Is Genesis 1-3 Myth or Historical? Literal or symbolic?

[Prufrock]

Brian,

Whatever side of the debate one comes down on, I'm not sure one of your premises is valid (with reference to God potentially being a liar in terms of natural revelation). I certainly appreciate your desire to ensure that we don't forget that natural revelation is yet God's revelation (and I certainly stand with you in being embarrassed by much of what is passed off as "fact"). Here is where I differ, however.

In order to say that God is lying in natural revelation if the earth is not old, many assumptions have to be made. One of them is that God has not already provided by clear and special revelation a framework for understanding this. We can return to this later. The second assumption is that natural revelation is supposed to tell us how old the earth is. For brevity's sake, I will leave that comment as is: perhaps we can return to it in discussion.

Returning to the first point, however, it should be acknowledged (whether you think the Bible teaches young earth or not) that if God does provide in his direct and special revelation (scripture) the basis for our understanding the age of the earth, then talk about God lying in natural revelation vanishes. He (within this framework of understanding) already clearly and simply stated the matter. Analogy: if you're in elementary school, and the gym teacher stands up in front of the class and says "We're not going to play basketball this year," and you look around the room and see 2,000 basketballs, there are two possibilities: 1.) Understand as your fundamental principle the clear and direct statement of the teacher, and then interpret the data in light of that; or, 2.) begin by looking at the basketballs, assume this means there must be basketball playing, and thus interpret your teacher's comments in light of that, lest the basketballs being present make your teacher a liar. If we choose option number 1, this certainly does not mean that the teacher is a liar or deceitful or trying to trick you by having basketballs everywhere: for, if I am doing rightly, my first priority is to hear the teacher's voice, and to interpret the data in light of his authority. Word is clear and simple; natural revelation is obscured by sin.

Also, with regards to empirical processes used to determine physical ages: yes, this is a part of God's creation, but I am slightly uncomfortable bringing that generically under the umbrella of "natural revelation." Natural revelation, in a narrow sense, has to deal with God revealed as he is Creator, sustainer, provider, and judge, and with man's relation thereto. Perhaps sometimes we derive more from natural revelation than it is designed to disclose, as though we were asking "What is 2+2?" to a magic 8-ball which only gives "yes" and "no" answers. Indeed, empirical dating processes derive information from God's creation, but (especially considering our extremely limited abilities -- especially apart from anything sure, such as God's special revelation) do we unhesitatingly refer to such things as God's revealed truth? I think rather we simply say they are transient and shifting interpretations of data.

Of course, my statements aren't authoritative pronouncements: this is an invitation to discuss.

Edited to add
What is surely true is that there is a certainty which comes from God's word; and this certainly is not found, for us, outside of the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. This does not diminish the worth of natural revelation or the light of nature in anyway. But I do think a valid consequence is that when scripture seems to suggest one thing, and our current understanding of nature another, these two do not have equal weight, and we must be very cautious, at the least, when we adjust our hard-fought exegetical conclusions to accord with scientific inquiry.

Grace and peace, brother.

 

[MW]

E. J. Young, In the Beginning, pp. 18, 19:

Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible -- Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job -- and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis. So the claim that Genesis one is poetry is no solution to the question. The man who says, "I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account," is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, "I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry." That latter has nothing to commend it at all. I disagree with the first man, but he is a better exegete, he is a better interpreter, because he is facing up to the facts.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Agreed. But check out my bibliographical suggestions.

Also, some of the following scientists are helpful on the subject:

Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. John Baumbardner, Plate Tectonics model pioneer
Dr. Danny Faulkner, Astrophysicist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Science
Dr. Russel Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. David Menton, Cell Biologist
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Microbiologist
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
Dr. J.C. Stanford, Geneticist (inventor of the gene gun and tenured Cornell prof)

I have listened to more than 75 lectures by them and some of their colleagues and found them more than convincing against the framework theory. Also, along those lines, check out R.C. Sproul's MP3 on creation where he discusses the various models and his preference (in recent years) for a young earth position against the other views held by Reformed thinkers.

