# Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?



## Reformed Covenanter

In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.

I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChristianTrader

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?



How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?

CT


----------



## Pilgrim

ChristianTrader said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


That's a good question, given the old "Machen's Warrior Children" piece. I would imagine Frame has some list somewhere of essentials or fundamentals of the faith. Whether it's the same as the old "Five Fundamentals" I don't know since I haven't read much Frame.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I presume it should only be over soteriological issues; but I do not know for definite as I have not heard from the horses' mouth.


----------



## MW

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.



I would definitely agree that it should be a term of office. Certainly in terms of hermeneutics the consequences of denying 6 day creation are dire. Can we apply the same approach to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?


----------



## greenbaggins

I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an _exception_ to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

greenbaggins said:


> I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an _exception_ to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.



I would not like to use the "H" word, but, nonetheless, it smacks of a lack of confidence in God's word.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Pilgrim said:


> That's a good question, given the old "Machen's Warrior Children" piece. I would imagine Frame has some list somewhere of essentials or fundamentals of the faith. Whether it's the same as the old "Five Fundamentals" I don't know since I haven't read much Frame.



Here is the article referenced. and the section:



> 12. The Days of Creation
> 
> As in the broader evangelical world, the interpretation of Genesis 1 has been controversial in Reformed circles. Nevertheless, there has been relative peace and tolerance over this issue until recently. A number of Old Princeton professors, including Charles and A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Oswald T. Allis, held that the days of creation were not literally twenty-four hours long. Edward J. Young, who taught Old Testament at Westminster for many years, held that the days referred to long ages of time. [40] In 1957, Meredith G. Kline published an article, “Because it Had Not Rained,” [41] arguing not only that the days were non-literal, but that the narrative does not even teach a temporal sequence of events. Following N. H. Ridderbos, [42] Kline argued that the list of days is a literary framework that has no implications for the length of time or the sequence of events. So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.
> 
> But since then many have taken up the cause of twenty-four-hour-day creation, [43] and their disciples have followed the twentieth-century Reformed pattern of being militant about their views. Many Christian Reconstructionists have embraced a literal position, joined by many strict subscriptionists (see later discussion) who base their argument on what the writers of the Westminster Confession are likely to have believed. Some presbyteries in the OPC and the RCUS have denied ordination to candidates who reject the literal view of Genesis 1.
> 
> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them. A non-literal interpretation does not entail, for example, that Adam was anything but a real person, or that human beings evolved from animals.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.



This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously. 



> So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.



I think this is due to Calvinisms' love-affair with humanism. How any Calvinist cannot except literal six day creation is beyond me. A Calvinist should believe that God, not unbelieving science, is sovereign.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?


it is worth the battle, since any other view is explicit heresy.


----------



## caddy

armourbearer said:


> I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.


 
Thanks Matthew. I have done some major reading the last few years on the I.D. / Creationist debate. Most of what I have read as you have described it is where I lean given that understanding and reading.


----------



## caddy

Slippery said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> it is worth the battle, *since any other view is explicit heresy*.
Click to expand...

 
I'm NOT sure about this. I think and feel very strongly about a literal six days, but I think that this error can be held for a time. God does not bring all of our views and doctrines to perfections so quickly. I know I have overturned many a wrong notion, as most of us have, with diligent study and the counsel of those more gifted than ourselves,and time. I do believe that faulty handling of Genesis 1 opens up a pandora's box to interpret the rest of scripture badly.


----------



## DMcFadden

In my Christian college and seminary education, ALL of my professors were representative of the poetic/metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. They simply dismissed the straight-forward interpretation as nonsense. That, coupled with some Hugh Ross books, left me feeling quite comfortable with a framework or progressive creationist view.

A couple of years ago, while fighting tooth and nail with progressives in my denomination who were arguing for the ordination of openly gay men and women, it finally hit me. The same hermeneutic used to finesse Genesis fits quite nicely when trying to dismiss any number of Pauline teachings in the New Testament. 

After three decades of ministry, I had never given a serious consideration to the issues, hermeneutically or scientifically, but simply coasted on what my teachers had said. Surely the distant starlight problem and radiometric dating alone made the Genesis account impossible to reconcile with modern science . . . or so it seemed.

Discovering the _Answers in Genesis_ web site (with their presuppositional apologetic) was a gift of God. One need not crucify his intellect to believe in a young earth. The "facts" of science fit (and can be reconciled with) either a Darwinist-naturalist worldview or an orthodox Christian worldview. The solid work by the AiG folks on some of the scientific problems offers credible answers to secular challenges, even the technical ones.

However, even if there was no AiG or credible answer to the evolutionists from a scientific perspective, the compromises made by Reformed theologians in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century undermine their claim to biblical authority. Charles Hodge virtually ceded the ground to the scientists when he wrote: 

_"It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other."_

Notice how Hodge readily grants to naturalism the right to lay claim to ownership of the "facts." I would contend that the "facts" are only meaningful when put into some conceptual framework. The structure offered by evolutionists leads to atheism. Compromising with them to achieve some temporary tactical advantage is stupid. The confessions take Genesis in the sense in which it was written, a sense which also stands behind Ex 20:11 and the establishment of the sabbath, the Pauline argument regarding Adam and Christ in Romans, etc.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I 100% agree with your condemnation of the capitulation of Hodge and I am presup myself, but I do believe that there is room for the "day as age" interpretation without capitulating all to naturalism. 

That is - I do not think the last day will last a literal 24 hours. What is time measurement to God? He does not measure it as man does, anyway. The Sabbath was made for man for a purpose and it was not to be about measured time or measuring out God's rest. 

Man is bound by time, not God. "Objective" time measurement (ex:an exact 24 hour day) is an invention of Man. 

How long do you think the "last day" of judgment will be?

Answer: As long or as short as the Lord wills it.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> A couple of years ago, while fighting tooth and nail with progressives in my denomination who were arguing for the ordination of openly gay men and women, it finally hit me. The same hermeneutic used to finesse Genesis fits quite nicely when trying to dismiss any number of Pauline teachings in the New Testament.



 This is one of those theological and moral issues which hang on the fiat-fulfilment position of Gen. 1. Rushdoony has a good book entitled Revolt against Maturity, in which he argues persuasively that belief in "mature" creation is fundamental to Christian ethics. He builds on Van Til that non Christian ethics are themselves creative, whereas a truly Christian ethic is receptive because it presupposes creation is the moral prerogative of God alone. A genuine belief in the historicity of Genesis commits a man to the normativity of nature as God has made it. Hence sexual distinction, propagation, work, etc., are non-negotiable.


----------



## Narnian

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
Click to expand...

The question is whether or not it is a plain historical account. I recall taking an OT class from J. Barton Payne at Covenant Seminary back in 1977 where Dr. Payne said the reading of the Hebrew of Genesis prohibited a literal 7 day view of creation.


----------



## DMcFadden

panta dokimazete said:


> What is time measurement to God? He does not measure it as man does, anyway. The Sabbath was made for man for a purpose and it was not to be about measured time or measuring out God's rest.
> 
> Man is bound by time, not God. "Objective" time measurement (ex:a 24 hour day) is an invention of Man.



Yom in Hebrew has much the same range of meanings as it does in English. And, in Hebrew as in English, *context determines meaning*. "In my father's day, it took four days to drive all day from California to his boyhood home in Southern Illinois." You don't need to be a brain surgeon to realize that the first use refers to "age" or "era," the second to 24 hour days, and the third to the daylight part of the day. We are similarly able to discern the meaning of the word in the Bible in most cases without too much difficulty.

"Day" is used more than 2300 times in the Old Testament. 
* 410x in OT outside of Genesis 1 - "Day" + number (singular or plural) = normal day.
* 38x in OT outside of Genesis 1 - "Evening and morning" together without "day" = normal day.
* 23x in OT outside of Genesis 1 - "Evening" or "Morning" with or without "day" = normal day.
* 52x in OT outside of Genesis 1 - "Night" with "Day" = normal day. 

And, don't forget the Sabbath. Exodus 20:11 treats the days of creation as literal and as culminating in a sabbath day. 

Paul treats Adam as the first human sinner, not any of the purportedly millions of pre-humans needed by evolution to get to us in 3.8 billion years. The Adam and Christ comparison depends on a literal Adam. The Bible teaches that death came through Adamic sin. Millions of years of death and destruction prior to "Adam" turns the explanation upside down. 

As Hodge, himself, avered, if exegesis alone were at stake there would be no question. The arguments of context, hermeneutics, grammar, etc. all side with normal days. It is only when one feels insecure in the face of naturalistic science that we have ANY reason for elongating the days beyond the straight-forward reading.

If you want to see the weasel-wording of those embarrassed by the Bible in the face of modern science, check out Grudem's attempt to do justice to the doctrine of creation and the supposed "assured findings of science" in his theology. You will see that ONLY those who believe that science has decided the issue in the Darwinist direction feel even the slightest discomfort with the plain sense of Genesis.


----------



## panta dokimazete

A lot can happen in a "day" with the Lord.

Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.


----------



## DMcFadden

panta dokimazete said:


> A lot can happen in a "day" with the Lord.
> 
> Joshua 10:13
> And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.



Regardless of how one interprets the passage in terms of reconciling it with physics, claiming sheer miracle, or whatever . . . who would argue that "a whole day" means anything else than an attempt to explain the time elapsed as "about a whole day"???


----------



## panta dokimazete

Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.


----------



## sotzo

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?



1. We should engage in battles over it when the Gospel is at stake. Battling over it in order to supposedly demonstrate who is more faithful to God is more prideful and arrogant than any view of the creation account.

2. We should not assume that an alternative view of any portion of Scripture necessarily makes one "less serious" about God's word than we good Reformed folks. To be sure, there are positively wrong interpretations...however, deeming an old-earther to be less serious than us about the things of God is a _non sequitur_. 

3. There is a double-edged sword factor here. Many of our premill brethren could use your same argument to say that unwillingness to accept Revelation at face-value is heretical and should exclude one from becoming an officer.


I have not read this book, but knowing Frame from other writings, he is not evading the implications of non-literal intepretations of Genesis. Rather, he is concerned to apply wisdom to the "how" and "when" we engage in such battles. He is very good about sorting the forest from the trees.


----------



## RamistThomist

sotzo said:


> 3. There is a double-edged sword factor here. Many of our premill brethren could use your same argument to say that unwillingness to accept Revelation at face-value is heretical and should exclude one from becoming an officer.



Draws sword...any takers? Setting the premillennial trap. Anyway, I forgot the ratio but the preponderance of the waw in the first few chapters of Genesis strains a poetic reading of the text.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.



I agree. It's been said that, if you believe Genesis 1:1, you shouldn't have a problem, ultimately, with anything else you find in the Bible.

There's the personal integrity angle, too. If you truly believe that Genesis 1 teaches a six-day creation, then you have an obligation to propagate and defend that view. The same principle applies to other views of Genesis, too, of course, even though they're wrong (heh, heh)...


----------



## DMcFadden

panta dokimazete said:


> Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.



Douglas F. Kelly's _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms_ was the book that caused R.C. Sproul to change his view from endorsing Hugh Ross to accept a six-day creationist view.

A Hebrew scholar from Master's Seminary also subjects the Genesis account to a rigorous statistical analysis, essentially "proving" the narrative nature of the text and the impossibility of a poetic reading (cf. pgs. 173ff of _Thousands Not Billions_, ed. Donald DeYoung).


----------



## DMcFadden

sotzo said:


> 3. There is a double-edged sword factor here. Many of our premill brethren could use your same argument to say that unwillingness to accept Revelation at face-value is heretical and should exclude one from becoming an officer.



Speaking as a premill lifer, the hermeneutic used to advance amill or postmil views does not bear the same kind of unintended consequences present with a spiritualizing hermeneutic of Genesis. Good and Godly scholars have held diverse eschatological views as well as both old earth and young earth views of Genesis. I was an old earther for nearly 40 years before changing my mind and embracing the young earth view. Presumably my theology was essentially orthodox during those four decades, albeit seriously errant and, ultimately in my view, dangerously deficient. 

Besides, the PB is the LAST place I would stage a Custer's Last Stand over eschatology! Yikes! I am quixotic enough to march into hell for a heavenly cause. But, yowee zowee, even with Jacob packing heat and having my back, it would be a proverbial masacree!  By the time the Brits and Aussies worked me over, there wouldn't be much left for the jughead to eliminate with extreme prejudice! (no offense Semper Fi, sir. We appreciate your sacricfice and service, sir! Please remember that Jacob is the provocateur. And, did I mention he is also armed?).


----------



## Me Died Blue

This is a good discussion. I want to preface my comments and questions by making it clear that I have not yet been convinced of one position over another, and am simply thinking through and comparing various issues as they relate to each side of the broad issue. That said, there are certain arguments within the issue that I am convinced are weak or flawed; but none of those so far are enough in themselves to fully carry the weight of the whole issue, one way or another.

Matthew and Lane, I'm curious as to how you would point out the language of WCF 4 ("in the space of six days") as specifically elaborating on the meaning of the direct Scriptural language (Genesis 1 _and_ Exodus 20:11, "in six days") in one way or another. 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
Click to expand...


This is simply begging the question. Since you believe the Genesis creation account to in fact _be_ a "plain historical account," you can certainly make arguments for why that must be the case; but in saying that the error of those who disagree is chiefly seen in the further implications for biblical hermeneutics because they don't take "a plain historical account" seriously, you are completely assuming that the creation account is in fact "a plain historical account," which is the very question being asked in the debate.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is due to Calvinisms' love-affair with humanism. How any Calvinist cannot except literal six day creation is beyond me. A Calvinist should believe that God, not unbelieving science, is sovereign.
Click to expand...


I can't honestly see how this is anything but an _ad hominem_ that again begs the question, since you are automatically assuming that any non-literal reading of the creation account is "unbelieving science." In other words, Reformed theologians who have held to a non-literal view would not logically respond with an implication that "No, unbelieving science, not God, is sovereign," but rather would simply respond by making a case that their view is _not_, in fact, rooted in "unbelieving science." You can certainly argue otherwise, and indeed, that is where the very debate lies.



Slippery said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> it is worth the battle, since any other view is explicit heresy.
Click to expand...


Keon, please clarify what you mean by "heresy." If you take the view that there is only one biblical definition of the word, and that that definition is damning error, then there is a definite problem with your post with respect to board policy. If, however, you take the view that there is damning heresy as well as a legitimate use of the word to refer to non-damning but serious error, and if you simply have the latter use in mind in this case, it would be best to simply refer to it as just that--serious error--so that the discussion can, again, remain civil and beneficial.



caddy said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> it is worth the battle, *since any other view is explicit heresy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm NOT sure about this. I think and feel very strongly about a literal six days, *but I think that this error can be held for a time*. God does not bring all of our views and doctrines to perfections so quickly. I know I have overturned many a wrong notion, as most of us have, with diligent study and the counsel of those more gifted than ourselves,and time. I do believe that faulty handling of Genesis 1 opens up a pandora's box to interpret the rest of scripture badly.
Click to expand...


I likewise sympathize with definitely challenging and taking to task, and pushing for clear textual evidence for, the claim that the creation account easily has a different natural reading than the parts of Scripture we all agree to be literal history. But I'm curious as to your second sentence here (bold emphasis above): What about people who hold a non-literal position for a lifetime? What about Charles Hodge, or Meredith Kline?



DMcFadden said:


> Charles Hodge virtually ceded the ground to the scientists when he wrote:
> 
> _"It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other."_
> 
> Notice how Hodge readily grants to naturalism the right to lay claim to ownership of the "facts." I would contend that the "facts" are only meaningful when put into some conceptual framework.



I have to give a hearty "Amen!" to this point; even if I were to become convinced of a non-literal view of the creation account, it certainly would not in any way rest upon a concession of scientific theories automatically being "the facts," an assumption with which I'd be willing to bet everyone here would take serious issue.



panta dokimazete said:


> I 100% agree with your condemnation of the capitulation of Hodge and I am presup myself, but I do believe that there is room for the "day as age" interpretation without capitulating all to naturalism.



Exactly. As a sort of corollary or logical "other side of the coin" to my preceding statement, even if I decisively adopted a literal six-day view, it would _not_ rest upon a mere assumption that a day-age view in itself logically necessitates a naturalistic perspective, but rather on the basis that a day-age view simply does not square with an accurate reading of the text.



panta dokimazete said:


> That is - I do not think the last day will last a literal 24 hours. What is time measurement to God? He does not measure it as man does, anyway. The Sabbath was made for man for a purpose and it was not to be about measured time or measuring out God's rest.
> 
> Man is bound by time, not God. "Objective" time measurement (ex:an exact 24 hour day) is an invention of Man.
> 
> How long do you think the "last day" of judgment will be?
> 
> Answer: As long or as short as the Lord wills it.



This seems like a good point to me; certainly one worthy of further consideration and interaction, if nothing else. So, how would the literal six-day creationists on the board interpret the last "day" of Judgment; and as a follow-up question, if you would say it is something other than 24 hours, why would you read it differently than Genesis 1?

One possible response I can think of to the latter question is that I have heard that while Scripture does use the word for "day" found in Genesis 1 in non-literal ways in some passages, there are no other passages in which it is used in a non-literal way _when it is used repetitively in a back-to-back way_.



sotzo said:


> 1. We should engage in battles over it when the Gospel is at stake. Battling over it in order to supposedly demonstrate who is more faithful to God is more prideful and arrogant than any view of the creation account.
> 
> 2. We should not assume that an alternative view of any portion of Scripture necessarily makes one "less serious" about God's word than we good Reformed folks. To be sure, there are positively wrong interpretations...however, deeming an old-earther to be less serious than us about the things of God is a _non sequitur_.
> 
> 3. There is a double-edged sword factor here. Many of our premill brethren could use your same argument to say that unwillingness to accept Revelation at face-value is heretical and should exclude one from becoming an officer.



Excellent observations here, Joel. I would only seek clarification or possibly suggest otherwise on your first point: Are issues where the very Gospel itself is at stake really the _only_ issues worth fighting for? What about issues concerning the sacraments? Ecclesiology? Confessional subscription? Although I would never claim the Gospel itself to be threatened by any of the orthodox yet differing positions on those matters, yet would certainly say they are worth fighting for, since they have great implications for the life of the Church and the believer.


----------



## MW

Me Died Blue said:


> So, how would the literal six-day creationists on the board interpret the last "day" of Judgment; and as a follow-up question, if you would say it is something other than 24 hours, why would you read it differently than Genesis 1?



Appealing to a wide semantic range for the word "yom" is inadequate. In Gen. 1 "yom" is defined by ordinals and so the semantic field is significantly reduced. The use of the ordinal clearly makes this a time referent.

If one looks at Numb. 7, one will notice a variety of parallels to Gen. 1:1-2:4, including the descriptive use of "day" (beyom) to refer to the whole period. It is clear that Numb. 7 is providing an historical record. The same clarity should shine through the creation account, and I believe it would if it were not for certain non-biblical concerns which overshadow the interpreter.


----------



## MW

Me Died Blue said:


> Matthew and Lane, I'm curious as to how you would point out the language of WCF 4 ("in the space of six days") as specifically elaborating on the meaning of the direct Scriptural language (Genesis 1 _and_ Exodus 20:11, "in six days") in one way or another.



Scripture says "in six days" whereas the Confession says "in the space of six days." The term "in the space of six days" is used from Calvin onwards to assert that God used six literal days to create the world in contradistinction from the view that God made the world in an instant but then used the six days as a literary device. See, for example, Calvin's commentary on Gen. 1:5. It might also be pointed out that the Confession maintains the Sabbath day was the last day of the week from the beginning of the world (chap. 21, sect. 7), which commits its subscribers to the view that the seventh day of creation was a literal "lower register" day.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Narnian said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is whether or not it is a plain historical account. I recall taking an OT class from J. Barton Payne at Covenant Seminary back in 1977 where Dr. Payne said the reading of the Hebrew of Genesis prohibited a literal 7 day view of creation.
Click to expand...


According to Exodus 20 the account to creation was six-literal days. How many Sabbaths do you know which last for millions of years?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Me Died Blue said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simply begging the question. Since you believe the Genesis creation account to in fact _be_ a "plain historical account," you can certainly make arguments for why that must be the case; but in saying that the error of those who disagree is chiefly seen in the further implications for biblical hermeneutics because they don't take "a plain historical account" seriously, you are completely assuming that the creation account is in fact "a plain historical account," which is the very question being asked in the debate.
Click to expand...


It is a plain historical account according to Exodus 20. Moreover, it is a principle of Protestant exegesis that we consider what the passage meant to the original audience. Did it refer to thousands/millions of years or to six literal days?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Me Died Blue said:


> I can't honestly see how this is anything but an _ad hominem_ that again begs the question, since you are automatically assuming that any non-literal reading of the creation account is "unbelieving science." In other words, Reformed theologians who have held to a non-literal view would not logically respond with an implication that "No, unbelieving science, not God, is sovereign," but rather would simply respond by making a case that their view is _not_, in fact, rooted in "unbelieving science." You can certainly argue otherwise, and indeed, that is where the very debate lies.



Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?


----------



## sotzo

> Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?



But it is not necessarily the case that it is unbelieving science that creates the tension between general and specific revelation. It may full well be believing scientists who peer through their microscopes and find tension and we cannot automatically chalk up non-literal renderings of Genesis 1 as coming from Richard Dawkins-esque presuppositions. Believers like Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig and Charles Hodge have deemed the issue of young vs old earth to be quite peripheral and I would agree. I just don't see where the Bible calls us to linger on such a question, especially since it threatens unity...you have even embarked upon the thought of calling those who hold to a non-literal interpretation as heretics (see above). If such a view is heretical, we will all end up consigned to hell due to some aberration or incomplete understanding of the text.

Pratt does a good job in his lectures and writings on Genesis and Exodus to demonstrate that OT Israel was given these books by God via Moses in order to understand / be edified as to why they were to secure the promised land. The creation account becomes normative for what the world should be like. But saying "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day" versus "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day because God created in 7 days and that observation would be rendered meaningless within a non-literal 7-day interpretation" are 2 very different things. Observation of the Sabbath is a clear command...as with Adam and Eve, God is not required to give us all the details on why it is that we should or should not partake in something. 

So if the old-earthers don't observe the Sabbath, discuss the issue in terms of the fact that "God hath said". Trying to weave an argument on the basis of Gen 1 literal days to justify the Sabbath is as unnecessary as it it is to reconcile election and freewill in someone's mind prior to pointing them to their guilt and then to the Saviour.


----------



## sotzo

> Excellent observations here, Joel. I would only seek clarification or possibly suggest otherwise on your first point: Are issues where the very Gospel itself is at stake really the _only_ issues worth fighting for? What about issues concerning the sacraments? Ecclesiology? Confessional subscription? Although I would never claim the Gospel itself to be threatened by any of the orthodox yet differing positions on those matters, yet would certainly say they are worth fighting for, since they have great implications for the life of the Church and the believer.



Good point. You are right on the need for me to clarify here. When I made the point on the Gospel being at stake, I was really intending to mean that when we are discussing the various views on Gen 1, it should not become something that threatens unity to the point where the unbelieving world observes discord amongst us. This would be another way (along with political parties, legalism, etc) of shrouding the clear message of the Gospel with which the Church has been entrusted.

As for other doctrinal issues such as the sacraments, et al, we should absolutely take these seriously and fight when needed...with wisdom and in charity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> But it is not necessarily the case that it is unbelieving science that creates the tension between general and specific revelation. It may full well be believing scientists who peer through their microscopes and find tension and we cannot automatically chalk up non-literal renderings of Genesis 1 as coming from Richard Dawkins-esque presuppositions. Believers like Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig and Charles Hodge have deemed the issue of young vs old earth to be quite peripheral and I would agree. I just don't see where the Bible calls us to linger on such a question, especially since it threatens unity...you have even embarked upon the thought of calling those who hold to a non-literal interpretation as heretics (see above). If such a view is heretical, we will all end up consigned to hell due to some aberration or incomplete understanding of the text.



The fact that believers have bought the presuppositions of unbelievers does not mean that they are free from the charge of imbibing the spirit of unbelieving science. Above I stated that I did not want to use the "H" word, yet if we apply the same logic, as those who deny the plain meaning of Genesis 1, to the historical accounts of the virgin birth and the resurrection then we will end up being heretics. That is why I believe it is _potentially_ very dangerous to abandon literal 6 day creation.



> Pratt does a good job in his lectures and writings on Genesis and Exodus to demonstrate that OT Israel was given these books by God via Moses in order to understand / be edified as to why they were to secure the promised land. The creation account becomes normative for what the world should be like. But saying "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day" versus "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day because God created in 7 days and that observation would be rendered meaningless within a non-literal 7-day interpretation" are 2 very different things. Observation of the Sabbath is a clear command...as with Adam and Eve, God is not required to give us all the details on why it is that we should or should not partake in something.



But the rationale behind Sabbath-keeping in Exodus 20 is the fact that God created the heavens and the earth in *six days* and rested on the Sabbath. The divine pattern of creation is why we have one weekly day of rest.


----------



## Narnian

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?


My point was Dr. Payne was appealing to the original Hebrew. He did not believe in evolution. He did not believe the earth was billions of years old. He did not know how long the days were except to say the context and usage argued against 6 literal days of creation. Apparently other solid Reformed theologians have seen the same thing. I would not dismiss them offhand as kowtowing to "unbelieving science". (I also recognize the reverse is true, that many Hebrew scholars see the literal 6 day creation - but it is this disagreement with notables on both sides that tells me that the Hebrew is not as clear as either side might like it to be).

As Mr. Blum pointed out if we hold that a "plain historical" reading is the only option then where do we stand on Revelation and other such literary forms used in the Bible? I have dispensational friends who argue that point constantly. Poetry and allegory, stories and parables, history and prose are all part of scripture. Our disagreement here is which is Genesis 1. (Note - these literary forms are not mutually exclusive.)

To clarify a few points:

1. I am very much open to 6 literal day creation - I am not going to be the one telling God what He can and can't do. After reading from a number of scholars my position is Genesis 1 allows for a 6 literal creation day cycle, but does not require it. (In that sense I differ fom Dr. Payne who said the Hebrew didn't even allow a literal 6 days).

2. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall was an historical incident. (when we get the new heaven and earth I hope to go up to Adam, give him a dope slap and ask "why did you do that?" )

3. Not all science is unbelieving.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Narnian said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?
> 
> 
> 
> My point was Dr. Payne was appealing to the original Hebrew. He did not believe in evolution. He did not believe the earth was billions of years old. He did not know how long the days were except to say the context and usage argued against 6 literal days of creation. Apparently other solid Reformed theologians have seen the same thing. I would not dismiss them offhand as kowtowing to "unbelieving science". (I also recognize the reverse is true, that many Hebrew scholars see the literal 6 day creation - but it is this disagreement with notables on both sides that tells me that the Hebrew is not as clear as either side might like it to be).
> 
> As Mr. Blum pointed out if we hold that a "plain historical" reading is the only option then where do we stand on Revelation and other such literary forms used in the Bible? I have dispensational friends who argue that point constantly. Poetry and allegory, stories and parables, history and prose are all part of scripture. Our disagreement here is which is Genesis 1. (Note - these literary forms are not mutually exclusive.)
> 
> To clarify a few points:
> 
> 1. I am very much open to 6 literal day creation - I am not going to be the one telling God what He can and can't do. After reading from a number of scholars my position is Genesis 1 allows for a 6 literal creation day cycle, but does not require it. (In that sense I differ fom Dr. Payne who said the Hebrew didn't even allow a literal 6 days).
> 
> 2. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall was an historical incident. (when we get the new heaven and earth I hope to go up to Adam, give him a dope slap and ask "why did you do that?" )
> 
> 3. Not all science is unbelieving.
Click to expand...


I agree that not all science is unbelieving, but I think that those who compromise on six day creation make concessions to it. Why are they making such a concession? There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. That is why we should not apply the same principle to Revelation, as the book of Revelation is not historical literature but apocalyptic literature.


----------



## MMasztal

If I recall correctly, the OPC has determined that they will allow for other than a literal 6 24-hour-day creation. 

As Spurgeon once said (paraphrased) Where Scripture is confeddedly scant, it is for no one to speak dogmatically.


----------



## GenRev1611

If the first Adam was just an allegory then it stands to reason that the second Adam was also an allegory. I've heard it said by theistic evolutionists that Adam is an allegory. The most subtle error would be the Progressive Creationist View. It holds to the idea that dinosaurs existed before the fall and that they somehow died before the creation of Adam and Eve. *Death before the fall.*


----------



## JohnOwen007

joshua said:


> Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?



How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
Click to expand...


Because there are significant points in Genesis 1-3 that cast the "plain historical" reading into doubt, such as:

[1] The snake was cursed and told he would crawl on the "dust of the earth" all his days. But we don't believe Satan is a literal snake who is literally crawling in the dust on his belly the rest of his days.

[2] It is a story with a snake who has a personality (3:1) and talks. Nowhere else in the Bible does that occur (note that Balaam's ass did not have a personality). [We're not told in the story who the snake is, we must get that from other parts of Scripture].

[3] God walks around in the cool of the day, but the Bible tells us that God doesn't have a body--he is "spirit" and uncreated without material substance.

[4] Morning and evenings can only occur with a sun and an earth but the sun was created on the 4th day.

etc. etc.

I don't believe the issues surrounding Gen. 1-3 are as simple and black and white as you make them to be brother Daniel.

God bless you.


----------



## MMasztal

JohnOwen007 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".
Click to expand...


Yes. This is why I don't subscribe to the literal 24 hour-day theory.


----------



## caddy

Me Died Blue said:


> This is a good discussion. I want to preface my comments and questions by making it clear that I have not yet been convinced of one position over another, and am simply thinking through and comparing various issues as they relate to each side of the broad issue. That said, there are certain arguments within the issue that I am convinced are weak or flawed; but none of those so far are enough in themselves to fully carry the weight of the whole issue, one way or another.
> 
> I likewise sympathize with definitely challenging and taking to task, and pushing for clear textual evidence for, the claim that the creation account easily has a different natural reading than the parts of Scripture we all agree to be literal history. But I'm curious as to your second sentence here (bold emphasis above): What about people who hold a non-literal position for a lifetime? What about Charles Hodge, or Meredith Kline?


 
I wasn't familiar with the fact that Hodge or Kline held that view for a lifetime Chris, so that is duly noted. I should have recalled that Warfield certainly understood and accepted many of the evolutionary tenets being put forth in his day. The truth is, I just don't know. I am honestly humbled by the fact that great men of God can be swayed here and there in any given decade and century because they want to attempt to side with current theories as they attempt to understood them during in their lifetime. If they can do it, I certainly can. I always want to err on the side of caution. Sometimes the best thing we can say is the most honest: _I simply don't know._


----------



## DMcFadden

JohnOwen007 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".
Click to expand...


I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun. 

Kelly's exegetical/theological work was sufficient to have persuaded R.C. Sproul of the young earth view. BTW, I erred in attributing to Kelly (in an earlier post) the chapter in _Thousands not Billions_ regarding the statistical analysis of Genesis regarding poetry vs. narrative. That was, of course, done by a Hebrew scholar at Master's Seminary.

Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.

BTW, I also agree with those concerned about this as a threat to unity. This side of the "see through a glass darkly," I'm not sure we will ever reach consensus on the meaning of Genesis 1-3. That will not stop me from arguing the case for young earth creation, however. Hey, even the Big Bang theory has it's own "distant starlight" problem (i.e., the "horizon problem"). Accepting the conventional time frame for the Big Bang does not allow sufficient time for light to make it from one place to another in the universe in 13.8 billion years. So, while Genesis was certainly not written to answer 21st century science, I aver that it accurately presents what God wanted to say to us about the creation. And, the canons of grammatical interpretation militates for a straight forward reading of the text here.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I agree that not all science is unbelieving, but I think that those who compromise on six day creation make concessions to it. Why are they making such a concession? There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. That is why we should not apply the same principle to Revelation, as the book of Revelation is not historical literature but apocalyptic literature.



And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions _from Scripture_ not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.


----------



## SRoper

Daniel Ritchie said:


> There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days.





DMcFadden said:


> I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.



A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.



> Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.



The framework view is not necessarily an old earth view.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".
Click to expand...


Marty it is clear from Exodus 20 that the days were ordinary days.


----------



## DMcFadden

SRoper said:


> A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.
> 
> The framework view is not necessarily an old earth view.



As to the first comment, yes, a very extraordinary day. But, you almost have to employ phenomenological language anchronistically when describing that which happened BEFORE the sun was created. Even Big Bangers use conventional time markers to portray the age of the universe. And, if our sun is a relatively recent creation in cosmic history (according to them) we are using "years" anachronistically to measure the passage of days prior to the creation of the sun in our solar system. So, yes, even with the Big Bangers, you must speak of "days" prior to the creation of our sun.

Secondly, the framework view is a literary, not scientific, theory . . . granted. But, most of the people who see Genesis in terms of a literary reading seem to do so because they want to accommodate the billions of years of scientific "consensus." Otherwise, the normal reading of Genesis would militate against looking for a more elegant/complicated theory (Ockham's razor).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SRoper said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.
> 
> [qoute]Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.
Click to expand...




I am talking about a day of ordinary length.


----------



## DMcFadden

panta dokimazete said:


> I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.



When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

The Reformers fought against the opposite problem. Arguing that it took a full six days to create ran counter to the prevaling ideololgy of the day that saw creation as a more instantaneous example of _ex nihilo_. Luther argued for taking the creation as six days because the Bible said so contrary to the scholars of his day. I hold to six days contrary to the scholars of our day for the very same reason . . . the Bible says so.

And, Daniel is correct. Look at Exodus 20:11 and try to interpret it without the presumption that Genesis 1 describes ordinary days. It just doesn't work.

BTW - Joel S. comments . . .


> And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.



I hope that I have not been perceived as denying this insight or in calling great scholars names. My admission that this was my position for at least 40 years before moving to the normal sense view 2 years ago should demonstrate that in my mind at least, this is an intramural conversation between orthodox brethren. Both of us affirm the full inspiration and authority of Scripture. We just disagree on the right application of hermeneutical principles to a particular passage.


----------



## A5pointer

All must be literal or nothing at all? Who here is taking John's Revelation literally? It is correctly taken by most, "literarily" not to be literal. If Genesis allows for a poetic or figurative way to express that Yaweh the only god has created all from nothing, it should not threaten us. I happen to see it that way, it actually makes more sense of the text and the harmonizing difficulties that have been discussed are not needed. The core message is the same Yaweh creates and ceases striving with his creation unlike the egyptian and mesopotamian gods.


----------



## panta dokimazete

DM said:


> When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.



I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation. 

A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.


----------



## Bygracealone

panta dokimazete said:


> DM said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.
> 
> A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.
Click to expand...


I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account. 

I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could: 

"What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?" 

I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text. 

For what it's worth,

Steve


----------



## RamistThomist

And I started off as a day-ager (but even then I didn't have the exegetical gymnastic abilities to go wtih Framework) and I gleefully ridiculed YECers. Doug Phillips at VisionForum exposed my humanistic thinking.


----------



## CDM

panta dokimazete said:


> DM said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.
> 
> A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.
Click to expand...


I have not found a theologian or Church Father having to "wrestle" with the Creation account pre Darwin.

Why do you suppose people have so much trouble with it now?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Steve said:


> I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.
> 
> I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:
> 
> "What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"
> 
> I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.



hm - I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading - in fact I believe they bring even greater depth, which is why I try to carefully examine what my presuppositions are - are we to come to the text with the same understanding of physics as the Spirit-inspired author and leave it at that? Should we approach Revelation with the same (limited) understanding of world history as the author? God certainly wrote a timeless treatise of faith and practice, but He also has revealed His awesome complexity in the nature of the universe and the unfolding of His plan in time. 

Scripture is authoritative in the areas it speaks to - particularly faith and practice - and should absolutely be the cornerstone of our quest to understand nature, but we should not limit the vastness of God's ability by the limitation of the vessel transcribing His thoughts or bind His timelessness to our time-centered view. Particularly the time comprehension of the authors. 

I tend to agree when others state that Genesis has some elements of prophetic vision, just as Revelation does - and how elegant! Starting with the mysteries of Creation - resolving more and more to the revelation of the Saviour and ending with the glorious mysteries of the final Consummation!

