Is Genesis Narrative or Metaphor?

[weinhold]

Folks, allow me to reiterate, as a reminder to myself mostly, the words with which I opened my comments on this thread:

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

I am, I know, not an expert at all in matters of biblical exegesis. Nor am I an expert in scientific matters. I am, however, working very hard right now to become an expert at reading literature, and so perhaps that explains my approach to Genesis as a text. When I read it, it strikes me as the most beautiful story of human beginnings that I have ever read. So if it is my Christian presuppositions that lead me to the conclusion that Genesis is accurate, then I also think it is the beauty of Genesis as a story that leads me to believe it is true. (As a corollary, I have to admit my own jealousy that many of you pastors and seminarians have the marvelous privilege of encountering the beauty of Genesis in Hebrew. I imagine that you must revel in that opportunity.) Anyway, I am woefully behind in my replies, so what follows is an attempt to catch up. It is a shame that we cannot all drink coffee and talk for an hour, for I am certain that if we did, we would arrive at a consensus rather easily. As it is, we must continue "scribbling hieroglyphs" as Carlos Fuentes has said.

***

Mark said:

Mark, how could anyone conclusively prove with science (a created thing) that the universe was spoken into being by God? How could anyone give a conclusive and exhaustive narrative of the creation event, let alone any events that followed after it?

This is an interesting question from a Christian. Since I never alluded to such an idea it appears that this is simply the basis you use to interpret scripture.(correct me if I am wrong) The reason why I find it so interesting is that as a Christian we begin with the idea that God is. Scripture doesn't work to prove God but presupposes His existence. As Christians we also presuppose that scripture is the work of God. (2 Tim 3:16-17) And that it reveals Christ. (Luke 24:27)

The questions I asked regarding scientific and historical accuracy were meant to probe Mark's definition of "accurate." If Mark's answer to my question (which was also a statement) is that we must presuppose God's existence and His faithfulness to us in Scripture, then I think we might agree regarding our hermeneutic. Scientific and historically precise accuracy (i.e. direct correspondence with the events of the past) is not what I demand Scripture to provide. In fact, to make such demands would probably exceed the limits of science and history itself, because as I have said, the creation event is neither repeatable nor observable, and so science can provide no conclusions; likewise, no human witness was present to observe the creation, and so a history also falls short. As I wrote earlier, "These realities exist in the past, behind the text, but they are not realities that we are meant to see. . . Scripture is a sumptuous gown; we need to be enthralled with the beauty it brings, not constantly peeking underneath it." What we have in Genesis is a tremendously beautiful story, which we as a faith community believe is a true story.

So what I am asking is, does the Genesis account reveal an actual fallen man, in need of an actual redemption, by the shed blood of Christ. Does it reveal the Messiah, who came and shed His blood for a fallen man. Does it reveal a penalty for sin and rebellion toward God that is eternal. If so is it accurate in its revelation of these things?

Question #1: If by "actual" you mean "true" or "real" then yes, if you are asking whether a man named Adam ever really existed, then I would say "I believe so," though of course I can't prove that with science or history. Incidentally, I am reminded of a statement made by William Faulkner. When a reporter asked him how he knew what his characters would do next, he answered, "I follow behind them with pad and pen." In other words, characters have ontology just as "real" human beings.

Question #2: Not unless you mean a typological reading that prefigures Christ's redemption in the Gospels.

Question #3: I'm not sure if Genesis itself refers to eternal punishment.

Question #4: If by "accurate" you do not demand factual precision, then yes.

***

Dennis, my reply to you has been a long time coming. My apologies for the delay.

I admire Dennis' willingness to deconstruct the scientific hegemony that mocks the truth of Genesis; it is certainly a project that exceeds my gifts and interests. What concerns me, however, is that many Christians feel the need to construct in its place a scientifically legitimate explanation for creation that corresponds with Genesis. Why not simply concede that the purpose of Genesis is not scientific accuracy? Indeed, Dennis exemplifies the approach I advocate when he writes:

Briefly, I do not believe that we must "prove" that the Bible corresponds to science. My claim is that the nature of historical narrative militates for a more straight-forward reading of Genesis as a summary, but not factually inaccurate, re-telling of the great work of God's creation. It is only when some Christians confront secular claims to a hegemony on "truth" in their account of origins and respond by capitulating to the naturalistic version of things that I put forth chinks in the scientific account. Your final sentence is doubtless true. However, why even make the distinction here?