Regardless of young earth or old earth, I would probably be a framework guy. The framework doesn't speak anything of age, but only of exegesis and looking at the text. That may sound weird, but looking at the text is what brought me to a framework view of Gen 1, not anything to do with earth age. While there may be a lot of people that arrive at it because they find problems with a young earth (even some of the problems I've stated) but my initial problem was day 4, and reconciling without conjecture.

I'm certain I'll look up the references. I appreciate good science. And I certainly want as much information as I can possibly get.

 

[Confessor]

I attempted theistic-evolutionary eisegesis, and it just doesn't work. While I was very proud of myself (in the wrong way) for formulating a cool story of how God could have infused Adam and Eve with souls, and the literary framework hypothesis allows for billions of years, etc., I could never get over the fact that the rest of Genesis flows so smoothly. It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Brian,

Whatever side of the debate one comes down on, I'm not sure one of your premises is valid (with reference to God potentially being a liar in terms of natural revelation). I certainly appreciate your desire to ensure that we don't forget that natural revelation is yet God's revelation (and I certainly stand with you in being embarrassed by much of what is passed off as "fact"). Here is where I differ, however.

In order to say that God is lying in natural revelation if the earth is not old, many assumptions have to be made. One of them is that God has not already provided by clear and special revelation a framework for understanding this. We can return to this later. The second assumption is that natural revelation is supposed to tell us how old the earth is. For brevity's sake, I will leave that comment as is: perhaps we can return to it in discussion.

Returning to the first point, however, it should be acknowledged (whether you think the Bible teaches young earth or not) that if God does provide in his direct and special revelation (scripture) the basis for our understanding the age of the earth, then talk about God lying in natural revelation vanishes. He (within this framework of understanding) already clearly and simply stated the matter. Analogy: if you're in elementary school, and the gym teacher stands up in front of the class and says "We're not going to play basketball this year," and you look around the room and see 2,000 basketballs, there are two possibilities: 1.) Understand as your fundamental principle the clear and direct statement of the teacher, and then interpret the data in light of that; or, 2.) begin by looking at the basketballs, assume this means there must be basketball playing, and thus interpret your teacher's comments in light of that, lest the basketballs being present make your teacher a liar. If we choose option number 1, this certainly does not mean that the teacher is a liar or deceitful or trying to trick you by having basketballs everywhere: for, if I am doing rightly, my first priority is to hear the teacher's voice, and to interpret the data in light of his authority. Word is clear and simple; natural revelation is obscured by sin. [emphasis added]

Also, with regards to empirical processes used to determine physical ages: yes, this is a part of God's creation, but I am slightly uncomfortable bringing that generically under the umbrella of "natural revelation." Natural revelation, in a specific sense, has to deal with God revealed as he is Creator, sustainer, provider, and judge, and with man's relation thereto. Perhaps sometimes we derive more from natural revelation than it is designed to disclose, as though we were asking "What is 2+2?" to a magic 8-ball which only gives "yes" and "no" answers. Indeed, empirical dating processes derive information from God's creation, but (especially considering our extremely limited abilities -- especially apart from anything sure, such as God's special revelation) do we unhesitatingly refer to such things as God's revealed truth? I think rather we simply say they are transient and shifting interpretations of data.

Of course, my statements aren't authoritative pronouncements: this is an invitation to discuss.

Edited to add
What is surely true is that there is a certainty which comes from God's word; and this certainly is not found, for us, outside of the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. This does not diminish the worth of natural revelation or the light of nature in anyway. But I do think a valid consequence is that when scripture seems to suggest one thing, and our current understanding of nature another, these two do not have equal weight, and we must be very cautious, at the least, when we adjust our hard-fought exegetical conclusions to accord with scientific inquiry.

Grace and peace, brother.

The premise that I find myself at odds with in your post (and probably that of many other people that hold the same view) is the one I emphasized. The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.

If I take your analogy, and place it somewhat differently ... the basketballs are all well worn showing use, the teacher makes a statement unlike any other he has made in direct teaching, and we see a possible way of looking at the statement differently, do we stick to what he said (was it sarcasm?) when he said nobody played basketball. If there is apparent conflict, me being a sinner, I have no guarantee that I will not err on one side and not the other.

