Age of the Universe

[Brian Withnell]

I for one am not convinced that Augustine denied the traditional view. To quote Matthew Winzer from another lengthy creation thread:


In the City of God, Bk11 (and his sermon on Ps 67), he espouses what we consider the traditional view, along with a "young earth" chronology, following Eusebius. In his commentary on Genesis 1, he seems to argue for an instaneous creation and an allegorical approach to explaining/presenting the work of creation in Gen 1. It may be that we just don't have enough information to nail Augustine down, or it may be that Augustine shifted or was unclear himself regarding his view. The other problem is that people who try to rally Augustine's support for a non-literal view are not adopting an Augustinian cosmology either, which is clearly a young earth cosmology. And for Augustine, it is likely that the lines between his historical and allegorical interpretations were probably not so distinct as we would hold today, because the historical events could have an allegorical purpose for him as well.



He stopped on day 7 because the week was done. Plus there's some typology going on too, as indicated in Hebrews. Then he moved into a differently structured narrative with a different purpose. But it was the same Moses who wrote in Ex 20:11 that it was in fact created in 6 days and that God rested the seventh day. He interprets himself, and both accounts occur in narratives not poetry.

The problem of "plants" is resolved in at least two ways:
First, they were days of ordinary length, not days of ordinary providence. The same God who created light from nothing has no problem sustaining his plants for a few hours without sun or rain.
Second, it says there was no "plant of the feild", not "no plants at all." The fact that “it had not yet rained” and there was “no man to till the ground” are indications of a time before the curse when man ate from the fruit trees rather than tilling the ground to eat the "plants of the field," which after the Fall man was required to do (Gen 3:17-18).

Yes, there is a different focus in the narratives, but neither is figurative. In Gen 2, the chronology is not stressed. Note how many times Adam is "put in the garden". The structure of the narrative is changed in focus. It assumes the creative activity of Gen 1. It doesn't need to explain those details further, but instead is unfolding all those relevant details in how they relate to God's special dealings with Adam. There is no contradiction when the intent and context of the narratives are considered, just as there are no true contradictions between the 4 Gospels despite clear differences in their carefully constructed presentations of Christ’s earthly ministry. Just because you tell a story differently on two occasions, doesn't mean that one version is figurative and one is not. It means you are fashioning the details of each version to communicate what you think is relevant for your audience to know about the event.

I've already commented on Augustine above. But, in order to interpret the passage figuratively, you have to have some indication in the original language that it should be interpreted that way, and there is none. It's not poetry because there is no parallelism. Every indication in the Hebrew grammar screams historical narrative. You have the waw conversive used frequently (narrative trademark), you have parameters for the days, the days are numbered (always indicating ordinary days in Hebrew). And Moses says it was 6 days of work with a seventh of rest in Ex 20:11, grounding our duty in God's own historic example. I don't know what else you need to kill a figurative interpretation.

I agree with you about the supernova stuff. If it happened it happened. I don't think God created a fake supernova or created any light not corresponding to actual events. My objection to the naturalistic explanations about astronomical events is from the simple fact that from our little sliver in the universe, they are making huge assumptions about "age," how the universe works and has always worked, all without any scientific verification which they so arduously claim is needed to prove anything. The simple fact is that God has intervened and altered properties in the universe on multiple occasions (i.e. miracles), including global climate change, and even messing around with the sun and stars. We don't know the ripples that such activity has caused, and how that should affect our interpretation of general revelation. And even in science, with all the research in relativity, light, and gravitation, the paradigms keep shifting and are unreliable. Yet, special revelation has always been clear.

Sorry a little long...

I don't mind it being long. But I think you missed the point in several cases.

The point with Augustine is not that his view was necessarily correct, but that he held to a figurative view. If a figurative view was plausible to Augustine, then it certainly was NOT related to a scientific OE theory. If he had reason to think a figurative interpretation was possible, it is without merit to say the only reason to think a figurative interpretation only occurs because of general revelation. I use his "instantaneous" theory not to say he was correct on all things, but to destroy the false argument that the only reason to hold to a figurative interpretation is compromise of scriptures because of science. It is my hope that that argument is forever gone as it is not only false, but insulting to those that hold to figurative meaning without bowing the knee at the alter of science.

The point with plants, rain and man is that the reasons given in Gen 2 for their not existing. From an examination of Day 2, it appears all the plants were created at that point, yet in Gen 2 God had not and Moses specifies the reason for them not yet existing. So either additional creation occurred out of the order specified in Gen 1, or Gen 1 is not a chronology. While I see that you state Gen 2 is not the chronology, Gen 2 seems to be more concerned with chronology to me that Gen 1.

The two times that the account states that man was placed in the garden appear to me to be bracketing a paranthetical description ... much like what we would do if we stopped a narrative, related a small set of details that are important, but not part of the narrative, and then resumed. In order to have the parenthetical not disrupt the flow, we restate where we were and then continue.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but there are those that have examined Gen 1 in the report to the PCA GA that were. (FYI, I tend to hold to option C for the original intent of the divines in the section relating to "in the space of six days".) The argument that there is nothing of poetical in Gen 1 seems to be contradicted in it. If nothing else, if it were prose, it is highly structured and the argument that it just followed the chronology of a structured creation seems convenient rather than convincing. Even if the grammar is not in parallel, the logical constructs are without doubt parallel.

One thing that I may be using inconsistent with "terms of art" in relationship to the body of Gen 1 ... when I say it is "figurative" I mean that it is not a chronology, but a logical ordering. I don't know if "figurative" is the best term for that, but what I mean by figurative is that it isn't six 24 hour days in chronological order. Much of what we see in the gospels appears in what looks like chronological order, but viewing one from another and the orders don't always match (which is not to say any of them are inaccurate in what they say as much as how the author chooses to say it).

I'm not willing to say that the six days are literal 24 hour days in chronological order as I don't think the text supports it. What I do say is that it was in a logical sense 6 days, and that God created ex nihilo.