Dennis asks about the differentia between fact and story. I concede that my line of distinction is crude, and probably does not do justice to the many other differentia of truth (sociological, psychological, etc.) To differentiate between fact and story, however, I draw from Perrine and Arp, Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense. They compare an encyclopedia article on "eagles" with Tennyson's poem, "The Eagle":

If we want simply to acquire information about eagles, we may turn to an encyclopedia or a book of natural history. There we find that the family Falconidae, to which eagles belong, is characterized by imperforate nostrils, legs of medium length, a hooked bill, the hind toe inserted on a level with the three front ones, and the claws roundly curved and sharp; that land eagles are feathered to the toes and sea-fishing eagles halfway to the toes; that their length is about three feet and their wingspan seven feet; that they usually build their nests on some inaccessible cliff; that the eggs are spotted and do not exceed three . . .

The Eagle

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ringed with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt, he falls.

When "The Eagle" has been read well, readers will feel that they have enjoyed a significant experience and understand eagles better, though in a different way, than they did from the encyclopedia article alone.

I hope the example above demonstrates why I distinguish between fact and story in Genesis: it reads more like Tennyson and less like an encyclopedia.

 

[DMcFadden]

Paul,

You are a very bright young man with a promising future. Your questions are good ones, your reflections are well phrased and thoughtful.

My handing of the text of Genesis is somewhat more simple-minded. In brief:

I am not wedded to Ussher's chronology and do not necessarily insist upon the rigid notions popular in the YEC crowd regarding the necessity of all generations being included in the genealogies. However, to indicate that "day" (yom) does not mean day in Gen 1 because it can be used to indicate a much larger period of time in Gen 2 is specious.

"Yom" is no more "magical" in Hebrew than "day" in English. We customarily use the word in various senses and know what it means. "In my father's day it took four days to travel from Illinois to California during the day." The first instance refers to the period of my dad's life (the good ole days), the second speaks of 24 hour periods, and the third denotes the light portion of a day. It is usually no more difficult to determine the meaning of "day" in the OT (in most instances) than in English. Gen 2:4 clearly speaks of the time of God's creation and Gen 1 lays out the various days of creation. Ex 20:11 provides a non-Genesis reference where the creation of the "sabbath" DAY (i.e. a 24 hour period) is based upon the creation DAYS (also viewed as 24 hour periods).

Ousdie of Genesis, "day" is used 410x with a number (e.g., first day, day one, etc.) and it ALWAYS means an ordinary day; "evening and morning" appears 34x and it ALWAYS means an ordinary day; "evening" or "morning" with "day" can be found 23x each and it ALWAYS means an ordinary day; and "night" couples with "day" 52x and it ALWAYS means an ordinary day. So, how come when these linguistic markers appear in Genesis we suddenly balk at interpreting them in an ordinary manner? Only because we have concluded, based on some very anti-theistic assumptions, that the "facts" make such belief incredible.

"It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 570-571).

As Hodge observed (and Grudem has restated), an honest reading of Genesis 1 would lead one to believe that 6 days (of a roughly normal type and duration) are in view. It is only under the pressure from the conclusions brought into modern intellectual life through those operating with naturalistic materialistic assumptions that we were faced with the unfortunate choice of believing that Genesis teaches what it says vs. finding an alternative interpretation for the text that will allow us to accept naturalistic conclusions of modern science without outright denying the Bible. Hodge, like most contemporary evangelicals, accepted as "fact" the position on the antiquity of the universe. Therefore, he felt compelled to modify his understanding of the Bible to avoid admitting it was in error.

Since, contra Collins, I believe that the bitter fruit of materialistic assumptions (old earth, old universe, and evolutionary biology) has poisoned confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, I am inclined to accept the biblical record in a straight forward manner and await further confirmation (even in the eschaton) to settle the matter.

 

[caddy]

I would like to know if Ussher's Chronology is errant or misleading, where would we began looking for errors?

