relation to any prosthetic artifacts, (4) further in relation to potential and actual offspring, (5) and so on.

Robert Byers said:

So this language is not made up but is a natural response from a human being using sounds.

Right. It wasn't arbitrary, but natural. It wasn't made from a blank slate of possibility, but from the nature of the human being in his and her environment.

Robert Byers said:

There was not ten minutes that adam could not speak in language.

I agree. I think he was speaking in his very first few moments. But I also think he was actually developing a language by his sense of everything, and of the conversation he was having with God. I think he was sensing it in a flawlessly predictive flow: I think he knew what was to be said, and by whom, before it was said, at least up to two or three replies in advance.

A flawlessness in this sense is impossible for a human in a naturally disharmonious, biologically fallen world. But Adam did not begin his life in such a state. Nor did Eve.

But, here is the key to my thinking here: I think that the more complex that even the unfallen world would have become, the more that things would become, in many ways, too complex for the human individual to even bother to try to predict or dictate.

I think that what Adam and Eve were dealing with to begin with was just the root of society and language. This would, of course, build that root so that it was a ready and comprehensible resource that would be immediately recognized for what it is.

I think that language would have become as broadly diverse (multiple languages) as humans have become. There is not just one variety of human, but many: tall, short, lanky, stocky; black, white, red, brown; mechanical, emotional, exuberant, calm; etc..

Daniel Pech

We agree on a lot.

I'm imagining Adam immediately spoke in a glorious language within ten minutes.

Strange but I think so. Not developing over time.

I think its from thoughts/spirit/sounds instantly working together.

The bible says communication was effortless from day one. I think Eve was created before the seventh day.

So thats my speculation. So I see pure human language as easy. now its corrupted into difficult things.

Robert Byers

I'm imagining Adam immediately spoke in a glorious language within ten minutes.

Do you mean a complete language: one with tens of thousands of words corresponding to as many ideas, subjects, verbs, etc.?

Strange but I think so. Not developing over time.

Do you mean 'not developed over much time'?

The bible says communication was effortless from day one.

By 'effortless' do you mean 'without struggle, mistakes, etc.' ? What I am wondering is whether your thinking the way you do here is only because of the fact that, say, adults in the fallen world are unable to just think up a complete new language even within several days?...

...You know, learning a foreign language can take a long time. This is especially so if it is conducted through the academic mode of mind that was used in the 'foreign language classes' in high schools and colleges in the 1960's.

...So...How do your ideas here relate to the four-point Pimsleur Method?

http://www.pimsleur.com/the-pimsleur-method

The Pimsleur® Method is (...) a (...) set of principles designed to take a learner directly to the heart of the language, eliminating noise, confusion, and information overload. People all over the world are using Pimsleur programs to start speaking, understanding, and reading new languages quickly and easily. If you haven’t experienced it for yourself, you may find it hard to believe that something so simple could work so well. (...) The Pimsleur Method is made up of a few key principles: Graduated Interval Recall[,] Principle of Anticipation[,] Core Vocabulary[, and] Organic Learning(...).

Of the Pimsleur Method, one client reports:

I used to think learning a second language would be an insurmountable task, as boring and painful as retaking high school Spanish. I was wrong. I bought the Basic Spanish 10 lessons and mastered it in one weekend. The Pimsleur approach works perfectly with how my brain is wired. I even found myself dreaming in Spanish.

...so...how do your ideas about Adam's language relate to the language acquisition of babies?

Suppose that Adam and Eve had remained unfallen, so that they then had unfallen babies. Would your ideas here apply to those babies as well?

In my view, Adam's lack of an inherited set of fallen bio-cognitive cultural expectations would have put him rather near to the Pimsleur Method in terms of developing a language. It would have been easy and natural for him, without any struggle.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service