In any case, thank you for the analysis. It was probably the best I've seen so far ... even if I disagree with the result.

Just as a side question ... do you think that at least some of the resistance to a non-literal view is out of rejecting anything that comes close to supporting evolution? I can appreciate Christians wanting to oppose evolution any way they can, but evolution is such a poor theory from even a mechanistic secular point of view, that it should almost be ignored (other than to point out the total absurdity of it from a secular mechanistic point of view -- origin of life is essentially impossible, even with a billion chances/second for 14 billion years). But that is

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 06:59:45 EST-----

Okay, I'm gonna settle this once and for all-

The only person(s) who can say how old the universe is is someone that knows the universe's birthday. And, since no one on this thread seems to know when the universe's birthday is, y'all might as well give up now and save some face.

Theognome

Does that mean that because I wasn't around when a particular tree started growing in a forest, that I cannot make any approximation of the age of the tree?

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 07:12:52 EST-----

... Was God accomodating to what was already believed/said by Abraham, etc? Was God using a metaphor? Was He describing things as they happened to tell us that He did take six literal days to create? Those before Moses seem to have known about and held to the seven day week, which is the only unit of time that comes from special revelation rather than general revelation, unlike days, mo(o)nths and years.

I am not saying (I cannot answer for anyone else) that Genesis is mythological. I would argue against that vociferously. Historical figurative (maybe that is a new term, but it "fits" my view ... it is relating what happened, but not necessarily in order, but ... relationally? not sure what word to use, so I use figuratively).

 

[Peairtach]

If it was generally believed among the patriarchs, including e.g. Adam and Noah and Abraham, and by Moses and the children of Israel, that they had six days for work, rest, play and worship, and one day devoted to rest and worship, and that this was because God had told them that He had created on six days and rested on the seventh, was not this falsehood on God's part?

If Christ makes the finest wine in a moment and presents it to the ruler of the feast, that is not falsehood unless Christ indicates that it took ages to make by natural processes. If Christ said He had made it in a moment and we insisted that it must have taken ages, is that not an expression of unbelief - not total unbelief, but unbelief at that point?

If God fills and forms the unfilled and unformed world in Six Days and yet it appears as if - by natural processes - it would have taken donkey's years, that is not a lie unless He tells us it took donkey's years.

 

[Brian Withnell]

It was not until the 19th century and the old earth geologists that the Church at large began interpreting Genesis as figurative. I find it hard to believe that the Church for the thousands of years prior had to wait for the geology of the 1800s to get it right.

I'm only going to point you to what I think is a clear showing of Augustine interpreting the Gen 1 as figurative, I've found it online with CCEL.org (I highly recommend them btw, a wonderful group) and reading online is free, but the reference you might want to read is here:

NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

In any case, the thing that you might want to consider is that he might not agree with what I make of the passage, but he certainly talks of the days as not being like the ones we experience. This is just one page from The City of God and Christian Doctrine, you might want to look at the whole of the section. It is obvious to me that Augustine did not view the six days as literal 24 hour days. That was long before the 19th century....

 

[brianeschen]

It was not until the 19th century and the old earth geologists that the Church at large began interpreting Genesis as figurative. I find it hard to believe that the Church for the thousands of years prior had to wait for the geology of the 1800s to get it right.

I'm only going to point you to what I think is a clear showing of Augustine interpreting the Gen 1 as figurative, I've found it online with CCEL.org (I highly recommend them btw, a wonderful group) and reading online is free, but the reference you might want to read is here:

NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

In any case, the thing that you might want to consider is that he might not agree with what I make of the passage, but he certainly talks of the days as not being like the ones we experience. This is just one page from The City of God and Christian Doctrine, you might want to look at the whole of the section. It is obvious to me that Augustine did not view the six days as literal 24 hour days. That was long before the 19th century....

I thought there might have been one . . . that's why I said the "church at large." I don't believe the position was widely held until the 19th century.

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

Yup, I agree, all God tells us is that they were days.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The point with Augustine is not that his view was necessarily correct, but that he held to a figurative view. If a figurative view was plausible to Augustine, then it certainly was NOT related to a scientific OE theory. If he had reason to think a figurative interpretation was possible, it is without merit to say the only reason to think a figurative interpretation only occurs because of general revelation. I use his "instantaneous" theory not to say he was correct on all things, but to destroy the false argument that the only reason to hold to a figurative interpretation is compromise of scriptures because of science. It is my hope that that argument is forever gone as it is not only false, but insulting to those that hold to figurative meaning without bowing the knee at the alter of science.

I understand you're trying to defend the pedigree of non-literal interpretation. But you need to understand the can of worms you're opening hermeneutically by doing that. As I understand it, Augustine was more open to interpreting Scripture allegorically, a pattern which I'm not sure you would like to follow, in other passages.

The point with plants, rain and man is that the reasons given in Gen 2 for their not existing. From an examination of Day 2, it appears all the plants were created at that point, yet in Gen 2 God had not and Moses specifies the reason for them not yet existing. So either additional creation occurred out of the order specified in Gen 1, or Gen 1 is not a chronology. While I see that you state Gen 2 is not the chronology, Gen 2 seems to be more concerned with chronology to me that Gen 1.

I'm not sure how you can say Gen 1 is not concerned about chronology, when the days are actually numbered (again, only used of ordinary days), and Moses again states they were days in Ex 20:11. The Sabbath is chronological important isn't it?

The two times that the account states that man was placed in the garden appear to me to be bracketing a paranthetical description ... much like what we would do if we stopped a narrative, related a small set of details that are important, but not part of the narrative, and then resumed. In order to have the parenthetical not disrupt the flow, we restate where we were and then continue.