 

[weinhold]

Dennis, thanks for your reply. It points out a flaw that I meant to correct in my last post: I haven't yet answered your point about Exodus 20:11. I am definitely not qualified (I don't even know Hebrew!) to refute your point about "yom." Also, I must admit that I am not up to speed on the apparently thriving secondary critical debate. Even with my limited knowledge, however, I very much agree with your point: every piece of textual evidence seems to indicate that Moses (or whoever) meant "24 hr day," even though they didn't know that days were 24 hrs long. I see no reason to read "day-age" into the text or any such silliness. Why attempt to make Genesis a scientifically accurate account? Doing so requires specious hermeneutics that read hidden meanings into the text which would have been completely irrelevant until about 150 years ago. It can be true without all that nonsense. Incidentally, a thought occurred to me recently: Since we have established that science cannot conclusively explain human origins, if we prefer its explanation over Genesis, aren't we just substituting an ugly story for a beautiful one?

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

I must say I am always saddened by those who call themsleves Christian and yet will not rely on the soveriegnty of God. To think that mans imperfections will trump God's ability to keep His word, say what he means and mean what he says.

The fact that man wasn't there in creation is not a well reasoned standard for findng inaccuracy or even an inablity to know if the events that are described are accurate in any historical sense or scientific. This is rather a strawman that has no foundation or density.

Many events are researched after the fact when there is little to no eyewitnesses. Yet events always leave in there trail evidence of the historical facts. Long before man ever crawled in a rocket and climbed into space Job said that God hung the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7) And thousands of years later man found this to be true through clear observation. Man didn't need to recreate the events that made it so to discover if it were true. The evidence of the flood that pushed noah and his family around for forty days and nights have been left all over this world. No historical or scientific fact found in scripture can be disproven. And as the time of eternity goes by more and more come into light under the evidence that continues to be revealed that support them.

The nature of scripture is a revelation of the Messiah. (Luke 24:27,44) The Genesis account contains more than just typology but in fact prophecies of the Messiah.( Genesis 3:15) It speaks to the eternal penalty if sin and the wrath of God.(Genesis3:3) It also gives us a clear picture of God's grace.(Genesis 3:21,24)

In the case of Genesis the eye witness account was God. And God being perfect, Soveriegn, and immutable gave that account to Moses with clarity and accuracy. (Luke 24:27,44) Let everyone else be a liar and God will always stand true to His word.

 

[weinhold]

I must say I am always saddened by those who call themsleves Christian and yet will not rely on the soveriegnty of God. To think that mans imperfections will trump God's ability to keep His word, say what he means and mean what he says.

Mark, now I am saddened. The above statement seems to obliquely imply that our disagreement over how to interpret Genesis somehow makes my Christianity disingenuous. Surely this was a slip, out of frustration perhaps; your previous comments had indicated a great deal of charity. Let me encourage you to avoid such gaffes in the future, for they inflict immeasurable damage to your ethos.

The fact that man wasn't there in creation is not a well reasoned standard for findng inaccuracy or even an inablity to know if the events that are described are accurate in any historical sense or scientific. This is rather a strawman that has no foundation or density.

The standards for scientific and historical analysis are not straw men, and the whole point of my mentioning them is to agree with elements of Mark's presuppositional approach. The scientific method uses experimentation to arrive at conclusions. Thus, anything that cannot be repeatedly observed cannot be explained scientifically. Hence, science can only asymptotically approach the creation event; it cannot conclusively explain it. The same is true for history: those who were not present at an event must rely upon accounts of it, which are perspectival and limited. Nobody was present at creation. Hence, what we must rely on instead of scientific or historical accounts is the story that Genesis provides for us. The power of this story is in its own generative capacity to beget a heritage in its readers, something a factual account could never really provide.

Many events are researched after the fact when there is little to no eyewitnesses. Yet events always leave in there trail evidence of the historical facts. Long before man ever crawled in a rocket and climbed into space Job said that God hung the earth on nothing. (Job 26:7) And thousands of years later man found this to be true through clear observation. Man didn't need to recreate the events that made it so to discover if it were true. The evidence of the flood that pushed noah and his family around for forty days and nights have been left all over this world. No historical or scientific fact found in scripture can be disproven. And as the time of eternity goes by more and more come into light under the evidence that continues to be revealed that support them.