I know of nobody that holds to a geocentric view of the solar system, yet the church as a whole got that wrong by interpretation of the word incorrectly and clung to that misinterpretation in the face of clear evidence to the contrary for many years. Figurative speech is what we say Christ used when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" because we see that Jesus knew and used figurative language even when conveying truth.

Given the facts of the textual structure used in Gen. 1, and the unique nature of the subject, I don't see what more could have been done to emphasize it was not literal without just saying it. It only takes a few minutes to read the OPC committee on creation report section on the framework ... and I've never seen anyone go through that report and demonstrate what it says is false. Broad statements "it isn't poetry" but no explanation of the highly stylized structure that is unique in historic writing. Why the tight structure if it is just a narrative? Just to confuse those that want to understand it and give it more than just a cursory view?

I'd love to see someone examine that report and say explicitly why each of the conclusions is wrong with a well thought out argument for each one, not just generalized statements, not "it doesn't fit what I know of poetry". So far, I have not seen point-for-point refutation. And of course given the quality of the persons on that committee, why would it escape them that it was just so much hogwash?

 

[Theoretical]

So one question is whether there's any 6-day, young earth Framework hypo folks?

6 literal days, but with 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6 paired.

Does this position still have the same degree of issues to a 24/6 creationist as a long-day creation account of any stripe has?

 

[Prufrock]

The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.

Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?

Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science? Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding.

Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?

 

[Brian Withnell]

I attempted theistic-evolutionary eisegesis, and it just doesn't work. While I was very proud of myself (in the wrong way) for formulating a cool story of how God could have infused Adam and Eve with souls, and the literary framework hypothesis allows for billions of years, etc., I could never get over the fact that the rest of Genesis flows so smoothly. It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.

Hmmm.... I'd see a fairly straight forward break at 2:4.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Here you have a separate account either of a single day or the "day" is figurative, or the other account is figurative, or perhaps both? Take that the Bible is true as the starting point, and you might have Gen 2:4 and following a different viewpoint of the account of creation ... and it appears a lot more like a literal account than the first. Could it be the first is historical figurative, the second more literal. Would that fit the text? Certainly seems that it would. Is there a problem anywhere else in scripture with that view? Not that I know (at least not if it isn't a straw man caricature of framework).

 

[historyb]

I know of nobody that holds to a geocentric view of the solar system

You do now , actually I don't think about it that much.

 

[Brian Withnell]

The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.

Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?

Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science? Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding.

Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?

I certainly would think we should hear our Lord and Savior's voice in what he reveals. We should not lean on our own understanding, but the same is true when we see general revelation that we should not lean on our own powers of reason. The heaven declare the glory of God the firmament pours forth speech. If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.

I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.

When we see what appears to be a conflict, it is not either one that is wrong, it is we that have made a mistake disregarding what the Spirit has taught. There are many in the church today that reject many of the truths of scripture ... how many reject sovereign election and yet trust Christ and his work for salvation? How often does the church err on so many topics in the Bible? If we can have so many divisions within the church, and yet acknowledge many of them as true brothers, how then can we say we are less apt to err on interpretation of the Bible rather than interpretation of general revelation?

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.

Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.

Do we make mistakes in interpreting general revelation? Just as often. How long did the church think the earth was at the center of the solar system? Look at all the changes in interpretation of data. Look at the absurdity of evolution and how it has deceived some in the church! We attempt to think our own thoughts instead of thinking God's thoughts after him and when we do we err (unless by his grace, we fall on what is correct).

Regardless, of the sphere, we are capable of error. We need to admit that and then look carefully at what we pronounce as true.

 

[Herald]

It's as literal and real as Bawb's Samson-like hair!

 

[Prufrock]

If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.

I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.

