# Question About Genesis 1



## Brandt (May 16, 2014)

I'm new and I'm sorry if something like this has already been posted. I looked and didn't see anything. I'm a six dayer, mainly because the text in Genesis 1 is narrative, and not poetic or apocalyptic, which I don't think gives me the right to interpret Genesis 1 anything other than literal, and I want to remain firmly in that camp, because Scripture is the largest authority we have. My question is that I once heard a theory (maybe when I was in seminary) that stated that when God created the Earth, he could have created it with age in it, much in the same way that he did not create Adam as a baby, but as a man. I'm not sure what I think about that, but I want to ask those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, do you think that theory holds up to Genesis 1? Thanks.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 16, 2014)

It is certainly possible and even likely, however others would argue that the flood is what has caused the Earth to appear the way it does today. Regardless, God did not see fit to reveal every detail of his creation to us, but what he has revealed is more than sufficient to establish his glory and power, and that is what we truly ought to take away from the creation account.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 16, 2014)

Brandt said:


> I'm new and I'm sorry if something like this has already been posted. I looked and didn't see anything. I'm a six dayer, mainly because the text in Genesis 1 is narrative, and not poetic or apocalyptic, which I don't think gives me the right to interpret Genesis 1 anything other than literal, and I want to remain firmly in that camp, because Scripture is the largest authority we have. My question is that I once heard a theory (maybe when I was in seminary) that stated that when God created the Earth, he could have created it with age in it, much in the same way that he did not create Adam as a baby, but as a man. I'm not sure what I think about that, but I want to ask those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, do you think that theory holds up to Genesis 1? Thanks.


God did not create it with age to trick us, he created it mature and fully functional. So if Adam was created as a man and doctors were to guess what age he was, they would probably say like 30 years old or so.


----------



## au5t1n (May 16, 2014)

Brandt said:


> I'm not sure what I think about that, but I want to ask those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, do you think that theory holds up to Genesis 1?



The created-with-age concept may account for some phenomena, but not all of them. For example, it cannot provide the explanation for the old dating of strata that have fossils in them, as those fossils obviously must have come after the Fall. Another example where the created-with-age explanation is not suitable is starlight which depicts events such as supernovae. I agree with Bill that we must not expect the scientific method to catch up to Biblical revelation at every point, especially where a miracle such as creation has occurred. We simply do not know why we can see supernovae from so far away, or why certain strata containing fossils appear so old, apart from speculation that the flood may have laid them down quickly.


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2014)

In the beginning God *created* all the stuff ex nihilo that would be used to make up the rest of what He makes, this would be the first day. The second, third, fourth, and fifth day, God arranged all that matter and "made" not created the matter and energy to make up the nonliving things. The fifth and sixth days were "creation" days to bring life into beings. Now in stating this I have no problem asserting God created or made each part in 6 days. In other words, I believe God did indeed create or made all of His creation in 6 days without holding to a young earth. It would sound like this. The first day of creation God created the heavens and the earth, then after a time period (let us say 1,000,000 hours of whatever) God's second day of making He did this.....then after a while God third day of making God did this.....etc. till the fifth day of creation God created life and after a while the dinosaurs died and on the sixth day of creation God made man.


----------



## Afterthought (May 16, 2014)

earl40 said:


> In other words, I believe God did indeed create or made all of His creation in 6 days without holding to a young earth.


In case such is claimed as a benefit of this view, it should be noted that this view does not harmonize with modern science, and it still suffers from the problem of death before the fall. It also has the problem of not providing a sufficient basis for the work week. While the progressive creationist view claims "days" means "ages" and so misses the parallel of duration, this view claims unspecified "ages" of rest follow the "days" and so misses the parallel of pattern. I'm not sure that this is what is meant by "in the space of six days" either, though technically, it would seem to me the view is consistent with the wording (but at the cost of intent of the phrase).

It also is an argument that at the least is without positive or negative evidence in the text. Since I am not skilled enough, I do not know whether that means one cannot hold to that view. It is clear one cannot hold to a view without evidence, but it is not clear to me whether one who holds to the usual 6 day creation can positively hold to it if there is a possibility of something else that occurred that the text did not mention? I wonder if this is similar to how Arminians will sometimes argue that God chooses based on this or that criterion that is not mentioned in the text? Or whether in that case, the reason the Arminian view is rejected is because of positive revelation to the contrary that God chooses according to the counsel of His will? But now we're off topic...




Brandt said:


> I'm not sure what I think about that, but I want to ask those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, do you think that theory holds up to Genesis 1?


I agree with Bill, Trent, and Austin. It may also be helpful to note that "age" and "time" are relative quantities, so "fully functional" or "mature" seems to me to indeed be the better way to put it if it isn't clear how "age" is being determined.


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> In case such is claimed as a benefit of this view, it should be noted that this view does not harmonize with modern science, and it still suffers from the problem of death before the fall. It also has the problem of not providing a sufficient basis for the work week. While the progressive creationist view claims "days" means "ages" and so misses the parallel of duration, this view claims unspecified "ages" of rest follow the "days" and so misses the parallel of pattern. I'm not sure that this is what is meant by "in the space of six days" either, though technically, it would seem to me the view is consistent with the wording (but at the cost of intent of the phrase).
> 
> It also is an argument without positive or negative evidence in the text. Since I am not skilled enough, I do not know whether that means one cannot hold to that view. It is clear one cannot hold to a view without evidence, but it is not clear to me whether one who holds to the usual 6 day creation can positively hold to it if there is a possibility of something else that occurred that the text did not mention? I wonder if this is similar to how Arminians will sometimes argue that God chooses based on this or that criterion that is not mentioned in the text? Or whether in that case, the reason the Arminian view is rejected is because of positive revelation to the contrary that God chooses according to the counsel of His will?



Modern Science tells us the universe is old which is what I espoused. I believe in the death _of man_ at the fall. The work week is based on the seven days the Lord made or created within the days that were passing between the days our Lord worked. So far as Arminian thinking I am lost on what you are saying about what I wrote. For I see a fundamental wooden reading of Genesis in a YEC view which is usually associated with arminian thinking and I mean not to drag this conversation into the mud which I will admit one of the views is wrong....  I have a hard time dogmatically stating this issue which many reformed churches deem not essential to the faith unto salvation.


----------



## Afterthought (May 16, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Modern Science tells us the universe is old which is what I espoused. I believe in the death of man at the fall. The work week is based on the seven days the Lord made or created within the days that were passing between the days our Lord worked. So far as Arminian thinking I am lost on what you are saying about what I wrote. For I see a fundamental wooden reading of Genesis in a YEC view which is usually associated with arminian thinking and I mean not to drag this conversation into the mud which I will admit one of the views are indeed wrong.... I have a hard time dogmatically stating this issue which many reformed churches deem not essential to the faith unto salvation.


Modern science says more than that (and I'm not talking about evolution) so harmony with modern science has still not been achieved. If you wish to claim that you agree with the universe's age, then so be it, but full harmony still has not been achieved. The pattern for the work week is still broken because the work week is done in consecutive days, not one day and then a rest of indefinite duration. You may claim that it isn't (as do progressive Creationists and theistic evolutionists), but you have to admit at the least that these other views do not create an exact parallel for the work week, while the usual 6 day creationist view does create an exact parallel.

To be clear, I was not talking about "Arminian" thinking in what you wrote. I was talking about an interpretive issue and using them as an example because they most easily came to mind. To clarify, in Ephesians 1 or Romans 8, I have spoken with people who say, "The passages do indeed say God predestined certain people, sure, but God _could_ have chosen people by looking in the future to see who chose God first." My response usually has begun with, "The text does not say whether God chose people by looking in the future, so you are reading that into the text." I then usually point out that, in addition to the text's silence in favor of their view, the texts also give a positive basis for God's choosing. There is also a third step that could be taken: providing positive evidence against their view (Romans 9 shows the choosing is not based on the person's actions). And a fourth: inconsistency with inferences from Scripture (e.g., man can not please God and so cannot generate faith for themselves).

My question in the paragraphs you pointed out was whether the second step is necessary to positively hold God does not look into the future to choose. And here we have the interpretive parallel: Is it necessary to provide positive evidence in the text against a view supported by silence that is not the usual 6 day view in order to positively hold to the 6 day view? Or is the silence about the other views sufficient to positively hold to the 6 day view? The reason I make this point is because at the very least, your view is speculation (i.e., has no evidence for or against it in the text), so I wonder whether positive evidence against your view is needed to hold to the usual 6 day view.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 16, 2014)

Hello Brandt, welcome to PB!

I have long understood that the creation was made, and many, if not most, things in it were created with "apparent age", Adam for one, rock formations for another, and edible fruit and plants for yet another. There are more complex examples also. I see no contradiction at all with the Genesis account, but rather God's wisdom and love. He gave His living creatures food to eat!