His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.


----------



## RamistThomist

panta dokimazete said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.
> 
> I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:
> 
> "What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"
> 
> I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *hm - I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading - in fact I believe they bring even greater depth, which is why I try to carefully examine what my presuppositions are - are we to come to the text with the same understanding of physics as the Spirit-inspired author and leave it at that? Should we approach Revelation with the same (limited) understanding of world history as the author? God certainly wrote a timeless treatise of faith and practice, but He also has revealed His awesome complexity in the nature of the universe and the unfolding of His plan in time. *
> 
> Scripture is authoritative in the areas it speaks to - particularly faith and practice - and should absolutely be the cornerstone of our quest to understand nature, but we should not limit the vastness of God's ability by the limitation of the vessel transcribing His thoughts or bind His timelessness to our time-centered view. Particularly the time comprehension of the authors.
> 
> I tend to agree when others state that Genesis has some elements of prophetic vision, just as Revelation does - and how elegant! Starting with the mysteries of Creation - resolving more and more to the revelation of the Saviour and ending with the glorious mysteries of the final Consummation!
> 
> His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Click to expand...


If I were a full-fledged Darwinian, how exactly would I disagree with you? Any Darwinian who still wanted the "faith aspect" of Christianity could agree with your statement.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Huh? I doubt a Darwinist would agree with the presuppositional approach embedded in my statement. I acknowledge the mystery of God's will - where He has not given an exhaustive account, I do not press an exhaustive understanding. I just believe that we all should acknowledge it and not make it a divisive issue among the brethren.


----------



## RamistThomist

panta dokimazete said:


> Huh? I doubt a Darwinist would agree with the presuppositional approach embedded in my statement.



Of course he would agree, for in the previous post you mentioned * I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading*. So which scientific presuppositions do we accept, and why? Don't answer. I know you are going to give the right orthodox answer, but given your criteria you can't be consistent on it. Can I apply scientific reasoning to the Resurrection?



> I acknowledge the mystery of God's will - where He has not given an exhaustive account, I do not press an exhaustive understanding.



You have shifted the terms. We are talking about clarity, not exhaustivity.


----------



## a mere housewife

I'm obviously not a Hebrew or Greek scholar or scholar of any sort but wanted to insert a note that I have never met anybody of any millenial view who took Revelation literally: no one I know of any persuasion has ever claimed that a seven headed beast would literally rise from the sea. What you have to deal with in Genesis if you don't want to take it as a factual account, is that unlike Revelation it naturally_ can_ be taken as such. The burden of proof is on why it should not be, and I agree that in the cases I've known where it hasn't, it has been a matter not of the language of the text but of reconciling a view in the inerrancy of Scripture with scientific 'facts'.

PD: as I understand, the discussion is not talking about God's secret will but about what He has revealed. It is faith, not presumption, to bind Him to what He has revealed -- for He has bound Himself to that and it's the only accurate knowledge we have of Him; without the willingness of faith to bind God to His own words we are left without any religion at all. The debate is not about what He can and can't do but about what He has said He did do, and how it is natural for us creatures to understand what He has spoken in our language. In other words if I accepted this particular argument you've made about binding God to His own day language, it would be presumptuous of me, confessing an ignorance of the secret will of God, to 'bind' Him to any particular reading of any text of Scripture -- including passages about redemption. Why should I bind Him to the literal meaning of any of the words He's used? That kind of argument leads to a God who speaks nonsense because He can't be 'bound' to human speech. 

I believe the whole idea of divine revelation is that the unlimited God, who can do anything, is unlimited and able enough to speak plainly to His creatures in their words, and has been (for lack of a better way to express myself) humble, gracious enough to do so. I can't help seeing an attack on a literal, natural reading of Genesis as something of an attack on this truth. I don't believe people who take it any other way are heretics over this issue (C. S. Lewis is still one of my favorite Christian authors and I believe a much better Christian than many who hold the opposite) but I do think it is a very dangerous position to hold: the argument you made above seems to me, to be rather dangerous.


----------



## RamistThomist

> I'm obviously not a Hebrew or Greek scholar or scholar of any sort but wanted to insert a note that I have never met anybody of any millenial view who took Revelation literally: no one I know of any persuasion has ever claimed that a seven headed beast would literally rise from the sea.



Umm...given my view on fairy tales...nah, never mind. Would probably derail the thread and I would lose all credibility.


----------



## a mere housewife

Laughing.

I don't rule out the reality of many aspects of fairy tale either, though the genre as a whole is different than the genre of for instance, biography. & literally, Revelation claims to be a 'vision', and something experienced 'in the spirit', that must be rightly understood.

{edit: besides, if you believe in fairy tales, how can you be premil? The fairy tale should be the most definitive argument against your position! Premil takes all the fairy tales and turns them flat at the climax into bad sci-fi. I don't believe you _really_ believe in dragons or you'd be amil like me. -still laughing, by the way}


----------



## panta dokimazete

Spear Dane said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I doubt a Darwinist would agree with the presuppositional approach embedded in my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he would agree, for in the previous post you mentioned * I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading*. So which scientific presuppositions do we accept, and why? Don't answer. I know you are going to give the right orthodox answer, but given your criteria you can't be consistent on it. Can I apply scientific reasoning to the Resurrection?
Click to expand...


Must it be all or nothing? Is the scientific method anathema?



> I acknowledge the mystery of God's will - where He has not given an exhaustive account, I do not press an exhaustive understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have shifted the terms. We are talking about clarity, not exhaustivity.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to move the goalposts, I am really only asking why this matter matters?

I have acknowledged that capitulating even an iota to a naturalistic presupposition is condemnable - my point is - _none of us know for sure_ since Genesis is not exhaustive (btw: define _clear_) certainly not in the exhaustive manner that God has laid out His plan for the glorification of Christ and the salvation of the Elect - and the interpretation of the Genesis "day" really does not impact faith or practice...a person seeking rationale to disobey would only find some other way of disobedience.

If you want to believe that God created the universe in an absolute space of 1 *literal* exhaustively defined day (24 hour delineating down past the nano-second - what can God do in a nano-second?) as Man has understood the span of time from antiquity, that is fine, but I think it is the height of the fundamentalist worldview (the bad sort of fundamentalism ) to ignore the complexity of time relativity and physics to the degree that one would disallow serving office based on it.


----------



## panta dokimazete

amh said:


> In other words if I accepted this particular argument you've made about binding God to His own day language, it would be presumptuous of me, confessing an ignorance of the secret will of God, to 'bind' Him to any particular reading of any text of Scripture -- including passages about redemption. Why should I bind Him to the literal meaning of any of the words He's used? That kind of argument leads to a God who speaks nonsense because He can't be 'bound' to human speech.



Well - in a sense He cannot be bound - God has spoken exhaustively concerning the salvation of Man through His Spirit-inspired workman - can anyone say they have a perfect understanding of it?

Can anyone say they have a perfect understanding of what it is to be God and Man at the same time? 

Does anyone claim to have a perfect understanding of the Trinity?

Why should we presume to understand perfectly the working out of creation in time just because God used the symbols and units of Man through Man to describe His work?

It seems arrogant to presume in areas not exhaustively determined.

I would also contend that God binds *us* to His words, not vice versa.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".



Marty, if you read the text literally you will notice that it doesn't speak about the sun but the "light bearer." In biblical cosmology the sun is merely a governor of the day, not the "God" of it. God controls the revolution of time, and He does so by alternating light and darkness. The sun, moon, and stars are merely the markers of this alternation. See also the creation hymns of Pss. 19 and 104.


----------



## panta dokimazete

amh said:


> I do think it is a very dangerous position to hold: the argument you made above seems to me, to be rather dangerous.



I tend to disagree - I feel it fits my "handle" - I believe God is glorified when we seek to the limits of our reason, see His inestimable mystery smiling back at us and still rest in Christ.


----------



## MW

The question of God and time is a complex one, but we should never think God's transcendence of time means He is incapable of operating within it. Notice especially the miracle of the manna. God gave the manna six days of man's week and withheld it on the seventh day. There is no reason to suppose these days were different for God and man. While God's understanding of time infinitely exceeds man's understanding of it, there is nevertheless a corresponding point at which both commune together in real human time and space due to the gracious condescension of God.


----------



## a mere housewife

JD, in one way I'm glad you don't see the dangers that I see in your argument because then your holding to them would be unlike what I know of you; please know that I'm certain you're not trying to play with the reliability of trusting in the words of Scripture to convey a specific content etc; it's just that's what I, as a normal lay-person, see that kind of argument logically leading to.

I'll try to be less confusing. Genesis says that God spoke, and creation came to be; and that God did this in an evening/morning/six day cycle. The account reads like a narrative, not like the symbolic portions of Scripture (which as pointed out about Revelation literally claim to be symbolic, and which no one naturally reads literally). If I determine for scientific or any other reason than the nature of the language itself that I can't know what God means by 'day' citing epistemic humility, then how can I know what God means when He talks elsewhere about Christ being 'born' of a virgin? If exhaustive or absolute knowledge has to be given to us in order for us to know what God means when He uses words then language can have no meaning whatsoever because we are by nature incapable of such knowledge. I consider that God has graciously bound Himself to His words because He has spoken and He cannot lie: I can count on them and indeed apart from being able to do so I have no approach to knowledge of Him. I consider that I can understand them because they are addressed to me inside my own limitations. I consider that an argument that I cannot know what His words mean because they don't speak exhaustively undermines not only the concept of God revealing Himself to limited creatures at all, but of language entirely; it undermines the only approach I have to the knowledge of Him: we have exhaustive revelation about nothing, and if language requires such in order to have meaning then language can convey nothing.

If God says he did something in a day in a narrative section of Scripture, then whatever the limits of my reason, and precisely because He has addressed me within them, I accept it. If there is a reason in the language itself to take it some other way that's different. But to modify my understanding of what naturally reads like a narrative because of the complexity of scientific theories is unacceptable:

1. Because science is always a theory: we have no more absolute or exhaustive truth about the nature of the universe then we have about God: indeed the certainty of faith in revelation is more sure than science. This is especially so in the realm of origins and space: you spoke of the scientific method but with regard to origins and outer space we make models but can't experiment or observe with what is out of our reach. Have you read Owen Barfield's _Worlds Apart_? It's pretty devastating as to the pretentiousness of science trying to speak to origins; and he wasn't a Christian.

2. Scientific theory is always changing. The meaning of language would have to change with it.

3. How do we determine, if science determines the meaning of words, how the language of science is used in areas like origins and outer space that we can't observe? Are they speaking literally or figuratively about the universe? 

Context is the natural way of determining the meaning of human speech. I would rather allow God speaking to me on my own level, with my own concepts, in words that mean something in my own inexhaustive knowledge, to determine my understanding of origins than try to determine what God means by changing scientific theories.

That said, once again, I certainly don't mean to accuse you of being dishonest with Scripture etc. I hope that clarifies my position; I probably won't argue for it further as I don't know how better to say what I mean.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> The question of God and time is a complex one, but we should never think God's transcendence of time means He is incapable of operating within it. Notice especially the miracle of the manna. God gave the manna six days of man's week and withheld it on the seventh day. There is no reason to suppose these days were different for God and man. While God's understanding of time infinitely exceeds man's understanding of it, there is nevertheless a corresponding point at which both commune together in real human time and space due to the gracious condescension of God.



No contest - God works in time - in a similar manner He works in space - and graciously communes with us - but - when God was walking in the Garden, was He limited by it? No - He is simultaneously sustaining the Universe and dwelling inside and outside of it - yet that is not all recorded in Scripture - there is enormous unknown activity happening while He abides in space-time - in the same way the true nature of Creation is mysterious - time was created by God for His purpose and how He truly interacts in/with/through it is unknown. Thus, while we see "evening and morning" the first day" - we have no comprehension of what that truly means in terms of space-time manipulation.

Creation (time, space, matter, etc) was initiated to facilitate God's plan to glorify Himself and save the Elect. God made sure we understood this, yet withholds an exhaustive knowledge of beginning and ending for His own reasons, while graciously allowing us to interact with it to puzzle and humiliate us. 

So, I keep coming back to this; if God has not exhaustively revealed this knowledge, how can we enforce discriminatory orthodoxy in these matters?


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> So, I keep coming back to this; if God has not exhaustively revealed this knowledge, how can we enforce discriminatory orthodoxy in these matters?



The revelation is itself a space-time reality -- ectypal. Exhaustive or not, it speaks to us in terms we can know. So whatever the terms may mean to God in and of Himself (I'm not one to pry into God's secrets), it must be the case that the time references in this revelation are in terms of human time. In fact, even when Scripture instructs us as to the transcendence of God over time, as in Ps. 90, it does so in terms of human time. We are closed in to the inevitable conclusion that the creation account speaks to us in terms of time as man knows it.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> We are closed in to the inevitable conclusion that the creation account speaks to us in terms of time as man knows it.



...but not in terms of God's exhaustive activity within it, not as He does in terms of our faith.


----------



## JohnOwen007

mangum said:


> I have not found a theologian or Church Father having to "wrestle" with the Creation account pre Darwin.
> 
> Why do you suppose people have so much trouble with it now?



Read Bob Letham's _WTJ_ article (about 1999 or 2000 I think) on how theologians in history (prior to the Englightenment) struggled to know what to do with the creation account.

The assumption that it's only a modern problem is fallacious. If we pay close attention to the text, all sorts of issues arise (like a snake with a personality etc.).


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Marty it is clear from Exodus 20 that the days were ordinary days.



Again, that's a huge assumption. When we make reference to one of Jesus' parables we must speak of the the characters in the actual story even though it might not be literally true. Hence, Exodus 20 is simply making reference to the creation _account_.

To read Genesis 1-3 literally creates more problems than it solves, if we read the text closely. I think the day-age model of Hugh Ross creates more problems than it solves.

I personally take Gen. 1-3 to be like one of Jesus' parables, let's say the Wicked Tennants. It's a story that analogically relates to history. Hence, we can determine how Gen. 1-3 relates analogically to history from the rest of the Bible. For example, Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Tim. 2:12-15 show us that Adam and Eve were _real historical people_ and there was a _real space-time fall_. However, we know from the rest of the Bible the Satan is not a talking snake who is moving on his belly and eating dust for the rest of his days.

God bless brother.


----------



## bookslover

MMasztal said:


> If I recall correctly, the OPC has determined that they will allow for other than a literal 6 24-hour-day creation.



True, with the exception of the framework hypothesis view.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> I personally take Gen. 1-3 to be like one of Jesus' parables, let's say the Wicked Tennants.



That's a bold claim to make on a conservative discussion board. I hope you brought your helmet.

Do you suppose all the references in the NT, which describe the events of Gen. 1-3 as historical incidents, to be nothing more than accommodations to the belief of the times?


----------



## Narnian

I see a lot of talking past each other on the thread here as people are raising points that others seem to be ignoring. 

For example I believe that Daniel Ritchie has raised a good point about Exodus 20 that raises the question in my mind of what the rest of scripture says about the activities in Genesis (JohnOwen007 I think has attempted to address it but I think it deserves more investigation from a systematic viewpoint).

JohnOwen007 I believe has raised legitimate questions about the creation narrative and whether there are elements that cannot be taken literally that nobody has addressed yet.

Let's put our heads together and look at our hermaneutic. Should all of scripture be taken literally? If not, then what are the guiding principles we should use to determine when it is parable, prose, history or allegory. This, in my mind, is where the real disagreement lays.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally take Gen. 1-3 to be like one of Jesus' parables, let's say the Wicked Tennants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bold claim to make on a conservative discussion board. I hope you brought your helmet.
> 
> Do you suppose all the references in the NT, which describe the events of Gen. 1-3 as historical incidents, to be nothing more than accommodations to the belief of the times?
Click to expand...


Helmet? You've been hanging around Americans here too long Matthew. Aussies don't need no stinking helmets!


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Helmet? You've been hanging around Americans here too long Matthew. Aussies don't need no stinking helmets!


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> The question of God and time is a complex one, but we should never think God's transcendence of time means He is incapable of operating within it. Notice especially the miracle of the manna. God gave the manna six days of man's week and withheld it on the seventh day. There is no reason to suppose these days were different for God and man. While God's understanding of time infinitely exceeds man's understanding of it, there is nevertheless a corresponding point at which both commune together in real human time and space due to the gracious condescension of God.





JohnOwen007 said:


> mangum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not found a theologian or Church Father having to "wrestle" with the Creation account pre Darwin.
> 
> Why do you suppose people have so much trouble with it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Bob Letham's _WTJ_ article (about 1999 or 2000 I think) on how theologians in history (prior to the Englightenment) struggled to know what to do with the creation account.
> 
> The assumption that it's only a modern problem is fallacious. If we pay close attention to the text, all sorts of issues arise (like a snake with a personality etc.).
Click to expand...


I'd like to read the article. Do you have access to it? And were these pre-Enlightenment theologians struggling with the days as we've been discussing?

I don't see how they would or why they would exegetically or philosophically. I mean to say, where in the text would we find something that indicates that the days were not actual 24 hour solar days? We then read how Christ talks about it (NT) and still we find nothing _in the text_ to indicate other than the plain reading.


----------



## DMcFadden

Narnian said:


> I see a lot of talking past each other on the thread here as people are raising points that others seem to be ignoring.
> 
> For example I believe that Daniel Ritchie has raised a good point about Exodus 20 that raises the question in my mind of what the rest of scripture says about the activities in Genesis (JohnOwen007 I think has attempted to address it but I think it deserves more investigation from a systematic viewpoint).
> 
> JohnOwen007 I believe has raised legitimate questions about the creation narrative and whether there are elements that cannot be taken literally that nobody has addressed yet.
> 
> Let's put our heads together and look at our hermaneutic. Should all of scripture be taken literally? If not, then what are the guiding principles we should use to determine when it is parable, prose, history or allegory. This, in my mind, is where the real disagreement lays.



You are correct that some of us have been raising points that others are ignoring. I have twice referenced a statistical analysis of the verbal patterns in Genesis by a Hebrew scholar that militates AGAINST taking it figuratively. It is not a matter of whether any section of the Bible needs to be interpreted figuratively but was GENESIS 1-11 intended to be interpreted figuratively?

Interpreting "literally" means taking a text in its normal reading according to its genre. A poem is interpreted as poetry and symbolism; a metaphor or similie is taken figuratively; a narrative intends to speak "narratively" or historically. The "literal" method is a cipher for the "historical-grammatical" method.

My postings in this thread so far have referenced the use of "yom" (day) in the Hebrew Bible (considered contextually and in terms of word statistics), the admitted presence of anachronistic language in ALL statements about creation (including those by Big Bangers), the use of Exodus 20:11, and several other points.

Obviously the theological concern of Genesis was not to teach science, it was to affirm that God and God alone created and he did it without the machinations of intermediaries such as recorded in the Babylonian and other near eastern creation myths. 

However, that does not mean that we can dismiss the accuracy of its teaching. What we allow in Genesis will come back to bite us in the New Testament. Saying that God really does not mean what he says in Genesis 1 will set you up for some very painful collateral arguments on everything from the role of women to the ordination of gay persons. Get into the habit of allowing that the Bible *does not really mean what it says *in Genesis in a narrative passage and you will be surprised at how difficult it is to argue with progressives suggesting that it* does not mean what it says *in Romans 1, or 1 Timothy 2, or even John 14:6.

Having been raised in a mainline denomination, I can remember the assault on Genesis as a child, followed by numerous other issues thereafter. For me and my house, we like the former motto of _Answers in Genesis_: "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Marty, if you read the text literally you will notice that it doesn't speak about the sun but the "light bearer." In biblical cosmology the sun is merely a governor of the day, not the "God" of it. God controls the revolution of time, and He does so by alternating light and darkness. The sun, moon, and stars are merely the markers of this alternation. See also the creation hymns of Pss. 19 and 104.



Dear Matthew, to me your explanation shows the problem of the so-called "literal" reading of Gen. 1-3. One starts to move into deep contortions of explanation to keep the ship afloat.

If there is another source of light other than the sun creating a "morning" and an "evening" on the first 3 days, then why is the sun created on the 4th day when this other source of light (not explicitly mentioned in the narrative) was doing precisely that same job? If there was a "morning" and an "evening" at the end of the first day, and we don't have a sun, then we're dealing with a very unique "morning" and "evening", which begs the question whether it can be called a "morning" or an "evening". etc. etc.

God bless you.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally take Gen. 1-3 to be like one of Jesus' parables, let's say the Wicked Tennants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bold claim to make on a conservative discussion board.
Click to expand...


I'm only following commentators on Genesis who have a conservative (inerrant) view of Scripture.




armourbearer said:


> I hope you brought your helmet.



I've found a Bible big enough to do the same job ...



armourbearer said:


> Do you suppose all the references in the NT, which describe the events of Gen. 1-3 as historical incidents, to be nothing more than accommodations to the belief of the times?



Which "times" are you referring to, that of the ANE, that of the Graeco-Roman world ... ?


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> If there is another source of light other than the sun creating a "morning" and an "evening" on the first 3 days, then why is the sun created on the 4th day when this other source of light (not explicitly mentioned in the narrative) was doing precisely that same job? If there was a "morning" and an "evening" at the end of the first day, and we don't have a sun, then we're dealing with a very unique "morning" and "evening", which begs the question whether it can be called a "morning" or an "evening". etc. etc.



The Scripture explicitly says there were three alternations of "evening and morning" prior to the creation of the heavenly lights, so I am very confident it can indeed be called what Scripture says it was.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Which "times" are you referring to, that of the ANE, that of the Graeco-Roman world ... ?



The NT times in which the NT was written. When Paul says God commanded light to shine out of darkness, or Peter says the earth stood out of water and in the water, or Paul says He spake in a certain place of the seventh day, or Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man, and elsewhere that God made them male and female at the beginning, or Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve -- in such cases it seems your only line of argument could be that the speakers did not in actual fact believe these things "happened," but merely accommodated their speech to the people they were addressing.


----------



## a mere housewife

Having been mostly a bystander I agree that Mr. McFadden's points about the verbal patterns have been overlooked: I had also understood the specific points raised about the serpent etc. to be dealt with in the more general replies which is probably why they haven't been individually mentioned. For instance, if one doesn't have a problem accepting a natural reading of a literal day theory of creation regardless of science, why should they have a problem accepting a talking snake? (The 'personality' objection seems rather arbitrary? -but I suppose if it's a real difficulty it's simple enough to point out that we aren't told Balaam's donkey was inhabited by an angelic or demonic being.) If I accept a literal reading of other portions of the Old Testament, for instance where God appears to Abraham, why should I have a problem with God appearing in some way to Adam? If I accept that men approach scripture with presuppositions in the present age, why should it be especially problematic that they had (albeit different ones) to deal with in a former? I don't honestly see that such objections pose real problems for interpreting the text as narrative if one really isn't referencing the meaning of the words to a post enlightenment and largely unexamined approach to science, and what it on its own autonomous authority (which doesn't amount to much) tells us is and isn't possible?


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve



Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> That's a bold claim to make on a conservative discussion board. I hope you brought your helmet.


----------



## RamistThomist

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?
Click to expand...


More of a literal dragon than a snake, to be precise.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally take Gen. 1-3 to be like one of Jesus' parables, let's say the Wicked Tennants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bold claim to make on a conservative discussion board. I hope you brought your helmet.
> 
> Do you suppose all the references in the NT, which describe the events of Gen. 1-3 as historical incidents, to be nothing more than accommodations to the belief of the times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Helmet? You've been hanging around Americans here too long Matthew. Aussies don't need no stinking helmets!
Click to expand...


Actually, like everyone else, they have to wear them when they bat in a cricket match. In light of their recent disputes with the Indians, they may need to wear them a lot more.


----------



## Bygracealone

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?
Click to expand...


I personally have no doubt that Satan took the form of a literal serpent in the Garden. As you well know, snakes today do crawl around on their bellies. It would seem this may not have always been the case. Now, why would God curse serpents just because Satan took their form? I don't know. But we see a similar thing when Jesus punished the pigs in the Gospels which were possessed by demons. Or was that figurative as well? Where does uncertainty stop? "A Mere Housewife" said it well. Once we start down this path, the questions are endless as to what is historical in the account and what is not... Did God really walk with our parents in the Garden? Did the sin of our first parents really cause the sin and death we see in the world? Did God really curse mankind as a result? Did we really come from Adam and Eve? Is there really such thing as a tree of life? The list goes on and on and the answers to these questions will have an impact on what we believe in other sections of Scripture. 

With regard to the "apparent" problems that have been mentioned with regard to the sequence in which God created all things, isn't it very possible and even likely that the point of the order is to teach us that God is in absolute control over creation and time? The order given in the creation account shows us that everything is dependent upon God, not creation, for its origin and existence. I.e. plants and vegetation are created before the sun which teaches us God is the One who gives life to the plants and sustains them, not the sun... Of course, we know that once God completed His work of creation He has been pleased to make use of means and therefore since that time plants do need sunlight or they will die. However, that's not to say that the sunlight is absolutely necessary; God could sustain vegetation by whatever manner He chooses; the creation account teaches as much. 

Just some more thoughts. Please know that I have many other reasons for believing the Genesis account to be historical narrative. I share these particular thoughts as a result of the direction this thread is taking. 

In His bountiful grace,

Steve


----------



## caddy

I posted this on the other thread, but thought I should post this here as well.

Meteorite Craters Challenge Young-Earthism

PaleoScene Prehistoric Wonders for All Ages

Thoughts on these. I have been talking with Glen via email ( His Bio )

StatCounter.com code for Glen Kuban's Paluxy sites 12-4-04

who has done some extensive field work on the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy (Dinosaur Footprints)

Paulxy site near Glen Rose, Texas.

Thoughts?


Paluxy


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Denial of the Six day creation presupposes death prior to the fall.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?
Click to expand...


Please consult Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 33, 34. He states it well when he says, "It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the old, traditional view according to wich there were present both a real serpent and a demonic power, who made use of the former to carry out his plan. So far from there being anything impossible in this, it finds a close analogy in the demoniacs of the Gospels, through whose mouths demons speak."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please consult Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 33, 34. He states it well when he says, "It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the old, traditional view according to wich there were present both a real serpent and a demonic power, who made use of the former to carry out his plan. So far from there being anything impossible in this, it finds a close analogy in the demoniacs of the Gospels, through whose mouths demons speak."
Click to expand...


Hence, the serpent today still literally crawls on the ground.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Hermeneutically speaking, (which I perosnally find to be one of the greatest help when dealing with any OT passage), is to really ponder the thought about what Joe Isrealite thought when he heard the Scriptures read in temple 8,000 years ago.

Did he believe, in this case, that there could be these longs gaps of time, yada, yada, yada, or did he believe day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, rest? I'd imagine he'd opt to imitate His creator modeled after his sabbath and see the pattern exemplified as a regular Israeltie guy who made wooden seats for a living and ate Gramdma Goldsteins' matza ball soup every shabat for lunch. I don't see every old Israeltie woman or man thinking that God meant the day age theory.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Hermeneutically speaking, (which I perosnally find to be one of the greatest help when dealing with any OT passage), is to really ponder the thought about what Joe Isrealite thought when he heard the Scriptures read in temple 8,000 years ago.
> 
> Did he believe, in this case, that there could be these longs gaps of time, yada, yada, yada, or did he believe day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, rest? I'd imagine he'd opt to imitate His creator modeled after his sabbath and see the pattern exemplified as a regular Israeltie guy who made wooden seats for a living and ate Gramdma Goldsteins' matza ball soup every shabat for lunch. I don't see every old Israeltie woman or man thinking that God meant the day age theory.



Exactly, what did the text mean to the original audience. That is a basic principle of Protestant hermeneutics. 

See this post of mine for more: Six Day Creation: An Exegetical Defence « Reformed Covenanter


----------



## a mere housewife

I. The sentence passed upon the tempter may be considered as lighting upon the serpent, the brute-creature which Satan made use of which was, as the rest, made for the service of man, but was now abused to his hurt. Therefore, to testify a displeasure against sin, and a jealousy for the injured honour of Adam and Eve, God fastens a curse and reproach upon the serpent, and makes it to groan, being burdened. See Rom. viii. 20. The devil's instruments must share in the devil's punishments. Thus the bodies of the wicked, though only instruments of unrighteousness, shall partake of everlasting torments with the soul, the principal agent. Even the ox that killed a man must be stoned, Exod. xxi. 28, 29.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary, Genesis 3)

Caddy, re: the links: a six day creationist obviously doesn't accept science as authoritative so they don't pose a problem: if I don't listen as if to a final authority when Darwin speaks, why to the author of the crater article? Darwin's theories are far outdated; models are always changing to accommodate new information; why should I assume this author's will not? Science is not determinative: nothing can be that changes.

Also, there is the folly of speaking absolutely about what could or could not happen beyond human observation without an authoritative framework (which science can't provide: besides its limitations, it's properly a tool not a philosophy). There are a hundred million things in a cosmic instant that escape our observation and would change our models if we observed them, even beyond our inability to account for the things we do observe: and we want to speak authoritatively about things we've not had the remotest sight of. The article states that an earth that had just been bashed by craters on the fourth day of creation would not be ready to produce vegetation the next. But presumably a void is not ready to produce light, ever; and God did that. Or according to some models, matter itself out of nothing, did. I'm not arguing that the earth was indeed bashed by craters on day 4, simply trying to point out the presumption and the hypocrisy of science in assuring us all that something is impossible with God.

God's account of creation is eternal; He was there to observe it. I'll take His word for it, and at face value. Indeed I believe not to do so, to qualify its meaning according to changing human authority, is to be rather naive.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Please consult Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 33, 34. He states it well when he says, "It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the old, traditional view according to wich there were present both a real serpent and a demonic power, who made use of the former to carry out his plan. So far from there being anything impossible in this, it finds a close analogy in the demoniacs of the Gospels, through whose mouths demons speak."



Dear Matthew, it now seems you're no longer taking the passage _literally_. Because the snake is presented as an _animal_: "more crafty than the _other _animals" (3:1). There is no hint from Gen. 1-3 _itself_ that the snake is indwelt by any other personality; it is the "snake" that is "more crafty" not the snake indwelt by another person. Indeed this snake has a personality (what else does "crafty" mean here?).

You still haven't answered the question about the snake literally crawling on his belly and eating dust for the rest of his days. We know literal snakes don't eat dust--but if we're to take the passage literally ...

The rest of Scripture takes up and interprets the Gen. 1-3 story (which analogically relates to _real _history). From other parts of Scripture (like Revelation) we learn that the snake in Gen. 1-3 analogically relates to the _real _Satan. We learn that Adam and Eve were _real _people; that the fall was space / time etc. However, we dare not read into Gen. 1-3 what is _not _there.

My concern is not for what modern science says, or for young or old earths theories. My concern is what the inspired text _actually_ says. If we claim to take it literally we must be consistent. My claim is that taking it "literally" forces it to break down at many points.

A good read on all this is Henri Blocher's _Original Sin_.

Every blessing dear brother.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please consult Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 33, 34. He states it well when he says, "It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the old, traditional view according to wich there were present both a real serpent and a demonic power, who made use of the former to carry out his plan. So far from there being anything impossible in this, it finds a close analogy in the demoniacs of the Gospels, through whose mouths demons speak."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew, it now seems you're no longer taking the passage _literally_. Because the snake is presented as an _animal_: "more crafty than the _other _animals" (3:1). There is no hint from Gen. 1-3 _itself_ that the snake is indwelt by any other personality; it is the "snake" that is "more crafty" not the snake indwelt by another person. Indeed this snake has a personality (what else does "crafty" mean here?).
Click to expand...


Marty, we must be careful not to equate "literal" with "naturalistic." It is undoubtedly true that conservatives do not interpret the passage naturalistically, but understand supernatural forces are coming to bear upon the history as related. A "literal" reading of the text must take into account those supernatural forces. The very fact that they are supernatural does not immediately relegate the narrative to the realm of myth. The narrative quite clearly says that these things happened in time and space.

Vos was quoted because he makes the valid point that the same phenomenon we read in Genesis 3 manifests itself time and again in the Gospel record with relation to human beings who were acted upon by demonic powers. If we can accept the Gospel record as historical then there is no principle which hinders us from accepting the talking serpent as historical.

Concerning the serpent being described as "subtle," you are choosing to read personal qualities into the use of the word. We often find descriptions of animal behaviour in Scripture which are used in parallel to the behaviour exhibited by humans. Common sense tells us not to take the words as possessing the same personal elements in relation to animals as when they are used in connection with humans.


----------



## VictorBravo

joshua said:


> I know I'm just a simpleton, and that's probably why my contributions--if they can even be called that--haven't been acknowledged. Nonetheless, I'll ask again, using different language.
> 
> If the old earth theory is true, at what point does the text of Genesis indicate a transition from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall? From that point on (according to a belief in the day age theory), it seems in narrative that days were intended to be interpeted as 24 hr blocks (unless otherwise noted in the text--like the passage in Joshua, etc.). If that's the case, where does it imply in Genesis, "Okay, now is the point where you start interpreting _day_ as a 24 hr block of time."?
> 
> Just seems fishy to this ol' country bumpkin.



And the simple answer, coming from another bumpkin, is that there is no textual transition. I've almost memorized Gen. 1-2 in Hebrew, and am working on 3. You're not going to find it there. 

You'll find a difference in tone between 1 and 2, but not between 2 and 3. Gen 1 reads like a newspaper report, just the facts, thank you.(actually, a news report written by a man with a flair for language, it is beautiful, but not poetic). 

I think people are overthinking it and not thinking like a person of mid-Asia speaking a semitic language. I tell ya, the passage reads just like some of the bedouins I knew who told true stories around a campfire. There was magic in the language, but not in the facts asserted. Nobody would take a story about a cow being stuck in the mud and having a calf as allegorical, but to hear a bedouin tell it in his own language is simple beauty.

Anyway, the opening of Genesis reads like that to me. Beautiful language addressing a plainly factual story. 

But, like you, I'm a merely bumpkin with a musical ear.


----------



## moral necessity

Thought some would appreciate what Luther had to say about this topic, as he has some interesting things to mention regarding the "light" in the first three days.

"But here a famous question is raised: 'Of what sort, then, was that light by which the unformed mass of heaven and earth was illuminated? Although neither sun nor stars had been created, the text makes clear that this light was true and physical'...

"Secondly, this, too, is asked: 'Did this light move in a circular motion?' I for my part confess that I really do not know. If, however, anyone desires to know what appears to me most likely to be true, I think that this light was in motion in such a way that it brought about a natural day, from its rising and setting. Although it is difficult to say what sort of light it was, nevertheless I do not agree that we should without reason depart from the rules of language or that we should by force read meanings into words. Moses says plainly that there was light, and he counts this day as the first day of creation.

"Therefore I am of the opinion that this was true light and that its motion carried it in a circle, just as sunlight moves in a circle. Nevertheless, it was not such a clear and brilliant light as it was later on when it was increased, adorned, and perfected by the light of the sun. Similarly, the Holy Scriptures also bear witness that on the Last Day God will make more brilliant and glorious the present day light of the sun, as though it were a weak light in comparison with the future glory (Is. 30:26). As, therefore, the present daylight is, so to speak, a crude and coarse mass of light if it is compared with the future light, so that the first light was crude when compared with this present light."

Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, thanks for your response dear brother.

You still haven't answered my question about the snake crawling on his belly and eating dust all his life ... is it literal?



armourbearer said:


> Marty, we must be careful not to equate "literal" with "naturalistic." It is undoubtedly true that conservatives do not interpret the passage naturalistically,[...]



I'm not quite sure what you mean by "conservative". As someone once said, "Anyone to the left of me is a liberal and anyone to the right of me is a hyper-conservative."  As far as I know "conservative" doesn't have a technical meaning in this debate, and hence potentially clouds the discussion.



armourbearer said:


> but understand supernatural forces are coming to bear upon the history as related. A "literal" reading of the text must take into account those supernatural forces. The very fact that they are supernatural does not immediately relegate the narrative to the realm of myth. The narrative quite clearly says that these things happened in time and space. [...] If we can accept the Gospel record as historical then there is no principle which hinders us from accepting the talking serpent as historical.