All revelation is capable of so leading us; not all interpretation of such revelation: thus mis-interpretations arise from our sinfulness, either directly or indirectly. If the earth is new, and if God has clearly stated that in his word, then the fact that we are misinterpreting the empirical data arises not on the fault of the God, but on our own utter blindness refusal to listen to the clear and rather devote ourselves to the unclear. I can just picture this debate happening in paradise: Adam and Eve are sitting around the day after God made the earth, and Adam wanders across a tar pit; then, he pulls out his antelapsum chemistry set, analyzes it and finds out it is composed of decaying plant matter; he then runs and tells Eve, the earth is really old. This situation simply wouldn't happen: before the fall, God's word was, subjectively, sure to man; Adam wouldn't have doubted that God just made the earth 6 days ago (again, this is all hypothetical based upon the assumption that the earth is, in fact, 6000 years old). Having that sureness from God's spoken word, he would have (not become a skeptic) but labored more diligently to understand the data presented him by the tar pits (and with sin not having entered the world, what else could have happened?). Thus, if we, subjectively, hear the voice of God speaking quite literally in the Genesis 1 account, how can we be expected to do anything differently? (Again, this is all within the hypothetical framework of the "new" earth view: I'm not arguing for that view at the moment, I'm simply trying point out that that view does not have to view God as deceitful with regards to natural revelation)

To place priority on special revelation (this being that by which the Holy Ghost speaks to us: see later) over our abilities at understanding natural revelation is not to be a skeptic of God's revealing abilities. In the end, then, this has to come down to exegesis of scripture. Geocentrism -- through careful exegesis (of scripture, not of Aristotle), does scripture mandate that the earth is the fixed center of the solar system, and the sun orbits it? I would say no. We certainly need to be careful and not rash in our exegetical conclusions: Perhaps jumping on the geocentric bandwagon for hundreds of years showed how influenced by the prevailing world-views the church was. When it comes to 6 days, again, it is in exegesis that the battle must lie: if, exegetically, scripture requires the position, then such is the voice of God (and our reasoning abilities, those which pertain to natural revelation -- abilities which have become corrupt by the fall -- ought to yield). I remain convinced that, as far as this debate is concerned for Christians, science ought to come later: primarily, this must be an exegetical question.

Side note I'm still really confused why you keep claiming God would be a liar with respect to his natural revelation if the earth were truly young. This is not because I'm ignorant of science.

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.

This is not a sarcastic question: so can the church do geography, and mathematics, and literature, and economics (etc.) better than the world because we have the Spirit guiding us into all truth? (This is not a deduction from the above quote, but from other portions of your response: I'm merely using this as a spring-board). This is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure I understand this picture of the Holy Spirit speaking just generally through natural revelation: so far as I understanding, the means through which the Spirit speaks is scripture, for scripture is the Word written.

In a way, I think you're absolutely right. For instance, for the young-earth person, he would argue that the church can understand aspects of natural revelation better than the heathen (not because the Spirit is speaking through nature, but because he has spoken through Scripture and thus taught us certain things about creation). The young earth person would say, "The Spirit has revealed that the earth is young; therefore, we have a framework within which to understand the natural data and we don't have to chase certain dead-end roads which other scientists are pursuing." They would say, "God surely isn't being deceitful: if he hadn't told us that the earth was young, but had left all these "clues" scattered throughout the universe, perhaps then we could say he was deceitful. But he has told us, and he has given us the framework in which to understand these clues. This is the opposite of deceit."

Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.

Here is fundamental difference between us: I don't believe we have his guidance in all things. I don't see it scripturally warranted that God will lead his church to a better understanding of, say, organic chemistry, or cracking Linear-A script.

I do not lessen the value, goodness and importance of natural revelation. I'm Reformed: how can I not place great value on the light of nature?

I am uncomfortable bringing the church's teaching down to the same level as our ability to do math. Yes, we are fallible: but when we have the promise of the Spirit leading his church into truth (the truth which is contained in scripture), this does not mean we don't or can't have certainty when we've heard Thus saith the Lord. I don't like the connection you've raised between fallibility and a corresponding uncertainty.

Anyway, if there's something in here you want to take up, feel free. I apologize for it's long, unorganized nature (and perhaps its entire lack of substance).

Also, if this is too off topic and requires a new thread, let me know.

 

[Brian Withnell]

The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.

Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?

Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science? [emphasis added] Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding.

Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?