About starlight and time (a topic which is much discussed among Christian astronomers), do you think the LORD made the billions of galaxies in far-off space but that the earthlings would have to wait many ages to see the glory of His handwork? I think He made the far-off stars and heavenly phenomena _and _their light reaching the eyes of His chosen creatures that we might worship His might and splendor.

I believe a simple and plain reading of the creation account is warranted, so that we – "wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein" (Isaiah 35:8).


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Modern Science tells us the universe is old which is what I espoused. I believe in the death of man at the fall. The work week is based on the seven days the Lord made or created within the days that were passing between the days our Lord worked. So far as Arminian thinking I am lost on what you are saying about what I wrote. For I see a fundamental wooden reading of Genesis in a YEC view which is usually associated with arminian thinking and I mean not to drag this conversation into the mud which I will admit one of the views are indeed wrong.... I have a hard time dogmatically stating this issue which many reformed churches deem not essential to the faith unto salvation.
> ...



I see what you mean by the arminian type of interpretive issue. I see the creation account as being spoken in a grammatical historical poetic style. Of course I read no Hebrew and I rather not base my reading of such on that, but on what I have heard from good biblical pastors stating it is not that easy to dogmatically say it is pure historical narrative with no poetic license.


----------



## Free Christian (May 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> About starlight and time (a topic which is much discussed among Christian astronomers), do you think the LORD made the billions of galaxies in far-off space but that the earthlings would have to wait many ages to see the glory of His handwork? I think He made the far-off stars and heavenly phenomena and their light reaching the eyes of His chosen creatures that we might worship His might and splendor.


I agree. God did make an amazing universe for us to see and behold.
Psalm 19 v 1 "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork"
Here's a thought. If some, those who believe the 6 days are meant as "1 day this was created then there was a large time frame between that and the 2nd day and so on then at the end of it God rested". Wouldn't that mean that using that way of understanding it, God rested between those days. For if they believe that nothing happened as far as creation between those days and things were left to go on by themselves then in regards to "creation" God was resting between those days. But God tells us clearly that it went on day after day, His creation process, and that He rested on the 7th. So if the days are, and I believe so, meant as literal days, then millions of years taking place between those literal days is one huge break to take between them! Yet God clearly tells us He rested on only the 7th day during the creation process.


----------



## Ryft (May 30, 2014)

Although I suspect you probably intended this question for young-earth creationists, you nevertheless asked "those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1," which qualifies me to submit an answer because, arguably, I hold a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. [1]

No, I do not think it holds up in light of Genesis 1, and this for two reasons: it lacks textual warrant and introduces a theological inconsistency. First, there is no exegetical argument that the text requires such an interpretation. It is proposed only because of the inherent conflict between special and general revelation produced by a young-earth interpretation. General revelation tells us from numerous sources that the earth is exceedingly older than a few thousand years; from ice core samples alone we can read several hundred thousand years of historical data. But according to a young-earth interpretation of special revelation, it is implausible that the earth is greater than ten thousand years old (maybe fifteen thousand at the most). [2] Thus we have a conflict, and one solution is this proposal that the earth was created mature. It may look old but it is actually young, presumably like Adam himself. Again, this is only proposed because of that conflict between the two interpretations of God's revelation in nature and in Scripture. No exegetical argument is ever made for this idea being a conclusion drawn from the text itself. Hence the lack of textual warrant, reducing it to an eisegetical imposition. [3]

Second, this idea creates an intolerable theological inconsistency. Obviously there is the inconsistency between God's revelation in nature and his revelation in Scripture, which is a thorny problem in itself (i.e., why would God reveal an old earth in nature but a young earth in Scripture?), but I am talking about a far more intolerable inconsistency. What this idea proposes is a God whose revelation cannot be trusted, that creation was designed to deceive us, such that general revelation would present a wealth of historical events that never actually happened. Consider sediment layers in lake beds, for example, which produce annual patterns rather like tree rings. The sediment is rich in minerals from swollen streams in the spring, and rich in organic material from decaying plant fibers, algae, and pollen grains in summer and fall. This produces annual layers we can count, some of them displaying tens of thousands of years worth of history—which never actually happened? And think about ice core layers, which display hundreds of thousands of years of climate changes and volcanic activity—which never happened? Examples could be multiplied but the point is made. This idea, which has no textual warrant to begin with, creates an intolerable theological inconsistency. These are two good reasons to reject it.

General and special revelation are both infallible, for the one triune God of truth is the author and preserver of both. The problem is a conflict between two fallible human interpretations, that of God's general revelation on the one hand, and of his special revelation on the other. A resolution to the conflict is not to be found in distorting God's character, supposing he would reveal in nature a wealth of historical events that never actually happened, thereby deceiving us. In order to resolve the conflict, the young-earth creationist must do one of two things: either propose interpretations of general revelation which show that the earth is young (like scientifically testing a hypothesis that sediment layers in lakes are not annual but daily or monthly, for example) or critically reexamine the young-earth interpretation of special revelation, accepting that it may be what is at fault. As affirmed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, "in some cases extra-biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations" (Article 20). Greg Bahnsen affirmed a similar principle in his Reformed Confession Regarding Hermeneutics, "that extra-scriptural studies in fields relevant to biblical interpretation (e.g., linguistics, archaeology, natural science, history) may be a great benefit in elucidating the meaning of the biblical text and deepening our understanding of it," and that "when such studies appear to conflict with the biblical text, they may legitimately occasion the reexamination and possible correction of previous interpretations given to the text" (Article 5).

----------

Footnotes:

[1] I have tentatively accepted the exegetical work of John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, who has written several articles and books on the Old Testament and its ancient Near Eastern background, including his most notable book _The Lost World of Genesis One_ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009). Moreover, I found that his interpretation is beautifully consistent with the overarching temple motif in Scripture argued for by Gregory K. Beale, _The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). See also Peter J. Leithart, _A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament_ (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), and John D. Levenson, "The Temple and the World," _Journal of Religion_, vol. 64 (1984): 275–298.

[2] This limit on the age of the earth is a product of chronogenealogical calculations, from today through Christ to Adam. Given the likelihood of gaps in the genealogical record in Scripture, a bit of room can be tolerated. Since the physical history of the earth began only a few days prior to Adam, it cannot be older than these calculations; but the genealogical record makes it difficult to push it further than fifteen thousand years.

[3] No exegetical case is made for the physical history of the earth being only a few days older than the existence of Adam, either. And I am not talking about whether the days of Genesis 1 were normal solar days, or whether they were contiguous days, or what have you. I think that a good biblical case is made for those points. Rather, the entire young-earth creation paradigm teeters precariously on an assumption which is imposed on the text prior to the work of interpretation and governs the meaning of the text, namely, that "bara" meant to ancient Near Eastern minds (the original author and audience) what "create" means to modern Western minds. That is simply assumed and imposed on the text, and controls the interpretive task—which is not how exegesis is done. Since the entire young-earth interpretation rests upon and is developed from that initial assumption imposed on the text, it cannot be considered either biblical or literal (e.g., see Article 15 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics). Moreover, "The meaning of a passage is not derived from or dictated by the interpreter. Rather, meaning comes from the author who wrote it. _Thus the reader's understanding has no hermeneutically definitive role_" (CSBH, Article 9; cf. WCF/LBCF 1.4, 1.8; emphasis mine). "Any pre-understandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching _and subject to correction by it_" (CSBH, Article 19; emphasis mine). 

Michael D. Marlowe, ed., "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics: With Commentary by Norman L. Geisler," _Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture_. Reproduced from Norman L. Geisler, _Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics_ (Oakland, CA: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983).


----------



## Afterthought (May 30, 2014)

Are you a scientist or a layman? Do you know Hebrew?



Ryft said:


> What this idea proposes is a God whose revelation cannot be trusted, that creation was designed to deceive us, such that general revelation would present a wealth of historical events that never actually happened. Consider sediment layers in lake beds, for example, which produce annual patterns rather like tree rings.


God's revelation in nature is of Himself, not scientific ideas. Further, it is not creation that is doing "deceiving" if (a) a true account was given in the Scriptures and (b) we are drawing conclusions from nature that were not intended on the part of the Creator for us to draw (i.e., that an historical event never happened simply because we cannot understand how it could have occurred in a given time; indeed, this difficulty only arises if one pushes the Scriptures into the study of nature, which is itself questionable). Finally, it can be expected that investigating nature would give conflicting data to what we read in the Scriptures because it was the result of a miracle and was made in a functioning state (along with the probabilistic, empirical, and relative nature of science, and our finite perspective and sinful condition). It is not that we are being deceived by measures of long age but rather the refusal to admit that time is based on a metric, and that according to the clock given in the Scriptures, the absolute time may differ.