Yes, that is correct. And that is also what's occurring with the comments about the plants and animals in the passage. They are portions summing up other actions, and being restated in their relevant position to Adam's covenantal position before God. And again, the "plants" mention in Gen 2 are very specific terminology, the "plant of the feild" and "tilling the ground" are terms which aren't picked up again until the curse in Gen 3:17-18. They are signals to the original audience that this was a time before the curse.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but there are those that have examined Gen 1 in the report to the PCA GA that were. (FYI, I tend to hold to option C for the original intent of the divines in the section relating to "in the space of six days".) The argument that there is nothing of poetical in Gen 1 seems to be contradicted in it. If nothing else, if it were prose, it is highly structured and the argument that it just followed the chronology of a structured creation seems convenient rather than convincing. Even if the grammar is not in parallel, the logical constructs are without doubt parallel.

Every Hebrew scholar knows it's not prose. It's the tight structure that leads them to question the otherwise clear historical narrative trademarks. But almost all Hebrew historical narratives are structured, some more so than others. I'd encourage you to read John Currid's commentary on Genesis, and also his book on Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Very helpful works not only on Gen 1-2 but also on other interesting OT texts.

One thing that I may be using inconsistent with "terms of art" in relationship to the body of Gen 1 ... when I say it is "figurative" I mean that it is not a chronology, but a logical ordering. I don't know if "figurative" is the best term for that, but what I mean by figurative is that it isn't six 24 hour days in chronological order. Much of what we see in the gospels appears in what looks like chronological order, but viewing one from another and the orders don't always match (which is not to say any of them are inaccurate in what they say as much as how the author chooses to say it).

I'm not willing to say that the six days are literal 24 hour days in chronological order as I don't think the text supports it. What I do say is that it was in a logical sense 6 days, and that God created ex nihilo.

How do you know God created ex nihilo? If it's not a historical narrative, then what about it is historical? When the normal rules of grammar don't apply anymore, (even after Moses repeats it was 6 days) then what do you use? And how do you decide? Once you say it's not history, then you've lost your moorings, and you can really make the passage say (or not say) anything you want.

In any case, thank you for the analysis. It was probably the best I've seen so far ... even if I disagree with the result.

For further reading, I would again suggest Currid above, but also Doug Kelly's Creation and Change (the exegetical portions, not necessarily the scientific portions, though they are interesting reading). Others could suggest more.

Just as a side question ... do you think that at least some of the resistance to a non-literal view is out of rejecting anything that comes close to supporting evolution? I can appreciate Christians wanting to oppose evolution any way they can, but evolution is such a poor theory from even a mechanistic secular point of view, that it should almost be ignored (other than to point out the total absurdity of it from a secular mechanistic point of view -- origin of life is essentially impossible, even with a billion chances/second for 14 billion years). But that is

Rejecting evolution is part of it, not only because the theory itself is absurd logically and scientifically, but because it's the theory of evolution, and more specifically, naturalism, which usually forms the foundation for criticizing the traditional reading.

But also I think (and this is just me) that most of this debate over Gen 1 is rising from a more general concern among conservatives and Reformed people over the importance of clear language. The devastation of post-modernism in the realm of language has woken up a lot of Christians to see the importance of clear language and authorial intent. When words are otherwise clear, and someone comes along and says they mean something else entirely, people get suspicious and the Clintonian warning flags are raised. Christians are tired of liberal trojan horses and confusion. They want clarity when they read their Bibles and are tired of teachers who cut and paste and redefine the Scriptures whenever it suits them (not accusing you of this btw). They've seen the same patterns over and over again in denomination after denomination; deny the historicity of Genesis, bit by bit, eventually lose the other historically problematic Scriptures like the gospel of John... until we're no longer a Christian religion. Christians want certainty, and when you re-interpret an otherwise clear Scripture, Christians get uneasy. But again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Brian Withnell]

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

Yup, I agree, all God tells us is that they were days.

Ah, the exact position I take.

I really appreciate the PCA committee work on creation ... in the "intent of the divines" section, the third choice is the one that I believe is true ... the divines stated exactly the same words as scripture without pushing toward anything more or less, so that as we might learn more of the intent of God in the words of Moses we would not have something that would need to be changed. Like you said, God tells us they were days ... and while we can guess as to what they might have otherwise been, it is pure conjecture.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Patrick,
When the text says that God created the sky "between the waters, separating the water above from the water below", what does that mean -- literally? Is there a cosmic ocean?

I'm not sure. I've always read it to be a distinction between the primeval oceans and the sky (I believe the same word is used in Ps 19:1 in reference to the sky). Regardless of what the phrase may mean, it doesn't change the grammar of the passage.

In Genesis 7, when "the windows of the expanse/sky were opened" and "the great springs of the deep broke forth", are we to understand from that that, as the ancients certainly did, that we have ocean above and ocean below? I'd love to read Genesis 1 literally. I'm just struggling to do so.

So you question the historicity of Gen 7 too? Great springs of the deep seems easy enough, we still geyers and springs today. As for the "windows of heaven," I'm not sure. I'll have to study the Hebrew later and get back to you when I have the time. Perhaps there was some sort of water canopy as some alleged before the flood, perhaps it was a supernatural phenomenon only associated with the flood judgment, or perhaps it was just a Hebrew idiom for "it rained a lot" kinda like we say "raining cats and dogs." How else would you describe the torrential rainfall if you didn't have modern metiorology to give you the modern vocabularly? The ancients knew the rain came from the sky somehow. We still don't understand all the intricacies of rainfall today. Just because a word or phrase is difficult to translate into modern English, it doesn't change the grammatical structure of the whole passage.

 

[chbrooking]

Just a minor correction: Genesis 1 is prose.
I say it is a minor correction, because it doesn't really affect this discussion. The question goes to structure and intent, not to the linguistic artifice.