I think your comparison between Gen. 1-3 and the gospels doesn't work. The genres are very different, and I wouldn't know anyone who would claim them the same. In the Gospels we are explicitly told about the supernatural forces who possess human beings. In Genesis we are simply told that the snake is an animal. There is no mention of supernatural forces possessing it. Again, I want to stick closely to the text, and not read in what is not there.



armourbearer said:


> Concerning the serpent being described as "subtle," you are choosing to read personal qualities into the use of the word. [...]



Well dear brother unfortunately I must disagree. When we read Gen. 3:1 in context, _`arum_ ("crafty", "cunning") is clearly personal (or describes character) because it provides the ground for the temptation of the woman; I'm simply sticking to the actual text:

"Now the snake was the most cunning animal of the field that YHWH God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God say that you are not to eat ot touch it, lest you die?'" (Gen. 3:1, my literal (!) translation)

Here we are explicitly told the _snake _spoke to the women, not a possessed snake, or satan in a snake, or .... To assume that is to read into the text, not read out of it.

God bless you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Matthew, thanks for your response dear brother.
> 
> You still haven't answered my question about the snake crawling on his belly and eating dust all his life ... is it literal?



Okay... It was a snake or lizard that was turned into a worm. LOL Who knows, maybe what ever it became was possibly made extinct during the flood or shortly thereafter. Maybe one of Noah's daughter in laws crushed the heads of the ones that were left.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> You still haven't answered my question about the snake crawling on his belly and eating dust all his life ... is it literal?



Yes.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "conservative". As someone once said, "Anyone to the left of me is a liberal and anyone to the right of me is a hyper-conservative."  As far as I know "conservative" doesn't have a technical meaning in this debate, and hence potentially clouds the discussion.



There are conservative and radical approaches to the text of Scripture. Anything "left" of reading Genesis as literal history is radical. Please consider this careful statement by Herman Bavinck (In the Beginning, 120):



> But when Scripture, from its own perspective precisely as the book of religion, comes in contact with other sciences and also sheds its light on them, it does not all at once cease to be the Word of God but remains that Word. Even when it speaks about the genesis of heaven and earth, it does not present saga or myth or poetic fantasy but offers, in accordance with its own clear intent, history, the history that deserves credence and trust. And for that reason Christian theology, with only a few exceptions, continued to hold onto the literal historical view of the creation story.



I'm sorry, brother Marty, but the fact is you are adopting a radical approach to the text of Scripture, not as defined by individuals such as you and I, but as defined by "Christian theology" as it has been traditionally understood. Even Bavinck, who sought as best he could to be accommodating, felt himself obliged to adhere to the traditional belief in the literal history of Genesis because he knew this was the belief of the "Christian theology" which he was teaching.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I think your comparison between Gen. 1-3 and the gospels doesn't work. The genres are very different, and I wouldn't know anyone who would claim them the same. In the Gospels we are explicitly told about the supernatural forces who possess human beings. In Genesis we are simply told that the snake is an animal. There is no mention of supernatural forces possessing it. Again, I want to stick closely to the text, and not read in what is not there.



The genres are no different. They both purport to be relating facts which happened in connection with human beings on earth. Both Genesis and Matthew contain genealogies, which, according to general classification of genre, belongs to the writing of historical narrative. Gen. 2:4 even speaks of the "toledoth" of the heavens and the earth, a word which is specifically used throughout the book of Genesis to mark the epochs relative to the various people and events which are described.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Well dear brother unfortunately I must disagree. When we read Gen. 3:1 in context, _`arum_ ("crafty", "cunning") is clearly personal (or describes character) because it provides the ground for the temptation of the woman; I'm simply sticking to the actual text:



Mt. 10:16, "be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Do you suppose our Saviour intended to attribute the personal qualities of wisdom and harmlessness to serpents and doves? If not, there is no reason to conclude that "arum" in Gen. 3 is referring to a personal quality.


----------



## caddy

*Interesting new Section on AIG's Site*

Answers Research Journal:

Home - Answers Research Journal


*Microbes and the Days of Creation*
 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/Microbes-and-the-Days-of-Creation.pdf


----------



## Blue Dog

greenbaggins said:


> I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an _exception_ to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.


Schripture states "And there was evening and there was morning". This is a literal day. How could it be anything else?


----------



## Blue Dog

In addition, This hersy is out of orthodoxy. True?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Blue Dog said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an _exception_ to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Schripture states "And there was evening and there was morning". This is a literal day. How could it be anything else?
Click to expand...


Yes they were ordinary days, there is no need to debate the issue any further.


----------



## Ravens

Mr. (Rev.?) Foord,

I don't recall ever interacting with you on this board before; so before I do, let me say, with all sincerity, that I appreciate the irenic spirit of your posts and your desire to keep conversational swords sheathed! Its too often lacking on this board.

Anyhow:

1) You have stated that you see Genesis 1 - 3 as a unit of text which utilizes parabolic and/or analogical language, and that it is not to be taken as "real" history. You've also expressed your concern that all of our thoughts and exegesis be grounded in the text itself. 

Yet it seems that you have broken down the text differently than Genesis itself does. Genesis presents us with a Creation account, followed by 10(11) _toledoth_, as Rev. Winzer mentioned. All of the _toledoth_, without exception, deal with real history. Why would the _toledoth_ from 2:4-4:26 be any different. So instead of having 1:1-2:4, 2:4-4:26 as the natural division of the text, you are making "1-3" to be a unit of text, with 4 (I assume) entering into "real" history.

This seems to cut against the grain of two things: 1) The inherent structure of Genesis, and 2) the meaning and use of _toledoth_ in the rest of the book.

That is my main criticism. Here are some subsidiary thoughts:

2) Do we have any examples in Scripture of "real" history mixed with "myth"? Perhaps those terms are unacceptable, but I trust that you understand what I'm getting at. People take Job as either historical (my position) or purely allegorical. Rarely do people take it as both. It seems as if this would be an utterly unique place in Scripture that mixes real historical people (Adam and Eve), in a real historical world, with an allegorical serpent, and allegorical meanings.

3) In one of your posts, you said that we learn from other Scriptures that Adam and Eve were real historical people. It seems as if the same process would affirm that the serpent was, indeed, a literal serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3).

4) It also seems that you go against the text in another way. It seems as if you are advocating strict adherence to the text as it stands, and yet you are, at the same time, willing to concede it all to something other than real history, from whence we can derive allegorical, spiritual truths about temptation, Satan, etc.

Yet it would seem that your approach should go in the opposite direction. That is, your exegesis, with that hermeneutic, shouldn't lead to any conceptions of Satan at all. It seems as if you would be left with a historical narrative in which a snake, in and of itself endued with personal existence and the ability to speak, seduces Eve and brings about the Fall. 

The text itself, from your perspective, shouldn't bring Satan into it at all. So if you are going to use the _analogia Scriptura_ to learn spiritual truths about Satan from the serpent, why not use the _analogia Scriptura_ to realize that a very real fallen spirit was operating through a very real serpent? It seems as if you are doing the very thing you are opposing.

5) What happens to the _protoevangelium_? When Genesis 3:15-16 was written, was it pure etiology, along the lines of "How the tiger got his stripes?" Did it only have to do with why snakes crawl, why snakes strike at man, and why man crushes them?

That is what you would be left with. So you would have Moses writing a lofty creation account, followed by an etiological interlude about why snakes and people don't get along, followed by God's severe judgments and grace in redemptive history, leading up to the Christ.

6) As others have noted, we have examples of demonic entities speaking through people in the Scriptures. Also, we have an example of God "causing" a donkey to speak, without revealing how that was accomplished. So we have Old and New Testament examples of supernatural forces, be they God or fallen spirits, causing humans and/or animals to speak. To think that this is beyond the power of Satan, when Satan can inflict disease, tear down houses, bring fire from heaven, work false signs and wonders, and turn staffs into serpents, and mimic the other miracles of Moses, seems to be an error. 

7) It seems as if this issue is akin, on some level, to a common misunderstanding of inerrancy. Don't get me wrong, I know you are not misunderstanding it! And that's not lip-service; I just don't know if you see the same connection I do. Often scientists and historians charge Scripture with error, not understanding that inerrancy and infallibility do not equate with inexhaustive treatment of all things.

We don't know everything Abraham did. We know nothing of large swaths of the life of Christ. Yet, Scripture is true when it touches on it. Likewise, God doesn't say that He is showing us "all of the story" when it comes to the serpent and to Eve. Scripture (comparatively) rarely gives us glances into the angelic and demonic worlds that surround us at all times; yet we are engulfed and bathed in the spiritual world. 

As long as Scripture doesn't _rule out_ angelic intervention, we do not err by "fleshing it out" in accordance with the rest of Scripture. 

Genesis 3 tells us truth, but it does not promise to lift up the curtain and let us "peak behind the scenes" to see all of the spiritual realities behind it the narrative.

8) My last two points will deal with a little more speculation on my part; so bear with me. As to the serpent being "crafty" or "subtle" or "cunning": Who truly understands what an "animal" is, to be completely honest. We know that they do not have souls like us. I am _not_ advocating anything of the sort. However, do animals not have some thoughts, even if they lack the self to acknowledge it? Can anyone who has ever owned pets or worked with animals deny that they have thoughts, memory, and "personality", though they lack the "ego", or self, or consciousness, or rationality, that we have?

Regardless, maybe there is something in the "character" (loosely defined, mind you) of a snake, or a serpent, that suited Satan's purposes. Scripture seems to associate the fox with craftiness, the dove with peace, wisdom with serpents; it says (I forget the passage) that the horse is excited and loves to rush into battle. It says that the whales (or leviathan; I forget) plays and frollicks in the sea. 

Maybe those qualities don't exist within the animals; maybe all of the animals just represent some aspect of God's creative glory and excellence in a different way. Is it possible that these representations are objective, since most cultures associate lions (as does Scripture in places) with nobility, etc.? Maybe there's something about the serpent that signifies wisdom, and Satan chose this instrument to take up for that reason?

Perhaps I am wrong, and animals have no semblance of personality altogether. In any case, you could still affirm the historicity of the Genesis narrative, while at the same time banning any semblance of personality in animals, taking the language in a bit of a looser, descriptive, or stylistic (pick the word) sense. 

Indeed, the same issue is before us regardless of the serpent. Take Balaam's donkey. You have a stronger case for personality there, because it says "the LORD opened the mouth of the [donkey], and _she_ said... ", "...what have _I_ done...?" We all affirm that as history. If this historical text does not affirm the personality of animals, then neither should a speaking serpent.

9) Any Christian who takes Genesis seriously has to recognize the fact that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. We don't think about the fact often, and, due to the alleged "conflict" between Scripture and science, we rarely bring it into Biblical discussion. Let's even do away with the word "dinosaurs." Regardless of what you call them, humans existed at one point with large reptilian, serpentine creatures of various shapes and sizes. It is my understanding that the word used for "serpent" is flexible enough to accommodate one of these creatures.

Is it that improbable that the serpent had wings, or legs, or a wider body, prior to the fall? Indeed, with all the cultural, pan-human memories of dragons, and the association of dragons with wisdom (e.g. Fafnir, Quetzalcoatl, the python and Delphi, the dragon that guards the apples of the Hesperides, etc.), perhaps there is a real cultural memory of some dragon like creature, associated with wisdom, now an enemy of man. Turretin seems to infer something similar to that (I can find the reference if anyone is curious).

Who knows if Yahweh did not "humble" one of these mighty creatures, and flatten it to the dust and remove its bodily glory from it after Satan assumed it for his own purposes? After all, as Mrs. Zartman pointed out (from Matthew Henry), the ox that gored a man was itself to be stoned.

Can we prove it? No. Is it really implausible? Not at all. It seems as if the only real argument against the possibility is a knee-jerk modern reaction (not saying you would have that; just in general).

Anyhow, brother, just some thoughts. I do appreciate your irenic spirit on this board, and hope this post is received in the same spirit! My apologies for any place wherein the tone fell short of brotherly love!

May the Lord grant us all more wisdom and understanding!


----------



## Davidius

Revelation 21:23 said:


> 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.



Is it possible that the glory of God also lit the world for the first few days?


----------



## MrMerlin777

DMcFadden said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas F. Kelly's _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms_ was the book that caused R.C. Sproul to change his view from endorsing Hugh Ross to accept a six-day creationist view.
Click to expand...



I was not aware of this about Sproul. But I have, and have read Douglas F Kelly's book. And it convinced me also, of a six-day creationist view. Prior to reading it I was more of a "Theistic evolutionist".


----------



## DMcFadden

MrMerlin777 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas F. Kelly's _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms_ was the book that caused R.C. Sproul to change his view from endorsing Hugh Ross to accept a six-day creationist view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was not aware of this about Sproul. But I have, and have read Douglas F Kelly's book. And it convinced me also, of a six-day creationist view. Prior to reading it I was more of a "Theistic evolutionist".
Click to expand...


This is Sproul's own testimony in his "Tape of the Month" on the 6 days of creation. He describes the views held by orthodox exegetes, then tells of his being convinced by Kelly. But, along the lines of Frame's comments cited at the beginnning of this thread, R.C. has not made this a major issue of his nor does he seek to make it a test of fellowship.


----------



## a mere housewife

Matthew Henry also points out that licking or eating dust is spoken of in other places in Scripture, not only as the activity of a serpent (Micah 7:17), but as 'an expression of a miserable condition' - as in Psalm 44:25. My husband was telling me this morning about other references to 'going on thy belly', a sign of humiliation and defeat throughout the OT. It seems to illustrate how the physical plane of experience 'incarnates' (I don't know a better word) the spiritual realities from the beginning to the grand end: I honestly had not realized, or at least realized so significantly before today that the cross, and the events of Revelation involve the fulfillment of the curse on Satan. I have personally profited a lot from reading this discussion and second Mr. Wiseman's appreciation of the Christian spirit of Mr. Foord, Rev. Winzer, and others (Mr. Wiseman himself certainly); it's made it easier to understand and profit. Thanks.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew, thanks again for your replies. I'm enjoying the interaction.



armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question about the snake crawling on his belly and eating dust all his life ... is it literal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


So therefore, did God curse a snake or the devil, or both? If he cursed the devil, why is only a snake addressed as a snake? If he cursed the devil, why does a snake, which isn't personal (in your opinion) and thus is a non-moral agent, suffer? Why do we read nothing about curses on the devil himself?



JohnOwen007 said:


> Anything "left" of reading Genesis as literal history is radical.



Dear brother, this sort of statement adds little to the discussion except of _ad hominem_ value. Please interact with my points rather than wheel in baggage-laden words (which distract).

The Bavinck quote unfortunately, I find, hardly does justice to the history of interpretation concerning Gen. 1-3. A literalistic reading of Gen. 1-3 presents all sort of deadlocks that theologians have noticed ever since the patristic period. Just go back and read the many _hexamera_ of the Fathers who wrote them (from Basil to Grosseteste). You'll get a wide variety of views.

The view of Gen. 1-3 I'm presenting (which many many conservative inerrants adhere to) is neither myth, saga, nor poetry. Read my past posts carefully.



armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your comparison between Gen. 1-3 and the gospels doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genres are no different.
Click to expand...


Well, you're free to have your opinion, but to me it's obvious they're not. There's a few 1000 years separating their authoring; one written in an ANE culture (with similarities to genres of the time), the other written in 1st century Graeco-Roman culture (and was a unique genre). Identical genres? I don't buy it.



JohnOwen007 said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well dear brother unfortunately I must disagree. When we read Gen. 3:1 in context, _`arum_ ("crafty", "cunning") is clearly personal (or describes character) because it provides the ground for the temptation of the woman; I'm simply sticking to the actual text:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. 10:16, "be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Do you suppose our Saviour intended to attribute the personal qualities of wisdom and harmlessness to serpents and doves? If not, there is no reason to conclude that "arum" in Gen. 3 is referring to a personal quality.
Click to expand...


Well, this bypasses the point I made. Matt.10:16 hardly deals with the argument. Words have their meanings in their context (basic rule of semantics). When _'arum_ is placed in it's immediate context it's obvious it refers to a personal character, given precisely that the "snake" then _deceives _ by talking to the women! No mention of the demonic possessing the snake. Such an idea must be read into the text. And again the women in 3:13 admits that the "serpent deceived me" and I ate. And the key word again is: context.

As I see it, the literalistic view, isn't literal enough.

Every blessing Matthew.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Joshua, thanks so much for your post. I appreciated it. Unfortunately I'm really pushed for time at the moment so I won't be able to answer all the points you make. Some are answered in previous posts, and others may well be addressed in Henri Blocher, _Original Sin_, particularly chapter 2. Perhaps if I get some time I can come back and address you concerns later.

I'll give a brief response to your main point.



JDWiseman said:


> You have stated that you see Genesis 1 - 3 as a unit of text which utilizes parabolic and/or analogical language,



I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical _per se_ (_a la_ Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.



JDWiseman said:


> So instead of having 1:1-2:4, 2:4-4:26 as the natural division of the text, you are making "1-3" to be a unit of text[...]



You've taken me too literally!  When I spoke of Gen. 1-3 it wasn't in the context of discussing the structure of Genesis it was merely a passing comment designed to make reference to creation and the fall.

When it comes to the _toledoth_ you're making much rest on the meaning of one word, i.e. that it has to refer to literal history. The way we determine how to understand the early chapters of Genesis is not by the meaning of one marker word (_toledoth_) but attendance to all the words, and what they mean in context.

That's precisely what I'm attempting to do, read the early chapters of Genesis as carefully as possible.



JDWiseman said:


> May the Lord grant us all more wisdom and understanding!



Amen dear brother. Thanks for your contribution.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Davidius said:


> Revelation 21:23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the glory of God also lit the world for the first few days?
Click to expand...


Depends what you mean. God's dwells in "unapproachable light" (1 Tim. 6:16), and so it could not be his direct glory, it would have to be a glory accommodated to the created order.

But the problem with the suggestion is that the text _doesn't say so_.


----------



## JohnOwen007

a mere housewife said:


> [...] but as 'an expression of a miserable condition'



Perhaps, but if this is right, you're no longer reading the text literally. If the words don't literally mean "eating dust", then where do we stop?


----------



## caddy

JohnOwen007 said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] but as 'an expression of a miserable condition'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but if this is right, you're no longer reading the text literally. If the words don't literally mean "eating dust", then where do we stop?
Click to expand...

 
From Calvin:

Thou art cursed above all cattle. This curse of God has such force against the serpents as to render it despicable, and scarcely tolerable to heaven and earth, leading a life exposed to, and replete with, constant terrors. Besides, it is not only hateful to us, as the chief enemy of the human race, but, being separated also from other animals, carries on a kind of war with nature; *for we see it had before been so gentle that the woman did not flee from its familiar approach. But what follows has greater difficulty because that which God denounces as a punishment seems to be natural;* *namely, that it should creep upon its belly and eat dust. *This objection has induced certain men of learning and ability to say, that the serpent had been accustomed to walk with an erect body before it had been abused by Satan. 38 There will, however, be no absurdity in supposing, that the serpent was again consigned to that former condition, to which he was already naturally subject. For thus he, who had exalted himself against the image of God, was to be thrust back into his proper rank; as if it had been said, 'Thou, a wretched and filthy animal, hast dared to rise up against man, whom I appointed to the dominion of the whole world; as if, truly, thou, who art fixed to the earth, hadst any right to penetrate into heaven. Therefore, I now throw thee back again to the place whence thou hast attempted to emerge, that thou mayest learn to be contented with thy lot, and no more exalt thyself, to man's reproach and injury.' In the meanwhile he is recalled from his insolent motions to his accustomed mode of going, in such a way as to be, at the same time, condemned to perpetual infamy. *To eat dust is the sign of a vile and sordid nature.* *This (in my opinion) is the simple meaning of the passage, which the testimony of Isaiah also confirms, (**Isaiah 65:25**) for while he promises under the reign of Christ, the complete restoration of a sound and well-constituted nature, he records, among other things, that dust shall be to the serpent for bread.* Wherefore, it is not necessary to seek for any fresh change in each particular which Moses here relates.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm a staunch young earther and I'm not going to get involved in this debate but I do want to observe that, after 120 plus replies and over 1400 views the answer to the question - "Is it worth the battle?" is answered in the affirmative.

Battle on!


----------



## panta dokimazete

If for no other reason: Iron sharpens iron!


----------



## puritan lad

I don't want to get into this discussion too much myself, but I have a little twist that needs to be considered. I read David Snoke's defense of Old Earth Creation, and he presented a case that got me thinking...

_“Many people may find it easy to believe that thousands of non-Christian scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fabricate geological data, but one thing acts as a strong check to prevent them from doing that: self-interest. Geology underlies the oil industry, and the oil industry is interested in finding oil with pinpoint accuracy, not in creating a vast religious deception. Some Christians fault the old-earthers for violating the scientific method because they deal with things that lie in the past, and therefore beyond the realm of falsifiable predictions. This is incorrect. The theory of an old earth and continental drift is a highly successful, predictive theory, used by thousands of people who put millions of dollars at risk in order to find oil and coal. Just as capitalism tends to make selfish people work toward productive goals out of self interest, so it also tends to keep them honest, since a person who consistently denies reality, making false predictions of where to drill for oil, at a cost of millions of dollars, will not last long in the business. If young-earth science made better predictions than old-earth science of where to find oil, I am convinced that the industry would embrace it in an instant.”_

One may question Snoke's apologetic, but I want to bring this into the practical realm. Whether or not we should let science dictate our interpretation of Scripture isn't really the point here. My question is this. What is a Christian to do if he is employed as an oil driller for Exxon? Should he…

1.) …abandon his old earth geology at the expense of finding oil (and losing his position)?

2.) …accept old earth geology six days a week, long enough to get his job done, and then revert to young earth creation on Sunday?

3.) ...accept the possibility that the Bible allows for an old earth?

4.) …find a new job?

Other alternatives?


----------



## a mere housewife

JohnOwen007 said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] but as 'an expression of a miserable condition'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but if this is right, you're no longer reading the text literally. If the words don't literally mean "eating dust", then where do we stop?
Click to expand...


Mr. Foord, I believe they do mean literally eating or licking dust as the literal activity of a literal serpent as cited by the verse in Micah; but that this literalness has a spiritual significance that would not make sense unless we literally assume that the devil is present in the snake as the rest of scripture takes this up and applies it spiritually as well. Again I'm probably expressing this badly but it is the distinction Mr. Winzer drew between taking something literally and naturalistically, as if the literal ruled out the supernatural and spiritual: that is to draw a false distinction, a distinction modern science fundamentally adopts -- & they never find God anywhere in spite of His being everywhere revealed -- but that I reject. I appreciate much that your concern is not for science but for the text, but I don't believe the distinction is in the text and my point was more that the rest of Scripture's usage of these concepts as both physical and spiritual supports that it isn't: that you have the spiritual significance hidden or revealed, certainly not divorced from, the physical and both together form the 'literal' reading.


----------



## panta dokimazete

puritan lad said:


> I don't want to get into this discussion too much myself, but I have a little twist that needs to be considered. I read David Snoke's defense of Old Earth Creation, and he presented a case that got me thinking...
> 
> _“Many people may find it easy to believe that thousands of non-Christian scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fabricate geological data, but one thing acts as a strong check to prevent them from doing that: self-interest. Geology underlies the oil industry, and the oil industry is interested in finding oil with pinpoint accuracy, not in creating a vast religious deception. Some Christians fault the old-earthers for violating the scientific method because they deal with things that lie in the past, and therefore beyond the realm of falsifiable predictions. This is incorrect. The theory of an old earth and continental drift is a highly successful, predictive theory, used by thousands of people who put millions of dollars at risk in order to find oil and coal. Just as capitalism tends to make selfish people work toward productive goals out of self interest, so it also tends to keep them honest, since a person who consistently denies reality, making false predictions of where to drill for oil, at a cost of millions of dollars, will not last long in the business. If young-earth science made better predictions than old-earth science of where to find oil, I am convinced that the industry would embrace it in an instant.”_
> 
> One may question Snoke's apologetic, but I want to bring this into the practical realm. Whether or not we should let science dictate our interpretation of Scripture isn't really the point here. My question is this. What is a Christian to do if he is employed as an oil driller for Exxon? Should he…
> 
> 1.) …abandon his old earth geology at the expense of finding oil (and losing his position)?
> 
> 2.) …accept old earth geology six days a week, long enough to get his job done, and then revert to young earth creation on Sunday?
> 
> 3.) ...accept the possibility that the Bible allows for an old earth?
> 
> 4.) …find a new job?
> 
> Other alternatives?



well, I am no expert on geology, but - are they finding oil based on the "facts" of an old earth, or are they utilizing the lessons learned from previous oil finds to develop better and better methods of discovery? I tend to believe that folk align their presuppositions to the evidence...does the YE group have an workable interpretation of the evidence?


----------



## a mere housewife

PD, yes, the YE's have workable models just as the OE's do. It's never a straightforward matter of 'this is what the facts tell me' with regard to origins etc. One makes a model to account for 'evidence' and these models are based not only on observable evidence but on one's presuppositions; new evidence is constantly coming to light and changing the models; the models themselves have no real way of being tested, etc. It's a changing and very biased standard again: to speak of the 'facts' of things beyond our observation without an authoritative framework is naiveté on our part.


----------



## panta dokimazete

did a google - found this from AIG


----------



## puritan lad

That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.


----------



## ChristianTrader

puritan lad said:


> That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.
> 
> Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.



The real issue is this: Is it okay to hold a position that the science of the day, finds reprehensible. Or is it only okay to hold to a position such as YEC as long as you have a working model as comprehensive as the other positions?

Let's for example say that I agree that YECers dont have a working model for finding oil, but let us imagine that in 50 years one is worked out. Is it irrational to hold to YEC until 50 years from now?

Now let us imagine that the YEC working model at that point is better than the OEC one. Do the OECers have to then (and only then) capitulate and come over?

Or can we look at scripture and say, if science does not currently bear out YEC (or OEC) as the case may be, then it just shows that more work needs to be done?

CT


----------



## a mere housewife

Hi Scott, yes, one can deny those theories on the basis of an unchanging and eternal authority: indeed it is much more coherent to deny them where they oppose that authority than to qualify that authority by them when they are dealing with things that cannot be proven, when they have been outdated numerous times in the past etc. Again the concern for how to read Genesis should be textual not scientific. It is the height of our -I don't know, presumption, ignorance- to trust science to qualify the Scripturally coherent and plain reading of the Word of God. The arguments from science will not muster any more authority with six day Creationists than they can possibly have as a changing human tool, which is why such arguments are irrelevant in this kind of discussion about the reading of a text.


----------



## puritan lad

All well and good, so back to my original question.

What is the Christian Exxon Oil Driller supposed to do?


----------



## ChristianTrader

puritan lad said:


> All well and good, so back to my original question.
> 
> What is the Christian Exxon Oil Driller supposed to do?



Keep making money and understand that science is changeable but the Word of God is not.

CT


----------



## puritan lad

To be more specific.

According to what we know scientifically (fully realizing that it can change tomorrow), the accurate finding of coal and oil requires the assumption of an old earth (of course, like all science, this faces the problem of induction). Nevertheless, can one temporarily adopt "old earth geology" in order to get his job done, at least until a time comes when young earth geology may give a better alternative? What if his job and knowledge of geology influenced his view of creation, giving him an old earth perspective? Would he be heretical in doing so?


----------



## Civbert

puritan lad said:


> That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.
> 
> Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earth quite yet.



I question that plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are key variables used to predict the location of oil. Rather the opposite is true - the location of oil is used as 'evidence' of plate tectonics and continental drift. I have never heard any geologist say "if continental drift, then we should find oil at location X". I seriously doubt that old earth theories are critical to oil exploration. 

Also, do young earth theorist necessarily deny plate tectonics??


----------



## a mere housewife

Also, Scott, if your concern is over the 'h' word (smiley) then certainly I don't think anyone here would say the man is departing from the Christian faith over this issue -- indeed people like Warfield, C. S. Lewis, are held in very high esteem by most of us; I understood the original question to be more whether our church officers should ideally be required to hold to this position. It isn't a matter even of separation from people but of whether those who are in a special position of defending the church from error should be required to be confessional on this point: in that sense, I do believe this is worth 'fighting for' because I think the errors logically -- though not in every personal case-- lead to others. But no, I don't think this issue alone constitutes someone a heretic or that the thread is geared towards that kind of anathema.


----------



## puritan lad

Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.

Access : : Nature

I do know of one particular geologist who is an adamant young earth creationist. Yet he does his job under the pretense that the earth is old, because it appears old. He admits that everything he knows about the earth suggests that it is billions of years old. Nonetheless, he holds that it is young, because Scripture says so.

But most believing scientists I know are old-earthers.


----------



## Civbert

puritan lad said:


> Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.
> 
> Access : : Nature



Thanks for the link but I can't read the article. The summary does not make it clear. 


> The necessary physiographic location of deltaic sources deposited during the past 200 million years requires that continental movements be taken into account.



The quote seems to say that the explanation of the location of "deltaic source" must include an explanation (account) of continental movement. In other words, the location of the deposits is evidence for continental drift. And this all presumes an old earth viewpoint.


----------



## puritan lad

Oops. The link is for members only.

Continental Drift, however, is the main method for locating these deposits.


----------



## A5pointer

This conversation seems to link literal/non-literal days with earth age. I don't hold to literal days but do not see that as having a bearing on one's opinion of earth age. If pressed I would guess that the creation could have been instantaneous rather than over 6 days. Am I wrong to suggest that whether the days were literal or not need not have bearing on opinion of the earths age?


----------



## Civbert

puritan lad said:


> Oops. The link is for members only.
> 
> Continental Drift, however, is the main method for locating these deposits.


How?

P.S. Never mind. I don't want to sidetrack the thread. You can PM me or post another link if you want, but I withdraw my "how".


----------



## DMcFadden

puritan lad said:


> That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.
> 
> Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.



Actually, Scott, that observation is a little out of date. One of the leading experts in the world on plate tectonics happens to be a young earther. His statistical analysis and computer generated model have been hailed as offering the highest degree of predictive specificity. Yet, he argues that flood catastrophism, using his computer model, adequately explains the continental separations to a very fine point indeed. In fact, I heard him lecture, using a computer generated 3-D animation of his model. It was quite impressive.

Here is an abstract of Dr. John Baumgardner's work:



> Any comprehensive model for earth history consistent with the data from the Scriptures must account for the massive tectonic changes associated with the Genesis Flood. These tectonic changes include significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow for the deposition of up to many thousands of meters of fossil-bearing sediments, lateral displacements of the continental blocks themselves by thousands of kilometers, formation of all of the present day ocean floor basement rocks by igneous processes, and isostatic adjustments after the catastrophe that produced today's Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, and Andes. This paper uses 3-D numerical modeling in spherical geometry of the earth's mantle and lithosphere to demonstrate that rapid plate tectonics driven by runaway subduction of the pre-Flood ocean floor is able to account for this unique pattern of large-scale tectonic change and to do so within the Biblical time frame.



Whether runaway subduction ultimately proves to be the mechanism of plate tectonics or not remains to be seen. However, the model was designed by competent geologists and has been peer reviewed. Obviously, those with a dog in the fight defending uniformitarian assumptions will scoff. However, my point is that the "facts" of nature do not require uniformitarian assumptions and that there are impressive theological reasons for rejecting such materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions.

I appreciate the immense learnedness of our professor, Marty, from down under. His comments are always gracious, fair, and patient with those of us _hoi polloi_. However, chasing after the definition of what "is" is regarding "literal interpretation" or chasing down the figurative elements in the creation account with questions about talking snakes misses the point I have attempted to make. A reading sensitive to the genre, recognizing the subtext of the near eastern mythologies Moses may be dealing with (e.g., a contradiction of the Babylonian worldview in particular), and aware of our cultural distance from the original composition, still seems perfectly compatible with a normal reading of the narrative with relatively young earth implications. 

Indeed, I would aver that the straightforward reading is not only the intended one by the divine (and the human) author, but also sets us up for most of the major theological themes in the rest of the Bible. It is not for nothing that the apologetics ministry, Answers in Genesis, selected that name. Genesis 1-11 contains the seedbed for the major doctrinal themes to be developed in the rest of the canonical scriptures. While I would never question someone's salvation (or orthodoxy) for believing otherwise, my honest consideration of the data has convinced me that the normal reading here is the best one.


----------



## Neogillist

*Theistic Evolution is Deism*

I believe that six-day creation is worth the battle, however, as a fourth year student in applied physics, I can understand how many faithful Christians have sought to adopt an old-earth creation view. They have preferred to become inconsistent Christians rather than inconsistent scientists. The scientific community has gone so far with the theory of evolution, whether big bang, molecular, macro or micro evolution, that it would require a miracle for them to come back and reject their 'theory.' Any six-day creationist in most fields of science is bound to be made fun of, simply because within the university level, evolution is accepted almost as a fact. For every Christian website that seeks to defend 6-day creation there may be a hundred that attempt to refute it. 

However, both non-theistic evolutionists and 6-day creationists agree that theistic evolution is inconsistent with the Bible. If you have theistic evolution, you must have death before sin, and if you have death before sin, you have no sin, and if you have no sin you are a Deist. Theistic evolution simply leads to Deism, which in turn leads to Atheism. Some scientist-theologians have constructed some complex theories for reconciling some form of evolutionary biology with the Bible, but to me they are all theological constructs.

Arguments run that God had to explain to Moses the origin of life in a simple way so the Jews could understand it. But again, this is to argue from an evolutionary perspective that men in those days were dumber than we are today. If evolutionary science is true and the Bible is also inherant, I would expect some clearer evidence from Genesis 1 that God created the universe over long periods of time. Besides, Moses is the only prophet in Scriptures who is said to have spoken face to face with God. If he were not sure of the original record, he could have just gone to the horse's mouth. Also, if evolutionary science is true, man was not made in God's image from the beginning. God had to somehow impart His image to him at some point in time. You can see how this just gets ridiculous. Evolutionary science and Genesis are mutually exclusive.


----------



## puritan lad

DMcFadden,

Young Earth Creation really cannot account for Continental drift in any accurate manner, but that will require a more indepth discussion than what I'm prepared to offer at this point. (Besides, that is only one of many issues. There are many more, such as the 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer, etc.)

In any case, I'm not necessarily defending their view, just pushing for a little understanding for those who hold to an old earth view. Many are true believers who hold to a high view of Scripture.

Neogillist,

Just to clarify, theistic evolution is a heresy. Old earth creation does not necessarily imply evolution.


----------



## caddy

Neogillist said:


> They have preferred to become inconsistent Christians rather than inconsistent scientists.


 
This speaks v o l u m e s.......


----------



## a mere housewife

re: theistic evolution being a heresy: C. S. Lewis is supposed to have been a 'theistic evolutionist'? I don't regard him as a heretic. Again I don't think the battle here has been framed in terms of heresy. 

Please understand that though YEC's recognize and understand the tremendous pressure their brothers in Christ are under and the confusion that exists about the authority of science, we're not going to stop fighting against the kind of abuse and compromise of God's authority that goes on in the attempt to make the text subservient to scientific models, as here: http://www.answersincreation.org/lewis.htm (please read the 'invitation' section at the end) and that is inherent in any attempt to qualify the meaning of Scripture with science.


----------



## puritan lad

Fair enough. I'm not necessarily a proponent of Old Earth Creation, just sympathetic to the issues at hand.


----------



## DMcFadden

puritan lad said:


> DMcFadden,
> 
> Young Earth Creation really cannot account for Continental drift in any accurate manner, but that will require a more indepth discussion than what I'm prepared to offer at this point. (Besides, that is only one of many issues. There are many more, such as the 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer, etc.)
> 
> In any case, I'm not necessarily defending their view, just pushing for a little understanding for those who hold to an old earth view. Many are true believers who hold to a high view of Scripture.
> 
> Neogillist,
> 
> Just to clarify, theistic evolution is a heresy. Old earth creation does not necessarily imply evolution.



I make no prretense to being a scientist. However, I produced purported evidence that the YEC position can handle continental drift in an "accurate matter." I would appreciate more interaction with Baumgardner's work than a simple dismissal.