So far as historical events go, well, that could be a legitimate point, but it begs the question because the YEC could just as legitimately respond: "I don't know." There are too many factors to take into account, like miracles, in order to say definitely why there are historical events that appear to have taken place too long ago. Some YECs make the case that the events never actually happened because the miracle of Creation requires it; others will say the events are real but make a reasonable appeal to ignorance as to how they came about and how we can observe them.

The superiority of special revelation over our scientific studies should also be taken into account. We have the illumination of the Spirit, appointed teachers, and propositions, among other things.

So far as the hard-line requirement that a new scientific theory be proposed to explain the data or a new Scriptural interpretation, that doesn't take into account our finite amount of knowledge. We can only legitimately change either based on knowledge, and we might not have the knowledge required to change either without compromising the integrity of the field we are changing. I wouldn't want, for example, a flimsy scientific theory to be proposed just because we want to interpret the data in a way that doesn't conflict with our interpretation of Scripture. Nor would I want, for lack of a scientific theory, to be forced to interpret the Scriptures in a new way. It may be better to just admit ignorance and wait things out until we have more knowledge, if that knowledge is even possible to attain.




Ryft said:


> [2] Thus we have a conflict, and one solution is this proposal that the earth was created mature. It may look old but it is actually young, presumably like Adam himself. Again, this is only proposed because of that conflict between the two interpretations of God's revelation in nature and in Scripture. No exegetical argument is ever made for this idea being a conclusion drawn from the text itself. Hence the lack of textual warrant, reducing it to an eisegetical imposition.


This is confusing. Although I suppose some case could be made on the basis of miracles we see in Scripture, even if one could not do so, I don't see the problem. The problem only arises when science and Scripture are brought into each other's domains, and (on the hypothesis suggested) neither tell how to resolve such conflicts. The solution to the connection between science and Scripture will then have to be philosophical, which is expected since there are various views on the philosophy of science, and a view needs to be taken before a connection can be made...if one decides a connection needs to be made at all. So long as the philosophical solution to the problem is not imposed as the teaching of the text (again, on the hypothesis that the text doesn't teach it), I see no problem with solving a philosophical problem with philosophy. And that is why I find this confusing: it comes off as though you are complaining that the YEC tries to solve the problem. (Edit: I see no conflict with the proposed solution and Genesis 1, which is what I understood the OP to mean; but I can see why you might see the OP as asking whether the solution is taught in Genesis 1.)


----------



## pem (May 31, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Are you a scientist or a layman? Do you know Hebrew?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Edward J Young speaks Hebrew and another 29 languages . There is his brief study of Genesis One online free somewhere but my pc wont allow me to view . You'll find it easy and Young is superb on every subject (one of The best American Theologians of his day (1907-1968)


----------



## Ryft (May 31, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Are you a scientist or a layman? Do you know Hebrew?



I am not sure how this would matter, since the credibility of an argument rests on the merits of the case and not on whether I am a scientist or Hebrew scholar. That being said, I am just a simple layman with no academic credentials beyond a high school diploma. I am forced to rely on those who are scholars and experts in the relevant fields of study, both theological and scientific, including those who know Hebrew, for I do not. At any rate, I am a voracious reader and critical thinker who savors piecing together the big picture of God's self-disclosure in general and special revelation.



Afterthought said:


> God's revelation in nature is of Himself, not scientific ideas.



This only tells us that science is a theological field of study, something I firmly believe myself. Given creation being God's handiwork, scientific ideas will inform us about the nature and power of God.



Afterthought said:


> Further, it is not creation that is doing "deceiving" if (a) a true account was given in the Scriptures and (b) we are drawing conclusions from nature that were not intended on the part of the Creator for us to draw ... The superiority of special revelation over our scientific studies should also be taken into account. ... The problem only arises when science and Scripture are brought into each other's domains ... The solution to the connection between science and Scripture will then have to be philosophical ...



I would argue that a person has promoted an improper contest when he pits Scripture against science, or vice versa. Of course a true account is given in Scripture. However, the proper reverse of that coin is that a true account is also given in nature. What God reveals in nature and Scripture is (and cannot be anything but) true. If we are talking about _conclusions drawn from nature_, then the proper reverse of that would be _conclusions drawn from Scripture_. We are either talking about nature and Scripture (God's revelations), or science and theology (our interpretations). It is a fallacy to place science and Scripture in competition, which constitutes a categorical mistake insofar as revelation and interpretation are two entirely different categories.

This is why I said that the young-earth creationist must propose a new interpretation either of general or special revelation. (Of course I am assuming the young-earth creationist agrees, first, that nature is a general revelation from God and, second, that God's revelations will not conflict with one another. That would make any conflict between general and special revelation an artifact of an erroneous interpretation, for what God reveals is itself necessarily impeccable because he is incapable of error.) If the wrong conclusion has been drawn from nature, then the young-earth creationist must draw an alternative conclusion, which of course would constitute a hypothesis that could be rigorously tested (for example, sediment layers are formed daily, not annually; thus lake varves reveal a young earth). On the other hand, he might admit that a wrong conclusion has been drawn from Scripture (the young-earth interpretation), "accepting that it may be what is at fault," as I said.

What he cannot do is presume that a young-earth interpretation is somehow infallible, for it is a human interpretation and we are capable of error. Accepting that it's possible for a conclusion drawn from Scripture to be wrong, he must be willing to subject his young-earth interpretation to a critical reexamination. (And I would suggest that he start by reviewing whether it is even a conclusion drawn from Scripture in the first place—or an interpretation built from an assumption imposed on the text.) If an enormous wealth of conclusions drawn from nature say one thing, and this singular interpretation of Scripture says another, then he must admit that it's at least possible the fault lies with this interpretation. I am reminded of the humorous anecdote about a wife who calls her husband's cell phone to warn him that the news is reporting a wayward car madly driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street. "It's not one car," he exclaims with alarm, "it's hundreds of them!" Maybe, just maybe, it is not the other cars that are at fault. It is at least possible.

The young-earth creationist also cannot shrug his shoulders at the existence of a conflict between what nature and Scripture tells us about the physical history of the earth, especially given the intolerable theological inconsistencies produced thereby. It seems unacceptable that he should sit back and simply hope that perhaps a resolution might be found one day while refusing to reexamine the young-earth interpretation of Scripture for exegetical integrity. (An example of this refusal was found in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye when they were asked what could change their mind. In his answer to that question, Ham could not even acknowledge the possibility that his interpretation could be wrong.) Given that God's revelation is infallible, any conflict between general and special revelation will be the result of an error in interpretation somewhere; and if they are Christological revelations about God (and we agree they are), then any such conflict cannot be unimportant to a Christian. And if there is a consistent stream of data saying one thing, and a single datum saying another, the latter simply must be worth having another look at.



Afterthought said:


> It can be expected that investigating nature would give conflicting data to what we read in the Scriptures ...



First, I strongly disagree. Given the one triune God of truth being the author and preserver of both, a conflict should be unexpected. That is precisely what indicates, and enables us to know, that there is a problem with our interpretation somewhere—that the problem must arise from our interpretation and cannot arise from God's revelation itself. The problem is ours, not his.

Second, if by the miraculous nature of creation you are talking about God bringing everything into material existence in a mature ("functioning") state around the same time that Adam existed, then I would have to point out that this simply presupposes that the young-earth interpretation is not the source of the conflict. But why presuppose that? Is a young-earth interpretation infallible? No. So why approach these issues as if it is? Why not admit that it's at least possible the young-earth interpretation could be wrong? 

The facts of nature are not and cannot be wrong, just as the facts of Scripture are not and cannot be wrong, for they are both Christological revelation from God. If anything is wrong, the error lies on our end. And there is an enormous wealth of facts in nature that demands explanation, such as lake varves and ice core layers recording climate changes, geological records of magnetic pole shifts, supernovae recording galactic events, and on and on. It is possible that this consistent stream of data reveal countless historical events that never happened, or maybe, just maybe, a young-earth interpretation of the facts of Scripture is wrong and these historical events actually did happen. Given the intolerable theological inconsistency resulting from supposing that God reveals countless historical events that never happened (cf. Num. 23:19; Ps. 89:35; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), it seems more sensible to admit that a young-earth interpretation might be wrong. Maybe. Surely it is possible. So before tackling the monumentally difficult task of arguing that all of science is wrong and that these historical events are actually fictions produced by God—and exactly what is the Christological revelation in that?—why not start with the significantly easier task of ruling out exegetically the idea that young-earth creationism is wrong (without begging the very question)?



Afterthought said:


> ... and that according to the clock given in the Scriptures ...



What clock? Or is this still assuming a young-earth interpretation?



Afterthought said:


> Some YECs make the case that the events never actually happened because the miracle of Creation requires it; others will say the events are real but make a reasonable appeal to ignorance as to how they came about and how we can observe them.