I just realized I did not make a point that I would want to have made here. General revelation is not philosophy or science, it is looking at the book of God's works and reading his hand in it, seeing what he did, and thinking his thoughts after him.

I would not think we would necessarily just look at what "Science" (anthropomorphism intended) tells us and think that it is general revelation. General revelation is the declaring the glory of God by all creation. Thinking that the current rage in the atheistic scientist community is general revelation is foolhardy to begin with. Looking at stars, galaxies, microscopic animals and plants, viruses, subatomic particles, and everything in between is looking at the book of God's work.

I hope you see the difference between what I think you were implying, and what I mean (hmmm.... I could be off on what I think you were implying).

I do hope to continue the discussion.

 

[Brian Withnell]

If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.

I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.

If the earth is new, and if God has clearly stated that in his word, then the fact that we are misinterpreting the empirical data arises not on the fault of the God, but on our own utter blindness refusal to listen to the clear and rather devote ourselves to the unclear.

First, I'd say that yes, if we had absolute, unequivocal statements that the earth is in fact new, then we would certainly be looking to find the how of the material world. We are the best equipped to examine the world, for we know its Creator. I'll hold off on the Spirit guiding for a while, I saw your exception to that later...

When it comes to 6 days, again, it is in exegesis that the battle must lie: if, exegetically, scripture requires [emphasis added] the position, then such is the voice of God (and our reasoning abilities, those which pertain to natural revelation -- abilities which have become corrupt by the fall -- ought to yield). I remain convinced that, as far as this debate is concerned for Christians, science ought to come later: primarily, this must be an exegetical question.

Side note I'm still really confused why you keep claiming God would be a liar with respect to his natural revelation if the earth were truly young. This is not because I'm ignorant of science.

I added the emphasis to "required" because that means absolutely required. Not that it seems probable. Not that it would be convenient for our theological positions elsewhere, but that it be required. To that I agree. If we had a non-historic, didactic section that clearly stated "God created the heavens and the earth in six ordinary days, even when the first three had no sun to mark them" I'd be the first one in line to say we have to figure out how the light from stars millions of light years away got here, and what phenomena allowed them to move that far away so fast, or why light behaves the way it does.

Because I see Genesis 1 as being without doubt figurative in time, but historical in meaning (that is, God created, and he created an orderly universe which follows natural laws) it makes it really difficult to see the evidence in nature as being other than proof the universe is old. I think that if it were not possible to read an old earth interpretation from scripture, the church has a duty to study God's works and figure out how we have "old" light.

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.

This is not a sarcastic question: so can the church do geography, and mathematics, and literature, and economics (etc.) better than the world because we have the Spirit guiding us into all truth?

I'd say that we do have a better grasp on the universe, and can learn science, math and nearly anything better than the world (not every Christian in every subject, but the church as a whole ought to be able to do so) because we have the testimony of both special revelation and the inward work of the Spirit that ought to at least give us an edge in admitting error when we move down the wrong path.

While the Spirit certainly does help us in understanding the scripture, is that the full scope of "all truth" in the passage, or does it encompass all revelation? I see no reason to presume it means just scripture, and it certainly could go to general revelation.

Even an old earth Christian ought to be able to understand the universe more completely because they have both scripture to tell them of the God who created, and the God who maintains. If the earth is young (and that was an inescapable conclusion of scripture) then Christians would be the only ones looking for the how does the data fit (as it would have to).

Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.

Here is fundamental difference between us: I don't believe we have his guidance in all things. I don't see it scripturally warranted that God will lead his church to a better understanding of, say, organic chemistry, or cracking Linear-A script.

This then does seem to be a difference, though I doubt Linear A script would be any part of general revelation, so I would most likely leave that off. I believe it is both a practical difference (Christians ought not be as pig headed when they are wrong) and that where God speaks, the Spirit will lead us into truth. So if there is natural revelation, the Spirit will illumine our hearts to what the revelation means ... though imperfectly in this age due to the remnant of sin in all of us.

Anyway, if there's something in here you want to take up, feel free. I apologize for it's long, unorganized nature (and perhaps its entire lack of substance).

Also, if this is too off topic and requires a new thread, let me know.