What has still not been adequately dealt with, In my humble opinion, is the difficulty you face when you take a literal interpretation. How will you handle the upper waters in the text? If you take them as a cosmic ocean, then you're forced to recognize that this was condescending to an ancient cosmology -- in which case, you are hard-pressed to read this literally. If you take them as a vapor canopy or something, then YOU are the one using natural revelation as a hermeneutical grid for special. As I said, I'm not sure that's a problem. But it is ONLY because we 'know better' that you would go there. There's nothing in the text that would indicate that this is anything BUT liquid water in the heavens.

 

[dr_parsley]

I should have the faith to say that the bible is totally infallible and the humility to say that my interpretation may not be. In the weight of logic and evidence, if one of those has to fall down, then it's my faith in my interpretation not my faith in the bible being infallible. Suppose evidence was very strongly towards an old universe, then I would rather humble myself and say that my interpretation seemed to be in error than give a witness that the Christian faith is irrational and prideful. The bible is infallible and correct throughout, my interpretation is far from being so. If I disregard the empirical evidence on the basis of my interpretation then my motivation for doing so would be 100% pride (in my intellect and faith).

Now some say the evidence is not there or that I'm looking at the evidence with eyes of unbelief, but one needn't look at evidence with unbelief or belief - one can assess the evidence impartially and (again without a-prior presuppositions) consult the witness of the church through history (which contained wiser and more intelligent men than I).

In my opinion, the widespread adherence to 144 hour creation 6000 years ago is not conservative - it is a recent (post Enlightenment) phenomenon. Longer term conservatism would take a more balanced view.

 

[Theognome]

Okay, I'm gonna settle this once and for all-

The only person(s) who can say how old the universe is is someone that knows the universe's birthday. And, since no one on this thread seems to know when the universe's birthday is, y'all might as well give up now and save some face.

Theognome

Does that mean that because I wasn't around when a particular tree started growing in a forest, that I cannot make any approximation of the age of the tree?

What it does mean is that y'all are taking this a bit too seriously, and a sprinkling of humour was needed. Apparently, it was not completely effective.

Theognome

 

[Brian Withnell]

Patrick,

First thanks. I do appreciate your well thought out posts, even if I don't agree with what you are posting. I am sure you are posting clear reasons for what you hold. And I think you are seeing what I am saying. The whole point of the Augustine thing was as you say, questioning the label "traditional interpretation" and the argument that figurative only came up very recently.

I also appreciate that you, even if you don't agree with the evaluation that the structure in Gen 1 is poetry of some kind, you see it as not straight prose. I almost get the feeling that some people won't acknowledge anything lest it give any credibility to a different interpretation than what they hold. I understand you don't find it convincing, but at least you acknowledge what I have seen and read:

Every Hebrew scholar knows it's not prose. It's the tight structure that leads them to question the otherwise clear historical narrative trademarks.

While I understand you don't think there is enough there to make Gen 1 a figurative historical passage, at least I'm hearing an acknowledgement that there is a structure that calls into question the "it is nothing more than a historical narrative" that it seems like some imply. Honesty in evaluation is much more likely to convince someone of your position that just ignoring the weak points of the position one takes. I really do appreciate the integrity you demonstrate.

I also appreciate the caution in approaching what might be implied by the position I've taken ... and expressing it clearly is so much more useful than trying to hit someone with a sledgehammer to get them to change their opinion, and then if it doesn't work, leave them without addressing any weaknesses in thought. For example, your bringing up "how do you know God created ex nihilo" not only gives you an argument for support of your position, but if I am not convinced, it makes me think through the position I've taken.

BTW, for that particular doctrine, I never thought of Gen 1 as the main passage of scripture for support of it ... I've always thought the primary basis for that doctrine was John 1 ... maybe because I've embarked a couple of times on attempts to learn Greek and translated it, and seen what I believe is that doctrine so clearly taught there. Yet I would also say that even if one doesn't take Gen 1 as a historical narrative, that is, if it is in some way a figurative passage, that does not in any way change the fact that it certainly communicates that God created all that we find. Sort of like people arguing for a purely figurative interpretation of the Song of Songs, and saying that it really doesn't say anything about marital love, but only the love of Christ for the church ... even if it is an extended allegory, the basic meaning is still there as well. Even if Gen 1 is looking at creation from a non-chronological view, it still is showing that God created. You cannot have something figurative in scripture without the figure itself being true.

I'll have to see if I can get a copy of Currid to read.

I suppose I'm a fish out of water more often than not with the current "have to fight against ______" mostly because I try to (sometimes with more or less success) to approach Bible study like I would mathematics. While I understand the nature of combating error, I try to look at the axioms, what the full range of interpretation has been, and then go for what I think best fits the axioms.

But again, I do want to thank you for your obviously well thought out reasons. At least at this point I don't reach the same conclusion, but at least now I can understand a better rational than fighting against evolution or mechanistic secularism (totally inadequate basis for interpretation).

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 01:46:44 EST-----

Okay, I'm gonna settle this once and for all-

The only person(s) who can say how old the universe is is someone that knows the universe's birthday. And, since no one on this thread seems to know when the universe's birthday is, y'all might as well give up now and save some face.

Theognome

Does that mean that because I wasn't around when a particular tree started growing in a forest, that I cannot make any approximation of the age of the tree?

What it does mean is that y'all are taking this a bit too seriously, and a sprinkling of humour was needed. Apparently, it was not completely effective.

Theognome

Ah, now I see. The humor did not come through (which is often the case in text messages, and the reason for emoticons in what were originally BBS messages ... and yes, this nerd actually used a BBS system in the late 70's early 80's.) ;-)

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Patrick,
First thanks. I do appreciate your well thought out posts, even if I don't agree with what you are posting. I am sure you are posting clear reasons for what you hold. And I think you are seeing what I am saying. The whole point of the Augustine thing was as you say, questioning the label "traditional interpretation" and the argument that figurative only came up very recently.

Thanks for the interaction. I know the issues are hard to wrestle with. I guess I've wrestled with them and already know where I stand. But as I concluded my last post, I don't think the battle over Gen 1 is an isolated issue, but part of a broader issue over the use of language and the implications such has for the gospel.