Notice that in both cases there is no willingness to admit that a young-earth interpretation might be what is at fault. This is invariably the result of having been misled to think that the conflict is between science and the Bible—like you seem to have been—and they rightly refuse to admit the Bible could be wrong. Obviously the Bible cannot be wrong. But describing the conflict in those terms commits a categorical error. The conflict is not, and has never been, between science (human interpretation) and the Bible (divine revelation), but rather between science and young-earth creationism, two human interpretations of divine revelation. Nature cannot be wrong, any more than Scripture could be.



Afterthought said:


> The superiority of special revelation over our scientific studies should also be taken into account. We have the illumination of the Spirit, appointed teachers, and propositions, among other things.



Let us not too easily forget that the Spirit also illumines the Christian scientist's understanding of general revelation, insofar as all divine revelation coincides in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom and for whom all things exist, in whom and by whom all things hold together. Such men and women are likewise appointed in the church as accountable teachers. (And here, too, you exhibited the same categorical error, pitting revelation against interpretation. Nevertheless, divine revelation is self-evidently superior to human interpretations thereof, including general revelation.)



Afterthought said:


> We can only legitimately change either based on knowledge, and we might not have the knowledge required to change either without compromising the integrity of the field we are changing.



The issue is not about changing any field of study, but about changing an interpretation that exists within a field of study—and employing the principles and methods appropriate to that field of study (i.e., exegetical hermeneutics and methods with respect to special revelation, and scientific hermeneutics and methods with respect to general revelation), keeping in mind that in either case we are engaged in a theological pursuit.



Afterthought said:


> Nor would I want, for lack of a scientific theory, to be forced to interpret the Scriptures in a new way.



Forget theory for the moment. What about in the presence of extensive scientific evidence? Would that change anything on that question? Could you be compelled to interpret the scriptures in a new way by such observable facts as lakes exhibiting tens of thousands of years worth of sedimentary layering, or ice core layers recording climate events for hundreds of thousands of years? Or would you still refuse, and insist that it's those things which need reinterpreting? (If not even that could compel you, then what do you make of Article 20 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics? Do you disagree with Bahnsen when he says that such facts "may legitimately occasion the reexamination and possible correction of previous interpretations given to the text"?)



Afterthought said:


> I see no conflict with the proposed solution and Genesis 1, which is what I understood the OP to mean; but I can see why you might see the OP as asking whether the solution is taught in Genesis 1.



I understood the original post to be asking whether the solution holds up in light of Genesis 1. And my answer was no, for it is neither warranted by the text nor consistent with the theology.


----------



## Peairtach (May 31, 2014)

I think it would be inevitable with something created by miracle fully-functional, that there would be unusual questions about its age.

E.g. if scientists tested the wine at Cana would they have found it to be a few hours old, or would they have held that it took months to develop by natural processes? Would there have been the classical features of age in wine?

How the various aspects of this problem are resolved is the debate between YEC and OEC.


----------



## Afterthought (May 31, 2014)

Ryft said:


> I am not sure how this would matter


It doesn't for the argument. I was just curious.



Ryft said:


> This only tells us that science is a theological field of study, something I firmly believe myself. Given creation being God's handiwork, scientific ideas will inform us about the nature and power of God.


There is little point in responding to most of the rest as it assumes (a) General revelation on the same level as Special and (b) scientific data is stuff that God reveals. I don't agree with the premise, which is why you believe me to be making categorical errors. Indeed, I wonder whether it is actually a categorical error to refer to general revelation as "infallible," since it is non-propositional (and also a category error to refer to nature as true or false--nature just is); but I guess it depends on whether one refers to the things revealed or the things by which the things are revealed. For the first, it is generally conceded that general revelation is not as clear as special revelation (it is "general" in content, not specific; it is understandable by all men; it is non-propositional; the noetic effects of sin cause us to misunderstand it more than special--I'm not entirely sure why or how, but this is what is generally held), and we require special revelation to rightly interpret general revelation. I don't see in Scripture anywhere that scientists are appointed by God to interpret general revelation, nor that God promises the Holy Spirit to help scientists find the equations of nature. There are many other ways special revelation is superior: to name three others, the methods of science are entirely man made; the interpretations are also entirely man made with an element of human imagination inevitable because nature is propositionless; and Christ guides and leads the Church concerning the understanding of the Scriptures. You will have to prove this. If you wish to prove it by saying scientific fields are theological fields of study, prove that instead.

For the second, you will need to prove God reveals scientific facts. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where that is the case, and much is against it because scientific facts are not accessible to all, nor understandable by all, and are very specific. Scientific facts might (one may have a differing philosophy of science) reveal God, but God does not reveal scientific facts.

As noted, the entire argument rests on this premise (that levels the authority of science and theology; and Scripture and nature; and reduces interpretations of Scripture to as man made and imaginative as those of science), and I don't know if I have time to continue arguing it. Given the length of your post, it is clear you have more time and motivation to argue it. I could appeal to our Reformers' views of general revelation and special revelation, but that isn't the same as arguing by myself. The rest of this post is just answering your questions and clearing up misunderstandings.




Ryft said:


> Second, if by the miraculous nature of creation you are talking about God bringing everything into material existence in a mature ("functioning") state around the same time that Adam existed, then I would have to point out that this simply presupposes that the young-earth interpretation is not the source of the conflict. But why presuppose that? Is a young-earth interpretation infallible? No. So why approach these issues as if it is? Why not admit that it's at least possible the young-earth interpretation could be wrong?


I was presenting it as a solution to one convinced of the young earth position. If one believes the Scriptures teach a young earth (even after re-examining it, if they wished), then one will naturally assume its truth in presenting a solution to a difficulty. "Faith seeking understanding." While the interpreter is fallible, the thing that is interpreted is infallible, so one could just as well say they might be wrong about the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the abiding validity of the Ten Commandments as the moral law, etc. I can't pretend to understand how certainty and the truth of Scripture are supposed to tie together, but I sometimes wonder whether we shouldn't admit we could be wrong except as a bare possibility (although this may need qualification depending on the clarity of passages and the work one already did in examining the Scriptures). At any rate, if Scripture and science are tied together, we will forever be uncertain about what the Scriptures teach on Creation, and I don't see how that is consistent with the thing being interpreted being infallible.

However, having said all that, most if not all of the old earth theories I've encountered that purport to be literal interpretations of the text run into the same problem of conflict with modern science, and while I haven't mused enough on it, some of those conflicts could still result from other parts of the miraculous nature of Creation. Indeed, the historic doctrine of Creation from nothing contradicts modern science, which most orthodox, literal old earth theories hold (although some believe the text says nothing about it and God re-organized chaos). The best modern science can do in coming close to that is give us "laws" that existed eternally. So my comment here might apply more broadly than I had initially intended.



Ryft said:


> It is possible that this consistent stream of data reveal countless historical events that never happened, or maybe, just maybe, a young-earth interpretation of the facts of Scripture is wrong and these historical events actually did happen.





Ryft said:


> Notice that in both cases there is no willingness to admit that a young-earth interpretation might be what is at fault.


I don't know if I was clear on the matter, but as a proposed solution from the YEC standpoint, one can say the events may have happened (it depends on one's philosophy of science, but regardless, the science can only reach probability), and there is no way without speculation to figure out how they could have happened, so a reasonable appeal is made to ignorance. The other solution that the events did not happen also requires serious consideration because it is claimed to follow from the mature creation viewpoint.



Ryft said:


> What clock? Or is this still assuming a young-earth interpretation?


I'm proposing the solution from a young earth standpoint. The clock that scientists measure is based on things that are already functioning. It is based on things in Creation that are relative to each other. The clock I was referring to here is the absolute one that runs from the Creation of the world and that is seen in the Scriptures. If one measures the same thing by two different metrics, one will naturally get a different result.



Ryft said:


> Forget theory for the moment. What about in the presence of extensive scientific evidence? Would that change anything on that question? Could you be compelled to interpret the scriptures in a new way by such observable facts as lakes exhibiting tens of thousands of years worth of sedimentary layering, or ice core layers recording climate events for hundreds of thousands of years?


Scientific evidence requires theory in order to present such things as facts. It thus requires two interpretations: one of the evidence in order to generate "facts" and secondly of the "facts" in order to categorize them into general theories and laws. Regardless, I don't think the Scriptures and science are speaking to the same domain, and they use different methods, so I would not be compelled to interpret the Scriptures (or science) in a new way, although I might run a double-check on my and the Church's exegesis at some point (the scientific process takes into account contradiction and falsification, so I would just continue along as ordinary for it).



Ryft said:


> Or would you still refuse, and insist that it's those things which need reinterpreting? (If not even that could compel you, then what do you make of Article 20 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics? Do you disagree with Bahnsen when he says that such facts "may legitimately occasion the reexamination and possible correction of previous interpretations given to the text"?)