I am not competent to evaluate your claim regarding the 1992 findings. However, it is my understanding that once one removes the motion of our galaxy, scientists have found (buried in the background) at sufficiently small angular resolutions, small intrinsic variations of the order of 1 part in 105, actually ≤ 70 µK.4,10. Don't cosmologists say that one would need variations greater than 1 part in 104 to account for the the formation of galaxies and clusters within the timeframe available to gravity??? The so-called evidence for inflation (needed to solve the horizon and flatness problems) is extremely model dependent. I am not so sure that it will hold up.

Actually, when the steady-state model could not handle the observations of cosmic microwave backgrounds (CMB), scientists turned to tweaking the Big Bang model liberally in order to make the observations fit.

I am no enemy of science ("all truth is God's truth" and all of that). However, it will take more than "science says so" to convince me that we should abandon Genesis, particularly when the worldview animating the billions of years is far afield from that of believing scientists who, operating from Christian premises, developed modern science.

Incidentally, I agree that OEC does not imply evolution. It does, however, generally imply that there were millions of years of death prior to the fall. That is a problem for me.


----------



## puritan lad

DMcFadden said:


> I would appreciate more interaction with Baumgardner's work than a simple dismissal.


I didn't intend to merely dismiss it. Perhaps I'll interact with it later. It requires more involvement than I intended to get into.


----------



## Ravens

Mr. Foord,



> You've taken me too literally!  When I spoke of Gen. 1-3 it wasn't in the context of discussing the structure of Genesis it was merely a passing comment designed to make reference to creation and the fall.
> 
> When it comes to the _toledoth_ you're making much rest on the meaning of one word, i.e. that it has to refer to literal history. The way we determine how to understand the early chapters of Genesis is not by the meaning of one marker word (_toledoth_) but attendance to all the words, and what they mean in context.



Actually, I can see where my "structural lesson" about Genesis could have appeared condescending, and I apologize. I had no doubt that you were aware of the structure. I was only bringing the structure up because I believe it to have an important bearing on the interpretation of Genesis 2:4-4:26. That being the case, I'm not wanting the weight of my argument to rest on the lexical meaning of _toledoth_. Rather, I'm wanting the weight of the argument to rest on the actual use of the _toledoth_'s in the book of Genesis. 

I think that is a distinction worth making. All of the _toledoth_'s, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history. And we would all agree that Genesis 4 deals with history. So it seems as if your position would fissure the first _toledoth_ right down the middle. In other words, all of the _toledoth_'s record history; a third of the first _toledoth_ in question records history; and the remainder of the _toledoth_ (which you do not see as history) is nevertheless recording the creation, words, and actions, of two people that the Scriptures (and you) elsewhere sets forth as real people.

I would argue that the context more than merits, and probably even demands, the taking of the first _toledoth_ as inspired, reliable history.



> I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical per se (a la Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.



That is true, and I should have been more careful in my speaking. Is there a short article or something that treats Scotist's view to which you could refer me? 

Either way, I think it is very easy to get lost in terminology. That's not a plea for simplicity as such. But I do think that scholarly works and terminology tend to obscure the debate. When discussing Genesis one hears "myth, saga, epic, allegory, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, etc." thrown about, and its hard (at least for me) to draw clear cut distinctions between the lot.

So setting aside that question for the moment, and dealing specifically with what you are saying about a serpent "literally" eating dust. 

It seems as if you are saying that the presence of figures of speech, colloquialisms, symbolism, _what have you_, in a given passage, are in and of themselves warrants for taking _the whole text_ in such a manner. For instance, if I were to say that the serpent "eating dust" was symbolic of humiliation and defeat, a la Micah 7:17 ("They [the nations] shall lick the dust like a serpent; they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee."), I don't think that would mean that the whole passage was therefore "symbol" and no longer real history. 

It seems as if that arrow could be used to shoot down the historicity of any passage in the New Testament. Does God crushing Satan under the feet of the church refer to the saints literal feet? If not, does that "de-historicize" the personal greetings in Romans? Does Christ calling Herod "that fox" have to be taken literally? If not, is the historicity of that gospel account to be taken into question?

Those are probably two very poor examples, but they are the only ones that come to mind off-hand. But I trust you get my point. Why would one metaphorical or symbolic language in a text relegate the whole text to symbolism or "something other than history". 

If I were reading a three page except on Alexander the Great in a history textbook that mentioned him "fighting as a lion", or even referring to him as a "lion of war" (avoiding the simile), I wouldn't therefore take the whole passage as a-historical. I would recognize the flexibility of human language, and the necessity of colorful language, and common figures of speech, without therefore "scrapping" the rest as something other than history.

Lastly, there are different ways (off the top of my head) to think about the serpent eating dust:

1) Humiliation, a la Micah 7:17.

2) A reference to the enmity between the serpent and humankind, since Adam was taken from dust, and would return to dust. This seems to be a common theme in Genesis, or at least a present theme, since Abraham told the LORD that he was only "dust and ashes." So if "dust" is clearly symbolic of humankind in Genesis, why could it not be here? Surely that has some textual support.

3) Phenomenological language. Anyone who has ever seen a snake sees it flicking its tongue out as it writhes upon the ground. To overly stress the literal idea of "eating" dust seems to be the same technique used by scientists who criticize the Bible for its three-tiered earth, or for geocentricity (granted that two respected men in this thread hold to such), to discredit the Bible. For those of us who are not geocentrists, the language could be easily phenomenological.

4) Surely the context presupposes or at least infers that the serpent was "other than it is now" prior to the curse and punishment. That view might even be more common (I would assume) among some liberal commentators because it seems to make the Biblical position even more ludicrous, e.g., that snakes had wings, or were somewhat different than they now are. However, seeing as that comes from the text itself, it would seem to lend support to seeing the "eating the dust" and "upon thy belly" as humiliation, since this once lofty creature has been humbled.

5) I see this as perhaps a bit pedantic (but I think the question invokes such an answer) there's this, taken from an article by Carl Wieland from Answers in Genesis:



> Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.
> 
> There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.
> 
> Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.



From: Snakes do eat dust!

Anyway, just some thoughts. Perhaps it would help me (and presumably others) to understand your position further if you would give a positive explanation of your view, the interrelation of the _toledoth_'s, Adam and Eve, whether she was really formed from his rib, the nature of theological language, etc.

Every blessing brother! Take your time in responding; no rush.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> So therefore, did God curse a snake or the devil, or both? If he cursed the devil, why is only a snake addressed as a snake? If he cursed the devil, why does a snake, which isn't personal (in your opinion) and thus is a non-moral agent, suffer? Why do we read nothing about curses on the devil himself?



On the temporal level the serpent is cursed, and on the eschatological level "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" is cursed. One might choose to ignore the eschatological aspect, but such ignorance only veils the eyes of the OT reader.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear brother, this sort of statement adds little to the discussion except of _ad hominem_ value. Please interact with my points rather than wheel in baggage-laden words (which distract).
> 
> The Bavinck quote unfortunately, I find, hardly does justice to the history of interpretation concerning Gen. 1-3. A literalistic reading of Gen. 1-3 presents all sort of deadlocks that theologians have noticed ever since the patristic period. Just go back and read the many _hexamera_ of the Fathers who wrote them (from Basil to Grosseteste). You'll get a wide variety of views.
> 
> The view of Gen. 1-3 I'm presenting (which many many conservative inerrants adhere to) is neither myth, saga, nor poetry. Read my past posts carefully.



Marty, whatever your own personal view may be, on this thread you have presented arguments against the literal historical approach to the text of Gen. 1-3. You haven't merely made a case that some langauge is figurative -- such should be easy to establish on the basis of literal markers within the text; but you have clearly said you believe the text should be read as one would read a parable of our Lord. Now that is a radical approach. Conservatism and radicalism are not determined by reference to "self," but by reference to schools of thought.

The Bavinck statement is true to life. Christian theology has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as historical. The early fathers' belief in the seven days as typifying seven eras of church history depends on the historicity of Gen. 1. When I read Basil's Hexameron a number of years ago I did not receive any other impression but that he was approaching the text as literally historical. Certainly the schoolmen and reformers understood the text to be relating real events which took place on the time-space continuum; and I don't think anyone would doubt that the Protestant scholastics and those who followed them read the text literally. Bavinck's appraisal is clearly correct.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, you're free to have your opinion, but to me it's obvious they're not. There's a few 1000 years separating their authoring; one written in an ANE culture (with similarities to genres of the time), the other written in 1st century Graeco-Roman culture (and was a unique genre). Identical genres? I don't buy it.



First, concerning macro-genre, it is generally accepted that writings might be separated by thousands of years and alien cultures and still be essentially the same type of writing. A treaty is a treaty, a law code is a law code, and a history is a history. They had them in the ANE and they have them now. No doubt there are micro-elements which differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the writing is still essentially the same.

Secondly, as has already been noted, the NT itself presents its allusions to Gen. 1-3 from the perspective that these things happened. Not merely that they are written, but that the events recorded are historical realities. The only way these historical allusions could be explained away is on the supposition that the writers of the NT accommodated themselves to the false beliefs of the people to whom they were writing; but this is a radical approach to the text which was adopted by liberal interpreters and has always been rejected by conservatives.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, this bypasses the point I made. Matt.10:16 hardly deals with the argument. Words have their meanings in their context (basic rule of semantics). When _'arum_ is placed in it's immediate context it's obvious it refers to a personal character, given precisely that the "snake" then _deceives _ by talking to the women! No mention of the demonic possessing the snake. Such an idea must be read into the text. And again the women in 3:13 admits that the "serpent deceived me" and I ate. And the key word again is: context.



The "wise as serpents" statement shows clearly there are characteristics in animal behaviour which bear an analogy to human behaviour. The listener does not suppose that serpents are or can be wise in the same sense as men are wise; nor should the "craftiness" of the Edenic serpent.

The woman undoubtedly says the serpent deceived her; and Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve. This merely begs the question as to what kind of influence was operating on the serpent to enable it to talk. The whole event, when the narrative is taken as relating literal history, beckons the reader to see something out of the ordinary at work here.

At this point in reading the text we might forbear coming to any conclusion as to what made it an unusual occurrence; I would be inclined to accept Vos' interpretation as a "canonical" view of the text; but we wouldn't be at liberty to write it off as non-historical simply because serpents do not ordinarily talk. The Christian's supernaturalistic worldview overcomes such rash conclusions.

Blessings!


----------



## A5pointer

the "clearly and obviously" rule has been broken again...........LOL


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there are significant points in Genesis 1-3 that cast the "plain historical" reading into doubt, such as:
> 
> [1] The snake was cursed and told he would crawl on the "dust of the earth" all his days. But we don't believe Satan is a literal snake who is literally crawling in the dust on his belly the rest of his days.
> 
> [2] It is a story with a snake who has a personality (3:1) and talks. Nowhere else in the Bible does that occur (note that Balaam's ass did not have a personality). [We're not told in the story who the snake is, we must get that from other parts of Scripture].
> 
> [3] God walks around in the cool of the day, but the Bible tells us that God doesn't have a body--he is "spirit" and uncreated without material substance.
> 
> [4] Morning and evenings can only occur with a sun and an earth but the sun was created on the 4th day.
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> I don't believe the issues surrounding Gen. 1-3 are as simple and black and white as you make them to be brother Daniel.
> 
> God bless you.
Click to expand...



(1) The snake does crawl on his belly the rest of his days. Nowhere in the text does it say that Satan will crawl on his belly the rest of his days. 

(2) The fact that the snake has a personality proves nothing one way or the other. So if there is an account in the bible that occures only once then it is an allegory? 

(3) You have the preincarnate Christ bodily interacting with people throughout the Old Testiment. There are three persons of the God head. One of which has appeared in bodily form throughout scripture. I don't see a contradiction here.

If the account in Genesis is an allegory then where does said allegory end?


----------



## Narnian

One argument I have seen used in this thread for a literal 6 day creation period is that death could not have occured before the Fall. (from the contexts I am assuming physical death).

As one who currently leans strongly against 6 literal days I would agree that this would be a very convincing (if not clinching) argument for a 6 literal day interpretation if it is true that Genesis teaches no physical death before the Fall.

Now the verse that makes me think that physical death was possible before the Fall is Gen 3:22-24.



> Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.



If Adam and Eve had eternal life before the Fall, how could they lose it? Apparently they had to eat of the Tree of Life to obtain it. If they never ate of the Tree of Life would they have died some type of natural death?

I have many questions from this, including the Fall itself:

1. Do we differntiate between physical and spiritual death in Genesis? Was the death mentioned in the Fall only spiritual death? I am currently inclined to think it is and it was here where Satan sowed confusion in Eve's mind be mixing the two. 

2. Would physical death be bad before the Fall? Since there would be no judgment it would mean immediate entry into the eternal glory. 

3. Did Adam and Eve have the same glorified bodies we are to receive in the new earth? Or were they closer to our current bodies, just much better since they did not have the curse of the Fall on them? They would wear out but just take much longer. The declining lifespans in the early geneologies give some creedence to that view. 

I have never really studied this in detail and am very open to correction if I am stepping into something way off base.


----------



## Bygracealone

Hi Richard,

I'm not a Klinean per se, but would recommend reading his work "Kingdom Prologue" as well as Thomas Boston's "Human Nature in its Fourfold Estate." These works proved to be very helpful to me...

You asked:
1. Do we differntiate between physical and spiritual death in Genesis? Was the death mentioned in the Fall only spiritual death? I am currently inclined to think it is and it was here where Satan sowed confusion in Eve's mind be mixing the two.

First, it's important to note that our parents were living in a probationary state before the Fall. Had they fulfilled perfectly the demands of the Covenant of Works,they would have been eternally confirmed in that state of perfection. 

That said, when they broke God's Covenant, they died physically and spiritually. After the Fall, we read about the deaths of Adam, Eve, and their posterity, so they did die physically. They began dying immediately after the Fall. We know that they died spiritually as well since we know that in Adam all die and by also noting that by faith in Christ we are given new life (spiritually at the moment of regeneration and physically at the resurrection). 

You asked: 
2. Would physical death be bad before the Fall? Since there would be no judgment it would mean immediate entry into the eternal glory.

I believe physical death would have pretty huge implications if it occurred before the Fall because it would directly contradict God's Word: Romans 5:12 12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men." Death entered the world through sin, therefore before sin there was no death. 

To further answer your question, to speak of death before the Fall would be judgment and would not result in glorification, but damnation. 

You then asked: 
3. Did Adam and Eve have the same glorified bodies we are to receive in the new earth? Or were they closer to our current bodies, just much better since they did not have the curse of the Fall on them? They would wear out but just take much longer. The declining lifespans in the early geneologies give some creedence to that view.

??? But they did have the curse of the Fall upon them; they died... So, yes, they will have glorified bodies just like us; we will all have glorified bodies like our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Hope this was helpful...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BobVigneault said:


> I'm a staunch young earther and I'm not going to get involved in this debate but I do want to observe that, after 120 plus replies and over 1400 views the answer to the question - "Is it worth the battle?" is answered in the affirmative.
> 
> Battle on!





Well said.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Joshua,

Thanks again for your response. Sorry to take so long to respond. I've been away speaking at a conference (not on Genesis!, but on Haggai).

[By the way, I'm an Australian, so feel free to call me "Marty" rather than the more formal "Mr / Rev Foord"; but not if it contravenes your conscience].



JDWiseman said:


> All of the _toledoth_'s, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history.



As I see it that's putting the cart before the horse. You can only determine how the _toledoth_s work when we investigate what goes on in between them. That can only be done by inductively investigating the contents. The word _toledoth_ usually means "generations" in a sense of physical birth. However, as according to the first use of the _toledoth_ the "heavens and the earth" give birth. Already that is a unique meaning of the word, which should give us pause not to assume too much about what the word _must _demand.



JDWiseman said:


> I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical per se (a la Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true, and I should have been more careful in my speaking. Is there a short article or something that treats Scotist's view to which you could refer me?
Click to expand...


Yes, try the book _Scotus for Dunces_ by Mary Beth Ingham. It's a tremendously important issue.



JDWiseman said:


> If I were reading a three page except on Alexander the Great in a history textbook that mentioned him "fighting as a lion", or even referring to him as a "lion of war" (avoiding the simile), I wouldn't therefore take the whole passage as a-historical. I would recognize the flexibility of human language, and the necessity of colorful language, and common figures of speech, without therefore "scrapping" the rest as something other than history.



Yes, that is precisely my point. The position that we are to read Gen. 1-3 _literally _actually doesn't work precisely because it selectively chooses to treat some parts literally and others not. The days are meant to be taken literally but a snake eating dust must not (and it's not a statement about all snakes but _the_ snake).

We must approach the text according to the genre that it is.



JDWiseman said:


> Lastly, there are different ways (off the top of my head) to think about the serpent eating dust:
> 
> 1) Humiliation, a la Micah 7:17.



Humiliation to what, a snake? A snake can't be humiliated, it's an impersonal animal. But in this story it is _the_ snake with a personality who talks and deceives.

However, I'm happy with this explanation concerning the way I understand the text. It is that this snake (who talks and deceives) is to undergo humiliation because of what he / it has done. Later in the canon we discover that this is analogically a reference about Satan.



JDWiseman said:


> 2) A reference to the enmity between the serpent and humankind, since Adam was taken from dust, and would return to dust. This seems to be a common theme in Genesis, or at least a present theme, since Abraham told the LORD that he was only "dust and ashes." So if "dust" is clearly symbolic of humankind in Genesis, why could it not be here? Surely that has some textual support.
> 
> 3) Phenomenological language. Anyone who has ever seen a snake sees it flicking its tongue out as it writhes upon the ground. To overly stress the literal idea of "eating" dust seems to be the same technique used by scientists who criticize the Bible for its three-tiered earth, or for geocentricity (granted that two respected men in this thread hold to such), to discredit the Bible. For those of us who are not geocentrists, the language could be easily phenomenological.



Again these options don't work precisely because it's _not _what the text _actually _says. I'm an inerrantist and the _actual _words of the text to me are critical. The text speaks of _one _snake who is cursed, not all snakes. It says nothing about Satan in and of itself. That's only determined elsewhere from the canon.



JDWiseman said:


> 4) Surely the context presupposes or at least infers that the serpent was "other than it is now" prior to the curse and punishment. That view might even be more common (I would assume) among some liberal commentators because it seems to make the Biblical position even more ludicrous, e.g., that snakes had wings, or were somewhat different than they now are. However, seeing as that comes from the text itself, it would seem to lend support to seeing the "eating the dust" and "upon thy belly" as humiliation, since this once lofty creature has been humbled.



The problem is the snake spoke and deceived--it had a personality, something animals now don't have, precisely because they're not made in the image of God. 




JDWiseman said:


> Perhaps it would help me (and presumably others) to understand your position further if you would give a positive explanation of your view, the interrelation of the _toledoth_'s, Adam and Eve, whether she was really formed from his rib, the nature of theological language, etc.



I'd love to expound more, but I'm a little pushed for time at the moment. It's the beginning of the teaching year here in Australia, so it's a bit of a bottleneck for me. If you want a clear explanation of where I'm coming from I suggest you read Blocher's _Original Sin_.

God bless you dear brother, Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007

a mere housewife said:


> Again I'm probably expressing this badly but it is the distinction Mr. Winzer drew between taking something literally and naturalistically, as if the literal ruled out the supernatural and spiritual: that is to draw a false distinction, a distinction modern science fundamentally adopts -- & they never find God anywhere in spite of His being everywhere revealed -- but that I reject.



The distinction between the literal and the naturalistic has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm a thoroughgoing supernaturalist. My concern is with what the _text _actually says. It _never_ says anything about the snake being possessed or controlled by the devil. It simply refers to _one_ snake, who talks and deceives. Indeed, the _Bible _nowhere says the snake was possessed or controlled by the devil. They're all assumptions read into (not out of) the text.

BTW housewives are never "mere", they're a wonderful gift from God, who are a great blessing to husbands and children, and it's a very high calling.


God bless dear sister.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear David,

Thanks for your response.



DavidinKnoxville said:


> (1) The snake does crawl on his belly the rest of his days. Nowhere in the text does it say that Satan will crawl on his belly the rest of his days.



However, the text never says anything about Satan. All there is, is a talking deceiving snake. Why would one literal snake be cursed as a result of the fall?



DavidinKnoxville said:


> (2) The fact that the snake has a personality proves nothing one way or the other. So if there is an account in the bible that occures only once then it is an allegory?



Of course not. There's way more to it than this. But a snake with a personality certainly gives pause to consider something out of the ordinary is going on. Animals aren't made in the image of God with a personality. 



DavidinKnoxville said:


> (3) You have the preincarnate Christ bodily interacting with people throughout the Old Testiment. There are three persons of the God head. One of which has appeared in bodily form throughout scripture. I don't see a contradiction here.



Well you can't prove definitely it's pre-incarnate Christ, because the text doesn't say so. Either way, it's not God _in se_--that would be impossible (1 Tim. 6:16).



DavidinKnoxville said:


> If the account in Genesis is an allegory then where does said allegory end?



We have to look hard at the text to work out that. But that objection _per se_ is not really an argument against.

Every blessing David.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew,

Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been away.



armourbearer said:


> On the temporal level the serpent is cursed, and on the eschatological level "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" is cursed. One might choose to ignore the eschatological aspect, but such ignorance only veils the eyes of the OT reader.



Precisely my point. How do we determine the eschatological element except from beyond the Genesis narrative. All those chapters say is that a snake (who talks and deceives) is cursed. To grasp the eschatological significance we must place it in its full canonical context.



armourbearer said:


> Marty, whatever your own personal view may be, on this thread you have presented arguments against the literal historical approach to the text of Gen. 1-3. You haven't merely made a case that some language is figurative -- such should be easy to establish on the basis of literal markers within the text;



No you're missing the point I'm trying to make: I want to read the early chapters of Genesis literally! The days are to be understood in the story as literal days. The snake is to be understood as a real literal snake (who also talks and deceives). I want it all literally otherwise the story doesn't make sense.

What I've been arguing is that if we read it literally (as I want to) but also say it's literal history we run into huge problems (like the fact that Satan is never mentioned and _one _snake is blamed on the fall who's punishment is to literally eat dust etc. etc.).



armourbearer said:


> but you have clearly said you believe the text should be read as one would read a parable of our Lord.



Again, no that's not what I said. I want to say it _like_ a parable, in that it's _analogical_.



armourbearer said:


> Now that is a radical approach. Conservatism and radicalism are not determined by reference to "self," but by reference to schools of thought.



It certainly is not if we use the word "radical" according to the theological literature in this debate. To be "radical" means to deny things like: the existence of a space / time fall, that Adam and Eve were real literal people, the infallibility of Scripture (let alone the inerrancy of Scripture). I go by what all of Scripture says. Genesis must be understood in its canonical context.



armourbearer said:


> The Bavinck statement is true to life. Christian theology has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as historical.



Matthew, with very great respect I can only say you are wrong here. Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous and the majority of theologians (as Anselm affirms) followed him for at least 1000 years. Almost every commentator following Basil the Great argued that the creation days were not identical to ours in their _nature_. William Perkins argued that the first three days could not be classic solar days. He opposed the instantaneous view of Augustine but contends the days are “distinct spaces of times" (_Workes_ 1:143-144). The majority Westminster divines believed in 24 hour days like ours. However, John Lightfoot, argued that the first day was 36 hours, and that the seventh day was everlasting (_Works_ 1:691, 693). To say that there is unanimity in the Christian tradition on Gen. 1-3 is simply not true. (And this is only the tip of the iceberg).



armourbearer said:


> First, concerning macro-genre, it is generally accepted that writings might be separated by thousands of years and alien cultures and still be essentially the same type of writing. A treaty is a treaty, a law code is a law code, and a history is a history. They had them in the ANE and they have them now. No doubt there are micro-elements which differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the writing is still essentially the same.



Generally I agree, but your illustrations I have concerns about.



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, as has already been noted, the NT itself presents its allusions to Gen. 1-3 from the perspective that these things happened. Not merely that they are written, but that the events recorded are historical realities.



Well that's a really big call. I'm not going to say that the burden of proof lies on you, because on this one it lies on us all. But your statement masks extremely large theological debates and issues among believers.

Even before we get to the NT we need to be aware of the OT references to creation, which contain great variety--some using ANE allusions about a cosmic battle.



armourbearer said:


> The only way these historical allusions could be explained away is on the supposition that the writers of the NT accommodated themselves to the false beliefs of the people to whom they were writing;



Again, I'm not sure you've appreciated my position. I haven't said anything about Genesis containing false beliefs of the ANE era. If anything it's a strong polemic against the creation myths of the period like _Enuma Elish_ _etc_.



armourbearer said:


> The Christian's supernaturalistic worldview overcomes such rash conclusions.



Well "rash" is a strong word. I see the opposite position in the same way because it doesn't read the opening chapters of Genesis closely enough.

Matthew, on the issue of the snake having a personality you're just not interacting with my point. I agree that animals in some texts are said to have human characteristics (metaphorically!). However, semantically speaking words have meaning in their _context_. It is precisely because the snake is crafty that he / it deceives the woman (read and reread Gen. 3:1). Why is the snake cursed if it wasn't he / it that committed some crime in the story but the devil? Snakes are moral creatures. I want to take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime. But see the snake as an analogue of the Satan. That's at least how I see the NT understanding the early chapters of Genesis. There's no hint in the NT that the snake was possessed like a demoniac.

Yes, I want to read the story eschatologically. But I don't want to import later canonical ideas _into_ the story _itself_. Nowhere are we told in the story that snake was possessed / ruled by the devil. Indeed, nowhere is the Satan mentioned. Let's leave the details of the story pristine and then make sense of it, in its canonical context.

Thanks for your interaction.

Have a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow dear brother.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Matthew, with very great respect I can only say you are wrong here. Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous and the majority of theologians (as Anselm affirms) followed him for at least 1000 years. Almost every commentator following Basil the Great argued that the creation days were not identical to ours in their _nature_. William Perkins argued that the first three days could not be classic solar days. He opposed the instantaneous view of Augustine but contends the days are “distinct spaces of times" (_Workes_ 1:143-144). The majority Westminster divines believed in 24 hour days like ours. However, John Lightfoot, argued that the first day was 36 hours, and that the seventh day was everlasting (_Works_ 1:691, 693). To say that there is unanimity in the Christian tradition on Gen. 1-3 is simply not true. (And this is only the tip of the iceberg).



Marty, I haven't stated there is "unanimity," but, as the Bavinck reference shows, there is a consensus in "Christian theology." Concerning the "facts" you have here presented, I can remember reading these in another paper somewhere (perhaps from Rowland Ward) and concluding the author was clasping at straws. First, Augustine aside, as his various statements make him hard to pin down, all the other references you have noted presuppose an "historical" reading of the text. Perkins not only speaks of "six spaces of time," but also says, "hee began and finished the whole worke in six distinct daies." He proceeds to give an account of the history of how things came to be in these distinct days, and then makes application of the significance that "God made the world, & every thing therein in sixe distinct daies," even accounting for the creation of light without the sun on the first day. Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source. When an author relates the opinions of others he is not to be credited with holding that opinion unless he specifically owns it. In his Chronicle of the Times Lightfoot has given an historical account of the creation day by day, and concerning the first day he writes, "Twelve hours was there universal darkness through all the world, and then was light created in this upper Horizon, and there it inlightned twelve hours more; and then flitted away, as the light of the Sun now doth to the other Hemisphere; and thus was the measure and work of the first day, Verse 3, 4, 5."


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Matthew, on the issue of the snake having a personality you're just not interacting with my point. I agree that animals in some texts are said to have human characteristics (metaphorically!). However, semantically speaking words have meaning in their _context_. It is precisely because the snake is crafty that he / it deceives the woman (read and reread Gen. 3:1). Why is the snake cursed if it wasn't he / it that committed some crime in the story but the devil? Snakes are moral creatures. I want to take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime. But see the snake as an analogue of the Satan. That's at least how I see the NT understanding the early chapters of Genesis. There's no hint in the NT that the snake was possessed like a demoniac.



Marty, if you "take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime," then we have no disagreement. At that point if you are using ordinary language it tells me you regard the criminal activity of the snake as a space-time event. But if you go back through the posts you will see that this topic commenced discussion because you asked a question in relation to the my statement that the apostle Paul took the Genesis narrative as history -- that the serpent beguiled Eve. It was only on the basis of your question concerning talking snakes that we went down the road of "personality" and such things. Now, as I've said, I'm quite content to say this is historical and also that something out of the ordinary is happening here. If that is what you are saying then there is no point continuing to disagree over nothing.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Yes, I want to read the story eschatologically. But I don't want to import later canonical ideas into the story itself. Nowhere are we told in the story that snake was possessed / ruled by the devil. Indeed, nowhere is the Satan mentioned. Let's leave the details of the story pristine and then make sense of it, in its canonical context.



The only point I would make here i that the eschatological aspect of the text cannot be divorced from the historical aspect of it. Eschatology separated from history is mere allegory. I would also add that the "canonical" concept of Satan's activity is also grounded in history because our Saviour referred to the Devil as a murderer from the beginning. There is therefore no basis for making the serpent's activity merely analogous to the activity of Satan, but good cause for concluding that the activity of the serpent and Satan were one. Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew,



armourbearer said:


> First, Augustine aside, as his various statements make him hard to pin down, all the other references you have noted presuppose an "historical" reading of the text.



Well leaving Augustine aside skews the data considerably. Augustine's statements are as clear as crystal, there is no doubt what his position is, and it appears to be the dominant one for next 1000 years.

*Augustine *clearly believed that creation of everything was _instantaneous _from _Gen. 1:1_. In this he follows Ambrose. *Ambrose *believed that the 6 days recounted the fashioning (not the creating from nothing) of what had already been created. Augustine didn't follow Ambrose on this. However, he was very clear that he had no idea what the days referred to:



> What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (_City of God_ 11.6)



Hence, Augustine believed that it is beyond us to determine what the “light” of day one was. He speculates that it could be either material light, or a reference to the holy city of God, made up of angels and spirits. He even speculates that the six days are to be understood as stages in the creature’s coming to knowledge of creation.

*Anselm *in his _Cur Deus Homo_ wrestles with Augustine's position. On the one hand he knows that if creation is instantaneous it has an impact on how we understand the "days":



> If the whole creation was produced at once, and the days of Moses’ account, where he seems to say that the world was not made all at once, are *not to be equated with the days in which we live* [then …]



However, he also feels the weight of understanding creation to have occurred over the 6 day period. But comes to no conclusion. What he does acknowledge is that the "majority" of theologians follow Augustine.

If there is a consensus in the first 1500 years of the tradition it is that God instantaneously created everything in Gen. 1:1, not in "the space of 6 days".



armourbearer said:


> Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source.



I have indeed. It's all there in his original text:

_A Few and New Observations Vopn the Booke of Genesis_, London, 1642.

He's clearly propagating his _own_ views, not simply recounting the views of others. There is no doubt that the majority of Westminster divines believed in a 6 24-hour day creation. But there was not complete unanimity, neither were there great debates about this.

That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.

The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything _ex nihilo_ and a space-time fall.

God bless dear brother.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well leaving Augustine aside skews the data considerably. Augustine's statements are as clear as crystal, there is no doubt what his position is, and it appears to be the dominant one for next 1000 years.



Augustine was far from clear in his presentation on this subject. He wrote four different works which espoused at least three different theories. First, an allegorical approach; second, revelation to angels approach, which some mistakenly liken to the framework theory; third, in the City of God, a literal historical approach, in which he vaguely states that it is not for us to say what the days were. In this last work he takes at least the chronology of the days literally because he argues when the angels must have been created in relation to them. He also espouses the Eusebian chronology of history from the creation of the world, which is essentially the same methodology as that employed by young earthers.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have indeed. It's all there in his original text:
> 
> _A Few and New Observations Vopn the Booke of Genesis_, London, 1642.
> 
> He's clearly propagating his _own_ views, not simply recounting the views of others.
Click to expand...


This is simply incorrect. The "Few and New Observations" are the opinions of others, not his own. The text is as follows, and contains no personal acceptance:



> Twelve hours did the Heavens thus move in darkness, and then God commanded and there appeared light to this upper Horizon, namely to that where Eden should be planted [for, for that place especially is the story calculated] and there did it shine other twelve hours, declining by degrees with the motion of the Heavens to the other Hemisphere, where it inlightned other twelve hours also, and so the first natural day to that part of the world was six and thirty hours long, so long was Joshua's day, Josh. 10. And so long was our Saviour clouded under death.



His own view is that which was stated in his Chronicle of the Times:



> Twelve hours was there universal darkness through all the world, and then was light created in this upper Horizon, and there it inlightned twelve hours more; and then flitted away, as the light of the Sun now doth to the other Hemisphere; and thus was the measure and work of the first day, Verse 3, 4, 5.





JohnOwen007 said:


> That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.



Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.


----------



## Ravens

Calvin's comments on Genesis 3, and how the serpent relates to Satan, are very instructive and on-topic:



> 1. Now the serpent was more subtil: In this chapter, Moses explains, that man, after he had been deceived by Satan revolted from his Maker, became entirely changed and so degenerate, that the image of God, in which he had been formed, was obliterated. He then declares, that the whole world, which had been created for the sake of man, fell together with him from its primary original; and that in this ways much of its native excellence was destroyed. But here many and arduous questions arise. For when Moses says that the serpent was crafty beyond all other animals, he seems to intimate, that it had been induced to deceive man, not by the instigation of Satan, but by its own malignity. I answer, that the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from making use of the animal for the purpose of effecting the destruction of man. For since he required an instrument, he chose from among animals that which he saw would be most suitable for him: finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he was preparing might the more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise. Hitherto, he had held no communication with men; he, therefore, clothed himself with the person of an animal, under which he might open for himself the way of access. Yet it is not agreed among interpreters in what sense the serpent is said to be Mwre (aroom, subtle,) by which word the Hebrews designate the prudent as well as the crafty. Some, therefore, would take it in a good, others in a bad sense. I think, however, Moses does not so much point out a fault as attribute praise to nature because God had endued this beast with such singular skill, as rendered it acute and quick-sighted beyond all others. But Satan perverted to his own deceitful purposes the gift which had been divinely imparted to the serpent. Some captiously cavil, that more acuteness is now found in many other animals. To whom I answer, that there would be nothing absurd in saying, that the gift which had proved so destructive to the human race has been withdrawn from the serpent: just, as we shall hereafter see, other punishments were also inflicted upon it. Yet, in this description, writers on natural history do not materially differ from Moses, and experience gives the best answer to the objection; for the Lord does not in vain command his own disciples to be 'prudent as serpents,' (Matthew 10:16.) But it appears, perhaps, scarcely consonant with reason, that the serpent only should be here brought forward, all mention of Satan being suppressed. I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be collected than that men were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is declared to be 'the father of lies,' the fabricator of imposture, and the author of death. The question, however, is not yet solved, why Moses has kept back the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit then purposely used obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ. In the meantime, the prophets prove that they were well acquainted with the meaning of Moses, when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin upon the devil. We have elsewhere said, that Moses, by a homely and uncultivated style, accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people; and for the best reason; for not only had he to instruct an untaught race of men, but the existing age of the Church was so puerile, that it was unable to receive any higher instruction. There is, therefore, nothing absurd in the supposition, that they, whom, for the time, we know and confess to have been but as infants, were fed with milk. Or (if another comparison be more acceptable) Moses is by no means to be blamed, if he, considering the office of schoolmaster as imposed upon him, insists on the rudiments suitable to children. They who have an aversion to this simplicity, must of necessity condemn the whole economy of God in governing the Church. This, however, may suffice us, that the Lord, by the secret illumination of his Spirit, supplied whatever was wanting of clearness in outward expressions; as appears plainly from the prophets, who saw Satan to be the real enemy of the human race, the contriver of all evils, furnished with every kind of fraud and villainy to injure and destroy. Therefore, though the impious make a noise, there is nothing justly to offend us in this mode of speaking by which Moses describes Satan, the prince of iniquity, under the person of his servant and instrument, at the time when Christ, the Head of the Church, and the Sun of Righteousness, had not yet openly shone forth. Add to this, the baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived, that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given, by the hand of God, into subjection to them, they yet suffered themselves to be led away by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God. As often as they beheld any one of the animals which were in the world, they ought to have been reminded both of the supreme authority, and of the singular goodness of God; but, on the contrary, when they saw the serpent an apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but, in violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it, as participators in the same apostasy. What can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? Thus, I understand the name of the serpent, not allegorically, as some foolishly do, but in its genuine sense.