I also appreciate that you, even if you don't agree with the evaluation that the structure in Gen 1 is poetry of some kind, you see it as not straight prose. I almost get the feeling that some people won't acknowledge anything lest it give any credibility to a different interpretation than what they hold. I understand you don't find it convincing, but at least you acknowledge what I have seen and read:

Every Hebrew scholar knows it's not prose. It's the tight structure that leads them to question the otherwise clear historical narrative trademarks.

While I understand you don't think there is enough there to make Gen 1 a figurative historical passage, at least I'm hearing an acknowledgement that there is a structure that calls into question the "it is nothing more than a historical narrative" that it seems like some imply. Honesty in evaluation is much more likely to convince someone of your position that just ignoring the weak points of the position one takes. I really do appreciate the integrity you demonstrate.

I can fully acknowledge the structure of the passage yes. But I cannot agree it is poetry. There is simply no poetic structure there. Structure for Hebrew narrative does not mean non-historical. That's simply the way they recorded their history. We need to remember, that for most of the original audience, they did not possess the Scriptures on their own. They learned through hearing it read. They were written originally in that way to be heard and easily remembered, and passed along orally, thus the need for repititions, word plays, chiasms, and all the other structures we see in Hebrew narrative. With Gen 1, it was probably even more so, in order to teach the children from a very young age how God created the world, and how it was so much more majestic than the competing cosmogonies of their pagan neighbors.

Even if Gen 1 is looking at creation from a non-chronological view, it still is showing that God created. You cannot have something figurative in scripture without the figure itself being true.

This is an implications I would suggest you think through even more so. For OT narratives, theology and history were not seperate. God taught theology through historical acts. If you take a historical narrative and remove the historical situation in which it appears to present itself, then you lose the very foundation you need to actually learn the theology from the event. You can make it say anything after that (think Bultmann...). That's why I asked you the question about creation ex nihilo. Yes, there are other passages which teach it, but if you re-interpret the only detailed account of the creation event that we have, then that has implications for how we understand all the later references to creation.

I'll have to see if I can get a copy of Currid to read.

I think you will enjoy him, or at least appreciate him. He used to be a Framework guy, then later in life moved back to the traditional view, and I learned much from him in seminary.

I suppose I'm a fish out of water more often than not with the current "have to fight against ______" mostly because I try to (sometimes with more or less success) to approach Bible study like I would mathematics. While I understand the nature of combating error, I try to look at the axioms, what the full range of interpretation has been, and then go for what I think best fits the axioms.

That is fine. I approach Scripture in the same way. But we are also 21st century American thinkers, and must take into account the cultural air we breathe. It affects us in ways that we are often not aware, especially as to what interpretation may best fit how we understand the axioms. We all have those hidden axioms that need to be sanctified.

But again, I do want to thank you for your obviously well thought out reasons. At least at this point I don't reach the same conclusion, but at least now I can understand a better rational than fighting against evolution or mechanistic secularism (totally inadequate basis for interpretation).

I appreciate the interaction too. You are asking good questions which make me think as well. Thanks.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 03:56:04 EST-----

Just a minor correction: Genesis 1 is prose.
I say it is a minor correction, because it doesn't really affect this discussion. The question goes to structure and intent, not to the linguistic artifice.

What has still not been adequately dealt with, In my humble opinion, is the difficulty you face when you take a literal interpretation. How will you handle the upper waters in the text? If you take them as a cosmic ocean, then you're forced to recognize that this was condescending to an ancient cosmology -- in which case, you are hard-pressed to read this literally. If you take them as a vapor canopy or something, then YOU are the one using natural revelation as a hermeneutical grid for special. As I said, I'm not sure that's a problem. But it is ONLY because we 'know better' that you would go there. There's nothing in the text that would indicate that this is anything BUT liquid water in the heavens.

Again, just because a word or phrase is hard to translate, it doesn't change the structure of the whole passage which is clearly historical narrative. If by prose you mean a well-structured account, I can accept that. If by prose, you mean a poetic or figurative account, then I cannot agree it is prose. The Hebrews had writing conventions for that and we find examples in the Psalms and wisdom books. The structure simply doesn't fit Hebrew poetry.

 

[Theognome]

Does that mean that because I wasn't around when a particular tree started growing in a forest, that I cannot make any approximation of the age of the tree?

What it does mean is that y'all are taking this a bit too seriously, and a sprinkling of humour was needed. Apparently, it was not completely effective.

Theognome

Ah, now I see. The humor did not come through (which is often the case in text messages, and the reason for emoticons in what were originally BBS messages ... and yes, this nerd actually used a BBS system in the late 70's early 80's.) ;-)

I am the antiemoticon. If I can't express myself in text properly, then I deserve to be misunderstood.

Theognome

 

[HanleyBri]

When we are speaking about an all powerful God creating - we must remember that there is nothing outside his power whereby even the light from distance stars can be stretched across space in a moment. It not reasonable to say this would be deception. Many miracles recorded in the New Testament - looked like it was done over time or by some other means - but that wasn't the case. Mary looked pregnant. She LOOKED like it was the result of sexual activity - however it was not. Jesus turned water into aged wine - it LOOKED like months or year were needed in the creation of this wine - but there was not. It LOOKED like there was plucking and fermentation done on this grapes, but there was not. When God decides to push aside laws of nature - this is not deception - but proof of God’s vast power over His creation.

 

[LawrenceU]

I'm late in this thread. One issue that troubles me greatly is when we presume the following:
1. The earth must be old because it 'looks' old:

Why do we say it 'looks' old? Because we've been trained to think it looks old. All those layers of rock. All those hydrocarbons. They take millions of years to lay down and be formed. They don't. They can be formed in weeks. We have now watched it happen.

2. If God created to earth to look 'mature' then he is deceptive. (First, who defines deception? Puny man or Almighty God.):

Aside from that using the same logic it was deceptive for God to create mature, cooked / dried fish and bread to feed all those folks. It was deceptive for him to create wine. (The only wine in history that didn't need to ferment.)