As I tried to get at in my paragraph, I would say that neither requires reinterpreting because firstly, I don't believe science and the interpretation of Scripture are on the same level. Indeed, while I'm not sure how to distinguish it precisely, it seems odd to separate one's "interpretation" of Scripture very far from the Scriptures themselves, which is one reason why I deliberately kept comparing the two throughout my initial response. And then secondly, even if one believed they were on the same level, there are other considerations that might keep one from reinterpreting. It may be the case that (1) there are not enough facts to solve the problem without speculation in either the exegetical realm or the scientific realm. Following "Faith seeking understanding," that means clinging to one's understanding of the Scriptures even if a difficulty cannot be resolved immediately. "Seeking understanding" means trying to resolve the difficulty, but it simply might not be possible with one's current state of knowledge. Consider, for example, earlier Christians who might have had difficulty with YEC when compared to the Greek view of the universe as ancient. Or who might have had a difficulty with matter being good due to the philosophy of the time. Or Creation ex nihilo because "from nothing, nothing comes." For those early Christians who held to YEC, it wasn't until Walton and others conducted ANE studies that this difficulty could be resolved (on your view). Does that mean they should have interpreted the Scriptures in a Greek way, even though doing so means doing violence to what they considered acceptable in Scripture interpretation? I submit that it does not. (Similar examples could be generated for the scientific realm)

(Edit: You might say that the Greek evidence wasn't enough. I don't know whether that takes into account the epistemology of the masses that would have made such views attractive and credible, even as the epistemology of today's masses makes scientific views attractive and credible. It might, but it might not; I just don't know. I don't have time to think of another example, so I guess it's good that I'm simply answering your questions and clarifying, not arguing.)

(2) As James C. Maxwell noted, the interpretation of Scriptures changes slowly while science changes quickly, and it would be a sorry thing for a speculative theory to be attached to the Scriptures, which will then remain attached long after science has abandoned it. Building on his thought, one should be very hesitant in general to reinterpret the Scriptures in light of new scientific data or theories because of how slowly Scriptural interpretations change. Hence, reinterpretation of the Scriptures might not always be immediately the best idea. Unlike with (1) though, this would not stop the re-interpretation of science, which is something I am also against.

As for Bahnsen and the Chicago Statement, I do not claim to be skilled in this area, and it is a question I have asked on the board on several occasions. (One of the lengthier threads is in "General Revelation Interpreting Special") I never received a precise answer to the matter, perhaps because no precise answer exists. Perhaps someone else can answer your question about the exegesis of Genesis 1 and the hermeneutical question you raise. At the very least, one would have to be very careful in examining one's previous interpretations and not treat these interpretations as being on the same level with this evidence that occasioned the re-examination. And the re-examination should be standard exegesis, i.e., "What does this text say?" rather than "Could the text read in this way?" I think I might say (though I'd love for one of our skilled pastors or theologians to correct me on this) that these extra facts might legitimately occasion the re-examination, but it is not a requirement because the Scriptures and science do not belong to the same domain. Otherwise, our pastors will have to keep up with modern science in order to understand Scripture and will probably be re-examining their interpretations quite a bit, which seems rather odd.


----------



## Ryft (Jun 2, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> There is little point in responding to most of the rest as it assumes (a) General revelation on the same level as Special and (b) scientific data is stuff that God reveals. I don't agree with the premise, which is why you believe me to be making categorical errors.



No, that is actually not why I believe you made a categorical error. Even if you disagreed with me that God is the author of both general and special revelation, [1] you nevertheless made the common categorical error of presuming a contest between *science* (human interpretation) and *Scripture* (divine revelation). On the one hand, it seems self-evident that God's revelation and our interpretation thereof are categorically different things. I could explain the why and how of this difference, but it strikes me as odd that I would need to. (And science is our human interpretation of general revelation, which is not even the same kind of divine revelation as Scripture and thus makes the categorical difference run deeper still.) On the other hand, science is never in the business of interpreting Scripture in the first place, further underscoring that the contest is not about picking "either" science "or" Scripture. If we consider both the categorical difference between interpretation and revelation and that God is the author of general and special revelation, this supposed either–or choice between science and Scripture can be seen as neither legitimate or even real. 

Personally, and consistent with a Reformed systematic theology, I choose to worship the one triune God of both general and special revelation; moreover, I believe not only that interpreting nature without Scripture is a dangerous error, but also that interpreting Scripture without nature is too. (For example, this is what allows us to argue that those scriptures which speak of the sun moving about the earth were not attesting timeless astronomical facts but were written in phenomenological language consistent with an ancient Near East cosmology.) It seems to me a form of rebellion to give due proper attention to one revelation from God but not the other; in other words, just as it is sinful for scientists to do their work without taking seriously what Scripture tells us, so it is sinful for exegetes to do their work without taking seriously what nature tells us. This is not to say that nature and Scripture are divine revelations of the same nature or kind; clearly they are not, and Scripture is a superior revelation to nature (at least on my view). But both revelations are from God and ought to be taken seriously as a God-ordained system of checks and balances, constraining both our exegesis and our science from running amock, and equipping us to rightly understand what God has wrought (given a redemptive-historical framework of Christological divine self-disclosure). That is, we not only "require special revelation to rightly interpret general revelation," as you said, but we also require general revelation to rightly interpret special revelation—otherwise every Christian who asserts that the earth is roughly spherical and orbits the sun is contradicting Scripture, for example, as are those who assert that thinking and feeling are functions of the brain, and so on.

"I don't see in Scripture anywhere," you said, "that scientists are appointed by God to interpret general revelation." I certainly hope this was a disingenuous retort, for it would be anachronistic to expect Scripture to mention a professional vocation that did not exist until nearly two thousand years after the close of canon. Scientists, as understood in contemporary vernacular, were a product of the modern era, around the time of the Reformation.



Afterthought said:


> I wonder whether it is actually a categorical error to refer to general revelation as "infallible," since it is non-propositional ...



Perhaps one could make that argument, but I have my doubts as to its success. What God reveals is indeed infallible—and certainly propositional in the sense of Rom. 1:20 and Ps. 19:1-4 (cf. Rom. 10:18) and so forth, nature everywhere and always proclaiming the wisdom and power and faithfulness of God—and it is infallible because God is incapable of error, being neither incompetent nor deceptive, with no part of creation being autonomous. If God sovereignly governs the weather and seasons, including disasters, if he controls our conception and development in the womb, if the random outcome of tossed dice or shot arrows is decided by him, if his sovereign power has established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth, if not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from his will, [2] then general revelation proceeds from the providential hand of God and is thus infallible, if we take seriously what Scripture reveals about his nature and character. (And we have the most solemn responsibility of interpreting general revelation rightly, which involves taking Scripture seriously as authoritative). I would look forward to you explaining where a categorical error might be committed here, although that is perhaps best suited to a separate thread.



Afterthought said:


> ... and also a category error to refer to nature as true or false—nature just is) ...



I simply cannot agree with you. I believe that all of creation is a Christological revelation from God, [3] that no part of nature operates independent of God (autonomous), [4] and that God is the essence of truth itself; given these particular beliefs functioning in a systematic theology, it is thus inconceivable to me that nature "just is." That sort of error belongs to naturalistic thinking and can stay there, if you ask me (and you didn't). If it has a theocentric revelational function, then it is logically consistent to recognize it possesses this epistemic virtue (i.e., truth value).

This is also why there are troubling and deep theological inconsistencies—even on a young-earth creationist view—in supposing that God reveals events as if they happened but never actually did. Think about the consistent testimony of tree rings, lake varves, and ice layers regarding the seasonal patterns and climate events across tens of thousands of years, all recorded in these scientific data we can analyze and corroborate. This is the sort of thing that God predicates his covenant faithfulness upon (Jeremiah 33:24-26; cf. vv. 20-21, "Only if you people could break that covenant could my covenant ever be broken"). To say that tens of thousands of years worth of predictable regularity in seasonal patterns is a fiction, that none of these events actually happened, is to render it unreliable as a testimony of God's covenant faithfulness. Furthermore, what would it say about God, that he would predicate his covenant faithfulness on a history of nature's law-like regularity that turns out to have never happened? (God has known from all eternity that we would end up reading nature's testimony.)

No, what we find in nature is real and true, for the Author of general revelation cannot lie or speak falsely (cf. Psalms 19:1-4), keeping in mind that nature is not in any way autonomous, for all things were created through him and for him who is before all things and in whom all things consist (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 4:11; Prov. 16:4). "For from him and through him and to him are all things" (Rom. 11:36). I can understand why some are inclined to deny that what we observe in nature is general revelation from God, and thereby avoid ascribing truth value to it, or why others are inclined to suppose that creation operates largely independent of God, whose miracles intervene when needed. But I cannot agree with those who are so inclined, for that is not consistent with the God revealed by Christ and recorded in Scripture.