> And he said unto the woman. The impious assail this passage with their sneers, because Moses ascribes eloquence to an animal which only faintly hisses with its forked tongue. And first they ask, at what time animals began to be mute, if they then had a distinct language, and one common to ourselves and them. The answer is ready; the serpent was not eloquent by nature, but when Satan, by divine permission, procured it as a fit instrument for his use, he uttered words also by its tongue, which God himself permitted. Nor do I doubt that Eve perceived it to be extraordinary, and on that account received with the greater avidity what she admired. Now, if men decide that whatever is unwonted must be fabulous, God could work no miracle. Here God, by accomplishing a work above the ordinary course of nature, constrains us to admire his power. If then, under this very pretext, we ridicule the power of God, because it is not familiar to us, are we not excessively preposterous? Besides, if it seems incredible that beasts should speak at the command of God, how has man the power of speech, but because God has formed his tongue? The Gospel declares, that voices were uttered in the air, without a tongue, to illustrate the glory of Christ; this is less probable to carnal reason, than that speech should be elicited from the mouth of brute animals. What then can the petulance of impious men find here deserving of their invective? In short, whosoever holds that God in heaven is the Ruler of the world, will not deny his power over the creatures, so that he can teach brute animals to speak when he pleases, just as he sometimes renders eloquent men speechless. Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it. For he warily insinuates himself at that point at which he sees us to be the least fortified, that he may not be perceived till he should have penetrated where he wished. The woman does not flee from converse with the serpent, because hitherto no dissension had existed; she, therefore, accounted it simply as a domestic animal.


----------



## ChristianTrader

JohnOwen007 said:


> That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.
> 
> The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything _ex nihilo_ and a space-time fall.
> 
> God bless dear brother.



Who in Church history disbelieved that the earth was from 10,000 - 6000 years old?

CT


----------



## Ravens

Marty,



JohnOwen007 said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the _toledoth_'s, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it that's putting the cart before the horse. You can only determine how the _toledoth_s work when we investigate what goes on in between them. That can only be done by inductively investigating the contents. The word _toledoth_ usually means "generations" in a sense of physical birth. However, as according to the first use of the _toledoth_ the "heavens and the earth" give birth. Already that is a unique meaning of the word, which should give us pause not to assume too much about what the word _must _demand.
Click to expand...


I do not think that I am putting the cart before the horse in terms of methodology and exegesis; I just fast-forwarded through the obvious for sake of discussion. I don't mean that to be loaded language. If you feel that any of the other 9/10 _toledoth_'s do not deal with history, then we can discuss that. But as it stands, I think it is safe to say that, via an inductive approach to Genesis, we discover that all of the _toledoth_'s both set forth and purport to be history.

Once again, I'm not basing my argument on the lexical meaning of _toledoth_; I'm basing it on how Moses himself _uses_ the term in the evident structure of Genesis.

You point out that the first _toledoth_ concerns what the heavens and the earth bring forth. In the context of your statement, you seem to be introducing this so as to broaden the semantic field. But once again, I'm not basing it on the lexicon, I'm basing it on it's usage in Genesis.

But that being said, it is still "literally" true. What you have just said is tantamount to saying, "Man's origin is unique." Would not the "bringing forth" of the first man, from whom all others descend in natural generation, of its very nature *have* to be of a different sort than that of his descendants? 

If you do not want to have an infinite regression of births and begets, then you are eventually going to come to the First Man. Scripture says the earth "begot" him. The only other alternative would be to say that God "begot" Him. Anything beyond that is speculation. But there are ample reasons, from the terms used to refer to Christ (monogenes), to the Creator-creature distinction, to reinforce the humble origins of man and that he owes everything to his Creator, etc., to refer the origin to the earth, and not to YHWH. Also, doing this links the account structurally to the Creation narrative of Genesis 1, the origin of which was Divine fiat.

But to safe-guard against any idea that the earth brought forth man of itself, the text immediately uses very intimate language to show how the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth and gave Him life.

Those are just my thoughts. Regardless, I still desire your feedback and thoughts on a couple points I made:

1) Can you name one other Scripture wherein historical people (Adam and Eve) are placed in an "allegory", or in a "fictional setting" described by theological language (however you want to define the Garden in the text, since it didn't exist in your scheme)? That is, can you name one other place in Scripture that mixes historical people and non-historical, non-literal events, in this manner? 

2) You don't seem to think that the usage of the other 9/10 _toledoth_'s should have any bearing on the first _toledoth_. I don't grant that, but I will proceed for purposes of the discussion. 

Does not the first _toledoth_ at least have reference to itself? This is the _toledoth_ of Cain and Abel, which Scripture takes as simple history. We have a unit of Scripture that includes a multiplicity of historical people between chapters 3 and 4. And the text in question by you has two of those historical people. If the text does not draw a line of distinction wherein we pass from Narnia to England, then why should we?



> Yes, that is precisely my point. The position that we are to read Gen. 1-3 _literally _actually doesn't work precisely because it selectively chooses to treat some parts literally and others not. The days are meant to be taken literally but a snake eating dust must not (and it's not a statement about all snakes but _the_ snake).
> 
> We must approach the text according to the genre that it is.



I must dissent from the observation that we were making the same point. My point was, metaphorical language and figures of speech can be used _within the confines_ of historical narrative. The proof of that is simple. Christ calling Herod "that fox" does not relegate the whole passage to a non-literal reading. It is a metaphorical statement used in historical narrative, and everyone can see that it doesn't therefore relegate the whole passage to a-history or theological language. Is there not some metaphorical or figurative or loaded language used when Christ gives his disciples power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy? Is the text primarily concerned with scorpions? Can Christ tell His disciples to be harmless as doves and wise as serpents, thereby attributing "wisdom" to serpents in much the same way that Genesis does, without us needing to relegate the Gospels to a-history?



> Humiliation to what, a snake? A snake can't be humiliated, it's an impersonal animal. But in this story it is _the_ snake with a personality who talks and deceives.



My point is that the imagery of "eating the dust" is one used elsewhere in Scripture for humiliation. It is inflicted on the animal for the same reasons that men-goring oxen were slaughtered. Also, it serves as a sign to Satan of his own humiliation. 

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, and I doubt you do, it still seems that once again you are departing from the text. You say that this curse applies to this snake only, and not to all snakes. I grant that your point might be technically accurate, or at least not technically refutable, but for my part I don't see how anyone can miss the "corporate" nature of both the punishments and the enmity. 

What happens in Genesis 3:15-16 and onwards affects not only the woman and the serpent, but the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and what with the long-lasting implications for childbirth, relationships, the earth, and human death, and the corporate nature of the serpent (having seed), I find it odd that we would relegate the punishment to that particular serpent.

Lastly, even if you disagree with that, I still don't think you've touched on animals in Scripture. Calvin said that there may well have been something inherent in the created nature of the snake and its capacities and disabilities which proved to be of usefulness to the Devil. Augustine said the same thing, and I believe it can be found in the quote from Calvin's commentary above.

Scripture does attribute certain "attributes" to certain animals, or at the very least identifies certain animals with certain characteristics in a fairly objective way. That is, the dove with peace, the serpent with wisdom, the lion with nobility (and other things), etc. Even human experience and our lawful evaluation of the world yields the same thing. 

Who can honestly say that dolphins and elephants are not more "intelligent" than mice? Monkeys are "playful" in a way that beetles aren't. Though we don't understand it, and though the chasm between man and animal is fixed, in that we bear the image of God and they do not, surely there are gradations of intelligence and a variety of characteristics in the animal kingdom.

So in an objective way I do believe that the serpent could be _arum_ without attributing personality to it, and it was this faculty that made it an ideal instrument to be picked up and utilized by Satan.



> However, I'm happy with this explanation concerning the way I understand the text. It is that this snake (who talks and deceives) is to undergo humiliation because of what he / it has done. Later in the canon we discover that this is analogically a reference about Satan.



Brother, I'll reiterate, at this time, my main contention:

For all of your emphasis on letting the "text speak for itself", I can't help but think that your position actually "sets aside" the text more than the consensus position does. 

If we were to base the interpretation of this text on the statements you have made, then, as I have said before, we would not end up with allegory, theological language, or anything else. 

We would end up with a snake who has a personal soul or mind, who seduces Eve into sin by his own craftiness or maliciousness, that God curses. You seem to recognize this and proceed to draw allegorical lessons from it based on the canon of Scripture.

Given your presuppositions and interpretation, I don't see that "procession" you are making as valid. You are making a judgment that a serpent couldn't be _arum_, and since "we all know" serpents don't speak, therefore it is not literal history.

Brother, if we were secularists or materialists, then I could see the viability of that hermeneutic. But we see the supernatural on all the pages of Scripture. Staffs don't normally turn into serpents; donkeys don't normally speak; the sun doesn't normally stop in its course; the waters of the Jordan don't typically cure leprosy; little dead girls don't typically come back to life; fish don't help us to pay our taxes in the normal order of things.

The Scripture, the Old Testament, the Torah, and Genesis itself have an abundance of the supernatural. So encountering something "out of the ordinary" doesn't give one the hermeneutical "right" to relegate it to Narnia. So, if you really want to let the Text be normative and self-interpreting, it seems as if you would banish Satan altogether, and take the narrative seriously as real history. And, like I said, you would be left with one malicious talking serpent who acted of his own nature, devices, and impulse.

I would reiterate that those of us arguing for the historical nature of the first _toledoth_ end up giving the text more* respect* than, I believe, your position does. Because at the end of the day, we are willing to submit our minds to the apparent "childishness" of Scripture and affirm the garden, the creation of woman from the side of man, the trees, the serpent, etc. We allow the canon to inform us, following the _analogia Scriptura_, that a demonic power, namely, the chief of the demonic powers, was using this instrument to plant doubt in the woman's mind.

At the end of the day, we both use the _analogia Scriptura_ to realize that Satan was involved in the fall of our first parents. But I find it ironic that the person who most insists on taking the Text seriously is the one who is not taking it literally. To say anything else would be to pry into your motives and doubts. But I would think at this point, we need to submit our minds to Scripture and the full teaching of the canon, even when it appears "unscientific".

As an aside, I think we all need to be on guard against all forms of chronological snobbery (and this is just a general thought, not an admonition to you, Marty). Within one generation of creation man knew how to build a city (c.f. Cain). Ancient man was as intelligent as we are, despite modern hit-pieces. None of us could build Stonehenge, and very few of us on here could calculate the courses of stars and planets (just two examples). We are only "smarter" because we sit on the cusp of ~ 6,000 years of human history and learning. I myself couldn't brew one beer or make one butane lighter. So I don't hesitate to say that I am most likely one of the dumbest, most foolish men to ever grace this planet when it comes to Creation. 

That being said, men of old knew that virgins didn't conceive as a matter of course. They knew that dead people didn't come back to life. And they were _certainly_ intelligent enough to know that worldwide light, apart from the sun, moon, and stars, was an oddity: A unique, unparalleled Divine wonder!

I was reading a commentary today of a more liberal stripe that I had to purchase in college, and it actually suggested that Israel was so 'pre-scientific' that it didn't know that light could not exist apart from celestial bodies (or something along those lines). Do we really think that an Israelite, or any man of the ancient world, would have read about the first three days of Creation and not realized that God must have been doing something out of the ordinary to supply light to the Earth?

No. They recognized the same things that we do. But they received the oracles that God had given them and passed them on to us. Men of old knew that serpents didn't intrinsically talk. But apparently one serpent did in fact talk. And nothing more is said about it. But the rest of the canon does clearly point to Satan as the culprit here. It does not invalidate the text or undermine the text. Rather, it "pulls back the curtain" in the same way that the _readers_ of Job have the curtain pulled back to see the events in the heavenlies, in the same way that Daniel receives knowledge that his real life struggles were occasioned by conflicts among the angels of God and the (in my opinion) spiritual rulers of Persia and Greece: Scripture pulls back the curtain and points us to the prince of the power of the air, the prince of this world, the god of this world, a liar and a murderer from the beginning, that old serpent, the dragon, to let us see that he was the one playing the serpent like a lying flute. 

Genesis 3 gives us literal history. The rest of the canon pulls back the curtain and lets us see who was playing the instruments.

Blessings to you brother,

Joshua


----------



## Denton Elliott

Do you think this was even a question before man invented evolution and the church scurried to smash evolution into the Scriptures to be relevant?

Anyone interested in understanding the importance of 6 literal 24hr days should visit AnswerInGenesis.org 

Don't bow to the god of false science, Scriptures AND science both support a young earth created about 6000 years ago in 6 literal 24hr days.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Denton Elliott said:


> Do you think this was even a question before man invented evolution and the church scurried to smash evolution into the Scriptures to be relevant?
> 
> Anyone interested in understanding the importance of 6 literal 24hr days should visit AnswerInGenesis.org
> 
> Don't bow to the god of false science, Scriptures AND science both support a young earth created about 6000 years ago in 6 literal 24hr days.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> Augustine was far from clear in his presentation on this subject. He wrote four different works which espoused at least three different theories. First, an allegorical approach; second, revelation to angels approach, which some mistakenly liken to the framework theory; third, in the City of God, a literal historical approach, in which he vaguely states that it is not for us to say what the days were. In this last work he takes at least the chronology of the days literally because he argues when the angels must have been created in relation to them. He also espouses the Eusebian chronology of history from the creation of the world, which is essentially the same methodology as that employed by young earthers.



Matthew, I'm not sure you appreciated what I originally said about Augustine:

[1] He is clear that God created everything instantaneously (Gen. 1:1).

[2] He was crystal clear in saying that he had _no idea_ what to do with the 6 days. This is _precisely _why he speculated about different (incompatible) interpretations of them. Indeed, he contended that we probably could never know what they meant (as we could never know what "light" meant before the luminaries were created on Day 4).



armourbearer said:


> The "Few and New Observations" are the opinions of others, not his own. The text is as follows, and contains no personal acceptance:



Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:

"A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."

In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").

One page 2 we read:


> and so the first natural day to that part of the world was six and thirty houres long



On page 6 you'll see his comments about the 7th day unbounded.

Hence, his opinion was that these were _not _controversial points. In other words 6 24-hour day creation is _not necessary_ to believe. _That's_ my point.



armourbearer said:


> Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.



Far from it because you've factored Augustine (who was the most influential theologian prior to the reformation) out of the data. His position (and his "majority" followers) is that the 6 days were not necessarily literal history. Moreover, the modern "young earth" movement owes much to Seventh Day Adventist theology (through James McCready Price).


----------



## JohnOwen007

JohnOwen007 said:


> The only point I would make here i that the eschatological aspect of the text cannot be divorced from the historical aspect of it. Eschatology separated from history is mere allegory.



With great agreement! Although see below.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I would also add that the "canonical" concept of Satan's activity is also grounded in history because our Saviour referred to the Devil as a murderer from the beginning.



Also with great agreement!



JohnOwen007 said:


> There is therefore no basis for making the serpent's activity merely analogous to the activity of Satan, but good cause for concluding that the activity of the serpent and Satan were one.



Unfortunate disagreement.

Take for example Rev. 12:9:


> 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him



The "dragon" I would assume you don't take as literal dragon here (just like I assume you wouldn't believe that Jesus has a "sword" literally coming out of his mouth, Rev. 1:16). Apocalyptic can refer analogically to real historic people and events using symbols.

The text identifies the dragon as the devil, through simple use of the unstated copulative. Thus, the symbol of the dragon refers in reality to the devil. Moreover, the "ancient serpent" is "called the devil". He is not identified as a personality who possessed the "ancient serpent". (Indeed, nowhere does the Bible actually say this).

I don't see therefore why it is necessary to say the the devil is literally the "ancient serpent" or a literal "dragon". Rather it seems clear to me that both are analogues of the literal devil.

Moreover, it'd be great if you could answer my questions concerning God cursing the snake in Gen. 3. Was God cursing a literal snake? Why do we hear nothing about the devil getting cursed but only a snake? Why does the snake get cursed (an animal with no moral ability) for the devil's actions?

If we don't have to read apocalyptic literalistically why the demand on Gen. 1-3 when there are such clear markers against it?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Joshua,

Thanks for your response. I simply don't have time to deal with all of it. However, I would recommend (given some of the things you're saying) to read Henri Blocher's book _In the Beginning_, especially the first chapter. (This is different to the other Blocher book I recommended. Both are excellent).



JDWiseman said:


> 1) Can you name one other Scripture wherein historical people (Adam and Eve) are placed in an "allegory", or in a "fictional setting" described by theological language (however you want to define the Garden in the text, since it didn't exist in your scheme)? That is, can you name one other place in Scripture that mixes historical people and non-historical, non-literal events, in this manner?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes apocalyptic and parable.
> 
> 
> 
> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) [...]
> Does not the first _toledoth_ at least have reference to itself? This is the _toledoth_ of Cain and Abel, which Scripture takes as simple history. We have a unit of Scripture that includes a multiplicity of historical people between chapters 3 and 4. And the text in question by you has two of those historical people. If the text does not draw a line of distinction wherein we pass from Narnia to England, then why should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're making too much of the word _toledoth_. Just because it helps structure the text, why do we have to say that it demands literalistic history? What's to stop Moses prepending an ancient creation account in another genre to his text? It's just like saying that every time a book uses inverted commas (quote marks) it must ensconce literal history, because the majority use of inverted commas enfold literal history. Authors are free to quote all sorts of genres.
> 
> As I see it, you're not grappling with the _contents _in between the _toledoth_s concerning talking snakes etc. and the very structure of the 1st tablet's account of creation (namely the first 3 days being the creation of spaces, and the second 3 days being the filling of those spaces, which I suspect follows the "formless" (1st 3 days) and "void" (2nd 3 days) of Gen. 1:2). It's _these_ points where the debate lies, not the _toledoth_s.
> 
> 
> 
> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the imagery of "eating the dust" is one used elsewhere in Scripture for humiliation. It is inflicted on the animal for the same reasons that men-goring oxen were slaughtered. Also, it serves as a sign to Satan of his own humiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But men-goring oxen is completely different. The oxen don't talk, deceive and have personalities.
> 
> Is the snake _literally _ the devil? If he is then he still must be crawling on his belly. If he isn't then you're left with him being a symbol or analogue of the devil. If you say he possessed by the devil you're introducing an idea never found in one text of scripture, that makes no sense of the curse upon the snake.
> 
> 
> 
> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to base the interpretation of this text on the statements you have made, then, as I have said before, we would not end up with allegory, theological language, or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope just look at Jesus' parables and apocalyptic.
> 
> As for chronological snobbery, well, just look at the reformation. I'm glad it happened, and if I appealed to old is better I would've been a Roman Catholic, and never embraced imputed righteousness (a notion not to be found in the tradition until Luther).
> 
> We need to avoid 2 extremes: anything new is better, anything old is better.
> 
> God bless dear brother and friend.
> 
> Marty.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Matthew, I'm not sure you appreciated what I originally said about Augustine:
> 
> [1] He is clear that God created everything instantaneously (Gen. 1:1).
> 
> [2] He was crystal clear in saying that he had _no idea_ what to do with the 6 days. This is _precisely _why he speculated about different (incompatible) interpretations of them. Indeed, he contended that we probably could never know what they meant (as we could never know what "light" meant before the luminaries were created on Day 4).



Marty, you say Augustine is clear, but do not account for the fact that he varies from writing to writing in what he says on the creation account. Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context? How does this contrast with his approach in City of God? The fact is, Augustine does not provide a single point of view on this subject, and hence it is vain to appeal to Augustine's *view*, as if he actually presented one.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:
> 
> "A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."
> 
> In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").



Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange"), the only point I sought to rectify was your mistaken attribution of the 36 hour day one view to Lightfoot himself. Now it has been clarified that this was not his personal view, there's no point arguing what Lightfoot's actual view was. Those who have appealed to this particular work in various papers have only managed to show that they are desperate to find historical precedent for their own unusual approach, but even such speculations as a thirty-six hour first day presupposes the *historicity* of what is recorded.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far from it because you've factored Augustine (who was the most influential theologian prior to the reformation) out of the data. His position (and his "majority" followers) is that the 6 days were not necessarily literal history. Moreover, the modern "young earth" movement owes much to Seventh Day Adventist theology (through James McCready Price).
Click to expand...


If Augustine had have presented a "position" then there would be something to factor into the subject, but as it stands he did not present a uniform view. Not only so, but his City of God presupposes the historicity of Genesis. He adopted the Eusebian calculation for the age of the earth on the basis of the Greek version of the Old Testament genealogies, and this is essentially what young earthers do excepting that they use the pure Hebrew text. In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner, for they all taught a young age of the earth in contradiction to Greek philosophy, and many of them believed the history of the world would be consummated after 6000 years.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Denton Elliott said:


> AnswerInGenesis.org



AIG is good at critiquing evolution. In my humble opinion they're not that careful reading Scripture. But their worst feature is their mocking and sometime abusive approach. It's not "full of grace" (Col. 4:4-6).


----------



## ChristianTrader

ChristianTrader said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.
> 
> The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything _ex nihilo_ and a space-time fall.
> 
> God bless dear brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who in Church history disbelieved that the earth was from 10,000 - 6000 years old?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Bump


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm immensely enjoying this discussion, and learning lots.



armourbearer said:


> Marty, you say Augustine is clear, but do not account for the fact that he varies from writing to writing in what he says on the creation account.



Lots of people differ in their writings because their views change, and so it's best to look at their writings chronologically. If we turn to his very mature work, _De Civitate Dei_, we find that he varies on the "days" and the "light" in that one document itself! This is because he's unsure about about both, and explicitly (clearly!) says that he's unsure, and hence engages in speculation, not wishing to draw hard conclusions. Hence, it's clear what he's uncertain about.



armourbearer said:


> Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context?



I'm at home and don't have my books. But on this point Augustine appears to be following Ambrose who also believed that creation was instantaneous from Gen. 1:1. Ambrose himself believed that the 6 days recounted the forming of the unformed creation (of Gen. 1:2).

Ambrose's take basically became the predominant view in England by the end of the 17th century, when the majority of theological writers had rejected a young earth.

Indeed, it was this view that paved the way for Thomas Chalmers to popularise the so-called "gap-theory".



armourbearer said:


> it is vain to appeal to Augustine's *view*, as if he actually presented one.



I don't get you're point. The history of ideas demands that we study one's writings chronologically and watch them develop. We take the latest as "their" view. If a writer _explicitly _says they're unsure about something, then it's clear that they're "unsure". The fact Augustine says in _DCG _that he is unsure about the days says something significant; it's not simple. The creation account itself contains elements that aren't immediately obvious.



armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:
> 
> "A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."
> 
> In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange")
Click to expand...


He does say; it's "harmlesse". _That's_ the point; it's not controversial to believe it.



armourbearer said:


> In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner [...]



Again, not so. We haven't brought Origen and the Alexandrians into this discussion. The former certainly didn't take the text literally.

Every blessing Matthew.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Lots of people differ in their writings because their views change, and so it's best to look at their writings chronologically. If we turn to his very mature work, _De Civitate Dei_, we find that he varies on the "days" and the "light" in that one document itself! This is because he's unsure about about both, and explicitly (clearly!) says that he's unsure, and hence engages in speculation, not wishing to draw hard conclusions. Hence, it's clear what he's uncertain about.



Augustine's uncertainty cannot be made a basis for presenting his *position*. If he is agnostic, he cannot be called an exponent of any view. It was for this reason that I said I would leave Augustine to the side, because he cannot be pinned down.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm at home and don't have my books. But on this point Augustine appears to be following Ambrose who also believed that creation was instantaneous from Gen. 1:1. Ambrose himself believed that the 6 days recounted the forming of the unformed creation (of Gen. 1:2).
Click to expand...


How could Augustine be said to believe in "instantaneous creation" when it's clear from the City of God (which you say should be regarded as his mature thought) that he understood there were "days" of creation notwithstanding he didn't know how to explain them? His discussion on the creation of angels shows clearly that he understood each days' work as historical event, otherwise he couldn't have determined WHICH DAY the angels were made. And likewise in various other writings he descants on the various days of creation and what was made upon them.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Ambrose's take basically became the predominant view in England by the end of the 17th century, when the majority of theological writers had rejected a young earth.



Concerning Ambrose's stated position, please consider this perspicuous statement:



> The beginning of the day rests on God’s word: ‘Be light made, and light was made.’ The end of day is the evening. Now, the succeeding day follows after the termination of night. The thought of God is clear. First He called light ‘day’ and next He called darkness ‘night.’ In notable fashion has Scripture spoken of a ‘day,’ not the ‘first day.’ Because a second, then a third day, and finally the remaining days were to follow, a ‘first day’ could have been mentioned, following in this way the natural order. But Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. (Hexameron, pp. 42-43.)





JohnOwen007 said:


> Indeed, it was this view that paved the way for Thomas Chalmers to popularise the so-called "gap-theory".



How could Chalmers be said to "popularise" a theory which he never took pen in hand to defend? Yes, he made an odd statement concerning it, but he never popularised it.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I don't get you're point. The history of ideas demands that we study one's writings chronologically and watch them develop. We take the latest as "their" view. If a writer _explicitly _says they're unsure about something, then it's clear that they're "unsure". The fact Augustine says in _DCG _that he is unsure about the days says something significant; it's not simple. The creation account itself contains elements that aren't immediately obvious.



Marty, if Augustine was "unsure," why are you trying to make him stand to a stated position. By all means, take him at his word, with all his honesty as to being "unsure." Here you say he is unsure about the "days." Above you assert he held to instantaneous creation. Which is it? The very fact that you are led by even a cursory examination of Augustine's writings to fluctuate as to what was his actual "position," shows that he didnt really have one.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does say; it's "harmlesse". _That's_ the point; it's not controversial to believe it.
Click to expand...


Where does Lightfoot say this particular observation is harmless? He doesn't. That's just what you are hoping he might have thought on the basis of the title. But the title also says these observations were sometimes strange. So there's the possibility that he thought it was strange, especially considering he clearly stated in his own chronology that the first day consisted of two periods of twelve hours length. At any rate, we have established that it wasn't Lightfoot's own opinion, so you should retract your previous assertion to the contrary.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not so. We haven't brought Origen and the Alexandrians into this discussion. The former certainly didn't take the text literally.
Click to expand...


They certainly did. Notwithstanding their propensity toward allegorisation, both Clement and Origen taught the creation of the world could be calculated on the basis of the Scriptural record. Please note the following:



> Clement of Alexandria: “From Augustus to Commodus are two hundred and twenty-two years,’ and from Adam to the death of Commodus five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days.” (Miscellanies 1:21).





> Origen: Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its past duration. To these propositions I consider that none of the heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity with the nature of their opinions. ANF, 4:341.
> 
> Origen: After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. ANF, 4:404.



I am glad you are enjoying the discussion, Marty. Above all, I hope you can see the truth of Bavinck's statement that Christian theology regards Genesis as literal history. Blessings!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> Denton Elliott said:
> 
> 
> 
> AnswerInGenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AIG is good at critiquing evolution. In my humble opinion they're not that careful reading Scripture. But their worst feature is their mocking and sometime abusive approach. It's not "full of grace" (Col. 4:4-6).
Click to expand...


Was Elijah wrong for mocking the prophets of Baal?


----------



## Denton Elliott

*JohnOwen007*,

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but AIG does indeed argue using Hebrew and Greek and proper hermeneutics along with science as a defense of the faith. They argue that the word for day used in Genesis when in conjunction with Morning and Evening is 100% always interpreted as 24hr literal period of time. Therefore the plain reading of Scripture without using a private interpretation would be 6 24hr days. Also, the definition of the Sabbath would make no sense otherwise...among many other issues that would be difficult to explain if it weren't 6 24hr days...

In my most humbling and full of grace tone.


----------



## Poimen

joshua said:


> at what point does the Scriptural text of the book of Genesis "transition from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall?"



Right. Otherwise what do we do with Genesis 2:10-14?


----------



## KMK

This has been an awesome thread and Ii have learned much from both sides.

I think we must guard against going to extremes when faced with the natural sciences. Certainly they should not have authority over Scripture or form suppositions when coming to the Scriture, but neither should they be disregarded. Perhaps we should say that the natural sciences should 'inform' our understanding of the Bible. After all, the Bible teaches us to observe the natural world in order to understand the truths contained in the Bible. (gardening, shepherding, animal husbandry etc)


----------



## Ravens

This is unrelated to my discussion with Marty.

I realized something about the Day-Age view today. I think that the Day-Age view can be sufficiently set aside without this thought due to weighter considerations, and I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I'd never thought of it.

Adam was created on the sixth day, and, of necessity, experienced the seventh day.

Genesis 5 tells us that the length of Adam's life was 930 years. Therefore, from Adam's creation on the sixth day, to his death, was 930 years. So "Day 7" had to have been shorter than 930 years.

Adam begot Seth when he was 130 years old, and Seth was born after Cain slew Abel, which, in turn was after the fall.

So from the sixth day of creation until the birth of Seth, there were 130 years. Even moderate guesses as to the post-fall births of Cain and Abel would narrow the time span even more; regardless, that means that "Day 7" was, however you take it, not more than 130 years long, and we know that practically it would have to be much shorter than that, for everything just mentioned to take place.

So that categorically proves that "Day 7" was not an "age" of even hundreds (maybe not even one hundred), much less thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.

Like I said, it's a small point, but I've never thought about it from that perspective. If "yom" means "age" or "long period of time", then it should at least be consistent throughout the creation account. But we know that the seventh yom was not a large, expansive amount of time.

The stronger evidence is in the ordinals, the waw-consecutive, and normal meaning of day, morning-evening, the straight-forward reading, etc. But I'd never thought of it from that perspective.


----------



## Ravens

The more you get to know me, the more you'll realize the cruel irony of my last name.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JDWiseman said:


> The more you get to know me, the more you'll realize the cruel irony of my last name.


----------



## moral necessity

With regard to the idea of scripture illuminating science, forgive me for interjecting a scientific discovery that did bring about an illumination upon Scripture, and that is the heliocentric model of the solar system by Kepler. The scripture that says that "the sun stood still" is technically incorrect, for the sun does not move around the earth. Rather, "the earth quit rotating" would have been a more accurate statement. So, why does the Bible speak a somewhat inaccurate statement? The idea of scripture illuminating science does not always hold. I don't think it demeans scripture, however, to know that it has a technically innacurate statement. But rather, it shows the genuineness of the writings, for the writings reflect the understanding of the time period in which the writers wrote. It would seem odd for Joshua to write that the earth quit rotating, for no one thought that the earth even moved at that time in history. The earth-centered model was believed for even 1500 years or so after Christ, and, according to scripture's account, it was believed during Joshua's time as well. Do we think that the integrity of scripture depends upon it incorporating all truth about how the earth/sun system functions? If so, then, perhaps Joshua would have written more along the level of Einstein and have given some formula that said the curvature of space became altered so as to impose a frictional force upon the earth, or the flux capacitor quit fluxing or...something else we haven't discovered yet.

So, I thought it would be good to consider that some parts of scripture must be understood in the context of the times in which it was written, and that it doesn't always illuminate science. Scripture is indeed infinitely superior; but sometimes, when a literal interpretation intersects with an authentic scientific discovery, a study into the history of the understanding of the times may need to be considered for the scriptural account. How does this bear upon the Genesis matter? I don't know if it does. That's for us to debate. Personally, I lean towards the literal interpretation.

Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew,

Thanks again for the responses. As I said before I've immensely enjoyed this thread. Sorry I've been somewhat tardy given my work commitments. The start of semester is always a bottleneck.

Just for the record I'm not driven by so-called scientific evidence for an old or young earth. My concern is with what the _actual_ text says.

I was raised on the "day-age" view; Hugh Ross visited my church when I was a teenager. But really, when we read "and there was evening and there was morning, the Xth day", it's obvious how "day" (_yom_) is to be understood in the context of the narrative!

I can appreciate the supposed "literal" view of Gen. 1-3 and I'm very happy for people to hold it. However, this thread has confirmed the position of which I remain convinced, not least because of the insufficient ways the figure of the "snake" has been explained. To me the literalist reading runs aground right there. Henri Blocher (among others) has been a decisive influence on my own conclusions in this respect. (Indeed, he was the first to convince me of the covenant of works in Gen. 2!).



armourbearer said:


> Augustine's uncertainty cannot be made a basis for presenting his *position*. If he is agnostic, he cannot be called an exponent of any view. It was for this reason that I said I would leave Augustine to the side, because he cannot be pinned down.



I can appreciate your point, but again, I don't buy it and believe it's methodlogically flawed. It skews the historical data, especially given Augustine's influence in the early and late medieval period. We see this, for example, in Peter Lombard's _Sentences_. Lombard believed that God created a material and formless world in Gen. 1:1-2, and then gave it form in the 6 days. Lombard disagrees with Augustine, who (Lombard believed) argued that it was created (both matter and form) at once (_simul_). Lombard recounts that Augustine had his followers and that they took the 6 days as God's accommodation to human frailty:



> But, as they say [Augustine's followers], Moses, speaking to a rough and carnal people, tempered (his) manner of speech, *speaking of God in the simile of a man, who perfects his works through the spaces of times, though He himself makes His works at once*. Hence, Augustine says: « For that reason Moses reports in a divided manner, that God made those works, *because by man there cannot be said at once what could have been made by God at once* ». Likewise (he says): « *Scripture was able to divide according to times of speaking what God did not divide according to times of working* ».. Those [Augustine's followers] who cleave to these authorities and others of this kind say, that the four elements and even the luminaries of heaven were so formed together, that those six days, which Scripture commemorates, name the six genera, that is distinctions, of things, which were made together, partly formally, partly causally.



Augustine was an influence, whether we like it or not. Call him confused (and I don't think he was by the end of his life) but he presented ideas which people took up and used. Here we see "those" who believed that the days were a part of the text's accommodation of God to "rough and carnal" people. To remove Augustine and his influence from a historical theology of creation pulls it completely out of shape.



armourbearer said:


> How could Chalmers be said to "popularise" a theory which he never took pen in hand to defend? Yes, he made an odd statement concerning it, but he never popularised it.



Simple, you place him in his historical context (the time when the gap theory took off, due to the rise of geology in the 1790s and onwards) and look at those under Chalmers' influence. For more information read: M. Roberts, “The Genesis of John Ray and his Successors”, _Evangelical Quarterly_ 74/2 (2202):143-163.



armourbearer said:


> Where does Lightfoot say this particular observation is harmless? He doesn't. That's just what you are hoping he might have thought on the basis of the title. But the title also says these observations were sometimes strange.



No it's not what I was "hoping"--be careful not to assume to know my motives. It is from the _actual words_ of the title: "*all* harmelesse". Moreover, "strange" in the 17th century could mean "unfamiliar", which is most likely the meaning here given the context; the next words: "and rarely heard of before".

Concerning Origen and Ambrose check out Bob Letham's “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 61 (1999):149-174.

Blessings and thanks. Have a wonderful weekend and Lord's Day.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Denton Elliott said:


> *JohnOwen007*,
> They argue that the word for day used in Genesis when in conjunction with Morning and Evening is 100% always interpreted as 24hr literal period of time.



Yes, I too think the "day-age" theory has wings on it.



Denton Elliott said:


> In my most humbling and full of grace tone.



Taken as greatly humble and full of grace dear brother!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Hermonta,



ChristianTrader said:


> Who in Church history disbelieved that the earth was from 10,000 - 6000 years old?



This is a potted overview off the top of my head without primary documents at hand. So please excuse imprecision.

The influential (perhaps dominant?) view of the the age of the world in Graeco-Roman antiquity was that it was eternal; matter (and spirit) was understood as eternal. This idea seeped into Gnosticism.

Given this predominant cosmogony someone like *Justin Martyr (100-165AD)* seems to believe that matter was eternal and that God merely _fashioned _it into the world in which people dwelt rather than created it from nothing. (A classic case of not quite breaking out of one's cultural grid).

However, a huge leap forward for Christian theology occurred with Irenaeus (d.early 3rd century) in his battle with Gnosticism. He was the one to argue for creation from nothing and see its important implications. Creation _ex nihilo_ was codified then into an early version of the Apostle's Creed (the old Roman Creed).