 

[Peairtach]

Are there not yet going to be great surprises for (unbelieving) scientists?

Were they not surprised to find many fully-formed galaxies much closer to the "big bang" than they thought likely when they did that Ultra Deep Field picture with the Hubble telescope?

View attachment 616

 

[chbrooking]

Just a minor correction: Genesis 1 is prose.
I say it is a minor correction, because it doesn't really affect this discussion. The question goes to structure and intent, not to the linguistic artifice.

What has still not been adequately dealt with, In my humble opinion, is the difficulty you face when you take a literal interpretation. How will you handle the upper waters in the text? If you take them as a cosmic ocean, then you're forced to recognize that this was condescending to an ancient cosmology -- in which case, you are hard-pressed to read this literally. If you take them as a vapor canopy or something, then YOU are the one using natural revelation as a hermeneutical grid for special. As I said, I'm not sure that's a problem. But it is ONLY because we 'know better' that you would go there. There's nothing in the text that would indicate that this is anything BUT liquid water in the heavens.

Again, just because a word or phrase is hard to translate, it doesn't change the structure of the whole passage which is clearly historical narrative. If by prose you mean a well-structured account, I can accept that. If by prose, you mean a poetic or figurative account, then I cannot agree it is prose. The Hebrews had writing conventions for that and we find examples in the Psalms and wisdom books. The structure simply doesn't fit Hebrew poetry.

By prose, I meant to affirm that it was NOT poetry.


Prose
1 a: the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing b: a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech.

By this comment, I was not contributing to the material of the discussion, so much as correcting a rash statement that you made:

Every Hebrew scholar knows it's not prose.

This simply isn't true.

-----Added 6/28/2009 at 08:38:55 EST-----

Folks, I have been trying to get clarity on two things. I have not taken an autonomous view of science.

I'm trying to understand how we are to understand Gen. 1:6-7.
I'm trying to understand how God can give every indication that something happened that didn't without being guilty of deception (which is impossible). We must be careful, in our zeal to defend special revelation, not to set special and general revelation against one another. They are complementary, not competitive. It is only because I have submitted to special revelation that I demand consistency between general and special revelation. It is the same God who is revealed in both forms. God doesn't lie to us in nature and then let us in on the game in scripture.

It is for this reason that I think the attempts to point to Mary's pregnancy or the miracle at Cana are inappropriate. These are by definition miracles. They are out of the ordinary. They are more about special revelation than general. Are we to assume the miraculous in our science? I don't think I want to get on a plane where the engineer designs a flat wing and expects it to fly, just counting on the miraculous. Are you saying that our senses are totally untrustworthy -- even for the believer?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Just a minor correction: Genesis 1 is prose.
I say it is a minor correction, because it doesn't really affect this discussion. The question goes to structure and intent, not to the linguistic artifice.

What has still not been adequately dealt with, In my humble opinion, is the difficulty you face when you take a literal interpretation. How will you handle the upper waters in the text? If you take them as a cosmic ocean, then you're forced to recognize that this was condescending to an ancient cosmology -- in which case, you are hard-pressed to read this literally. If you take them as a vapor canopy or something, then YOU are the one using natural revelation as a hermeneutical grid for special. As I said, I'm not sure that's a problem. But it is ONLY because we 'know better' that you would go there. There's nothing in the text that would indicate that this is anything BUT liquid water in the heavens.

Again, just because a word or phrase is hard to translate, it doesn't change the structure of the whole passage which is clearly historical narrative. If by prose you mean a well-structured account, I can accept that. If by prose, you mean a poetic or figurative account, then I cannot agree it is prose. The Hebrews had writing conventions for that and we find examples in the Psalms and wisdom books. The structure simply doesn't fit Hebrew poetry.

By prose, I meant to affirm that it was NOT poetry.


Prose
1 a: the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing b: a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech.

By this comment, I was not contributing to the material of the discussion, so much as correcting a rash statement that you made:

Every Hebrew scholar knows it's not prose.

This simply isn't true.

I appreciate the correction. I meant poetry there, as I understood prose to refer to fictional or poetic composition instead of history. Thank you, and sorry for my rashness.

 

[Skyler]

While thinking today, I realized that the true age of the universe has been right in front of our eyes the whole time.

42!

And if you think you have memories from before then, well, that's just because it was a mature creation. *nods*

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Clark
It is for this reason that I think the attempts to point to Mary's pregnancy or the miracle at Cana are inappropriate. These are by definition miracles. They are out of the ordinary. They are more about special revelation than general. Are we to assume the miraculous in our science? I don't think I want to get on a plane where the engineer designs a flat wing and expects it to fly, just counting on the miraculous. Are you saying that our senses are totally untrustworthy -- even for the believer?


Just a minute, Clark.
This is (one of) the essential differences between those who believe in some form of creationism and those who believe in a naturalistic view of origins. We don't need to assume the miraculous for everyday science, but in questions of origins we should be aware that the miraculous will be there.

It was because of a lack of faith in the God of miracles that Darwinism was formulated. It is e.g. because of a lack of faith in the God of miracles that the naturalists have to come up with "accidental" scenarios for everything from the origin of the universe to the formation of the sun, moon and stars, to the origin of life and the development of Man. It is because they know that modern popular origins science is thoroughly moulded in the religion of anti-miracles naturalism that Christians/creationists take things like "the big bang" with a large pinch of salt. If an origins miracle is seen by naturalistic science it's bound to be (mis)interpreted naturally. The possiblity of miracles is completely off the radar of the naturalistic origins scientist.

I assume that even theistic evolutionists believe in some miracles at the beginning, otherwise they believe that God is not creator at all, just sustainer and providential governor - and they're coming close to that anyway by being theistic evolutionists.

Quote from Clark
These are by definition miracles. They are out of the ordinary.