It looks like we cross posted at least some. We may be off topic ... and if we need to start somewhere else, so be it....

At this point, I think my view can be stated fairly clearly in that I see absolutely no reason to interpret the 6 days of Genesis as ordinary 24 hour days. In fact, apart from anything else, I see internal evidence of the text they would not be literal days as we know them (4th day problem with a literal interpretation and no statement to support the conjecture the first three would still be 24 hour days).

If the account in Gen 1 is not literal, it appears the Bible has no statement on the age of the earth, and therefore general revelation would be useful in finding out how God created the heavens and the earth. While it might be young, at the present, general revelation points to an old universe even if the Earth is young (starlight transit times).

I fully believe Christians ought to be at the forefront of every intellectual endeavor because of the practical humility of willingness to let go when wrong, and the inward illumination of the Spirit on anything touching revelation.

 

[JimmieD]

Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.

As far as I'm concerned...

a day meant a 24 hour period
A week meant a week
Evolution does not come into it
And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...

Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...

Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.

Interesting things I notice about Gen 1:

The days in Gen 1 appear to be arranged in some time of parallel structure.
Day 1 - Day 4
Day 2 - Day 5
Day 3 - Day 6
Day 7

On day 1 God creates light and the seperates light and dark
On day 4 God creates the sun moon and stars

On day 2 God creates the sky and seperates the waters
On day 5 God creates birds and sea life.

On day 3 God creates the land and vegitation and seperates the sea from the land
On day 6 God creates things that live on the land; including man who is in His image and rules over everything.

On day 7 - rest.


I guess for this part the questions that need to be answered are who is the author, who is the ideal audience, and what is the purpose? Is the author writing to and for the purposes of 21st century Americans? Or is the author writing to and for Israelites fleeing Egypt? Or something else?

If the author is writing to 21st century Americans then I think a good argument could be made that everything is intended to be very literal and this is a science lesson that is being given. However, if the intended/ideal audience is ancient Israelites fleeing Egypt, the purpose might not be to give a 21st century science lesson.

I'm sort of open on this one. I tend to think we have an account from Moses to Israelites fleeing Egypt. So the ideal audience is ancient Israelites not modern day Americans. The purpose then might be to explain why they should trust their God and/or to explain why they are to flee Egypt and establish a land of their own and/or explain how they should and shouldn't act in light of God's generosity to them. And given the poetic-type structure of the passage, whether or not the days are literal 24 hour periods isn't even a concern; it's beside the point being made.

 

[Confessor]

Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.

As far as I'm concerned...

a day meant a 24 hour period
A week meant a week
Evolution does not come into it
And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...

Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...

Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.

Interesting things I notice about Gen 1:

The days in Gen 1 appear to be arranged in some time of parallel structure.
Day 1 - Day 4
Day 2 - Day 5
Day 3 - Day 6
Day 7

On day 1 God creates light and the seperates light and dark
On day 4 God creates the sun moon and stars

On day 2 God creates the sky and seperates the waters
On day 5 God creates birds and sea life.

On day 3 God creates the land and vegitation and seperates the sea from the land
On day 6 God creates things that live on the land; including man who is in His image and rules over everything.

On day 7 - rest.


I guess for this part the questions that need to be answered are who is the author, who is the ideal audience, and what is the purpose? Is the author writing to and for the purposes of 21st century Americans? Or is the author writing to and for Israelites fleeing Egypt? Or something else?

If the author is writing to 21st century Americans then I think a good argument could be made that everything is intended to be very literal and this is a science lesson that is being given. However, if the intended/ideal audience is ancient Israelites fleeing Egypt, the purpose might not be to give a 21st century science lesson.

I'm sort of open on this one. I tend to think we have an account from Moses to Israelites fleeing Egypt. So the ideal audience is ancient Israelites not modern day Americans. The purpose then might be to explain why they should trust their God and/or to explain why they are to flee Egypt and establish a land of their own and/or explain how they should and shouldn't act in light of God's generosity to them. And given the poetic-type structure of the passage, whether or not the days are literal 24 hour periods isn't even a concern; it's beside the point being made.

I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis. However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.