Here I think Mark and I simply disagree over what the Bible purports to be; I am not nearly as concerned with upholding the scientific or historical precision of Scripture. Again, this is because I do not demand that truth must be factual. If Mark wishes to meticulously harmonize science and Scripture, then that's fine I suppose. I find such a project decreasingly interesting since, even if it could be conclusive, only results in proving Christian sanity. I would rather invest in the story itself.

The nature of scripture is a revelation of the Messiah. (Luke 24:27,44) The Genesis account contains more than just typology but in fact prophecies of the Messiah.( Genesis 3:15) It speaks to the eternal penalty if sin and the wrath of God.(Genesis3:3) It also gives us a clear picture of God's grace.(Genesis 3:21,24)

Statement 1: Agreed.

Statement 2: "typology" vs "prophecies" hardly seems significant, but I will yield to Mark's preference.

Statement 3: I'm not sure whether Eve thought of "death" as "eternal penalty" in 3:3; are there any other passages in Genesis that clarify?

Statement 4: These would hardly have been clear to Adam and Eve, though the Gospel reality makes them clear as crystal for us.

In the case of Genesis the eye witness account was God. And God being perfect, Soveriegn, and immutable gave that account to Moses with clarity and accuracy. (Luke 24:27,44) Let everyone else be a liar and God will always stand true to His word.

Yes, God was there. Interestingly enough, He did not choose to reveal the event with historical or scientific precision. Instead, He chose to write a story. Again, the gown analogy applies.

 

[sastark]

Yes, God was there. Interestingly enough, He did not choose to reveal the event with historical or scientific precision. Instead, He chose to write a story. Again, the gown analogy applies.

This thread is very interesting to me, being a grad student studying Science and Religion (and the interaction of the two).

Paul, why do you believe that God chose to not reveal the event (creation) with historical precision (I agree that it was not revealed with scientific precision: God did not give us a detailed explanation of the formation of the atom)? Is it because of modern scientific understanding of the origin of man?

I agree with you that from a literary perspective the creation account is beautiful (the structure of the days of creation and the events that take place each day is awe inspiring), but I also believe the story can be both beautiful in prose and historically accurate at the same time.

As a side note: I agree with Paul that science cannot prove the creation account of Genesis; however, neither can it disprove it. So then, how do we know what happened? We must rely on revelation, which tells us God created in 6 days of evenings and mornings.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

Genesis[/I] somehow makes my Christianity disingenuous. Surely this was a slip, out of frustration perhaps; your previous comments had indicated a great deal of charity. Let me encourage you to avoid such gaffes in the future, for they inflict immeasurable damage to your ethos.

Actually it implies no such thing. I have seen no evidence to convince me one way or the other about your Christianity. I am sorry you felt that way.

The standards for scientific and historical analysis are not straw men, and the whole point of my mentioning them is to agree with elements of Mark's presuppositional approach. The scientific method uses experimentation to arrive at conclusions. Thus, anything that cannot be repeatedly observed cannot be explained scientifically. Hence, science can only asymptotically approach the creation event; it cannot conclusively explain it. The same is true for history: those who were not present at an event must rely upon accounts of it, which are perspectival and limited. Nobody was present at creation. Hence, what we must rely on instead of scientific or historical accounts is the story that Genesis provides for us. The power of this story is in its own generative capacity to beget a heritage in its readers, something a factual account could never really provide.

You missed my point. I will make another attempt to clarify it. When we re given a story that claims specifics of certain events in most cases we cannot recreate those events. What we do do s to verify them by the expected results of such events. Much of what is described in scripture has evidence tat supports the described events. archaeology continues to reveal the validity of the claims in Scripture. I gave you the small example of Job. Who said that God hung the earth on nothing. No one in his time could have known this. Yet we now know this is accurate in our time. It is false that we always need science to prove science. What Job said is scientifically correct. The earth hangs on nothing.

Here I think Mark and I simply disagree over what the Bible purports to be; I am not nearly as concerned with upholding the scientific or historical precision of Scripture. Again, this is because I do not demand that truth must be factual. If Mark wishes to meticulously harmonize science and Scripture, then that's fine I suppose. I find such a project decreasingly interesting since, even if it could be conclusive, only results in proving Christian sanity. I would rather invest in the story itself.