Was there nothing "out of the ordinary" about the beginning of the universe, the solar system, the earth, plant life, animal life and Man? Naturalists would like to think that such things are so ordinary that they are within the ken of ordinary men and treat such things as e.g. their belief that life popped out of non-life as if it was inevitable and should happen every day.

 

[chbrooking]

Richard,
I don't deny miracle. But you are missing the point altogether. The age of the earth really has nothing to do with whether it was miraculously created. It could have been done in 6 days and still be 5 million years old. The question, rather, is, can we trust the information available through general revelation. Surely the noetic effects of sin have made us untrustworthy interpreters. That untrustworthiness is principally a moral problem, though. Unbelieving scientists may do science quite well -- they just pursue it autonomously.

And that's how this little rabbit trail came up. I pointed out that the geologist or paleontologist encounters something that seems to indicate great age. The supernova example above gives the same indication. I'm sure the list could go on. So, if general revelation indicates great age, then don't we need to examine our assumptions about chronology in the Bible? God cannot lie. When I said that, some pointed to the water to wine miracle as proof that appearance to the contrary does not always indicate deception. To this, I responded, NOT by denying miracle -- or even that creation is miracle -- but I responded by saying we assume a "regular", a "normal" for our science. Even the word miracle assumes that there is an ordinary. I'm not talking about the beginning -- surely that was miraculous. I'm talking about the information that God implanted in the creation. Was he seeking to lead people astray?

Further, appreciating the water to wine thing requires that we know the ordinary process to appreciate the miracle. The virgin conception is the same way. I'm just saying that running down the miracle road is to evade the question, not answer it. What I'm getting at is this: we have to careful not to efface the difference between special and general revelation. And we have to be careful not to set them in opposition to one another.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Richard,
I don't deny miracle. But you are missing the point altogether. The age of the earth really has nothing to do with whether it was miraculously created. It could have been done in 6 days and still be 5 million years old. The question, rather, is, can we trust the information available through general revelation. Surely the noetic effects of sin have made us untrustworthy interpreters. That untrustworthiness is principally a moral problem, though. Unbelieving scientists may do science quite well -- they just pursue it autonomously.

And that's how this little rabbit trail came up. I pointed out that the geologist or paleontologist encounters something that seems to indicate great age. The supernova example above gives the same indication. I'm sure the list could go on. So, if general revelation indicates great age, then don't we need to examine our assumptions about chronology in the Bible? God cannot lie. When I said that, some pointed to the water to wine miracle as proof that appearance to the contrary does not always indicate deception. To this, I responded, NOT by denying miracle -- or even that creation is miracle -- but I responded by saying we assume a "regular", a "normal" for our science. Even the word miracle assumes that there is an ordinary. I'm not talking about the beginning -- surely that was miraculous. I'm talking about the information that God implanted in the creation. Was he seeking to lead people astray?

Further, appreciating the water to wine thing requires that we know the ordinary process to appreciate the miracle. The virgin conception is the same way. I'm just saying that running down the miracle road is to evade the question, not answer it.

I guess one quick question is "what is normal for science"? Would a volcano erupting be normal for science? Does science understand the consequences of 40 days and 40 nights of worldwide rain?

Next, no perception can occur without interpretation and interpretation implies a hermeneutic. And people come to various perceptions of rocks etc with different hermeneutics and likewise different interpretations.

Lastly, earlier you spoke of your specialty being theology and not science, therefore seeing much of the discussion as a "he said vs. someone else saying something else" type of scenario. But when pushed you seem to get very dogmatic about various scientific interpretations very quickly. Which way do you wish to play this?

CT

 

[chbrooking]

I guess one quick question is "what is normal for science"? Would a volcano erupting be normal for science? Does science understand the consequences of 40 days and 40 nights of worldwide rain?

Next, no perception can occur without interpretation and interpretation implies a hermeneutic. And people come to various perceptions of rocks etc with different hermeneutics and likewise different interpretations.

Lastly, earlier you spoke of your specialty being theology and not science, therefore seeing much of the discussion as a "he said vs. someone else saying something else" type of scenario. But when pushed you seem to get very dogmatic about various scientific interpretations very quickly. Which way do you wish to play this?

CT

I'm not playing it any way. I'm merely trying not to have my questions piously dismissed.

You are quite correct that interpretation is not a neutral something -- that our presuppositions govern our interpretation of the evidence. But making that statement doesn't really solve all of the issues. Much of this discussion comes out of the fact that special revelation must govern our interpretation of general -- something which I wholeheartedly affirm. But that does NOT mean that general revelation cannot have any impact on the way we read special revelation.

However you want to understand X-centricity (geo, helio, other), the fact of the matter is that Galileo and others had to fight the church. The church was reading special revelation and understanding that the earth had to be the center around which the sun turns. We now know that the center around which the earth and sun turn is their common center of mass, which for convenience sake, given the relative densities, we can say is the sun. What is clear is that the church's old reading of things like "the sun rises" has been rejected. Now these statements are recognized as figures of speech or colloquial expressions, and NOT SCIENTIFIC DATA.

Let me give an illustration to help you see where I'm coming from (even though I'm not a scientist):
When I go on an archaeological dig, it is assumed (and it is the only reasonable assumption) that, unless there was some disturbance of the layers, the deeper you dug, the older the material remains you uncover are. That is, you wouldn't find the remains an iron age settlement buried beneath a bronze age settlement.

Why should I expect the paleontologist to interpret his data differently? I don’t think that is a ridiculous or impious question. I don’t think I have to be a scientist to see that. Now, if we want to discuss what they found in the layers of the earth, THAT might lay these concerns to rest -- that is, if there isn’t consistency in the layers or something. But from what little I’ve read, there DOES seem to be this consistency.