 

[JimmieD]

I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis. However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult anyone.


I post on various forums, some of which take more explination on things than others. Since this is post #4 here for me, you will have to excuse me for not knowing the level of discussion.

 

[Ravens]

I have never understood why this discussion often centers around Genesis 1 - 3. I can somewhat understand why a person might have questions as to the Creation account, but the inclusion of part of the second toledoth, to me, seems completely and utterly arbitrary.

I can understand why "Genesis 1-3" could handily be taken as a "unit" in a theological sense; it sets the stage for the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. But textually, "Genesis 1-3" as some kind of "unit" doesn't even exist. You have a Creation Account, and the first toledoth, that, if my memory serves me, runs from Genesis 2:4 to the end of chapter 4. When all of the other 9/10 toledoths are strictly and without question dealing with real events that we call "history", what possible reason would lead us to conclude that an arbitrarily selected portion of the first toledoth is some type of "myth"?

There is certainly no textual reason. For those who quibble about the talking snake... it just makes me wonder if we are reading the same Bible, where staffs turn into serpents, donkeys speak, people rise from the dead, axe-heads float, and angels slay 185,000 warriors per outing.

So I think this discussion should be strictly limited to the Creation account, that is, Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. It's a small point, but somehow the narrative about the fall and the serpent always tends to get lumped in by default in this discussion, when there is no textual or rational reason to read it as anything other than history in the fullest sense of the term.

 

[greenbaggins]

The parallel structure of days 1-3 and days 4-6 does not depend on the Framework Hypothesis. I am a literal 6 24-hour guy when it comes to the creation days, but I notice that God created in a parallel structure that then got written down in a parallel structure.

 

[Wannabee]

The parallel structure of days 1-3 and days 4-6 does not depend on the Framework Hypothesis. I am a literal 6 24-hour guy when it comes to the creation days, but I notice that God created in a parallel structure that then got written down in a parallel structure.

Well said.

In the beginning - time

God - source/originator

Created - action/power

The heavens - space

and the earth - matter


There's a whole lotta thinkin' goin' on 'round here. It's interesting that "science" admits that these are the necessary components for creation (or "everything" if one isn't a creationist), but they refuse to acknowledge the true source. It sure would help them if they'd start with the source of truth.

 

[Confessor]

I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis. However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult anyone.

I post on various forums, some of which take more explination on things than others. Since this is post #4 here for me, you will have to excuse me for not knowing the level of discussion.

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to impute any bad intentions on you. I just wanted to let you know that you were not obliged to give a lengthy explanation. That is all.

 

[Parsifal23]

I would take the young earth view but I am not doctrinaire about it.

 

[Marrow Man]

Genesis is highly stylized, deliberately constructed to confute the pagan cosmologies of the day (e.g., the pagan Gilgamesh Epic), and reflects a high degree of literary features (cf. Jonah's VERY tightly parallel construction between its chapters or the book of Ruth with its literary structure) . . .

When I first read that, I thought you were saying that there was a tight parallel construction between the books of Jonah and Ruth. I was just about to ask where you had read that, as it was an hypothesis I'd never heard before!

Thanks for your comment. I know this will absolutely shock the rest of you but -- no it won't. I'm a 24/6 man as well.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

to Tim...

 

[tellville]

The purpose of the passage is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created. I will walk away now.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Romans 5

 

[raekwon]

I'm pretty much with Dennis here. "Myth", at its core, is a literary genre, and the Genesis creation account certainly fits into that genre's definition (loosely, "stories that a particular culture believes to be true regarding supernatural explanations for natural events").

But, it's also the truth.

 

[MMasztal]

Literal.

After years as a day-age creationist, I spent a considerable time studying this before i started teaching science at a Christian school. I found that the literal interpretation to be supported Biblically with other positions lacking support given the nature of the fall, etc.

 

[lshepler412]

Brian, could you state for those of us who are not too familiar with it exactly what the framework view is or says. I've never really had a good grasp of it.

 

[Scott Shahan]

It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.

Great point, Grudem also makes that point in his systematics, see bottom of pg 278. His argument there is very persuasive.