We can fairly say that most theologians (perhaps all) from the 3rd century onwards believed in a young earth.

The change towards an old earth began in the second half of the 17th century as modern science was being born, and people were studying ancient cultures etc. By the turn of the century into the 1700s most churchmen (in England I can't say for the USA) believed that the earth was older than 6000 years or so. This was justified in that it was believed there was a significant period of time that elapsed between Gen. 1:1 and 1:3.

The next big step was around the 1790s when geology proper was born. The world was believed to perhaps be millions of years old. This didn't perturb most churchmen (in England) as they already believed creation wasn't 6000 years old. There were, of course, some dissenters. However, around the turn of the century (into tthe 1800s) and due to the new geology, the *gap theory* arose. This was the idea that there was a catastrophe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and it was then when Satan rebelled and "fell from heaven".

By 1850 and due to the expansion of geological study, the "gap theory" was being questioned (rightly) and began to give way to the "*day age*" theory (i.e. the 6 days of creation are 6 ages). This theory has continued to the present (a modern adherent being Hugh Ross). Charles Hodge (if I remember rightly) deployed it as he believed in an old earth.

Of course when Darwin released _The Origin of the Species_ in 1859, the problem wasn't that of a young earth being attacked--most churchmen believed in an old earth. The big issue was evolution. Hence, most of the attacks on evolution were by Christians who believed in an old earth.

It was about 1921 (if I remember rightly) when William Jennings Bryan launched his anti-evolution agenda. This was because he believed Darwinianism was the influence that led to Germany's war policy in WWI. Bryan himself (in the Scopes monkey trial) argued for an old earth, using the day-age theory.

It was actually George McCready Price (1870-1963), a 7th day adventist, who was the advocate of a young earth and literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3. He strongly argued for this because he was a 7th day adventist following Ellen White's inspired (he believed) opinion on the 7th day Sabbath. He argued, unlike almost everyone else, that the geological strata was a result of a worldwide flood.

Many anti-evolutionists worked with Price, but most were old-earthers and didn't agree with Price's take on the flood.

To cut a long story short, the modern revival of Price's ideas took place in 1961 when _The Genesis Flood_ by Whitcomb and Henry Morris was released and sold well. Whitcomb and Morris were particularly writing against Bernard Ramm's recent book _A Christian View of Science_ (?), which rejected the gap-theory, day-age theory, literalist theory, and argued for so-called "*literary*" or "*framework*" reading of Genesis 1-3.

I hope that answers your questions, brother.

Every blessing and trade hard (I once was in IT for merchant banks before I went into the ministry).


----------



## Poimen

KMK said:


> This has been an awesome thread and Ii have learned much from both sides.
> 
> I think we must guard against going to extremes when faced with the natural sciences. Certainly they should not have authority over Scripture or form suppositions when coming to the Scriture, but neither should they be disregarded. Perhaps we should say that the natural sciences should 'inform' our understanding of the Bible. After all, the Bible teaches us to observe the natural world in order to understand the truths contained in the Bible. (gardening, shepherding, animal husbandry etc)



Ken:

Just to build off what you said-

One of my seminary professors (citing C. Van Til I believe) said that extra-scriptural revelation may be the occasion for reinterpretation but _never_ the ground of reinterpretation.


----------



## Poimen

As a general observation: we may stumble over the fact that Satan uses a serpent to accomplish his goals, but we should note that if he had appeared as an angel or some other non earthly creature, it was less likely that his deception would have been successful. 

As Meredith Kline (and probably others) point out, the very fact that he used God's creation to tempt man shows us his destructive nature: overturning the hierarchy that God has built into His creation: God -> man (male & female) -> plants, animals


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> But really, when we read "and there was evening and there was morning, the Xth day", it's obvious how "day" (_yom_) is to be understood in the context of the narrative!



Very good!



JohnOwen007 said:


> I can appreciate the supposed "literal" view of Gen. 1-3 and I'm very happy for people to hold it. However, this thread has confirmed the position of which I remain convinced, not least because of the insufficient ways the figure of the "snake" has been explained. To me the literalist reading runs aground right there. Henri Blocher (among others) has been a decisive influence on my own conclusions in this respect. (Indeed, he was the first to convince me of the covenant of works in Gen. 2!).



You will have to excuse us conservative types if we don't express the same enthusiasm for Blocher.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I can appreciate your point, but again, I don't buy it and believe it's methodlogically flawed. It skews the historical data, especially given Augustine's influence in the early and late medieval period. We see this, for example, in Peter Lombard's _Sentences_. Lombard believed that God created a material and formless world in Gen. 1:1-2, and then gave it form in the 6 days. Lombard disagrees with Augustine, who (Lombard believed) argued that it was created (both matter and form) at once (_simul_). Lombard recounts that Augustine had his followers and that they took the 6 days as God's accommodation to human frailty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, as they say [Augustine's followers], Moses, speaking to a rough and carnal people, tempered (his) manner of speech, *speaking of God in the simile of a man, who perfects his works through the spaces of times, though He himself makes His works at once*. Hence, Augustine says: « For that reason Moses reports in a divided manner, that God made those works, *because by man there cannot be said at once what could have been made by God at once* ». Likewise (he says): « *Scripture was able to divide according to times of speaking what God did not divide according to times of working* ».. Those [Augustine's followers] who cleave to these authorities and others of this kind say, that the four elements and even the luminaries of heaven were so formed together, that those six days, which Scripture commemorates, name the six genera, that is distinctions, of things, which were made together, partly formally, partly causally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine was an influence, whether we like it or not. Call him confused (and I don't think he was by the end of his life) but he presented ideas which people took up and used. Here we see "those" who believed that the days were a part of the text's accommodation of God to "rough and carnal" people. To remove Augustine and his influence from a historical theology of creation pulls it completely out of shape.
Click to expand...


Upon whom was Augustine's "instantaneous creation" influential? Apparently not on anyone from the mainstream of Christian theology. In order to make the schoolman's evaluation properly critical we would need to know what group of thinkers he had in mind. The scholastics are notorious for discussing obscure points which have relatively little importance.



JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Chalmers be said to "popularise" a theory which he never took pen in hand to defend? Yes, he made an odd statement concerning it, but he never popularised it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, you place him in his historical context (the time when the gap theory took off, due to the rise of geology in the 1790s and onwards) and look at those under Chalmers' influence. For more information read: M. Roberts, “The Genesis of John Ray and his Successors”, _Evangelical Quarterly_ 74/2 (2202):143-163.
Click to expand...


This is legend, Marty. It gets passed from one paper to another without critical assessment. But I'll get to that paper as soon as it comes out in 2202. 



JohnOwen007 said:


> No it's not what I was "hoping"--be careful not to assume to know my motives. It is from the _actual words_ of the title: "*all* harmelesse". Moreover, "strange" in the 17th century could mean "unfamiliar", which is most likely the meaning here given the context; the next words: "and rarely heard of before".



I'm sure "strange" does mean something like "unfamiliar." That's my point. It's not Lightfoot's own view, contrary to your initial assertion. His own view was 2/12 hour periods for the first day, as quoted previously.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Concerning Origen and Ambrose check out Bob Letham's “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 61 (1999):149-174.



I've read this article and note it is at odds with the writings of the men it purports to represent. Please consult the statements of the men themselves which I provided in my previous post.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Blessings and thanks. Have a wonderful weekend and Lord's Day.



You too, brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Matthew,

BTW I hope you guys haven't been hit by the floods up your way? It's been an awful sight on the news.



armourbearer said:


> You will have to excuse us conservative types if we don't express the same enthusiasm for Blocher.



Yes, of course, I'm willing to excuse hyper-conservatives on this point. 



armourbearer said:


> The scholastics are notorious for discussing obscure points which have relatively little importance.



Matthew, as I said in an earlier post, Anselm admitted in his day that Augustine's view was the "majority".



armourbearer said:


> This is legend, Marty. It gets passed from one paper to another without critical assessment.



"Legend" is too strong a word In my humble opinion. I'm happy with evidence on this point. I agree that a full study of Chalmer's views hasn't been done yet. But there's enough evidence all around to convince me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



armourbearer said:


> But I'll get to that paper as soon as it comes out in 2202.



Is it the Vegemite that gives you the expectation to be around for so long? 
Just how many more children are you planning to have? By 2202 you'll have a church bigger than Joel Osteen's full of your family. What a wonderful thought. 



armourbearer said:


> I'm sure "strange" does mean something like "unfamiliar." That's my point. It's not Lightfoot's own view, contrary to your initial assertion. His own view was 2/12 hour periods for the first day, as quoted previously.



Yes, but the point of the discussion is that Lightfoot clearly thinks it's a "harmless" view.



armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning Origen and Ambrose check out Bob Letham's “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 61 (1999):149-174.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read this article and note it is at odds with the writings of the men it purports to represent. Please consult the statements of the men themselves which I provided in my previous post.
Click to expand...


Bob Letham is an excellent scholar In my humble opinion, and I agree with his reading.

God bless you.


----------



## solifide

I'm somewhat lost as far as what has and hasn't been said on this post, but to address the original question:

- Christian astronamer Hugh Ross makes an interesting observation in regards to the distance of stars from earth in relation to the speed of light. He asserts that if we can measure how long it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth, we can accurately measure the age of the earth. Ross argues that his findings actually supports creation and refutes evolution! Whether or not his assersion is correct I do not know, but I thought I would include it. P.S. Ross is an old-earther.
- In reference to the use of yom, I would point to the KJV Bible, specifically Genesis 2:4. Here, yom is used not as a day, but as an expanse of time.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts!


----------



## ChristianTrader

moral necessity said:


> With regard to the idea of scripture illuminating science, forgive me for interjecting a scientific discovery that did bring about an illumination upon Scripture, and that is the heliocentric model of the solar system by Kepler. The scripture that says that "the sun stood still" is technically incorrect, for the sun does not move around the earth. Rather, "the earth quit rotating" would have been a more accurate statement. So, why does the Bible speak a somewhat inaccurate statement? The idea of scripture illuminating science does not always hold. I don't think it demeans scripture, however, to know that it has a technically innacurate statement. But rather, it shows the genuineness of the writings, for the writings reflect the understanding of the time period in which the writers wrote. It would seem odd for Joshua to write that the earth quit rotating, for no one thought that the earth even moved at that time in history. The earth-centered model was believed for even 1500 years or so after Christ, and, according to scripture's account, it was believed during Joshua's time as well. Do we think that the integrity of scripture depends upon it incorporating all truth about how the earth/sun system functions? If so, then, perhaps Joshua would have written more along the level of Einstein and have given some formula that said the curvature of space became altered so as to impose a frictional force upon the earth, or the flux capacitor quit fluxing or...something else we haven't discovered yet.
> 
> So, I thought it would be good to consider that some parts of scripture must be understood in the context of the times in which it was written, and that it doesn't always illuminate science. Scripture is indeed infinitely superior; but sometimes, when a literal interpretation intersects with an authentic scientific discovery, a study into the history of the understanding of the times may need to be considered for the scriptural account. How does this bear upon the Genesis matter? I don't know if it does. That's for us to debate. Personally, I lean towards the literal interpretation.
> 
> Blessings!



Just to make known, there are still some geocentrists running around 

CT


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Is it the Vegemite that gives you the expectation to be around for so long?
> Just how many more children are you planning to have? By 2202 you'll have a church bigger than Joel Osteen's full of your family. What a wonderful thought.


----------



## DMcFadden

solifide said:


> I'm somewhat lost as far as what has and hasn't been said on this post, but to address the original question:
> 
> - Christian astronamer Hugh Ross makes an interesting observation in regards to the distance of stars from earth in relation to the speed of light. He asserts that if we can measure how long it takes for light from distant stars to reach earth, we can accurately measure the age of the earth. Ross argues that his findings actually supports creation and refutes evolution! Whether or not his assersion is correct I do not know, but I thought I would include it. P.S. Ross is an old-earther.
> - In reference to the use of yom, I would point to the KJV Bible, specifically Genesis 2:4. Here, yom is used not as a day, but as an expanse of time.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts!



1. As to Hugh Ross . . . he bases his apologetic on the fact of the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang was not the prevalent view in cosmology until a few decades ago. And, his argument about light is a double edged sword. The Big Bang has its own distant starlight problem, the horizon problem. While some scientists have attempted to come up with work arounds, the problem remains that you cannot fit observational distances in the known universe into the time frame of the "assured" findings of science according to the Big Bang (i.e., 13.8 billion years or so is not more than a quarter of the time needed to account for known distances).

Several physicists have proposed explanations that account for the distant starlight problem within a young earth time frame (e.g., gravitational time dilation).

2. Young earth creationists agree that "yom" means differing things, depending on the context. "Back in my *day* (when I was 8), my parents took four *days* to drive all *day* to Illinois on vacation." In that one sentence the word means three different things. The same is true of the Bible. In Genesis 2 the word refers to more than one 24 hour period. However, whenever you have the linguistic limiters ("day and night," day one, etc.) that specify a 24 hour period, it should be taken in the normal sense. Thus, I have come to believe in a young earth creationist postion (cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics)


----------



## solifide

Great answers, thanks, I'll have to study up more on Hugh Ross, although I do truly respect his writings, especially in the realms of Christian apologetics.


----------



## caddy

On early Church fathers views:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

On the Bible suggesting an old earth:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm

Morton's main menu that addresses both scientific and Biblical aspects of the issue: 

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Anybody here familiar with Glenn Morton?


----------



## etexas

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?


I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!


----------



## ReformedChapin

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
Click to expand...

The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.


----------



## etexas

SoliDeoGloria said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.
Click to expand...

OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

etexas said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should defend it as well Brother:The first Part of Genesis DEALS with creation: There was an Evening, there was a morning..." if we begin to undermine this, I think we are on a slippery slope!
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.
Click to expand...


This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.


----------



## etexas

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that not everything is very clear on the bible and we shouldn't stress out over non-essential issues. There is going to be some things we don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!
Click to expand...


As the psalmist said: "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"


----------



## moral necessity

ChristianTrader said:


> Just to make known, there are still some geocentrists running around
> 
> CT



Are you serious? Please elaborate when you get the chance.

Blessings!


----------



## DMcFadden

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!
Click to expand...


EXACTLY! I don't mean to sound like the crotchety old guy . . . but more than 35 years ago my Christian college profs convinced me that we should take Genesis symbolically. Without even thinking the issue through, I would throw out the "Genesis 2:4 uses 'yom' for a longer period than 24 hours" quip to dismiss critics as flat earthers. By the time I arrived in seminary, a prof was using the SAME line of thinking to explain that Paul was "wrong" about women in 1 Tim 2. Before that same prof died a few years ago, he was endorsing homosexuality using the SAME kind of hermeneutic for Romans.

Brothers and sisters, please take time to read some of the arguments FOR YOURSELVES.

If you have a problem with the issue of distant starlight, read up on gravitational time dilation, alternate synchrony conventions, and books by phsyicist Russell Humphreys or astrophysicist Jason Lisle. If you have issues with plate techtonics and the possibility of rapid subduction explaining the evidence, cf. geophysicist John Baumgardner. If you are want arguments against the antiquity of the race based on genetics, cf. J.C. Sanford's work on genetic entropy. The RATE study sponsored by ICR did some amazing work on radiometric dating.

Better yet, check out the Answers in Genesis web site: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. For the general reader, the _New Answers Book_, available from Answers in Genesis has a great overview of the issues with chapters like these:

* Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? 
* Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution? 
* Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature? 
* What about the “Gap” & “Ruin-reconstruction” Theories? 
* Cain’s Wife—Who Was She? 
* Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? 
* Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? 
* Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old? 
* Was There Really a Noah’s Ark & Flood? 
* How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? 
* What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? 
* Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together? 
* Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology? 
* Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things? 
* Where Does the Ice Age Fit? 
* Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is “Old”? 
* Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? 
* How Did Defense/Attack Structures Come About? 
* Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? 
* Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True? 

The study done by a Hebrew professor at Masters Seminary on the literary structure of Genesis was quite enlightening as well. Statistical analysis makes it nearly impossible to read this as anything other than historical narrative.

Since I only came to the YEC position myself during the last few years, I do not want to imply that those who disagree with me are heretics or willful in their ignorance. Most evangelicals and many Reformed thinkers have zero problem with billions of years and believing the Gospels. However, I contend that they are inconsistent in this belief. There does seem to be an organic connection between failing to treat the Bible with normal hermeneutics in Genesis and dismissing all kinds of politically incorrect beliefs in the New Testament.


----------



## holyfool33

*Can't we all just get along*

It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

holyfool33 said:


> It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.



Yet on other threads you have said that you favour Dispensationalism because it takes a literal approach (to literature which is obviously not literal), yet you favour a non-literal approach to a historical account? Seems a very strange position to hold?

Tell me, why can't the word day mean a literal day in Genesis 1? What is the significance of the phrase the "evening and the morning" if the day age theory is correct?


----------



## holyfool33

Daniel Ritchie said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by serious there are some good arguments for Six Day Creation. But sadly the Answers in Genesis crowd seems to want to atack anyone who disagrees with them. I favor the day-age theory o in there thinking I don't support true biblical exegesis i support an idea that down plays the historicity of Adam and makes suffering and death happen before the fall. This just doesn't compute with me because who says it has to be a literal 24 hour day it could very well have taken millions upon millions of years to create the earth but I don't really feel in the long run it is something worth going to war over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on other threads you have said that you favour Dispensationalism because it takes a literal approach (to literature which is obviously not literal), yet you favour a non-literal approach to a historical account? Seems a very strange position to hold?
> 
> Tell me, why can't the word day mean a literal day in Genesis 1? What is the significance of the phrase the "evening and the morning" if the day age theory is correct?
Click to expand...


First off I know nothing of Greek or Hebrew so I would only end up making myself look foolish. I also said I favor the day age view C.I Scofield favored Gap Creationism so Dispensationalism and a literal seven days are not joined at the hip as far as why Genesis 1 doesnt mean a literal day I dont know I have my view you have your's I just disagree with the ad homin attacks of a lot of Young Earth creationists on people who dont hold there view it seems rather "unchristian" if you ask me. Also let's not forget if you want to take Genesis literally what about Job 40 is that a Dinosaur then?


----------



## DMcFadden

Aaron, 

You were reponding to Daniel. However, you raise some important points. In my post immediatley above your own, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks on anybody. My post also supplied bibliographic suggestions for exploring issues such as plate techtonic rapid subduction, decay in the genome, etc. There was no unchristian attack on anyone. In fact, I shared my own "testimony" of living most of my adult life as a day ager until re-examining the issue a few years ago. Ultimately, however, it is not a matter of one person having "my view" and another having a different one. Certainly, shouldn't we be able to agree that the Scripture rules over our own "views" whatever they might be? 

And, ultimately one must determine how the divine author and human author intended Genesis 1-11 to be understood. Literary analysis of the text by the prof at The Master's Seminary is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, we should all be YEC people. If it is incorrect, please explain to me how and why. Perhaps you will convince me of the superiority of your exegesis.


----------



## Wannabee

Good comments Dennis. All that is needed is consistent exegesis in order to be convinced that the Genesis narrative records a literal 6 day creation. I would argue, however, that they don't have to be 24 hour days. This can make us lose credibility. For instance, a day today is not 24 hours, that's why we have leap year. And the earth has been slowing down since at least the flood, unless something has affected it to make it turn faster that we don't know about. If, as some think, the earth was enclosed by an ice canopy before the flood, then it is entirely possible that the cataclysmic events that lead to the flood could have changed the rotation of the earth. So, I leave the number of hours alone. A day could have been 23 hours, it could have been 30. Frankly, I don't care. Scripture makes it clear that it was literally an evening and a morning. That's all we really need to know. Here's some more information that helps, from a purely exegetical perspective.


> To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
> 
> A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
> 
> A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
> A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
> Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
> Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
> In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
> The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
> There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
> Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that
> 
> So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.16​In like manner, nineteenth century liberal Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said,
> 
> If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.17​Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? - Answers in Genesis



And Aaron, the dinosaurs definitely were created during this time, and most of them likely perished in the flood. The change in atmospheric conditions would have caused incredible changes in temperature, including instant freezing at the poles, which accounts for woolly mammoths being discovered with undigested food in the stomachs and whale fossils vertically embedded in the layers of earth that "scientists" claim represent millions of years.

In regard to Job 40, it very well could have been a dinosaur. And Job 41 may very well be referring to a dragon. I don't know. However, I will not dare to stand in judgment over that which God has put in judgment over me, namely, Scripture. It says what it says, and if I can't figure it out then it means I'm limited in my understanding. Any claim that God's Word doesn't mean exactly what it says presupposes that 

 we have all the information we need
 we can correctly interpret all the information we have
 we can correctly apply our interpretation

Simply put, the old earth hypothesis is untenable both Scripturally and scientifically. Any effort to say otherwise is reminiscent of the words of that old Deceiver, "Hath God surely said...?"

This, as you have alluded to, comes from my admittedly literal and dispensational hermeneutic. If one is true to the dispensational hermeneutic then they have not choice but to be joined at the hip with the 6 literal day creation; regardless of what Scoffield or anyone else says about it.

Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.


----------



## holyfool33

DMcFadden said:


> Aaron,
> 
> You were reponding to Daniel. However, you raise some important points. In my post immediatley above your own, I did not engage in ad hominem attacks on anybody. My post also supplied bibliographic suggestions for exploring issues such as plate techtonic rapid subduction, decay in the genome, etc. There was no unchristian attack on anyone. In fact, I shared my own "testimony" of living most of my adult life as a day ager until re-examining the issue a few years ago. Ultimately, however, it is not a matter of one person having "my view" and another having a different one. Certainly, shouldn't we be able to agree that the Scripture rules over our own "views" whatever they might be?
> 
> And, ultimately one must determine how the divine author and human author intended Genesis 1-11 to be understood. Literary analysis of the text by the prof at The Master's Seminary is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, we should all be YEC people. If it is incorrect, please explain to me how and why. Perhaps you will convince me of the superiority of your exegesis.



I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?


----------



## DMcFadden

holyfool33 said:


> I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?



My contention would be that the "facts" are capable of diverse interpretations, depending upon one's presuppositional framework. Begin with a fossil and you can explain it "scientifically" with a 250 million year conclusion or equally "scientifically" with a 6,000-10,000 year dating system. What separates the old earth from the young earth scientist is not where they obtained their PhD, but what presuppositions they begin with. The Big Bang, for instance, has only been "dogma" for a few decades (it became popular during my childhood). It suffers from manifold problems of contraindications that scientists swallow hard and dismiss in order to uphold their belief in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

Do YEC's have problems explaining some facts? Sure! The distant starlight problem choked me for several decades and kept me from the YEC position. However, the 13.8 billion year date of the Big Bang cannot explain the distances separating observed entities in the known universe. Frankly, light could not make the trip in the 13.8 billion time available according to the Big Bang either.


----------



## DMcFadden

Wannabee said:


> Dennis, who was the TMS prof that wrote the article. I either missed it in the thread, or something.



Dr. Steven Boyd. Check out Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry for a download in PDF format.

Beware, some of it is in neither English nor Hebrew, but MATH!



> Logistic regression: model evaluation
> Logistic regression is ideal for our data, because a text is either a narrative or poetry, with assigned probabilities (P) of 1 and 0, respectively.5 We determined the coefficients of the equation for the curve that fit this non-linear data by maximizing the logarithm of the odds (P/(1-P)) for the ratios of preterites to finite verbs for the 97 texts analyzed.6
> 
> To determine our model's goodness of fit, we calculated the "model chi-squared" statistic to test the null hypothesis that our model did no better than the model with zero coefficients.7 Our model rejected this null hypothesis at a highly statistically significant level.8
> 
> We also determined R2L , a measure of the substantive significance of the model, that is, how much does the model reduce the variation from the zero coefficients model. R2L ranges from 0 (poor model) to 1 (perfect model).9 For our model R2L was .85 for the unweighted, .88 for the weighted—highly effective in reducing the variation.
> 
> 
> Logistic regression: classification accuracy
> A perfect classification model would classify all passages into their actual genre. Our model misclassified only 2 out of 97 passages.
> 
> Classification accuracy is indicated by proportional change in error (tP),10 which measures how much the model reduces error: tP = ((errors without the model) - (errors with the model))/(errors without the model).
> 
> The expected number of errors without the model for a classification model is
> 2nY=0nY=1/N , where nY=0 is the number of poetic texts examined, nY=1 is the number of narrative texts examined, and N is the total number of texts examined.
> 
> If tP equals 1, the model is a perfect classifier; if tP is negative, the model did worse than random classification. For our model tP was 0.96—highly substantively significant.11
> 
> The binomial statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that the proportion incorrectly classified by the model is no lower than that of random classification. Our model also rejected this null hypothesis at a highly statistically significant level.12 Our model is a superb classifier.


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks. I was a little confused. He's actually a prof at the college, not the seminary. It's a different campus, and there are only a couple of professors who teach at both. I've seen this before. At one time I sorta understood; but I have no idea how now.  I must have left those brain cells behind in the move.


----------



## holyfool33

DMcFadden said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not criticizing anybody I have no real objection to the young earth view I just feel that some of it's proponents can be a tad bit over zealous that's really the only hold up I have I understand the use of science in proofing the young earth theory but doesn't this just end up turning into a shell game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My contention would be that the "facts" are capable of diverse interpretations, depending upon one's presuppositional framework. Begin with a fossil and you can explain it "scientifically" with a 250 million year conclusion or equally "scientifically" with a 6,000-10,000 year dating system. What separates the old earth from the young earth scientist is not where they obtained their PhD, but what presuppositions they begin with. The Big Bang, for instance, has only been "dogma" for a few decades (it became popular during my childhood). It suffers from manifold problems of contraindictions that scientists swallow hard and dismiss in order to uphold their belief in a 13.8 billion year old universe.
> 
> Do YEC's have problems explaining some facts? Sure! The distant starlight problem choked me for several decades and kept me from the YEC position. However, the 13.8 billion year date of the Big Bang cannot explain the distances separating observed entities in the known universe. Frankly, light could not make the trip in the 13.8 billion time available according to the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Good point I see that it makes since it is based on presuppositions I see what your saying now it begins to click o.k. I finally get it.


----------



## allenckc

I've read the book written by Vern and he mentioned a mature-version of creation, what do you think ? Personally I quite buy this assumption.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

DMcFadden said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just supporting the premise that "day" is mutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas F. Kelly's _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms_ was the book that caused R.C. Sproul to change his view from endorsing Hugh Ross to accept a six-day creationist view.
> 
> A Hebrew scholar from Master's Seminary also subjects the Genesis account to a rigorous statistical analysis, essentially "proving" the narrative nature of the text and the impossibility of a poetic reading (cf. pgs. 173ff of _Thousands Not Billions_, ed. Donald DeYoung).
Click to expand...


F Kelly also was instrumental in changing my mind.


----------



## Confessor

*Literary Framework Interpretation*

I have seen that a young-earth Creationist belief is rampant in this forum. This saddens me, as I am a staunch theistic evolutionist. Please, can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable, or why a literal interpretation is necessary?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

First question is why does it sadden you?

Second to answer your inquiry simply the Hebrew in gen 1 does not allow for a literary reading.


----------



## py3ak

How does our Lord treat the book of Genesis in His references and allusions to it? Assuming that there _were_ grounds for a debate, which I don't admit, I think that would be a conclusive answer for believers.


----------



## Confessor

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> First question is why does it sadden you?
> 
> Second to answer your inquiry simply the Hebrew in gen 1 does not allow for a literary reading.



It saddens me because I know of an inordinate amount of evidence in favor of an old earth and evolution, and the lack of many Christians supporting such obvious science, I have seen, obstructs paths to salvation. As Augustine said in his _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_, Book 1, Chapter 19:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the Heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.​
And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?



py3ak said:


> How does our Lord treat the book of Genesis in His references and allusions to it? Assuming that there _were_ grounds for a debate, which I don't admit, I think that would be a conclusive answer for believers.



The only one I know of is the command to rest on the Sabbath, which can easily be demonstrated by the framework interpretation rather than by a literal resting of God. What are other references and allusions that require the six-day creation be fact?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Is Science infallible?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.


----------



## MW

packabacka said:


> And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?



Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.


----------



## Confessor

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is Science infallible?



Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.



Can you explain this to me, please? I simply have no idea what that is, even after extensively Google searching it.


----------



## Confessor

armourbearer said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.
Click to expand...


First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?

Second of all, thank you.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

packabacka said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Science infallible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.
Click to expand...


How is that a corollary? 

It is worth noting that I became a YEC within the last 4 months.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

packabacka said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about the Hebrew disallows the framework interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?
> 
> Second of all, thank you.
Click to expand...


It "appears" after 15 posts.


----------



## Confessor

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Hebrew disallows a framework interpretation; it is the use of the framework hypothesis to exclude the concept of literal history which is disallowed by the Hebrew. The literary structure of the narrative is perfectly suited to describing the history it relates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?
> 
> Second of all, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It "appears" after 15 posts.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

packabacka said:


> First of all, do you know how I can thank you so that a "thank you" signification appears under your post?
> 
> Second of all, thank you.



I'm glad Backwoods sorted that out because I didn't have a clue.

You're welcome! But I should clarify that I believe the order of Gen 1 is literal as well as literary. It describes "forming" and then "filling" because God first built His universal temple before furnishing it, and all in the space of six days because the seventh day -- the Sabbath -- was literally created for man.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy

You are discussing two different things. Firstly the age of the earth and secondly evolution. From a theology perspective your view that man evolved creates many more problems than your view that the earth is old. If you hold that man evolved then there was no true Adam. Which implies Jesus isn't the second Adam and that were not saved through Christ. Also, in the Hebrew there isn't a clean break that says, hey this first part of Genesis is written in a special type of hebrew so we will use a special hermeneutic to interpret it. So if use the literary framework to remove the literalness of the first part of genesis to be consistent you would need to apply that same framework elsewhere. That is a slippery slope.

There is a good treatment of this topic in Reymond's Systematic Theology.


----------



## DMcFadden

There are a number of threads that explore this issue in exhausting (if not exhaustive) detail. Rather than recapitulating it all again, why don't you read up on some of the arguments adduced already on the PB in the last year or so and then engage in a more pointed conversation?


----------



## Confessor

Kenneth_Murphy said:


> You are discussing two different things. Firstly the age of the earth and secondly evolution. From a theology perspective your view that man evolved creates many more problems than your view that the earth is old. If you hold that man evolved then there was no true Adam. Which implies Jesus isn't the second Adam and that were not saved through Christ. Also, in the Hebrew there isn't a clean break that says, hey this first part of Genesis is written in a special type of hebrew so we will use a special hermeneutic to interpret it. So if use the literary framework to remove the literalness of the first part of genesis to be consistent you would need to apply that same framework elsewhere. That is a slippery slope.
> 
> There is a good treatment of this topic in Reymond's Systematic Theology.



Well, in order to counteract this implication, I have an admittedly ad hoc explanation: there is a slight "break" in the line from our common ancestor to where we are now, a point when God directly intervened to truly create man in His image (although, I don't believe He created man from nothing, it's rather an alteration as you'll see in what I say later). Obviously, there is not explicit Scripture to support this, but in order to make my beliefs consistent, I believe that there was a point in history when God instilled the first human, Adam, with a soul. Such an event allows for a significant enough disruption that, in a way, allows for a "new start" of creation with man, and from this the biblical record begins.

I have extremely limited knowledge of Hebrew though, so I would appreciate either more detail on the uniformity of the passages past Creation or a pertinent link.



DMcFadden said:


> There are a number of threads that explore this issue in exhausting (if not exhaustive) detail. Rather than recapitulating it all again, why don't you read up on some of the arguments adduced already on the PB in the last year or so and then engage in a more pointed conversation?





Can you link me to these or just tell me what subforums to look in? I mean, subforums outside of this one.


----------



## Poimen

There are many things in the Bible that the unbeliever finds unreasonable and irrational: such as the resurrection, the many miracles recorded throughout and even the creation of the universe by one God who reigns over all things in time and space. But no one ever said that the Bible would be reasonable to the unbeliever. 

Fortunately, as the movie "Expelled" testifies to, there are some unbelievers who are finding Darwinism irrational and void of true scientific and empirical substance. 

I am going to rather bluntly here then: the theistic evolutionist compromises at the most crucial point of biblical revelation, the beginning, and consequently tries to wed two different and ultimately opposing world views where only one can be the winner. I fear for people such as yourself as to what side of the fence you will ultimately come down. 

I don't want to be antagonistic, especially since you just joined here, but if you cannot produce any proof from the scriptures that God used evolution to bring about the universe as we know it and maintain the teaching contra clear biblical evidence, I would say that you should keep this way of thinking to yourself. At the very least I hope you spend some time reading those other threads as Dennis suggested and really examine your beliefs. 

For please note that theistic evolution is explicitly contrary to the confessions to which this board upholds, and posting of such opinions on this board would, in my opinion, be a reason for dismissing your membership. So consider this a warning.


----------



## Confessor

Poimen said:


> There are many things in the Bible that the unbeliever finds unreasonable and irrational: such as the resurrection, the many miracles recorded throughout and even the creation of the universe by one God who reigns over all things in time and space. But no one ever said that the Bible would be reasonable to the unbeliever.
> 
> Fortunately, as the movie "Expelled" testifies to, there are some unbelievers who are finding Darwinism irrational and void of true scientific and empirical substance.
> 
> I am going to rather bluntly here then: the theistic evolutionist compromises at the most crucial point of biblical revelation, the beginning, and consequently tries to wed two different and ultimately opposing world views where only one can be the winner. I fear for people such as yourself as to what side of the fence you will ultimately come down.
> 
> I don't want to be antagonistic, especially since you just joined here, but if you cannot produce any proof from the scriptures that God used evolution to bring about the universe as we know it and maintain the teaching contra clear biblical evidence, I would say that you should keep this way of thinking to yourself. At the very least I hope you spend some time reading those other threads as Dennis suggested and really examine your beliefs.
> 
> For though I don't know what the other moderators think but it is my opinion that theistic evolution is explicitly contrary to the confessions to which this board upholds, and posting of such opinions on this board would, in my opinion, be a reason for dismissing your membership. So consider this a warning. On the other if I have erred, I will certainly retract this warning and any other statements in this post that may be errant.



I'd like to start off by noting that I am apparently starting off on this forum great! 

Further, here would be my quick argument for why evolution should be rational to the believer, and it is not a matter of strict presuppositions:
1. The Bible confirms that science and its presuppositions (the existence of an objective, external reality, the accountability of our senses in describing this reality, etc.) are valid.
2. Science confirms that evolution is valid.
3. Bible-believers should believe that evolution is valid.

Now, I'm hoping that, beyond the theological implications of evolution, there shouldn't be any problems with the above argument except for possibly #2.



Lastly, without getting into the specific biblical arguments for or against theistic evolution, I would like to point out that its *discussion*, in my opinion, should at least be allowed on this forum. For where else can truth lead us but to Jesus? If we fear discovering that evolution is true, then we are only fearing a potential truth of which no fear should exist.

If it is determined otherwise, if it is determined by the forum's authorities that evolution should not even be *discussed* further, then I will discuss it no further.


----------



## Poimen

First of all, let me say that I appreciate your candor and humility in regards to what I have already written. 

Science is valid but as someone pointed out above, not infallible. After all modern science often carries with it many assumptions about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by God's Word. These assumptions will influence how one looks at the evidence. 

For many scientists today, for example, claim that science rules out the supernatural. 

In addition, some scientists (not even Christians) are now rejecting Darwinism as I pointed out above. 

Therefore science is not as monolithic as you claim. 

Conclusion: Darwinism, evolutionism or whatever stripe of gradual progressive theory of creation one holds to is an explicit rejection of biblical Christianity. You cannot hold to both; they are mutually incompatible. Charles Hodge rightly called evolution what it truly is: atheism.


----------



## AV1611

packabacka said:


> can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable



I agree with a framework interpretation.


----------



## AV1611

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As far as the Hebrew the use of the Waw-Consecutive by Moses is nearly only found in historical writings.



So you admit that the use of the "_Waw_-Consecutive" by Moses is sometimes found in writings other than historical writings? That being the case your argument does not hold together.