SO... since the biblical chronology is based upon genealogies. And since genealogies can be shown to be incomplete, or done in a summarizing way, and such, there’s nothing in the Bible that DEMANDS that I read it as young earth. And since there MAY be (a matter worth discussion, not dismissal) evidence in favor of old earth (not naturalistic -- not denying creation ex nihilo), perhaps that evidence ought to be brought to bear to correct our assumptions about chronology. That’s all I’m saying.

By the way, CT, I appreciate your willingness to engage the question intelligently, rather than simply dismiss it.

I never did get an answer to the separation of waters thing. I wish someone would speak to that.

 

[Mushroom]

encounters something that seems to indicate great age.

Therein lies the rub. What seems to contradict scripture is always error. There may be other explanations than what we have concluded in the past, but whenever we go 'allegorizing' scripture without biblical warrant we're headed down a dangerous path.

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 10:17:16 EST-----

The most you could say is that both the Church and Galileo were wrong. But if you apply the axiom that motion is relative to the observer, you'd have to say the Church was more accurate than Galileo, because neither were standing on the surface of the sun. And since we have not yet determined the outer edges of the universe, you have no evidence that the Church was not entirely right. Again, heliocentricity is only of use in determining the movement of objects that are influenced by the gravity of the sun as a group, nothing more.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Clark,
I do not accept that the Biblical Geneologies can be shown to be incomplete or just simply summarizing. If you wish to show that such is the case, then be my guest.

CT

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Clark
I'm not playing it any way. I'm merely trying not to have my questions piously dismissed.

One reason why many Christians take the Six Days literally is because there doesn't seem to be enough evidence in the Bible to take them metaphorically.

Also, when the days are taken metaphorically and the millions of years of fossils etc are put in there, we have theological problems that don't fit:-

(a) Milllions of years of the curse on creation, before Adam sinned.

(b) Millions of years in which the creation has no head/viceregent/prophet/priest and king.

Because of these weighty biblical and theological considerations, and because modern cosmogony is thoroughly infected at every point by naturalism, and because the creationists have found at least 100 younger scenario indicators, those of us who hold to literal 24-hour days are willing to leave it there - without all the answers, knowing that naturalistic science doesn't have all the answers either - and wait for developments in science, while not holding our breath.

On an apologetical level, I'm willing to tell seekers and young Christians who ask about the resolution of origins science and Scripture, that some of my genuine brothers believe in the days being long or the Framework Hypothesis, but I tell them why I disagree and I warn them that theistic evolution is a step too far, into Liberalism and baptised humanism.

 

[chbrooking]

Well, since I have three of you to respond to, I won't try the quote thing.

Brad,
Okay, so motion is relative to the observer. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is not stationary -- which was Cardinal Bellarmine's primary contention. The earth and the sun are rotating about the center of their masses. Since the sun is much denser, the earth moves far more than the sun does -- so much so, in fact, that we can say the earth orbits the sun. Whatever the center of the universe is, we cannot suppose that the earth is its fixed center. That would violate the laws of physics. We rely on these laws to keep our satellites where they are. In other words, the observance, description and measurement of motion is all in relation to the observer. But that does not mean that the laws of physics don't apply to the objects -- that would be to misread Einstein. It would mean that motion is radically SUBJECTIVE. And that would be a conclusion destructive, not only for science, but for our ability to communicate.

As to "seemed", I agree that our presuppositions govern. And given a choice between the Bible and my eyes, I'll choose the Bible. But I'm not convinced, yet, that I've been forced into that choice. The only thing pulling me toward a young earth is the genealogies -- you could even take a literal 6+1 day creation and be old earth. They are distinct questions.

CT,
Well, it is pretty evident that Matthew skipped Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim. He did so for a literary/theological purpose. That seems to indicate that we ought to exercise caution in the assumption that these genealogies present an exhaustive list.

Richard,
If you've been paying attention, I'm not an evolutionist. I think these are two separate issues. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be old earth. I'm the one who initially made the point that, on theological grounds, I reject evolution. That wasn't the discussion I was trying to have. I wanted to know how we are to reconcile the appearance of age in general revelation with the denial of it in scripture (a denial I am not convinced exists) if general revelation is revelation and God cannot lie (both of which I affirm).

Be sure you don't attribute to me views that I do not hold.

And STILL nobody dealt with Gen 1:6-7!

There are two distinct conversations here. I'm interested in both. But I don't think it is helpful to confuse or conflate the two.

 

[Mushroom]

But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is not stationary -- which was Cardinal Bellarmine's primary contention.

Stationary relative to what?

There's all sorts of motion happening in the universe, and innumerable forces and systems influencing that motion. But to the feller standing on the street outside my house, the Earth is stationary, and everything else is moving around it. Densities and masses and gravitational influences notwithstanding, the Sun does revolve around the Earth. That is observeable every 24 hours. That it is a part of another, larger sytem is immaterial to that fact.

 

[chbrooking]

So you've bought Hume -- there is no causation, only description?

The feller on your street may be having things happen around him, but his standing there isn't the cause of the lady going to the grocery store. I think you are confusing the observance, description and measurement of motion with the things that are influencing it. If motion were totally independent of physical forces, we could not launch a satellite -- the scientists would have a huge problem. One would be calculating the trajectory and speed from where he was standing. The other from where he was standing. That's silly. The calculation has to be relative to the real body around which something turns, not to the person making the calculation.

 

[Mushroom]

Don't know Hume from humous.

When launching satellites one is interacting with a variety of systems for a specific purpose to attain to a specific location in the universe. Gravity, friction, and inertia must all be taken into account. But you don't have to take into account the gravitational pull of Betelgeuse to do that, only the systems relavent (there's that word again) to your exercise.

A man walking on the Earth observing nature as his Creator has displayed it before him sees a geocentric system. The only time he needs to take any other system into account is when he sets about to interact with said system, such as launch moonrockets or space probes. Just like he doesn't have to interact with ocean currents until he steps off the shore and attempts to sail to Australia. But that wouldn't make those currents the central system of creation.

But back to my question: Stationary relative to what?