Afterthought said:


> At any rate, if Scripture and science are tied together, we will forever be uncertain about what the Scriptures teach on Creation ...



Only if one adopts a concordist principle, which should never be adopted at any rate.



Afterthought said:


> Most if not all of the old earth theories I've encountered that purport to be literal interpretations of the text run into the same problem of conflict with modern science ...



Whatever conflicts might exist between old-earth views and modern science are not relevant to the intolerable theological inconsistencies that arise from supposing that God reveals events as if they happened that never actually did, which a young-earth view is alone in supposing. In order to get God off the hook, as it were, one must further suppose that nature does not constitute revelation from God or that nature in some way or other operates independent of God; all such so-called "solutions" like these ultimately shipwreck an otherwise self-consistent Reformed systematic theology. There just comes a time when it makes sense to reexamine our interpretation of Scripture, such as when it becomes too plainly evident that the earth is shaped more like a ball than a coin, or too plainly evident that nature reveals a long history of events going back much further than a young-earth interpretation can tolerate. "If this is what nature consistently tells us, then have we in fact interpreted Scripture rightly? There is one Author of both general and special revelation who surely will not conflict with himself."

Yes, a young-earth creationist could admit that these historical events happened but confess he has no idea how to explain the existence of several hundred thousand years worth of seasonal patterns and climatic events in a world that is only ten thousand years old, more or less. But what he cannot do, I would argue, is adopt a mature creation view which supposes that God reveals events as if they happened that never actually did. Nothing in Genesis 1 warrants such a supposition, and a Reformed systematic theology militates against it.



Afterthought said:


> ... it seems odd to separate one's "interpretation" of Scripture very far from the Scriptures themselves ...



I am not sure why that should seem "odd." Our interpretation is ours and God's revelation is his, and the ontological chasm between Creator and creature constitutes a radical and categorical distinction. It should not seem odd to separate our fallible interpretation from his infallible revelation.


----------
Footnotes:

[1] God being the author of both general and special revelation is the only sense in which they are "on the same level" and that "scientific data is stuff that God reveals" (to quote your expressions). That does not somehow mean they are of the same nature or kind—arguably special revelation is of a different and superior nature—but they are on the same level, as you put it, given that they are both authored and preserved by God's powerful Word. For example, consider Psalms 19:1-4 which says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness. There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth; its words carry to the distant horizon" (NET). That is what it means to say that God is the author of scientific facts or data—i.e., what we observe in nature (which certainly is accessible to all). But he is not the author of our human interpretations thereof, including our theories. Again, there is that categorical difference between his revelation and our interpretation.

[2] Scriptural references can be provided for these and much more like them, every one of them showing that God is behind everyday facts of nature.

[3] Given a post-Barthian supralapsarian doctrine of creation (_creatio continua ex electione_).

[4] For me, creation and nature are interchangeable terms. Additionally, my perspective is captured succinctly in this quote from Gary North: "God did not create a self-sustaining universe which is now left to operate in terms of autonomous laws of nature. The universe is not a giant mechanism, like a clock, which God wound up at the beginning of time. Ours is not a mechanistic world, nor is it an autonomous biological entity, growing according to some genetic code of the cosmos. Ours is a world which is actively sustained by God on a full-time basis (Job 38–41). All creation is inescapably _personal_ and _theocentric_. ... If the universe is inescapably personal, then there can be no phenomenon or event in the creation which is independent from God. No phenomenon can be said to exist apart from God's all-inclusive plan for the ages. There is no uninterpreted brute factuality. Nothing in the universe is _autonomous_ ... Nothing in the creation generates its own conditions of existence, including the law structure under which something operates or is operated upon. Every fact in the universe, from beginning to end, is exhaustively interpreted by God in terms of his being, plan, and power." _The Dominion Covenant: Genesis _(Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1982), pp. 1–2.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 2, 2014)

I'll only respond to what seems relevant to the main area of disagreement. There are three of them that I can detect: (1) whether science is an interpretation of general revelation (or similarly, whether God reveals nature to us in addition to revealing Himself through nature), (2) whether science and Scripture both speak absolutely, and (3) whether interpretation of Scripture is on the same level as interpretation of Creation. As previously noted, I am not sure how to argue concerning (3) because while I believe interpretation of Scripture is above interpretation of Creation, I am not sure where the line is to be drawn in bringing our interpretations of Scripture near to the Scriptures themselves. Since I am still working on (2) for myself, I'll just go for (1), although at least (2) and (3) will need to be asserted together in order to alleviate your concerns with letting science contradict one's interpretation of Scripture, which you view as sin (I'm still fine framing it as science vs Scripture, provided the "vs" is understood properly, and I don't see how one could rightly frame one's duty if such a sharp separation between interpretation and Scriptures exists, nor rightly characterize it as revelation, since special revelation is meant to be understood and bridge the gap between creature and Creator, but I'll try to watch my language for the sake of the argument).



Ryft said:


> Even if you disagreed with me that God is the author of both general and special revelation,


This is not the area of disagreement. I disagree that scientific facts are general revelation in the sense of what is revealed. I have some doubts about how exactly science is a human construct, so I am not sure how much scientific facts could be considered to reveal God, but I still don't see where scientific facts are the content of general revelation. The content of general revelation is concerning God, as Psalm 19 and Romans 1 show. God does not reveal to us things that we interpret as climate changes in ice cores or Newton's laws or chemical bonds, but instead, God reveals to us Himself in nature. That is what I am claiming.

If you have argued for scientific facts being part of the content of divine revelation, I'm not sure I quite get it, but here it goes. Firstly, since I don't believe Creation is the content of general revelation, I will henceforth refer to it as creation or nature, unless the argument demands otherwise. So as a counter to your claim, if one views creation (well, one's interpretation of creation; creation doesn't tell us about climate changes and supernovae information that occurred over long periods of time; our interpretations of creation according to an empirical framework consistently tell us that) as a check and balance to the Scriptures, then I don't see how theology can remain the queen of sciences. I would agree creation is needed to some extent in understanding the Scriptures, but if it comes in, it should come in as a hand-maid, not as something that controls or demands a new interpretation of Scripture. (Whether geocentrism is taught by the Scriptures is debatable, in my opinion, and I personally lean in favor of it; and the other examples don't seem to require scientific knowledge to understand the Scriptures' true teaching on the matter, although I'm not the best interpreter of those places and so will need to leave them to others.)

Also, where can one find that general revelation, properly understood (e.g., God's being, nature, and power), is meant to check our interpretation of Scripture? I thought one reason for the Scriptures was to help us understand general revelation, which is no longer clear to us without the Scriptures. If general revelation is not as clear, then I fail to see how it will be helpful in controlling our understanding of what the Scriptures say concerning general revelation (since only the intersection of content between the Scriptures and general revelation could possibly be helped by general revelation).

As another counter to what seems to be your argument, if the Scriptures are superior revelation to general revelation (now using your meaning of general revelation), then general revelation cannot check and balance it because it is not the nature of an inferior to check and balance the superior.

But for all this, the most important thing is that the Scriptures that speak of general revelation do not speak of nature being the content of that general revelation. Creation is only seen as the means towards revealing God.



Ryft said:


> "I don't see in Scripture anywhere," you said, "that scientists are appointed by God to interpret general revelation." I certainly hope this was a disingenuous retort, for it would be anachronistic to expect Scripture to mention a professional vocation that did not exist until nearly two thousand years after the close of canon. Scientists, as understood in contemporary vernacular, were a product of the modern era, around the time of the Reformation.


I was being sincere. The Scriptures have God appointed interpreters, where are the God appointed interpreters of general revelation? I would think one would expect to find out who they are in the Scriptures, yet I don't see anything in them that would apply in our modern day context to understand scientists as those God appointed interpreters.



Ryft said:


> It seems to me a form of rebellion to give due proper attention to one revelation from God but not the other; in other words, just as it is sinful for scientists to do their work without taking seriously what Scripture tells us, so it is sinful for exegetes to do their work without taking seriously what nature tells us.


Our interpretation of what nature tells us, you mean, of course. But it should be noted that not all exegetes are capable of understanding modern science. That means they would have to rely on testimony without having the faintest ability of being able to tell whether it is true or not. But exegetes can only teach what they can be sure is true and is the very Word of God. I don't see how such exegetes can relieve their consciences if they have not ability to check (to some extent) for themselves the results of modern science, and all the more so, be able to be sure when it is clear that modern science can and has changed, only giving a probability.



