Background for Genesis Essay – 2.1
In the immediately preceding blog posting in this series of background essays, the author stated that “the Septuagint does not seem to be ‘just one more translation’” of the Hebrew Bible, but instead “seems to be a divine authorization, or warrant, to take Greek philosophical presuppositions seriously.” At that point, beyond the issue of the acceptance of some Greek philosophical presuppositions, the author should have added the sentence: “Whether or not the Septuagint, as a whole, rises to the status of a divinely inspired writing is a complex issue not adjudicated here.”
However, we will now go on to note that the whole idea of calling the first Hebrew-to-Greek Bible translation “The Seventy” (Septuagint) was to emphasize that its 70 (or 72) participating scholars had isolated themselves in separate rooms and produced identical translations. Hence, their work must have been divinely inspired, based on the apparently presupposed principle that hyper-consistency implies divine inspiration. If the Septuagint had not been originally received as a divinely inspired text, then none of the original recipients would have given any credence to it. Later, Calvin thought that the Septuagint must be respected, albeit without an authority equal to that of the Hebrew Bible: The Septuagint had, after all, been quoted in the New Testament, which presumably was divinely inspired.
Belief as an attitude toward a proposition: The philosophical approach to belief, as delineated in these background essays, distinguishes between the objective, propositional content of a belief and a thinking subject’s attitude towards that propositional content. If the subject’s set of attitudes includes an acceptance of that objective content, based on “considered judgment,” then the subject is classified as a believer of that content. If the accepted, objective content deals with religion, then the subject typically also holds other attitudes or inclinations, such as a propensity to worship, to reverence, to pray, to stand in awe, to seek forgiveness, or even to seek mental clarity on what should be taught (a.k.a., orthodox doctrine).
Timelines from the Vastly Old to the Merely Ancient: Some civilizations and religions from the valleys of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, and Yellow Rivers date from circa 3500 B.C. (The historian, Toynbee, defined and analyzed more than twenty world civilizations.) During the last few centuries, natural scientists have been inclined to look for ever more remote physical traces of ancient civilizations, evolving life forms, planetary origins, and those ultra-remote cosmic events defining (or proceeding from) either the Big Bang or the most recent Big Bang (in case there really are intervening Cosmic Crunches). For a given world-historical event, we assume the existence of an associated time-zero and a timeline proceeding from that time-zero up to the present and beyond. A timeline is a half-infinite line (ray) whose unique terminal point is a time-zero for the real variable, time, appearing in the laws of physics.
The concept of the Big Bang allows one to speak meaningfully about physical laws that existed in an “inflationary epoch” (infinitesimally after a time-zero); or, on the other hand, about purposes and final causation that timelessly exist “logically prior to,” or “metaphorically before,” the Big Bang (provisionally assuming only one Big Bang). Physical laws describe, typically via differential equations, the efficient causes operative in the universe. Final causation considers questions such as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Empirically, the time-zero for the Big Bang is about 15 billion years ago.
The timeline that goes into effect after (or on the occasion of) the Big Bang might be designated as the Cosmic Timeline, which has been in operation for some fifteen billion years, has extended to the present, and will extend into the indefinite, if not infinite, future. In other words, the time-zero in this case is 15 billion years ago. The Cosmic Timeline seems to be consistent with the idea of ex nihilo creation attended by a “significant radiation event.”
A timeline tracing less far back, to planetary origins in our solar system, might be designated as the Old-Earth Timeline. These planets might have become visually recognizable, albeit not yet habitable, after a certain period of swirling-dust accretion that had been mostly completed by some five billion years ago (the time-zero for this timeline). This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years had elapsed between the Big Bang and the heyday of planetary formation in our solar system.
A timeline tracing very much less far back - - to the celebrated homo sapiens and their predecessors who are now thought to have wandered about in Africa for multiple hundreds of thousands of years - - might be designated as the Anthropological Timeline. In this case, the time-zero seems to have been 300 thousand years ago. This timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to the origin of the DNA-encoded information that guided the development of amino acids, proteins, and molecular machines; and that led inexorably to that biological efflorescence known as homo sapiens.