However, I agree that Gen 1 is history, the question is what type of history and this is where the type of literature is important. It is an ANE cosmogony presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, as is similar to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.

Conrad Hyers wrote a helpful article entitled “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes; Scientific No”


----------



## a mere housewife

Hi Ben, I know it's in this same forum but was wondering if you'd read all the way through this post. I thought it was pretty exhaustive/ing  and it deals with the Hebrew and some other other specific points. I do think the theological implications of theistic evolution are simply untenable, and am not sure with what certainty we are to approach the resurrection and Christ's other miracles if we begin to allow science to be authoritative in interpreting Scripture. As others have noted, just because a passage has a literary structure doesn't mean it isn't literal historical truth. 

As regards science, they treat 'theory' in this area as established fact. Science is properly a tool to observe things that can be observed; not a philosophy about origins: it is this tool, and not the philosophy, that the reliability or suitability of our senses can be used to validate. Scripture does not give science any authority to speak to origins or to a spiritual world that cannot be observed and experimented with in a scientific manner. In these areas Scientists are walking blind: they can only make guesses and change the guesses as new data about our present, physical world comes forward (and they only have a fraction of the data about even that). God's word doesn't change with all these outdated models.


----------



## larryjf

packabacka said:


> I have seen that a young-earth Creationist belief is rampant in this forum. This saddens me, as I am a staunch theistic evolutionist. Please, can someone tell me why a literary framework interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis is theologically untenable, or why a literal interpretation is necessary?



Do you believe that death existed before man was created? If so this leads to a theological issue in that death came before the fall.

Since science is basically a system of acquiring knowledge through observation, and since the scientists who observe are tainted by sin, and since the creation that they observe is tainted by sin...why would we look at it as an authority above the Scripture?

Also, when you speak of all of the evidence that supports your position, i don't think you have mentioned any of that evidence, so it's impossible to know if others would consider it solid evidence or if it could be disproved.


----------



## caddy

packabacka said:


> I'd like to start off by noting that I am apparently starting off on this forum great!
> 
> Further, here would be my quick argument for why evolution should be rational to the believer, and it is not a matter of strict presuppositions:
> 1. The Bible confirms that science and its presuppositions (the existence of an objective, external reality, the accountability of our senses in describing this reality, etc.) are valid.
> 2. Science confirms that evolution is valid.
> 3. Bible-believers should believe that evolution is valid.
> 
> Now, I'm hoping that, beyond the theological implications of evolution, there shouldn't be any problems with the *above argument except for possibly #2.*


 
#2 is pretty significant!

Science does not confirm evolution. The confirmation is built more, or shall I say almost exclusively, on philosophy rather than on science. I think we need to keep in mind that Darwinism is so appealing not because it gives us anything concrete and "scientific" but because it serves human pride: _We think we have this thing figured out_. I think it was Bahnsen who once stated that _autonomy and understanding are mutually exclusive._ Unbelieving scientist ( and even some believers ) think we can act independently of God's words. They tell us science confirms this and science confirms that. The facts do not bear # 2's assertion out. Heidi is spot on. We think science can reinterpret scripture. It has no authority over God's words or our lives. It is merely a tool. Many of us have let it have more authority than it should. Science's _interpretation of facts_ is not infallible and we have witnessed were it has oftened erred. I also believe it is a slippery slope to other doctrinal problems that, given time, will begin cropping up.


----------



## Zenas

Primary to the issue of evolutionary creationism, and of grave importance, are the theological ramifications of the tenant that go to affect the entire worldview of the individual.

If the Genesis Creation account is allegorical rather than historical, the evolutionary crationist has a conundrum or two to account for that I cannot see being reconciled so as to form a logical and well-grounded faith in the Gospel. 

Mind you, I am not saying that you do not affirm the Lordship of Christ and the sacrifice He has made, or that you are not one of the sheep of the Flock. Rather, I am saying that if you do hold this position while holding to the immediately aforementioned, your groundwork for faith is illogical. I recognize that one is not brought to faith by logic, but I do think that mature faith is itself logical. It is for this reason I think I can firmly state your position is theologically illogical and inconsistent, but say so to one I do take as a brother, despite the shortcomming. 

Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.

This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man. 

Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.

Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism. 

Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering? 

Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all. 

It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God. 

I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins. 

Humbly, your brother.


----------



## cih1355

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days. 

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.


----------



## AV1611

cih1355 said:


> The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.



You are correct that we ought understand _yom_ to refer to a 24-hour day. There is no linguistic reason not to. However, that does not mean that these days actually ever took place. As I noted earlier, Gen. 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony that is presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, like unto to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.


----------



## greenbaggins

Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that _they remained fruit flies_. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once. 

The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better. 

As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.


----------



## A5pointer

cih1355 said:


> The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, *"...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.*
> 
> According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.



What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?


----------



## greenbaggins

A5pointer said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, *"...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.*
> 
> According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?
Click to expand...


The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, *"...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.*
> 
> According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.
Click to expand...


Lance, I agree that the seventh day is marked out as special with emphasis on God's resting from his creation. I do not undersatnd what you mean by "a normal day in human reckoning". My reason for bringing up the difference was to suggest that the markers day/evening do not necessarilly give clues to literalness of time in the account.


----------



## greenbaggins

A5pointer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lance, I agree that the seventh day is marked out as special with emphasis on God's resting from his creation. I do not undersatnd what you mean by "a normal day in human reckoning". My reason for bringing up the difference was to suggest that the markers day/evening do not necessarilly give clues to literalness of time in the account.
Click to expand...


I don't particularly mind your calling me Lance instead of Lane (which is my real name). I get called Lance-a-lot. 

The conclusion does not follow. If morning and evening mean a literal day by everyone's reckoning, then the absence of it indicates that something more or different is going on. I would argue that it means for us to ask questions about the Sabbath and its nature, especially that God's Sabbath is eternal, even though He continually works.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

greenbaggins said:


> Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that _they remained fruit flies_. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.



Lane, unfortunately this is incorrect. Speciation has occurred and does occur. To deny it is to deny simple observation. HOWEVER, you are correct that most of what we see around us is adaption rather than speciation. And while I am an Old Earth Creationist, I do not believe in macro-evolution as a means of explaining the world around us. Basic Darwinian concepts are very valid (like you said, "micro-evolution"), but to extrapolate that to macro-evolution over millions of years to explain the current existence of the biosphere is absurd, and poor science. And you are also correct that we would expect to see almost infinite numbers of transitional species, when in fact we see relatively few. 

But where I disagree with you is the idea that speciation does not occur, and that reproduction of every animal "after their own kind" precludes the development of any new species after the original creation. This just isn't true, as we can see from observing animals and plants; new species have arisen during our lifetime. Again, it does not validate evolution on a large scale, but small-level speciation does indeed occur. So, either Genesis 1 is incorrect or our reading of it is incorrect. Obviously it must be the latter...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.
> 
> This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man.
> 
> Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.
> 
> Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism.




All of these problems are solved if you believe everything else evolved and man was created separately (not what I believe, by the way). If that's the case, then Problem 1 is solved because through one man sin entered the world if that man were created unique. 

Problem 2 is solved because humans did not die before the Fall, only animals. Now, some will say animals did not deny before the Fall, but there is no real Scriptural basis for this; this topic as been discussed extensively in other threads. Even if I were a YECer I would believe in animal death before the Fall. 

Problem 3 is solved because if man were created separately then he could easily have been created in the image of God. Some evolutionary creationists (and I'm NOT one of them) argue that man evolved to a point, and then God decided to give him a soul - those first humans with souls were Adam and Eve.

Now, I don't believe in evolutionary creationism. I am an old Earth creationist, meaning I believe the Earth is tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of years old, that all major species were created initially by God with some minor variations over the years (the same processes we have now). I believe Genesis 1 is a valid historical account, but presented in an allegorical way to make our understanding of it easier. None of that changes theology in any way. An Old Earth and Young Earth creationist can be in 100% theological agreement on everything else without any inconsistency. The same goes for evolutionary creationists, but I do agree that there could be no human death prior to the Fall.


----------



## Ravens

I wish there was a way to poll all of the faculty, pastors, and educated laymen in America, breaking them down into three camps (for our purposes): 1) Framework, 2) Day-Age, 3) YEC. 

The poll would consist of only a few questions (feel free to add more) and could be submitted in anonymous fashion.

1) Did a serpent, or a supernatural being manipulating a serpent, really address a historical woman named Eve?

2) Did a man named Adam ever give names to the beasts of the earth?

3) Did the line of Cain really lead the way in developing many of the arts and sciences?

4) Did Noah take representatives of all kinds of beasts and birds into the ark?

5) Was the flood local, or global?

6) Do all human beings currently on this earth, each and every one, descend from one of the eight people who exited the ark?

7) Is the table of nations accurate?

8) Was there a looming figure known either as The Rebel, or Nimrod, who was defiant in the face of Yahweh?

9) Was their actually a great tower or ziggurat of Babel, and do all human languages descend from that event?

10) Was their animal death prior to the fall?

11) If not, then would you ever say in public that men and dinosaurs coexisted?

12) On a scale of 1 to 10, "1" being negligible and "10" being excruciating, rate your embarrassment if your grudged endorsement of # 11 (above) ever became known in public.

I3) Do you hold to a "soft" view of inspiration? Yes or no?

14) Was Moses responsible for writing the vast majority of the Pentateuch?

I imagine that some statistician could give a very informative and revealing analysis of the answers to those questions that would tell us something about the Framework, Day-Age, and YEC views, and who tends to hold which.

That's just a hunch. I could easily be wrong.


----------



## Wannabee

If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry. 

And, as Bawb said many moons ago, it is obvious that this is a debate worth fighting over. This includes giving any ground on the literalness and preciseness of the creation account, as has been brought forward by many throughout this thread using good exegesis. Simply put, Scripture dictates the verity of science. Science is the study of creation after all, and therefore the study of the Creator. And evolutionary hypothesis is not truly science, but the religion of chance and uncertainty. 

It's gotten to the point where any statement against a literal 6 day creation (evening and morning) can be addressed by simply linking to a previous post in this thread. Might I suggest that any further posts must first affirm that they have prayerfully and humbly read this ENTIRE thread.


----------



## Ravens

I like to think of it in terms of Scripture giving us the "big picture". I used to hate the phrase "Scripture is not a science textbook." That is almost always used by those of a more liberal stripe. That being said, there's a _sense_ in which that is true. 

That is, anyone who has studied science, mathematics, physics, etc., knows that there is baffling complexity in the warp and woof of space-time, and Genesis 1 clearly doesn't delve into quantum mechanics, superstrings, equations, relativity, the double helix, or anything else. Those things are interesting, and many of them (who knows what will be the physics of tomorrow) are rooted in reality, and should be studied as a subject of profound interest.

That being said, Scripture still does give us the "big picture". And the "big picture" that it gives us is absolutely true. We don't have the formulas, the equations, the understanding, etc., of what happened to the waters on, say, Day 2, and I myself would allow that, so far as it goes, all of that is a subject of lawful inquiry, providing we understand that Day 2 unfolded as Scripture records.

I know I'm speaking the obvious, but I think it's a point much overlooked.

God has only given us one book of Genesis, one book of origins. And there is one Creation Account, prior to the _toledoth_ records, given to us by our Creator. Undoubtedly this Creation Account was meant to stand the test of time, to feed His people in all ages, from Iceland to India, and everywhere in between. Small children, learned men, people of low estate, people of high estate, of every stripe, age, color, etc., are fed from this same stream. 

So I think that God has told us everything He intended to tell us, not more, not less. Within those parameters, then science should be as exalted and rigorous as any other lawful human endeavor. However, as science has this jumble of puzzle pieces, it is to keep in mind the Frame and the Box Picture. 

The picture on the puzzle cover is not there to constrain or hamper the pieces. That being said, it's simple folly to build your puzzle in a way that goes against the picture on the box, even if, _for the time being _, it seems right to you. Thing is, the "other side" does this all the time. 

Darwin freely admitted that the fossil record did not, at the time, support his theory. He predicted it would in the future. Ergo, despite the apparent contradiction in the facts before him, he still held his views based on his own notion of "what is". A while back when they found soft tissue remnants in a T-Rex bone, to the shock and surprise of the scientific world, did they automatically re-evaluate the dating of dinosaur life? No. They interpreted it according to the Frame already in place.

So, God has given us the picture, and I think we can rest assured that, at the last day, there will be not the slightest discrepancy between Genesis 1 and science. My personal opinion, in all honesty (since I picture the day of judgment to be a complete, total, and exhaustive vindication of God and exposing of men), is that each and every atheist scientist will have all of their erroneous extrapolations, formulations, and unwarranted theorizing brought home to them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Creator lets them see how, in fact, all of it did work together.

I realize I'm speaking common sense here, but I think it's worth being said.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Might I suggest that any further posts must first affirm that they have prayerfully and humbly read this ENTIRE thread.



But Joe, that will take _eons._


----------



## Justified!

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
> 
> I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?



Agreed.


----------



## AV1611

Wannabee said:


> If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry.



It is certainly not poetry but it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form, as I noted before.


----------



## HaigLaw

I have always held to a young-earth, 6-day creation view, but am a little uncomfortable labeling that a "literal-only" hermeneutic. I prefer the term "historical-grammatical."


----------



## HaigLaw

greenbaggins said:


> I don't particularly mind your calling me Lance instead of Lane (which is my real name). I get called Lance-a-lot.



I didn't realize PCA Teaching Elders were allowed to be this funny.

Does your presbytery realize you do this?


----------



## Witsius

AV1611 said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly not poetry but it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form, as I noted before.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but is this (and your previous post) not the kind of sentiment that leads to the Peter Enns error? (Ie: Are you using extra-biblical material to interpret Scripture, rather than Scripture interpreting Scripture?)


----------



## Confessor

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a corollary?
Click to expand...


Sorry that I missed this earlier.

I am inferring from your statement that any scientific discovery that would come at odds with divine revelation falls to the "science is fallible" objection. In other words, I don't think there is anything less truthful about evolutionary theory than, say, the theory of gravity, except that it makes people uncomfortable because of its apparent opposition to the first few chapters of Genesis.



Poimen said:


> Science is valid but as someone pointed out above, not infallible. After all modern science often carries with it many assumptions about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by God's Word. These assumptions will influence how one looks at the evidence.
> 
> For many scientists today, for example, claim that science rules out the supernatural.



I know that science must maintain a naturalistic methodology in order to be practicable (otherwise, all fields would be utterly chaotic), but only staunchly atheistic scientists will claim, _a priori_, that miracles are impossible. In science, it is best to search first and foremost for a natural cause *without rejecting a supernatural possibility in advance*.



> In addition, some scientists (not even Christians) are now rejecting Darwinism as I pointed out above.



Without getting into specifics, Expelled is an inordinately weak movie.



a mere housewife said:


> Hi Ben, I know it's in this same forum but was wondering if you'd read all the way through this post. I thought it was pretty exhaustive/ing  and it deals with the Hebrew and some other other specific points. I do think the theological implications of theistic evolution are simply untenable, and am not sure with what certainty we are to approach the resurrection and Christ's other miracles if we begin to allow science to be authoritative in interpreting Scripture. As others have noted, just because a passage has a literary structure doesn't mean it isn't literal historical truth.



It truly was exhausting.

For the record, stating that science mandates evolution is nowhere near tantamount to stating that miracles, such as Christ's Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, did not happen. Not by a long shot. While I believe that evolution has been proven to have occurred, I do *not* believe that any of Jesus' miracles have been disproved scientifically, nor do I believe that a scientific naturalistic methodology implies a naturalistic philosophy.



> As regards science, they treat 'theory' in this area as established fact. Science is properly a tool to observe things that can be observed; not a philosophy about origins: it is this tool, and not the philosophy, that the reliability or suitability of our senses can be used to validate. Scripture does not give science any authority to speak to origins or to a spiritual world that cannot be observed and experimented with in a scientific manner. In these areas Scientists are walking blind: they can only make guesses and change the guesses as new data about our present, physical world comes forward (and they only have a fraction of the data about even that). God's word doesn't change with all these outdated models.



I would like to point out that "theory" in the vernacular is not equivalent to "theory" in scientific terminology. Actually, the objection that "evolution is only a theory" is actually quite laughable, in that scientific theories are more prestigious than facts; the former are organizations of facts (of which no evidence contradicts) that has an explanatory scope and can be confirmed by future evidence. Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers), no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc. The only reason that people may deny evolution is because it doesn't obviously fit in with divine revelation. But that does not change the fact that evolution is an explicit statement of God's natural revelation.



larryjf said:


> Do you believe that death existed before man was created? If so this leads to a theological issue in that death came before the fall.
> 
> Since science is basically a system of acquiring knowledge through observation, and since the scientists who observe are tainted by sin, and since the creation that they observe is tainted by sin...why would we look at it as an authority above the Scripture?



I believe the Fall brought spiritual death upon the world. Further, I believe that Adam was already familiar with death; otherwise, how would the threat of death (for eating from the tree) have meant anything to Adam? If Adam had not already witnessed death, then how did a threat of death mean anything but gibberish to him?

If you're going to use that objection against evolutionary theory, then I suggest you not pick and choose which science you want, and deny all of science together.



Zenas said:


> Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering?



I believe problems 1-3 either have already been dealt with or can be dealt with by viewing my belief in God's infusion of the soul into the first human. Tell me of any remaining objections past that.



> Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all.



With all due respect, I would like to point out that all of the "problems" with evolution seem to be stemming ultimately from ignorance. "I don't know how that could have evolved; ergo, it could not have evolved." Irreducible complexity is certainly a novel concept, but I have read about evolutionary pathways for each proposed IC system. (The main problem with Behe is that he doesn't understand the whole process of creating "IC" systems - as Dr. Ken Miller so often shows with his mousetrap example, not every part is needed when it is viewed as biologically functional in a different context.) Without looking too much into the other problems, they too seem to be ultimately rooted in a misunderstanding or a deficient understanding of evolutionary theory. I would like to redirect you here if you plan to look into it.



> It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God.
> 
> I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins.



I agree that science is a useful tool, but I believe the problem is oversimplified when we try to reduce it to a difference in presuppositions. Both Christianity and naturalistic worldviews believe science is justified in the same manner (the latter might claim that supernatural explanations are impossible, but both can agree that naturalistic explanations are generally preferred if they are found to exist); for this reason, I think it is unfair to science in general to just claim that others just have different presuppositions. If, hypothetically, irrefutable scientific evidence were to exist for a given proposition, it would be wrong (I would even say morally wrong) to dismiss it as a difference in presuppositions, and ultimately an insulting denial of science.



> Humbly, your brother.



I must say that, despite our differences in views, I do respect the sincerity you have in what you see as correcting me.



greenbaggins said:


> Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that _they remained fruit flies_. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.



I cannot understand how "according to their kind" disallows evolution if it is interpreted as a framework hypothesis. Could you explain this to me?

The objection that "micro-evolution obviously occurs but we have never witnessed macro-evolution" seems to me quite empty, since a macro-evolution is a string of micro-evolutions. What prevents many small changes from becoming a big change? Man-made distinctions of species? I have never heard a legitimate answer to this question. If micro-evolution is true, then, given time, I cannot see how macro-evolution is *not* true.

Further, regarding the absence of transitional fossils, that is simply false. I believe this is one of the aforementioned arguments from ignorance. Also, you must remember that every single link from one form to another is an absurd request to make of the evolutionist; fossilized corpses are quite rare, and the number of transitional animals known is still quite numerous.



> The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better.



Again, if you like this objection, then deny *all* of science. If you want to keep your views logically consistent, you must reject all of science or accept all of it. The question ultimately comes down to "is evolution scientific?" Any attacks on science as a whole, in my opinion, fall short miserably.



> As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.



These seem like pretty good objections, and I'll look into them. However, I can refute one of them, I believe: I agree with you that Genesis 1 is "proto-historical" in that it represents history, just not literally -- it is not ahistorical, yet it does not represent history exactly as it occurred. It represents God's sovereignty in creation, creation _ex nihilo_, and the importance of mankind in God's creation.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers), no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc.



You are obviously a person of great faith. Your faith in evolution amazes me. Capable scientists in various fields (e.g., genetics, astro-physics, micro-biology, etc.) have testified that a belief in evolution has no bearing on their day to day work, research projects, or ability to offer an explanation of life on earth. Your statement that one must deny germ theory, atomic theory, etc. to be intellectually consistent with denying evolution is a faith statement, without a necessary logical or factual basis.

(BTW, I was a Big Bang, old earther, until just the last few years. Sorry if the straight forward interpretation sounds obscurantistic or deficient to you.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor

packabacka said:


> I know that science must maintain a naturalistic methodology in order to be practicable (otherwise, all fields would be utterly chaotic), but only staunchly atheistic scientists will claim, _a priori_, that miracles are impossible. In science, it is best to search first and foremost for a natural cause *without rejecting a supernatural possibility in advance*.


Here is a central issue that evolutionary theory must address if they wish to take the Bible seriously. The world does not function according to naturalistic methodology. At best we can only say it functions that way now. In fact God has altered the course of "ordinary" providence many times. He has done so with global consequences such as Creation, the Flood, the tower of Babel, the 3 hours of darkness during the Crucifixion, etc He has done so regionally, such as the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. He has done so in all the healing miracles in both the OT and NT. This world does not function like the deist machine, but is sustained and supported by God according to his good will and pleasure. This skews and frustrates all the data for a naturalistic methodology. The promise of regular seasons did not even come until after the Flood. 

So long as a naturalistic methodology is adopted by a scientist, you will simple not be able to reconcile the data of Scripture with the observations of science. Science has no capability to evaluate origins when they cannot as a rule allow the data of Scripture as part of their evidence. Just think of all the ripples the interposing of God's power causes in the so called "laws of nature." What happens to the laws of conservation of mass and energy when Jesus decided to create a new ear? Or reanimate a new life? Or feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish? Consider what happens at the subatomic level... Consider the natural disturbance of parting the Red Sea or pummelling Sodom with fire and brimstone? All that affects how we interpret the evidence we have today (or should anyway). As Christians we believe in the providence of God, not mechanical laws of nature. 



> While I believe that evolution has been proven to have occurred, I do *not* believe that any of Jesus' miracles have been disproved scientifically, nor do I believe that a scientific naturalistic methodology implies a naturalistic philosophy.


A naturalistic methodology by definition requires a naturalistic philosophy. Otherwise it would be a super-naturalistic methodology, one for instance that would take into account the fact that God has spoken in Christ, and has told us how we are to interpret the facts of the world around us in submission to Christ. 



> Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers),


Where exactly did this happen? If this were indeed true, then why has it not been trumpeted throughout the scientific community and the media? 



> no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc. The only reason that people may deny evolution is because it doesn't obviously fit in with divine revelation. But that does not change the fact that evolution is an explicit statement of God's natural revelation.


That's just the point of contention. Scripture clearly says that all was created. There is no evidence for evolution in Scripture. It has already been pointed out over and over again in this thread. The genre of Genesis is historical narrative, and indicated clearly by the Hebrew grammar and by later interpretations of Scripture (Exodus 20, Jesus, etc.) And if the Scriptures will not allow it, then you are simply misreading the voice of natural revelation, not to mention the obvious over-confidence you have in the speculations of evolutionary thought.



> If you're going to use that objection against evolutionary theory, then I suggest you not pick and choose which science you want, and deny all of science together.


It is not science that creationists deny. Science is a wonderful tool to aid man in exercising dominion over the earth God has made for us, and it wonderfully shows the majesty of the Creator. I cannot but worship God as I study all the sciences. It is a joyful hobby of mine. It is the unbiblical presuppositions of some scientists which we reject (such as naturalism), such assumptions which cannot even be justified by their own methodology of observation and experimentation, especially regarding assertions about origins. 



> I believe problems 1-3 either have already been dealt with or can be dealt with by viewing my belief in God's infusion of the soul into the first human. Tell me of any remaining objections past that.


The problem with your solution is that you cannot verify it by your naturalistic methodology. It is a blind faith claim. Another problem is that Genesis tells us how God made the first human, from dust, not from another species. 



> I agree that science is a useful tool, but I believe the problem is oversimplified when we try to reduce it to a difference in presuppositions. Both Christianity and naturalistic worldviews believe science is justified in the same manner (the latter might claim that supernatural explanations are impossible, but both can agree that naturalistic explanations are generally preferred if they are found to exist); for this reason, I think it is unfair to science in general to just claim that others just have different presuppositions. If, hypothetically, irrefutable scientific evidence were to exist for a given proposition, it would be wrong (I would even say morally wrong) to dismiss it as a difference in presuppositions, and ultimately an insulting denial of science.



Actually science is not justified in the same manner. We believe science is justified because God sustains the world in a consistent manner (usually) and has created us with the capacity to understand it. Frankly, the fact that scientists are so concerned with origins indicates the vacuum of their naturalistic presuppositions. We have already been told how we got here and why. Science is suppose to help us accomplish our goal to glorify God and serve him, not write a new creation narrative. 



> Further, regarding the absence of transitional fossils, that is simply false. I believe this is one of the aforementioned arguments from ignorance. Also, you must remember that every single link from one form to another is an absurd request to make of the evolutionist; fossilized corpses are quite rare, and the number of transitional animals known is still quite numerous.


That is interesting since I just listened to an evolutionist who honestly conceded we have no evidence of transitional species.


----------



## AV1611

Witsius said:


> Sorry, but is this (and your previous post) not the kind of sentiment that leads to the Peter Enns error? (Ie: Are you using extra-biblical material to interpret Scripture, rather than Scripture interpreting Scripture?)



Let us say, for example, I give you a copy of T. S. Eliot's _Ash-Wednesday_ and ask you to explain it. Now you would need to consider a number of things to give an accurate explanation of it. First and foremost you need to recognise its genre, i.e. it is poetry. Secondly, you would need to consider who the author is. Thirdly, when it was written and the historical context of the poem. It would not be insignificant that this was his "conversion poem", written after he converted to Anglo-Catholicism. In order to understand it properly, we need to understand the context in which it was written.

In a similar fashion we need to understand the context in which the Bible was written. It was not written in an historical vacuum. Whoever wrote Genesis 1 was writing in the ancient Near East and to deny that there are major similarities with other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies is to bury your head in the sand. Once we understand the nature of the text, its genre, its similarities and differences with other ANE cosmogonies we will be in a better position to interpret it. Our duty is to interpret Gen. 1 in accordance with what it is _not_ what we would like it to be.

I would suggest a read of Walton's _Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible_.

I would also suggest Gordon Wenham's _Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1 Genesis 1-15 _

As for Peter Enns, I am not sure what has been going on but I would suggest a read of his reponse to Prof. Greg Beale's review of his book here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> In a similar fashion we need to understand the context in which the Bible was written. It was not written in an historical vacuum. Whoever wrote Genesis 1 was writing in the ancient Near East and to deny that there are major similarities with other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies is to bury your head in the sand. Once we understand the nature of the text, its genre, its similarities and differences with other ANE cosmogonies we will be in a better position to interpret it. Our duty is to interpret Gen. 1 in accordance with what it is not what we would like it to be.



It is much better simply to go to Exodus 20, where it is as plain as day that the days of creation were meant to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest.

While extra-Biblical sources can be useful, we must not set them above the text of Scripture itself. After all, how would the Israelites in Moses' day have understood his words regarding the days of creation: literally or otherwise?


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It is much better simply to go to Exodus 20, where it is as plain as day that the days of creation were meant to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest.


I am not sure it is quite so straight-forward. The Ex. 20 account does not invalidate a non-literal understanding of Gen. 1.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> While extra-Biblical sources can be useful, we must not set them above the text of Scripture itself.



No-one is setting extra-Biblical sources above the text of Scripture, rather I am engaging in, as others have who are far more able than myself, comparative study. Just read some of the ANE creation accounts and you will see what I mean!



Daniel Ritchie said:


> After all, how would the Israelites in Moses' day have understood his words regarding the days of creation: literally or otherwise?



Would you like to tell me?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> I am not sure it is quite so straight-forward. The Ex. 20 account does not invalidate a non-literal understanding of Gen. 1.



So how many Sabbath days do you know which last for thousands of years? The point of Ex. 20 is that we are to be patterned after God, which would not make any sense if the days were not literal.



> Would you like to tell me?



I suspect it would be literally, unless they were idlers who thought they should not work because the Sabbath lasts for thousands of years.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> So how many Sabbath days do you know which last for thousands of years? The point of Ex. 20 is that we are to be patterned after God, which would not make any sense if the days were not literal.



I see what you are getting at and I think you have misunderstood what I have been arguing. I agree that the _yom_ in the Genesis account is the same _yom_ of Exodus 20. I also agree that they are refering to a day of twenty-four hours. So I am not arguing that each day equals a long-time etc. Those who do that misunderstand Gen. 1 just as much as those who take Gen. 1 to be literal history. 

In the twelfth tablet of the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" we find significant material for the Sumerian concepts of the creation of the universe. 

After heaven had been moved away from earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;​
This can be summarised thus: "Heaven and earth, originally united, were separated and moved away from each other, and thereupon the creation of man was ordained." (Kramer)

Sound familiar? Now it would be wrong to say that the Israelites borrowed these ANE myths, but we should recognise that Gen 1. performs the same function as these did, to explain the origin of the Israelites. That is it is a cosmogony and ought to be interpreted as such.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Sound familiar? Now it would be wrong to say that the Israelites borrowed these ANE myths, but we should recognise that Gen 1. performs the same function as these did, to explain the origin of the Israelites. That is it is a cosmogony and ought to be interpreted as such.



Okay, apologies if I have misunderstood you, but what is the relevance of this to the length of the days of creation?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Moderator: Discussion of unconfessional views is one thing advocacy is another. The advocacy ends now. If you cannot operate under that distinction, then it would be best you not post on the subject.*



packabacka said:


> If it is determined otherwise, if it is determined by the forum's authorities that evolution should not even be *discussed* further, then I will discuss it no further.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The theory of Evolution has dire consequences upon both anthropology and Christology.

If man is evolving, then how can Christ be the mediator between God and man. Because if man has evolved from apes, then how can we be certain that he won't evolve into something else, and so how can Christ - a true man - be the mediator between such beings and God, since He is fully human?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

joshua said:


> Three Words (not really): EIS O GESIS
> 
> Genesis does not event _hint_ or _imply_ that by days it means years upon years. Genesis certainly doesn't say anything about single-celled algae "mutating" into higher forms over years and years of time into an ape, and _finally_ into human kind.
> 
> There have been a lot of assertions made of what the text of Genesis _could_ mean, but have not been backed up by exposition or exegesis. Instead, the whole tactic is appeal to modern "Science," and cast doubt upon what the text _actually_ says (exegesis, exposition, etc.). I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
> 
> We, as Christians, _first and foremost_, believe the Bible. We have no need to capitulate to "Science," especially when its dictates are unverifiable. Furthermore, if -in some way- they were able to be observed/experienced by some experiment set up, guess what? As Christians, experiences don't validate/invalidate _truth_. Rather, _truth_ validates/invalidates experience.
> 
> So, go ahead and kowtow to "Science" (so-called). Go ahead and mangle the first few Chapters of Genesis as some kind of Quasi-mystical, evolutionally symbolic, mysterious text, while saying that the latter chapters are real, literal, and historical narrative. I'll stick with the doctrine that teaches Scripture is perspicuous. Let God be true, and every man a liar.



 and


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, Congratulations on having read all the way through the thread.  Since PuritanSailor dealt with first part of your reply about science and miracles (and I also disagree that natural explanations should automatically be preferred to supernatural: there are no doubt 'natural' explanations for why a bunch of people would claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for instance), I'll just respond to this:



> I would like to point out that "theory" in the vernacular is not equivalent to "theory" in scientific terminology. Actually, the objection that "evolution is only a theory" is actually quite laughable, in that scientific theories are more prestigious than facts; the former are organizations of facts (of which no evidence contradicts) that has an explanatory scope and can be confirmed by future evidence. Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers), no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc. The only reason that people may deny evolution is because it doesn't obviously fit in with divine revelation. But that does not change the fact that evolution is an explicit statement of God's natural revelation.



This seems to demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the nature of mathematical proof, which GreenBaggins referenced. Actually all the theories you cited are _only_ theories -- none of them have been 'proven'. We may suddenly find new data tomorrow to upset our most basic understanding of many of these things. Science cannot speak authoritatively as regards absolute proof, and it's authority about things not immediately observable -- because there is _so much data _that it cannot take into account -- is simply non-existent. Some of the most sophisticated atheistic philosophers -- like Bertrand Russell, who was also a mathematician -- speak with far less certainty about these things than you do, because they understood the philosophical limitations and the nature of scientific knowledge. In fact, you are finding Russell, Owen Barfield and such minds laughable in finding the theoretic nature of evolution something of a joke. 

As regards the 'evidence' that exists for evolution, and the idea that theories in the scientific world are somehow 'more prestigious' (by which you seem to mean even better established? or are they merely more respected-- because those are two different things) than facts, I am not sure how one could think this. A model is a theoretical construct human minds have come up with to account for data, and other theories. This doesn't mean there is 'evidence' for the construct. It means the construct has been created to fit theories and data (& the 'evidence' of being able to use a theory predictively is something that may change with further data or that other theories could account for). The same data that exists is used in creation science constructs as well -- so I might just as easily say that the evidence supports creation science (indeed I believe it does, but this is not on the authority of science. It is on the authority of God's word).

Many of the opinions expressed on this thread in favor of six day creation represent a more considered, more widely and well read position of more immediate inquiry in scientific and philosophical fields than what you seem to demonstrate so far in your answering statements; and you have admitted that you aren't much acquainted with the grammatical, textual issues. If you disregard the text in a rush to argue the authority of 'respectable' scientific theories then you are indeed subordinating the infallible, divine, absolute nature of Scripture to a fallible human tool. This is what Poimen didn't want propogated on the board, not because we are afraid of facts or of science, but because we are afraid of the consequences to us and to others of undermining the authority of the text -- against what we confess about Scripture. All the best, Ben.


----------



## a mere housewife

PS. a lot of replies were posted while I was alternately listening to Corelli and typing up mine -- hope it isn't too redundant.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Okay, apologies if I have misunderstood you, but what is the relevance of this to the length of the days of creation?



Exactly, our disagreement concerns the historicity of the account not the account itself.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> In the twelfth tablet of the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" we find significant material for the Sumerian concepts of the creation of the universe.
> 
> After heaven had been moved away from earth,
> After earth had been separated from heaven,
> After the name of man had been fixed;​
> This can be summarised thus: "Heaven and earth, originally united, were separated and moved away from each other, and thereupon the creation of man was ordained." (Kramer)
> 
> Sound familiar? Now it would be wrong to say that the Israelites borrowed these ANE myths, but we should recognise that Gen 1. performs the same function as these did, to explain the origin of the Israelites. That is it is a cosmogony and ought to be interpreted as such.


The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.



You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.

In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> Without getting into specifics, Expelled is an inordinately weak movie.


CSC - Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists


----------



## ChristianTrader

moral necessity said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to make known, there are still some geocentrists running around
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Please elaborate when you get the chance.
> 
> Blessings!
Click to expand...


Geocentricity


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.
> 
> In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.
Click to expand...


No, it's genre is historical narrative. A cosmogony doesn't have to be mythical. It simply provides the meta-narrative for life. In this case, our cosmogony is true, and the grammar and literary style mitigates against any poetic or figurative language.


----------



## a mere housewife

Richard, a quick question -- you have said I think a couple times that the Genesis account is a cosmogony in the form of a history, while maintaining that it is not actual history. My immediate thought as an unsophisticated housewife was, 'how deceptive'. If you admit that it is in the form of history, is there any reason (disregarding science, as you indicate that your argument is more based on the text) for denying that it is both cosmogony and actual history, other than an argument that ANE myths don't work this way? (But doesn't that argument lose some of its force if ANE myths were corrupted as they were passed down and more mythologized, mixing some remnant of truth with much error while the biblical creation account was not in this way corrupted?)