Ryft said:


> what we observe in nature (which certainly is accessible to all)


No it isn't. Not all can observe what Western scientists have observed or have access to what Western scientists have had access to. And in terms of content, it simply is not accessible to all to understand the mathematical representations that give long ages. These things are specific and analytic, requiring much training to access. So I think my initial objection that much is against scientific facts being part of the content of general revelation still stands.



Ryft said:


> I would look forward to you explaining where a categorical error might be committed here, although that is perhaps best suited to a separate thread.


I'd rather stick with discussing the claim that scientific facts are interpretations of general revelation and so are revealed by God in the same sense that Scriptural facts are interpretations of special revelation and so revealed by God. However, since you expressed interest, I was thinking along the lines of: In order to have a truth value, something needs to be a claim/proposition. Nature/Creation in themselves have no truth value, since they are not propositions/claims. Propositions/claims related to nature/creation can only be generated by scientific investigation. Since nature has no truth value, it cannot be said to err/be capable of error or not err/incapable of error.


----------



## Ryft (Jun 3, 2014)

This line of discussion you wish to pursue is deviating from the concern of the original post, so my response to you will take the form of a new thread.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jun 3, 2014)

Ryft said:


> Given creation being God's handiwork, scientific ideas will inform us about the nature and power of God.


I would caution on the use of the language that general revelation informs us of the "nature" of God. The nature of God is revealed to us by means of Special Revelation, not General revelation.


----------



## Ryft (Jun 3, 2014)

I appreciate and support your concern, Ben, but rest assured that I meant nothing more or less than what Scripture itself declares: "For his invisible attributes, namely, _his eternal power and divine nature_, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 3, 2014)

Ryft said:


> This line of discussion you wish to pursue is deviating from the concern of the original post, so my response to you will take the form of a new thread.


No need for that. I was only going to go one more round, so the new thread would only have one reply from me. We can let it rest, or you can write up your reply in this thread, and we can let it rest there.


----------



## Dying_Daily (Jun 3, 2014)

Brandt said:


> My question is that I once heard a theory (maybe when I was in seminary) that stated that when God created the Earth, he could have created it with age in it, much in the same way that he did not create Adam as a baby, but as a man. I'm not sure what I think about that, but I want to ask those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, do you think that theory holds up to Genesis 1? Thanks.



I would agree with others that this is probable, given that we have explicit biblical examples of God creating things with age, but there is much that will remain a mystery. Perhaps God will reveal these things more fully to us in heaven.


----------



## Free Christian (Jun 3, 2014)

Dying_Daily said:


> I would agree with others that this is probable, given that we have explicit biblical examples of God creating things with age,


I agree with that as in Genesis 2 vs 11 to 12 we read about gold and precious stones being there. We know that gold and precious stones are deposited, but at first they are locked up in the host rock. As I read it I understand the gold and precious stones would have been visible to see, deposited, or should I say created that way.


----------



## Ryft (Jun 6, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> [One area of disagreement regards] whether science and Scripture both speak absolutely ...



Only God speaks absolutely, and he does so through divine revelation—which science is not. Science is a human interpretation of divine revelation and, as a human interpretation, even at its best it cannot speak absolutely, only analogically. But then science never purports to speak absolutely at any rate. Consult practically any scientist and he or she will admit quite readily that science is tentative and provisional, which any scholar should likewise admit about his or her exegesis. It is only divine revelation that speaks absolutely, for only God is both transcendent and immanent, his divine wisdom and purpose capturing every reference frame. No human interpretation ever speaks absolutely.

Persistently forcing a contest between science and Scripture is a categorical error that will make coherence impossible. [1]



Afterthought said:


> I am not sure where the line is to be drawn in bringing our interpretations of Scripture near to the Scriptures themselves.



On my understanding of things, our interpretation of Scripture is brought in closest proximity to special revelation from God—most accurately corresponds to God's intended meaning—when it conforms to accountable exegetical principles and methods. (This is why an interpretation that is predicated and developed from an assumption that has been imposed on the text is neither biblical nor literal, insofar as it is a violation of those principles and methods.) Similarly, our interpretation of creation is brought in closest proximity to general revelation from God, that is, it most accurately corresponds to God's intended meaning, when it conforms to accountable scientific principles and methods. [2] Ergo, scientific conclusions are not properly true; they approximate truth (i.e., probabilistic), produced by a discipline that is self-constrained by the limits of its competence; and practically any scientist will admit as much. 

However, my view treats science in the context of theology, the queen of the sciences, so that it is subservient to and respects the Creator–creature relationship. (An extensive presuppositional argument gets inserted here, especially regarding the folly and futility of unaided human reason.) Hence, godless presuppositions are rejected as sinful products of rebellion, just as they are rejected when it comes to interpreting this or that biblical text. Although people like Richard Dawkins can enjoy the fruits of scientific research in a universe that is rationally comprehensible, they will forever be at a loss to account for it so long as they suppress the truth in denying the Creator which it endlessly testifies about. [3]

I would further argue that exegetical conclusions are not properly true either, being at best probabilistic approximations of truth to the extent that they conform to sound principles and methods of exegesis. What is true is God and his revelation (particularly the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ), to which our interpretation is never identical, nor could it ever be. As someone else said, our interpretation of either general or special revelation inherently lacks a transcendent reference frame and is therefore never complete, always approaching but never reaching truth (by which I mean that it is inherently analogical). Recognizing our creaturely limitations protects against idolatry, accepting that God alone is true. We submit to God and his word, as should our interpretation. (My motivation here is to assiduously avoid even the appearance of idolatry, insisting that all glory and honor belongs to God. He alone is true, and our efforts at obedient knowledge at best approximates truth. What we must never do in our handling of Scripture is set ourselves in the place of God, making our interpretation the standard of what is true or not, which is tantamount to eating from the wrong tree.) [4]



Afterthought said:


> ... special revelation is meant to be understood and bridge the gap between creature and Creator ...



So is general revelation, Raymond. For example, Romans 1:18-21. The words are so familiar that it is possible to miss the profound significance of what is being said, but give it a careful read. The testimony of creation ought to not only be understood—and it is (v. 21)—but likewise bridge the gap between creature and Creator, albeit not savingly. What it testifies about God is plain to all, for it is God who makes it plain and he does so through what has been made.



Afterthought said:


> I disagree that scientific facts are general revelation in the sense of what is revealed.



I suspect this might be due to your particular understanding of what "scientific facts" are (whatever that understanding might be), which probably differs notably from mine since you were able to disagree. On my view, a scientific fact is simply a fact of creation [5] discerned by scientific principles and methods. So everything we understand empirically about the nature of grass, how it grows and how it converts energy and its function as a food source for animals and so on, such things are scientific facts and service a theological body of knowledge. And Scripture seems clear that such things are general revelation from God, such as Psalm 104:14, for example: "You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth" (ESV; cf. 147:8). Even such mundane scientific facts like this constitute general revelation. Incidentally, from Psalm 104 to Job chapters 38 through 41 and elsewhere in Scripture, the consistent testimony is that the facts of nature are the acts of God. Consider also the numerous scientific facts comprising what we know about embryology, from conception to fetal development and everything involved. Again, scientific facts as general revelation from God, just as the Spirit inspired the psalmist to declare: "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psalms 139:13–16, ESV). Creation is general revelation because no part of creation either exists or operates independent of God (autonomous). [6]

By itself, isolated from any larger context, it may seem a bit of a stretch to say this or that scientific fact is divine revelation, but that applies to any number of passages in Scripture, too. For example, this sentence by itself, isolated from any larger context, is difficult to grasp as special revelation about God: "And Moses said to Korah, 'Be present, you and all your company, before the LORD, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow'" (Num. 16:16, ESV). That is special revelation about God? Yes, but it must occupy a larger body of text to be meaningful and understood as special revelation—the verses before and after and the relevant passages elsewhere that speak to it, a context which reveals something about God. (This is why proof-texting is so susceptible to errors.) [7] That orphaned sentence practically demands to be understood in a larger context; and when it is, its function in a systematic theology becomes a bit clearer. Same thing applies to scientific facts, on my view, which are difficult to see as divine revelation when they are individualized and isolated orphans. But theology is not an orphanage; properly speaking, theology functions as a systematic whole. A collection of disparate facts or propositions is neither systematic nor functional.



Afterthought said:


> God does not reveal to us things that we interpret as climate changes in ice cores or Newton's laws or chemical bonds, but instead, God reveals to us Himself in nature. That is what I am claiming.



I know. And I had responded to that claim, which has been left ignored. Psalm 19:1–4 (cf. Rom. 10:18) makes it clear that creation is propositional revelation from God, leaving all men without excuse, and Psalm 104 and numerous texts throughout Scripture make it clear that the facts of nature are the acts of God. Another example? Behold the starry night sky. What do those countless stars and galaxies tell us about God? They tell us of a Creator incomparable in wisdom and almighty in power (Isaiah 40:25–26). I shall put it this way: The fault lies with one's interpretation if one is unable to understand something in creation as revelation from God, for all of creation is Christological revelation.