At this point, the Cosmic, Old-Earth, and Anthropological Timelines provide a naturalistic temporal framework upon which to locate at least some of the events portrayed in Genesis 1. For example, the original radiative blast establishing the time-zero of the Cosmic Timeline fits in very nicely the “Let there be light (radiation)” of Genesis 1:3. Genesis-1 history was summarized in Genesis 2:1 as “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” The stage had been set for a much shorter, more finely grained timeline starting with Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.
As a rhetorical matter, we acknowledge that there will never be an absolute resolution of the issue whether the “Days of creation” in Genesis 1 are literal or metaphorical. However, in these essays we will assume that the Biblical Days of creation in Genesis 1 are metaphorical; and that some such metaphor offers the only way of taking the Biblical text seriously. For example, the universe’s inaugural radiative blast dominated billions of subsequent years; and the declaration “Let there be light” can therefore only refer to a metaphorical day. To the extent possible, we want to develop a Biblical understanding in which metaphor and literal interpretation can peacefully coexist in a reasonable, or at least plausible, manner.
The “apparent timeline” portrayed by the Days of Genesis 1 differs from the timeline to be developed in Genesis 2. Genesis 1 deals with the six metaphorical days of Biblical creation. These are not six units of physical time, but rather are representations of six tasks logically required to have been accomplished before the whole panoply of heavens and earth could finally be assembled and proclaimed to have been “completed in all their vast array.” Internal to each of these six metaphorical days, there may be temporal processes; but, overall, there seems to be no unifying time allowing sequential completion of all six tasks. In contrast, Genesis 2 only begins its account of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden after the “heavens-and-earth completion” in Genesis 1, seeming to imply that the Big Bang, planetary formation, and those arduous African wanderings had all been things of the past at the time of the Genesis 2 story.
“In the beginning,” as Genesis-1 creation is ramping up, if not exactly proceeding along a unified physical timeline for all of its Days; the heavens and the earth were formless, empty, and dark (Gen. 1:2); seeming to cry out - - if metaphor and personification are permitted - - for some ex-nihilo creation. The Spirit of God was “hovering above the water,” meaning that the stage was being set for God to proclaim a various, six-fold “Let there be … Day N (N = 1 - 6),” i.e., “to speak the world into existence” in Genesis 1. This six-fold plan featured the following: There was to be initial radiation, inorganic phase separation (solid - liquid - gas), organic plant life, astronomical development of stars, organic animal life in the water and in the air, and organic land-based animal life including mankind. Radiation having been mentioned for Day 1, the internal timeline for Day 1 seems to correlate with the beginning of the Cosmic Timeline. The Days’ tasks being only logical prerequisites for creation, however, there is no expectation that - - for example - - organic plant life (Day 3) must develop before stellar development (Day 4) can occur.
A timeline tracing again very much less far back than the Anthropological Timeline - - to the human and horticultural origins portrayed in Genesis 2 - - might be designated as the Young-Earth Timeline. An estimate of its time-zero value will be given in the next blog posting in this series. That time-zero value marks the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. The Young-Earth Timeline is not consistent with ex nihilo creation, because billions of years would have elapsed from the Big Bang to whatever modification of DNA coding was required to guide the first appearance of Adam: “The Lord God formed a man, Adam, from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). On this view, Adam was not the world’s first homo sapiens, but rather an obscure branch of homo sapiens, perhaps with some slightly reinitialized DNA coding. There is, however, no reason to doubt that Adam, Eve, and their Garden were the first of their kind in their allotted corner of Mesopotamia.
Regarding the Garden of Eden and, presumably, the Middle East generally: Where there had been no surface water, no plants, and no one to work the ground; there God created streams, plants, a horticulturalist (Adam) “from dust,” and Adam’s wife (Eve) “from one of Adam’s ribs.” Nearby Africa may have had water, plants, and animal life from an early date; but Genesis-2 creation concentrates specifically on its own Young-Earth Timeline, during which the creation of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden occurs. These particular creation events occur, evidently, in Mesopotamia.
Summarizing: The Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth timelines are not incompatible: In the indefinite past, there were notable events that established timelines with different estimated values for their “time zeros.” For example, empirical evidence puts the Cosmic, Old-Earth, Anthropological, and Young-Earth time-zeros at, respectively, 15 billion years ago, 5 billion years ago, 300,000 years ago, and a value to be discussed in the next blog in this series.