You mentioned T. S. Eliot. The first time I read his poem 'The Wasteland' I thought it was a rather incoherent, but beautiful, jumble of images and thoughts without a real ideological structure or explanation. It seemed the only sensible reading to me, not because of the genre (all the poetry I had read up to that point was coherent) but because of the poem itself. When I found out people wrote whole books assigning coherent symbologies to it, I thought they had to be falling for a hoax. When I found out he did, I thought he had to be perpetrating it. It turns out that he was. He said in an interview that it was structureless, and that he wasn't even bothering whether he understood what he was saying. See this link about the notes. Yet if we look at his other poems and the genre, we would be led to read significance and coherence into the poem that isn't there. My point is that even in literature, trying to interpret away a natural reading of a text because of other things in the same genre isn't always a sound interpretative rule?

(added: by the way I agree with Patrick that the genre is actually historical narrative that sets forth a cosmogony: but even if we were to lump it in the same genre with ANE myths and focus on the cosmogony more I don't know that it follows to stop reading the creation account as literal history.)


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.
> 
> In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.
Click to expand...


http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf



And your point is what?


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is what?
Click to expand...


It is an article concerning ANE, as well as other related topics, and their relationship to the early chapters of Genesis. It is written by an expert in the Genre and a YECer. I was under the impression that such was the subtopic of the thread. If I was mistaken that such was the discussion then you can keep up your replies to PuritanSailor. 

CT


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> It is an article concerning ANE, as well as other related topics, and their relationship to the early chapters of Genesis. It is written by an expert in the Genre and a YECer.



It was just that the article does not deal with what I am arguing hence my confusion. Incidently, our understanding of the Psalms has been greatly enhanced by our understanding of ANE mythology.

Two good articles I would commend to you are:

Smick, E. B. (1982) “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms”, _Westminster Theological Journal_. 44 pp. 88-98.

Smick, E. B. (1978) "Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job", _Westminster Theological Journal_. 40(2) pp. 213-28.


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an article concerning ANE, as well as other related topics, and their relationship to the early chapters of Genesis. It is written by an expert in the Genre and a YECer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was just that the article does not deal with what I am arguing hence my confusion.
Click to expand...


I thought your point was to read the Creation story as something less than history based on your views of ANE cosmology etc. If it is not that, then it is irrelevant to the conversation.

CT


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> I thought your point was to read the Creation story as something less than history based on your views of ANE cosmology etc.



I am saying that the Creation story is an ANE cosmology and should therefore not be understood as literal history. Its message is theological _not_ historical.


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought your point was to read the Creation story as something less than history based on your views of ANE cosmology etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that the Creation story is an ANE cosmology and should therefore not be understood as literal history. Its message is theological _not_ historical.
Click to expand...


Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine.

CT


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine.



Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT.

His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.


----------



## a mere housewife

Richard -- you have said earlier that the cosmogony is 'in the form of history' -- does not history then constitute some part of the literary form and context? You make a dichotomy between theology and history, but we don't make such a dichotomy about the resurrection: we affirm that the doctrine is tied into the historicity. Can you argue that those who do not make such a dichotomy but hold that the theology/cosmogony are inherent in the historicity of the narrative are being _unfaithful_ to the text?


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT.
Click to expand...


Here you show that it is relevant, but that you just disagree. 

"These last two examples raise another set of problems. When it is said that God employed symbols common in that day is it meant that both the symbol and what is symbolized were already known or that only the symbol was known with a completely different connotation? The distinction is an important one. For this argument to be convincing the former must be the case. Otherwise one is saying that God gave the symbol a completely new meaning. And if he did that we are no longer dealing with symbols common at the time, but with new symbols. Then the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed. Whether there is any ultimate relationship” between biblical and Babylonian accounts as we now have them they belong to different ideological worlds. The symbols are not the same because the ideology is different. The goddess Tiamat defeated in a war by the god Marduk, if she may be called a ‘symbol’; must be seen as a symbol within the context of Babylonian polytheism whereas the creation of heaven and earth belongs within the context of biblical thought. It is meaningless to say that God used the same symbol but changed its meaning. It is then no longer the same symbol."

The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.



> His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.



Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account *due to the scriptures* demanding such.

CT


----------



## AVT

Regarding Dr Sproul's understanding of creation- in his _Truths We Confess, A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith_, Dr Sproul writes, p. 127

"For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possiblity. But I have now changed my mind."

After doing a great job explaining the four theological views that have arisen regarding creation, he says, p. 128

"The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days."

So, this was helpful for me in understanding the views, firming up my own assumption that God did creation in six days like today, yet treating fairly those who thought maybe a day was not exactly the same length or was used symbolically.

Now, thanks to this, I can confidently say the Westminster Confession expresses the literal days view and that anyone who does not believe that would need to take an "exception," at least.


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.



This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.



ChristianTrader said:


> Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account *due to the scriptures* demanding such.



One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).


----------



## ChristianTrader

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.
Click to expand...


If the difference are that vast (and they are) then what keeps one from allowing one to be portraying real history vs. the others not?



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account *due to the scriptures* demanding such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).
Click to expand...


But if we have already determined that we allow scripture to interpret scripture, then it is up to you to show that scripture does not allow history to be portrayed when giving a cosmogony?

Put into other words, who defines the parameters of a cosmogony? God or the heathens?

CT


----------



## wsw201

> I'll pick up my marbles and go home, kickin' rocks on the way.



Don't forget to put your shoes on. Those rocks can hurt!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Have you heard the version that God selected a Cro-Magnon man, gave him a soul, and thus created Adam?


----------



## DMcFadden

For most of my preaching years (including those since moving out of the pastorate), I waffled on the subject of Gen 1 (typical Fuller grad I guess: "on the one hand, but on the other hand"). I always argued, along with former CT editor, Kenneth Kantzer, that orthodox theology required only a belief in creation *ex nihilo *and a literal Adam and Eve. The mechanism of creation and the duration were left to scientific inquiry, I thought. Furthermore, I rather enjoyed Hugh Ross' progressive creationism and the ability to have my cake and eat it too, insofar as I could oppose naturalistic Darwinism without looking like a flat-earth luddite. 13.8 billion years? Sounds OK by me, etc.

In more recent years, dissatisfaction with the hermeneutical fruit of this way of handling the Bible when applied to a whole range of contemporary issues (e.g., women in the church, homosexuality, etc.), prompted me to return *ad fontes*, to the sources. A review of the exegetical arguments from people like Kelly, a few incidental comments by R.C. Sproul on the reasons for his change of mind, Al Mohler's support for YEC, and some material by Answers in Genesis (written by PhDs in various fields of astrophysics, molecular biology, geology, and the like), led me to reverse course on this subject as well.

Can one make a _plausible case _for an old earth, such that it is compatible with some forms of evolution (albeit not a purely naturalistic one)? Sure. But, if you read Bob Gundry on Matthew, he makes a _plausible case _for the genre allowing Matthew to invent the star and the magi and add unrelated women to the genealogy of Jesus. Several progressive evangelical writers make a _plausible case _for accepting homosexual marriage and ordinations. People in the FV make a very _plausible case _for their form of "now you have it, now you don't" salvation, election, and reprobation. And, people much brighter than I make a _plausible case _EVERY day for all manner of mutually exclusive eschatological schema.

I am convinvced . . .

1. . . . that all forms of evolution are incompatible with orthodox Christianity, despite the plausible cases made by educated adherents.

2. . . . that the most faithful interpretation of the biblical record is the so-called straight-forward one of Genesis 1-11.

3. . . . that the unintended (and intended) fruit of Darwin's grand idea has been the most toxic and corrosive on the confidence of ordinary people in the word of God and the God of the word.

4. . . . that as a matter of historical accuracy and honest handling of the sources from the 17th century, the confessions safeguard us on this subject such that it would be necessarily unconfessional to advocate views that came to be known as "evolution" in the 19th century.

5. . . . that as laudible as it is to want to protect the scandal of the Gospel from becoming the scandal of the ignorant fundys, efforts by people like Francis Collins to hold to a form of evangelicalism AND theistic evolution will ultimately fail. And, the failure will result in even greater disbelief in the authority of the Bible.

And, more sadly (cf. James 3), I repent of my own unfaithfulness to my ordination vows. Rather than declaring the whole counsel of God and not trimming it to cater to the whims of the day, I listened to my college and seminary profs and advocated a cavilier approach to God's word, full of scholarly equivocations and justifications. I contributed unintentionally, yet guiltily, to planting all kinds of bitter seeds that may germinate and lead others astray in other issues having little to do with the first chapters of Genesis. Or, perhaps there is an organic connection. Changing attitudes toward male-female relationships and issues of homo eroticism follow closely on the heels of the Darwinian revolution. And, as a matter of fact, they are also dealt with in Genesis 1-3!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Darwinian evolution is bad science. Theistic evolution is bad science compounded by bad theology.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Gomarus said:


> Darwinian evolution is bad science. Theistic evolution is bad science compounded by bad theology.



I am putting that in the quotes section; its brilliant.


----------



## JohnV

JohnOwen007 said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need _both _a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".
Click to expand...


As you can see, I'm only on page two of this discussion. This discussion interests me for several reasons. I won't bore you with them.

But I'd like to interject here (not knowing what has happened between page two and this present page, so please excuse me if I am going over again what has already been finished) that it seems to me that "morning and evening" are indeed a distinct and quite necessary reference even before the fourth day in the creation account.

For me this point changed the way I view Genesis 1. I mean, I read it as referring to a six-day creation; that hasn't changed at all. In that way you could say that I read it "literally". But I don't call that "literal" anymore, at least not in the same way that it is usually said.

When I was a cabinet-maker I described the manufacturing process to different types of people, such as clients, suppliers, backers, etc., then it became clear over time that I used a great deal of symbolic language, different types of symbolisms to different kinds of audiences, to describe what was in fact going on, whenever someone came into my shop and needed to or wanted to know. I was describing something very real and literal, but I had to resort to creative language to better describe the whole process. For example, the idea of "concept to finished product" meant different things to different people, depending on their starting point and their finishing point. A customer's starting and finishing points are different than a banker's starting and finishing point, both of which are again different than a supplier's. To talk about "door openings" when as yet there were no doors, and to have them already fitting to the finest degree on cabinets before the cabinets have even been made, was one very important step in the process of "concept to finished product". How do you relate that to these different types of interested people?

That's how I came across the "cabinet-maker's explanation" of the creation account. Gen. 1 is a very brief account of something that is beyond any proportion to anything we can know. And yet it is accurate to the nth degree. That is, it is a true account. Yes, we're going to have problems with some things, like why there is "evening and morning" on the first day when the sun and moon didn't shine to distinguish evening from morning. But not if you think of it terms of a finished product being described from concept according to the manufacturer's point of view. The sun and moon were there as much on the first day as they were on the fourth in the design and layout of the process. 

The point is: the sun, moon, and stars were not accidentals, or after-thoughts, or "nice touches" that happened to pop up. In the planning stage they were already there from the point of "concept" which takes place right at the start, and is there throughout the entire process. To decribe it requires as much a description of what's really going on as well as what's conceptually going on. 

And to do that in one chapter, well..., all I can say is "WOW!!!"

That is, it's not "literal" per se, but it does describe in a very conceptual and accurate and truthful way what we would nominally call the "literal" interpretation. I used to think that we had to think of the first three days in terms of sidereal days (a revolution based on position to the stars, or a fixed position in space, instead of position to the sun), but that only helped me on to the the further step of seeing the first days as conforming to the plan which included the eventual additions of the sun, moon, and stars. I now see "evening and morning" referring to 24 hr. days, even on the first day. And the problem of the fourth day dilemma doesn't bother me at all anymore.


----------



## AV1611

ChristianTrader said:


> If the difference are that vast (and they are) then what keeps one from allowing one to be portraying real history vs. the others not?



Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical. The similarities are not in the detail but in the themes and the presentation of those themes. Further, the structure of the account and the theology it advocates demonstrates it is polemical over and against historical. 



ChristianTrader said:


> But if we have already determined that we allow scripture to interpret scripture, then it is up to you to show that scripture does not allow history to be portrayed when giving a cosmogony?



Whilst Scripture is to be interpret by Scripture the question you are positing is beyond the scope this rule. Furthermore, we would all recognise that Scripture was never written in an historical vacuum hence if we understand the historical context in which Scripture was written we are provided with a far richer understanding of what is said. 

*Example 1*
"In Ps 74:12-14 the mythopoetic language about the many-headed Leviathan is historicized and used metaphorically to describe Yahweh's great victory in history, at the Red Sea." (Smick)

*Example 2*
"Gen 1 and Isa 27:1 present the OT view of the beginning and the end of linear history. They mark a major ideological difference between the OT and the nature cycles of Canaanite myth. On the other hand the serpent imagery is a continuity between the two which cannot be ignored. The same imagery is found in Rev 12:9 where The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Certainly this passage is telling of an historical event which will take place in space and time but few would feel it must be fulfilled by means of a literal dragon." (Smick)

I would suggest a reading of these:

*HASEL*, G. F. (1972) “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, _Andrews University Seminary Studies_. 10 pp. 1-20.

*HUMMEL*, C. E. (1986) “Interpreting Genesis One”, _Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation_. 38(3). pp. 175-85. 

*HYERS*, M. C. (1984) “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes; Scientific, No”, _Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation_. 36(4) pp. 208-15.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account *due to the scriptures* demanding such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).
Click to expand...


It is actual history because the rest of Scripture interprets it as history. Your argument that it is theological not historical, is simply insufficient. It is both. Just as with ALL historical narratives in Scripture, there is a theological point to be made, so with Genesis 1. The historical events are recorded and interpreted by God for us to teach us about himself. It cannot be poetic or parable because that is not the literary style. If there is no historicity in Gen 1, then there is no foundation for the theology contained in it. We have no idea how God actually worked in history. Thankfully, the rest of Scripture does tell us that God created the world in 6 days (Ex 20). The historicity is affirmed, and the theological point is grounded in God's own historic example. 

If you are not careful here, then hermeneutically you are on your way to denying the Incarnation. Did it really matter that Jesus was actually God and man? Or is it just a profound theological point the story of Jesus was suppose to make? How do you interpret the cosmogony of the new creation? Is is historical or just theological?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account *due to the scriptures* demanding such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is actual history because the rest of Scripture interprets it as history. Your argument that it is theological not historical, is simply insufficient. It is both. Just as with ALL historical narratives in Scripture, there is a theological point to be made, so with Genesis 1. The historical events are recorded and interpreted by God for us to teach us about himself. It cannot be poetic or parable because that is not the literary style. If there is no historicity in Gen 1, then there is no foundation for the theology contained in it. We have no idea how God actually worked in history. Thankfully, the rest of Scripture does tell us that God created the world in 6 days (Ex 20). The historicity is affirmed, and the theological point is grounded in God's own historic example.
> 
> If you are not careful here, then hermeneutically you are on your way to denying the Incarnation. Did it really matter that Jesus was actually God and man? Or is it just a profound theological point the story of Jesus was suppose to make? How do you interpret the cosmogony of the new creation? Is is historical or just theological?
Click to expand...


This is precisely the danger of going down such a road. Not only is there nothing in the account of creation to cause us to think that it is not literal history, but the rest of Scripture clearly testifies that it is.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical.



I see. We define it as cosmogony because it bears resemblances to other cosmogonies. Then we define cosmogony as myth, because every other cosmogony (which does not bear the inerrancy and incorruptibility of divine inspiration) is. Then we deny that the biblical cosmogony is history, because by definition, cosmogony is unhistorical?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

a mere housewife said:


> Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical.
> 
> I see. We define it as cosmogony because it bears resemblances to other cosmogonies. Then we define cosmogony as myth, because every other cosmogony (which does not bear the inerrancy and incorruptibility of divine inspiration) is. Then we deny that the biblical cosmogony is history, because by definition, cosmogony is unhistorical?



So to say that Genesis 1 is a cosmogony is do deny that it is accurate history, and reduce it to the level of pagan mythology? Is that correct?


----------



## a mere housewife

Sorry Daniel, that first sentence should have been in quotes. I'm trying also to understand the statement made by Richard; it seems that it does boil down to your assessment, if I'm not misunderstanding.


----------



## Ravens

Richard,

I've always had a respect for you on this board. Whether you were dealing with psalmody, the dangers of the cinema, or any other such "minority" topic, I tended to see where you were coming from and agree with you. It pains me to see you posting on these cosmogonic interpretations. Perhaps it shall turn out that I am wrong, when all is said and done. But nevertheless, at the moment, it saddens me to see someone so committed to the Scriptures buying in to the typical claims made about Biblical and ANE literature that could be heard in any liberal, apostate seminary throughout the country, even if such theories are "tweaked" in order to make them more palatable to more orthodox Christians.

Personal comments off. As someone who has taken a deep interest in world mythologies throughout my life, I realize that a "cosmogonic link" could be established between the creation account of almost _any_ given culture and the account given in Scripture. In my opinion there is no extraordinarily uncommon similarity between the ANE and the Biblical accounts that one could not find in other cultures. Example.



> *
> Voluspa:*
> 
> 3: Young were the years when Ymir made his settlement,
> there was no sand nor sea nor cool waves;
> earth was nowhere nor the sky above,
> chaos yawned, grass was there nowhere.
> 
> 4: First the sons of Bur brought up the earth,
> the glorious ones who shaped the world between;
> the sun shone from the south on the hall of stones,
> then the soil was grown over with green plants.
> 
> 5: From the south, Sun, companion of the moon,
> threw her right hand round the edge of heaven;
> Sun did not know where her hall might be,
> the starts did not know where their place might be,
> the moon did not know what power he had.
> 
> 6: Then all the Powers went to the thrones of fate,
> the sacrosanct gods, and considered this:
> to night and her children they gave names,
> morning they named and midday,
> afternoon and evening, to reckon up the years.
> 
> ***
> 
> 17: Until three gods, strong and loving,
> came from that company to the world;
> they found on land Ash and Embla,
> capable of little, lacking in fate.
> 
> 18: Breath they had not, spirit they had not,
> character nor vital spark nor fresh complexions;
> breath gave Odin, spirit gave Haenir,
> vital spark gave Lodur, and fresh complexions.



Taken from the _Poetic Edda_, translated by Carolyne Larrington, pp. 4, 6.

I've known of the _Voluspa_ since I was a teenager dabbling in Asatru, but I never thought about the sequence of events until the past couple of days. Note the sequence:

1) *Chaos:* Without quibbling over words, I think it is fair to portray stanza 3 as a chaotic situation. Snorri seems to speak of a chaotic Ginnungagap between Niflheim and Muspell. No differentiation, no earth, no sky, no sea, just yawning chaos.

2) *The Earth:* It says that the sons of Bur "brought up the earth". As she notes in the foreward, in some Norse poems, the earth was made from the body of Ymir, and in some cases it was brought up from the sea. So at least in some Norse traditions, this earth was "brought up from the sea". If I felt rowdy I'd make a fun comparison between the destruction of Ymir and Tiamat and the construction of the earth, but I'll pass.

3) *Plants:* At the end of the fourth stanza, plant life is mentioned. The soil is grown over with plants.

4) *Sun, Moon, Stars:* Incredibly, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, is the very next stanza. Even more incredibly, the *explicit purpose* of their creation is "to reckon up the years."

5) *Creation of Man:* Three gods then create man and woman. From Snorri we learn that they were made from two trees. Notice that the fundamental things they lacked were* breath and spirit.* So, a "Divine Council" [sic] if you will, creates man from pre-existing elements, through the medium of giving divine breath and spirit.

To recap:

1) Chaos
2) Earth rises from Sea
3) Plants cover earth
4) Creation of sun, moon, and stars, to "reckon up the years."
5) Creation of man via the impartation of divine breath

I daresay that there are just as many, if not more, thematic and substantial parallels between Genesis 1 and the_ Voluspa _ as there are between Genesis 1 and the _Enuma Elish_.

There is nothing unique, in my opinion, about the connection between Genesis and the _Enuma Elish_ that constitutes dependence or polemic. At the end of the day one would have to base *his entire argument*, unless I am mistaken, on nothing more than geological proximity. Similar to the case of evolution, all "transitional forms" of mangled creation documents or tablets are missing, and one is left, really, with an_ ipse dixit_, at least as I see it.

I typed out the _Voluspa_ by hand, so from this point on, I'll use internet sources for some of the Native American legends:

Kiowa Apache: "In the beginning nothing existed--no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere." The Creator next went on to create Light, followed by the Earth. Google the Cherokee, Creek, Inuit, and other legends, and you'll see a same theme, namely, chaos and/or water being the primal element, followed by the creation of all other things.

Some of the Hindu myths, the Japanese myths, and the Egyptian myths, as well as some African myths, also start out with either chaos, water, or, at times, "chaos/water."

Some cultures reflect and retain the original sequence more than others. In some, animals already exist, in others, the earth is created prior to the seas, but in many cases the sequence is stunning.

Even Ovid, despite being entangled by the Five Element view, seems to reflect the very same order:


> *The Creation of the World*
> 
> Of bodies chang'd to various forms, I sing:
> Ye Gods, from whom these miracles did spring,
> Inspire my numbers with coelestial heat;
> 'Till I my long laborious work compleat:
> And add perpetual tenour to my rhimes,
> Deduc'd from Nature's birth, to Caesar's times.
> Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball,
> And Heav'n's high canopy, that covers all,
> One was the face of Nature; if a face:
> Rather a rude and indigested mass:
> A lifeless lump, unfashion'd, and unfram'd,
> Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos nam'd.
> No sun was lighted up, the world to view;
> No moon did yet her blunted horns renew:
> Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky,
> Nor pois'd, did on her own foundations lye:
> Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown;
> But earth, and air, and water, were in one.
> Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable,
> And water's dark abyss unnavigable.
> No certain form on any was imprest;
> All were confus'd, and each disturb'd the rest.
> For hot and cold were in one body fixt;
> And soft with hard, and light with heavy mixt.
> 
> But God, or Nature, while they thus contend,
> To these intestine discords put an end:
> Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv'n,
> And grosser air sunk from aetherial Heav'n.
> Thus disembroil'd, they take their proper place;
> The next of kin, contiguously embrace;
> And foes are sunder'd, by a larger space.
> The force of fire ascended first on high,
> And took its dwelling in the vaulted sky:
> Then air succeeds, in lightness next to fire;
> Whose atoms from unactive earth retire.
> Earth sinks beneath, and draws a num'rous throng
> Of pondrous, thick, unwieldy seeds along.
> About her coasts, unruly waters roar;
> And rising, on a ridge, insult the shore.
> Thus when the God, whatever God was he,
> Had form'd the whole, and made the parts agree,
> That no unequal portions might be found,
> He moulded Earth into a spacious round:
> Then with a breath, he gave the winds to blow;
> And bad the congregated waters flow.
> He adds the running springs, and standing lakes;
> And bounding banks for winding rivers makes.
> Some part, in Earth are swallow'd up, the most
> In ample oceans, disembogu'd, are lost.
> He shades the woods, the vallies he restrains
> With rocky mountains, and extends the plains.
> 
> ***
> 
> High o'er the clouds, and empty realms of wind,
> The God a clearer space for Heav'n design'd;
> Where fields of light, and liquid aether flow;
> Purg'd from the pondrous dregs of Earth below.
> 
> Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when streight
> The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
> Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
> And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
> And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
> Then, every void of Nature to supply,
> With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:
> New herds of beasts he sends, the plains to share:
> New colonies of birds, to people air:
> And to their oozy beds, the finny fish repair.
> 
> A creature of a more exalted kind
> Was wanting yet, and then was Man design'd:
> Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
> For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest:
> Whether with particles of heav'nly fire
> The God of Nature did his soul inspire,
> Or Earth, but new divided from the sky,
> And, pliant, still retain'd th' aetherial energy:
> Which wise Prometheus temper'd into paste,
> And, mixt with living streams, the godlike image cast.
> 
> Thus, while the mute creation downward bend
> Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
> Man looks aloft; and with erected eyes
> Beholds his own hereditary skies.
> From such rude principles our form began;
> And earth was metamorphos'd into Man.



1) Chaos
2) Distinguishing Between Earth, Sea, and Sky
3) Stars
4) Animals
5) Man

So, my question is, why exactly do almost all ancient cultures start out with a chaos, or "unformed lump"; either that, or "universal waters", followed by a "separation" period wherein the earth, sea, and sky are distinguished, followed by the creation of stars, animals, and man.

Granted, I'm not acting as if these myths have not been garbled. I'm not ignoring Spider Woman, inconsistencies, preexisting animals, etc. But at least *for me*, it's just as plausible to think that, if all mankind descended from Noah and his sons, that they retained the account of creation (in their oral, and later written, cultures) and preserved the basic "gist", while particular elements became garbled over time.

I realize this post is long. My only point is, when a scholar engages in "freeplay", he can create links and tomes and peer-reviewed papers about anything he wants. A scholar could have a _field day_ with the _Voluspa_. But of course, he can't. Geographical proximity, however, allows the scholar to do so when it comes to the ANE. 

I noticed you said "there might be some Egyptian elements". I don't know if you are referring to Currid's work or not, but to be honest, I found even his treatment of the Egyptian myths with their "creation by word" and how it relates to Genesis unsettling.

I thought about posting that months ago, but never did. Namely, I realize it's too easy on the PB for anonymous laymen to "lay into" accredited scholars and pastors. Nevertheless, his treatment very much made me uncomfortable. 

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water. 

I guess that explanation is too simplistic for some.

Blessings Richard,

Joshua


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the difference are that vast (and they are) then what keeps one from allowing one to be portraying real history vs. the others not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical. The similarities are not in the detail but in the themes and the presentation of those themes. Further, the structure of the account and the theology it advocates demonstrates it is polemical over and against historical.
Click to expand...


You are forgetting one significant fact about cosmogonies. All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences. That is the meta-narrative which gave authentication to the pagan pantheons and worldviews, even authenticating dynasties. Whenever a culture became skeptical about their cosmogony, a new one took over, and hence a new religious worldview. So even if you consider Gen 1 a cosmogony in the form of myth, the original audience (i.e. Israel) would have understood it as literal history (like all the other ANE cultures), wherein the accurate account of the one true God creating all things is set forth. 


Btw, Interesting also how the same phenomena is still happening today, the evolutionary cosmogony/mythology is considered historical by evolutionists....


----------



## Ravens

I made this post in the "Creation Question" thread awhile back. I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but since "polemics" against Baal and other's are usually associated with the Framework view, and such has been brought up in this thread, I thought I'd repost it here. Especially since, apparently, this is the ocean into which all creation threads tend to run.

Sorry for all of the *'s in the fake commentary. I just felt vaguely guilty for using the name of Christ in a "satire" (and still do), but I don't know any other way to do it and still make the point that the same kind of logic used in Genesis could be used in the New Testament.




> Here is another problem that I have with the whole concept and language of reading "polemics" into the Scriptures: Paganism has gods for everything. Athens was a famous example of that; I'm sure we've all heard the famous quote that it was easier to find a god in Athens than a mortal. They even covered their bases by honoring "the unknown God."
> 
> You can see the same thing in Hinduism. I am not even quite sure if there is an "official tally" of the number of Hindu deities, but I have heard it reaches into the thousands. The Norse myths of the ocean couldn't even contain all of the gods that supposedly had power over the sea: Njord, Ran, AEgir; and let's throw Jormungandr in to boot. Point being, what Chesterton said about the Greeks applies, in general, to all pagans: "They couldn't see the trees for the dryads [not verbatim]."
> 
> Why do I bring that up? Because the overflowing polytheism of darkened nations allows any text to be turned into a "polemic". I don't often like when people flippantly mention our Lord in order to prove a rather trite or academic point, but I don't see any other way around making my point. So let me show you what polytheism, coupled with a "Let's Find a Polemic" approach, makes possible.
> 
> Here's a sample commentary from 2014:
> 
> "The authors and redactors of the documents that eventually came to be collected in what was formerly called the "New Testament" were writing, primarily, to people of low socio-economic status, surrounded and beleaguered on all sides by the impressive majesty of the Roman empire. The claims that the faith community later placed back into the mouth of Chr*st (we should not associate these claims, of course, with the historical Y'shua ben Yosef) clearly clashed with the prevailing polytheism of Imperial Rome."
> 
> "Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient religion of the Greco-Roman pantheon was now being superseded by mystery cults and Emperor worship, the august pantheon of antiquity still exerted quite a sway in the minds of the commoners. We must also keep in mind that the documents of what would later be styled the "New Testament" were written to people of a different culture, who spoke a different language. Ergo, we must take off our lenses of preunderstanding and see these ancient texts in a way that the average proselyte or catechumen would have understood them."
> 
> "When we approach the texts in this fashion, we see clear traces of early proto-Christian polemic against the ancient Roman triad of gods (namely, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto) woven throughout the gospel narratives. Why does the gospel record numerous examples of (1) Chr*st walking on the water, (2) Chr*st calming the wind and the waves on the way to free the Gadarene epileptic, along with concomitant gloss of the "believing community" that "even the wind and the waves obey him", (3) Chr*st calling up a fish to pay taxes for Peter, (4) Chr*st enabling a miraculous catch of fish, (5) et al. Clearly these are to be understood in the prevailing cultural context of the time, and we see clearly that a polemic is being made that Chr*st is L*rd of the Waves and King of the Sea, and not Neptune."
> 
> "This insightful approach yields further results. Now we understand that when Chr*st called back Lazarus from the grave, or the text records saints rising after a great earthquake following the crucifixion, or, if we may, Chr*st himself rising from the earth and from the dead, we clearly see that a polemic is made against Pluto. The New Testament author-redactors are showing that the Christian G*d, and not Pluto, is the true L*rd of life and death."
> 
> "Lastly, this gives a profound and decisive meaning to the ascension. What is the ascension, but a grand exclamation point punctuating the end of the Chr*st-story? How does it do so? Namely, in one decisive stroke, as it were, it wrests power from the high god of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, by showing that, indeed, Chr*st is L*rd of the Skies. That the early church spoke of him being enthroned at the right hand of the F*ther only establishes and seals this fact."
> 
> "What a pity that the assured results of higher-critical scholarship were not known to the church as it formulated some of the distinctive dogmas that we now know to be muddle-headed and rather mistaken...."
> 
> Anyhow, that fictional account, I believe, makes my point rather well. Namely, when pagans have a "god" for everything, then "everything" can be turned into a polemic. Polemics against rock gods, sky gods, fire gods, fish gods, etc. There is no logical chain of reasoning that necessitates any of it, and the commentary I just provided, in my opinion, is 100% as plausible as the so-called Baal polemic.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Puritan Sailor said:


> You are forgetting one significant fact about cosmogonies. All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences. That is the meta-narrative which gave authentication to the pagan pantheons and worldviews, even authenticating dynasties. Whenever a culture became skeptical about their cosmogony, a new one took over, and hence a new religious worldview. So even if you consider Gen 1 a cosmogony in the form of myth, the original audience (i.e. Israel) would have understood it as literal history (like all the other ANE cultures), wherein the accurate account of the one true God creating all things is set forth.
> 
> 
> Btw, Interesting also how the same phenomena is still happening today, the evolutionary cosmogony/mythology is considered historical by evolutionists....



These are some really good points; in particular, I'd not thought of the latter observation (regarding evolutionists today) in that way before, as it relates to cosmogony and the Genesis account.


----------



## AV1611

Puritan Sailor said:


> All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.



Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.


----------



## AV1611

JDWiseman said:


> At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.



Thanks for your post, lots to consider. I would agree with your observations above with certain caveats.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

AV1611 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.
Click to expand...


How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?
Click to expand...


According to Exodus 20 it was actual history.


----------



## MW

AV1611 said:


> I would suggest a reading of these:
> 
> *HASEL*, G. F. (1972) “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, _Andrews University Seminary Studies_. 10 pp. 1-20.



And for follow-up study, here is another article by the same author -- just to "hasel" your viewpoint 

Hasel, G. F. --- The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

From the above article please note the following extract:



> 2. Reformation Understanding of Creation "Days"
> 
> The sixteenth-century Reformers agreed that the fourfold sense of Scripture compromised the literal sense of the Bible, making its authority for faith and life null and void. They insisted that the single, true sense of Scripture is the literal sense, the plain meaning of the text.
> 
> One of the major achievements of the Protestant Reformation is the return to Scripture. This meant *that Scripture is in no need of an external key for interpretation* — whether that key be the Pope, the church councils, philosophy, or any other human authority. Scripture's clarity and perspicuity became the norm of the day; its reading from within its own context was paramount. External meaning must not be superimposed on it, as had been the practice under medieval Catholicism. The Bible was to be read in its literal and grammatical sense.
> 
> Martin Luther, accordingly, argued for the literal interpretation of the creation account: "We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read." The other Reformers understood the creation "days" in the same way.
> 
> This literal and grammatical interpretation, known in the history of hermeneutics as the historical-grammatical method, was the norm for biblical interpretation more or less into the nineteenth century.
> 
> 3. Changes Under the Influence of Modernism
> 
> As the concept of long time periods made its way into the understanding of Earth';s origins in the wake of the publications of James Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875), some Christian concordist interpreters started to reinterpret the Genesis "days" of creation in a non-literal manner. The impetus for this was not found in the Bible itself but in the new world view which was being developed on the basis of uniformitarianism and its concomitant understanding of origins which demanded long periods of time.
> 
> The understanding of the creation "days" as "days of restoration," "days of revelation," aside from taking a "day" for an "age" ("day-age" theory) or an epoch/era goes back to this time and the changes in time frames required by the new geology. The approach of a non-literal reinterpretation of "days" was typical of concordists who had accepted long ages for the origin of Earth. In view of these developments, it is unavoidable to conclude that external influences exerted by a new understanding of geological ages became the catalyst for the reinterpretation of the "days" of creation.


----------



## py3ak

Ben, I think this article might be beneficial to you.

I disagree with each one of your three numbered statements. But I suspect it may be a question more of basic feelings and attitudes even than presuppositions, and probably not likely to be well hashed out on a thread already this long and hard to follow.


----------



## Perpetua

armourbearer said:


> I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.



I just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance. 

I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."


----------



## Ivan

Perpetua said:


> I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.



I would find it difficult too, Lynda. Sometning for you to think about, eh?


----------



## Hippo

Perpetua said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance.
> 
> I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.
> 
> Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."
Click to expand...


You could consider giving him the benefit of the doubt that he honestly believes that an old earth position is biblical. It is possible to hold such a position in good faith, whether it is correct or not is another matter.


----------



## a mere housewife

Dear Sister, could you not in good conscience participate in the worship of the saints when you are meeting for that purpose, and you stated that your minister 'never preaches anything regarding this [his views on creation] from the pulpit', and is solidly biblical in other areas? If the other family member is your spiritual head then that is an additional reason to expect God to use the means He has instituted -- the preaching of the word in the assemblies -- to bless you in spite of the fallenness of your minister.


----------



## Dwimble

Let me preface my comments with this...I honestly, really, truly do not want to be harsh or cause offense, but I find your post problematic in a couple of ways. First of all, this is your _pastor_ that you are talking about, not just some random person or acquaintance. And you say this about him:



Perpetua said:


> ...in all other issues [He] is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace



and



> He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit...



And yet, you then make these comments about him:



> ...he gets as upset *as a non-believer* when someone tries to discuss this with him (*as I clearly refuted* his three "proofs" for old-earth *and then pointed out many more flaws in his* old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that *it's like talking to a wall*; his *attitude* also *reveals how willing he is to distort scripture* to support his view, and *how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom*, when it suits his purpose, *rather than truly honoring God's word.*



And then finally:



> I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., *shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.*



Again, I don't want to be harsh, but it looks like you are sitting in judgment over your pastor, and accusing your pastor of some very serious things. You are judging his motives, his heart, his beliefs, his attitudes. You disagree with him over that one issue, and when you try to "_refute_" him and "_point out many more flaws_" in that area (none of which is your responsibility to do in the first place), you claim that he gets as "_upset as a non-believer_".

So, now instead of listening to the pastor whom God has placed in authority over you to instruct you, and whom you say is solid in his doctrine, you'd rather sit in church and read a book by someone whom you deem acceptable to you, because you seem to have judged your pastor as not good enough for you. You seem to think you know better than him and more than him.

Perhaps your pastor is wrong in this area, and perhaps your pastor needs to repent over these things. But instead of judging him you should be praying for him, submitting to him, and thanking your Sovereign Lord that He has given you a pastor who is "solid". Yes, he _may_ need to repent in this area, but you most certainly have some areas where you should be humbly repenting as well.


----------