When we discover ancient climate events in ice core layers, we are observing the historical activity of God across hundreds of thousands of years, for it is he that sends the snow and spreads the frost (Ps. 147:16; cf. Job 37:6; 38:22); fire and hail and snow and clouds and storm winds carry out his orders, we are told (Ps. 148:8), giving us good reason to think that includes volcanic activity. What is recorded in creation is the activity of God across all space and time, testifying of his wisdom and power and faithfulness. What would it say about God and his trustworthiness if he should predicate his covenant faithfulness knowingly on a fictional track record, one which had never actually occurred—and also knowing that one day we would read that record? Maybe he inserted these things in creation to test our faith? But an endless laundry list of problems with that thinking, too.



Afterthought said:


> Creation doesn't tell us about climate changes and supernovae information that occurred over long periods of time ...



That's one possible interpretation, sure, although biblically it is an utterly implausible one.



Afterthought said:


> [If one views general and special revelation as a God-ordained system of checks and balances], then I don't see how theology can remain the queen of sciences.



Theology is the queen of the sciences because of the Creator–creature relationship, such that reality is exhaustively interpreted by God. Since general and special revelation are both Christological self-disclosure from God, everything is ultimately theological. Therefore every system and body of knowledge is ultimately about God—or should be, but man is persistently rebellious. (In addition to my rejection of dividing creation into a natural and supernatural dichotomy, I agree with Augustine who rejected the secular and sacred dichotomy. "For Augustine there is no secular, non-religious sphere as construed by modernity," James K. Smith pointed out. "There is only paganism or true worship.") Moreover, God is the final and authoritative interpreter of creation; it is through his enscripturated special revelation that the Spirit exposes the redemptive-historical hermeneutic through which all of creation is to be understood (given that creation and redemption coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be and holds together). Thus all human interpretation, from our exegesis to our science, should take that seriously and submit to being regulated by divine revelation.



Afterthought said:


> I would agree [that] creation is needed to some extent in understanding the Scriptures, but if it comes in, it should come in as a hand-maid, not as something that controls or demands a new interpretation of Scripture.



So divine revelation should not regulate human interpretation? That seems very wrong. Scripture is revelation from God, right? Yes. So one ought to pay attention to, and take seriously, its consistent message that all of creation is divine revelation. Right? Again, yes. It should be clear why one divine revelation should regulate human interpretation of another divine revelation. [8] Our interpretations must submit to the authority of God and his revelation, both special and general, a God-ordained system of checks and balances.

(For what it is worth, I would argue that geocentrism is not taught in Scripture. Although it is the assumption of many texts, it is never itself explicitly taught in Scripture; and it is assumed only because that was the cosmology of the author and audience of the time. What is being explicitly taught in Scripture just so happens to transcend our cosmology, too, just as it did theirs, for the nature and structure of creation is simply not the point; the wisdom and power and faithfulness of God is and always has been.



Afterthought said:


> I thought one reason for the Scriptures was to help us understand general revelation, which is no longer clear to us without the Scriptures.



Romans 1:19, "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (cf. v. 20–21). The knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation is not clear to anyone apart from what the Spirit reveals through Scripture, but general revelation is so clear to all that it leaves everyone without excuse (WCF 1.1).



Afterthought said:


> ... (since only the intersection ... between the Scriptures and general revelation could possibly be helped by general revelation).



Indeed, which is why in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_ Augustine said that if we are manifestly wrong about things where general and special revelation intersect, people will find it rather difficult to believe us when we talk about things pertaining to special revelation. If we get general revelation demonstrably wrong, the clearest of divine revelation, then how can someone trust that we got special revelation right, which consists of ancient languages understood only by relevant scholars? (It must be remembered that the inspired witness was the original Hebrew and Greek texts, which has been translated—an act of interpretation—into the common language of the people of God, such as the English Standard Version.)



Afterthought said:


> If the Scriptures are superior revelation to general revelation (now using your meaning of general revelation), then general revelation cannot check and balance it because it is not the nature of an inferior to check and balance the superior.



An assertion, not an argument, and one which I must reject because I take the position that human interpretation should submit to divine revelation as authoritative.



Afterthought said:


> Not all can observe what Western scientists have observed or have access to what Western scientists have had access to.



Yes, they can. Anyone can make the same observations and access the same data—given they are fully able-bodied persons (and not blind, for example). If some Old Testament scholar from a third-world country without a functional and funded scientific community wants to confirm the evidence for himself, the scope of creation that is accessible by modern Western science and technology is available to him. From any number of laboratories and experiments, to a host of observatories and galaxies, to numerous museums and fossils, and so forth, it is all accessible. It costs money to travel and in some cases permission is required first, but it is all accessible. Or one can access the data through trusted sources that render the specialized language into the vernacular. A similar situation follows for special revelation: one can learn the original Hebrew and Greek and, if possible and at a cost, examine the oldest extant manuscripts, or one can access it through trusted sources that render it into the vernacular. There are sources that disagree and interpret the revelation differently, but then our concern shifts backwards to examine the principles and methods of interpretation—and this applies to both special and general revelation.

----------
Footnotes:

[1] "[It is helpful to frame the contrast as] 'science and theology.' It is common in these discussions to talk instead of 'science and the Bible,' and while our concern in this book is that our theology be truly biblical, the terms 'science' and 'Bible' are not parallel. Science can be understood as a method, an institution, or a body of knowledge. In this it is parallel to 'theology' rather than to 'Bible.' Science is a method or institution that investigates nature, and it is also the body of knowledge that results from this study. Theology (at least, biblical or exegetical theology) is a method or institution that investigates the Bible, and also the resultant body of knowledge. Theology studies God's special revelation in Scripture, while science studies God's general revelation in nature. If biblical Christianity is true (as I believe), then the God who cannot lie has revealed himself both in nature and in Scripture. Thus, both science and theology should provide input to an accurate view of reality, and we may expect them to overlap in many areas." Robert C. Newman, _Three Views on Creation and Evolution_, eds. J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), p. 117.

[2] And the supreme authority to which our interpretation of creation is accountable is God and his word recorded in Scripture.

[3] The unbeliever is able to enjoy the fruit of intellectual achievement only because he is borrowing, without recognizing it, the Christian ideas of creation and providence, which grounds the intelligibility and validity of such things as induction; thus he makes positive contributions to science in spite of his godless principles, not because of them.

[4] "We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ." John M. Frame, _The Doctrine of God_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), p. 303.

[5] "Creation" is constituted by everything that is not God, the familiar Creator–creature distinction.

[6] "If we are ever to approach scientific problems in the spirit of Christian theology, we must, at the risk of paradox, declare that the common distinction between the natural and the supernatural is unreal and misleading. There are not, and cannot be, any divine interpositions in nature, for God cannot interfere with himself. His creative activity is present everywhere. There is no division of labour between God and nature, or God and law. If he thunder by law, the thunder is yet his voice. The plant which is produced from seed by the 'natural' laws of growth is his creation." Aubrey Moore, _Science and Faith_ (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1889), p. 225.

"There is no concept of a 'natural' world in ancient Near Eastern thinking. The dichotomy between natural and supernatural is a relatively recent one. ... The Israelites, along with everyone else in the ancient world, believed instead that every event was the act of deity—that every plant that grew, every baby born, every drop of rain and every climatic disaster was an act of God. No 'natural' laws governed the cosmos; deity ran the cosmos or was inherent in it. There were no 'miracles' (in the sense of events deviating from that which was 'natural'), there were only signs of the deity's activity (sometimes favorable, sometimes not). The idea that deity got things running then just stood back or engaged himself elsewhere (deism) would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable. ... There is nothing 'natural' about the world in biblical theology, nor should there be in ours." John H. Walton, _The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate_ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), p. 20. There is no dichotomy between natural and supernatural in Scripture; the only dichotomy of which it speaks is between the Creator and the created.

[7] This is the _analogia scriptura_ principle. Grant R. Osborne, _The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 11.

[8] Scripture should regulate human interpretation of creation, and creation should regulate human interpretation of Scripture.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 6, 2014)

Thank you for being clear about your position, even the shocking portions that are nevertheless required for consistency. There are too many assumptions (which we disagree on) that we both are making about science, theology, general revelation, exegesis, and even on the validity of a secular-sacred distinction that are causing us to largely speak past each other to no effect, and I'm not sure I am skilled enough yet to pull a point of argument from your views to avoid speaking past each other and to argue productively (The disagreements in assumptions are so deep that sometimes it seems like neither of us are actually listening to what the other is saying.). At least, I'm not sure how to do it without building slowly and surely, and that is something I don't have the time for. As I said I would do, I leave it to rest for now. Maybe again sometime in the future.


----------