Really Do you find that the New Testament accounts of Christ on earth to be of the same nature as Genesis? why or why not?

I'm not sure whether Eve thought of "death" as "eternal penalty" in 3:3; are there any other passages in Genesis that clarify?

I did not suggest Eve understood it in any way. I made reference to how we can understand it. Do you believe in eternal penalty and the wrath of God?

Statement 4: These would hardly have been clear to Adam and Eve, though the Gospel reality makes them clear as crystal for us.

How do you know?

Yes God was there. Interestingly enough, He did not choose to reveal the event with historical or scientific precision. Instead, He chose to write a story. Again, the gown analogy applies.

Again you missed the point. I will try to be a bit clearer. The sovereignty was spoken of in the context of revealing His revelation exactly and without error.

I have no idea how anyone has ever come to the conclusion that God "chose" not to be scientifically accurate.

As far as the differences in typology and prophecy they are night and day. Typology has no need to have all the details exact. Prophecy must be fulfilled exactly.

 

[JohnV]

What is interesting to me is that calling Genesis a story does not really say anything about Genesis. There's no affirmation that it is either true or not true in saying it is a story; nor is there any affirmation as to the purpose or aim of the account.

If, for example, the 'story' about Adam is a true one, then it is clear what the purpose of it is. But if it is a story that is neither true nor false, then there can be no accounting for its purpose. The Fall might be an indication of man's fall from grace, but is only an indication; it is not a Biblical assertion that we could determine as doctrinal. We only assume it is so from the rest of Scripture. But we should keep in mind that when we read the rest of Scripture that Genesis is only a story that is neither true nor false, and that therefore Jesus treats it as such as well. That leaves us with the conclusion that Jesus' assertions that derive out of Genesis are not to be taken as doctrinal truth, but as metaphor for the truth of that which He spoke. What, then, is the meaning of the metaphor? And so it goes, the chain of doubt become endless.

Surely there is beauty in the account, in the use of communicative tools and the ideas themselves. But that beauty centres around whether the account is either true or meaningful as a story. In other words, if it is not a true account but just a story, then it certainly has to point directly or knowingly to a truth that is known, or the story loses all meaning. And so the beauty of it is gone as well. It would be nice to call it beautiful, but we could not possibly know whether it is or not because we could not know the true meaningful content of the story; thus we would also not really know whether it was beautiful.

The point I'm trying to make is that we are not given the option of Genesis being anything but a true account, brief as it is, of the first few centuries of life. The true beauty of the account lies in the fact that Genesis does what no man on earth could do: give a concise and complete account that is true in every way. There are no rabbit trails in order to explain the setting or circumstances; it's just a straight forward account that is true. It can be examined in detail itself and still remain precise and authoritative in every way. In other words, it loses nothing as a result of indepth analysis and examination, such as men's accounts of any history would.

We may dispute about the word "day", whether the English word or the Hebrew word, but that is our dispute, not the Word's. The Word still means something definite and firm, whether we are fuzzy on it or not. Our struggle to understand cannot be blamed on the Word, for it is our sinful hearts and minds that are to blame.

I can read many different accounts or explanations which try to solve the riddles of the Genesis account, and how that account squares with what we think we know from our sciences, but the Word of God is still the Word of God to me. And therefore it still stands far above all these speculative ideas and philosophies. I know God, and I know He is true and trustworthy. I do not have that same confidence in even the best of men, no matter how intelligent he may be. A man might make me look like a childish fool for my faith in God's Word, but that will not generate in me a higher faith in him than I have in God.

 

[caddy]

Can Creation Models Be Wrong?

Jesus showed that He understood Genesis was true history when He quoted Genesis 1:27 & 2:24 ( See Mark 10:6-8). God afirmed that He created iin 6 normal-length days when He wrote the 4th commandment ( Ex 20:11 ).





Answers Magazine: Building a Biblical Worldview

by Paul Taylor, AiG–U.K.

September 4, 2007


Keywords

• author-Paul-taylor
• creation-research
• presuppositions
• science
• scientific-creationism

Featured In

• Browse this issue

If scientific evidence causes a creationist model to change, we should not let that shake our confidence in the accuracy and authority of Scripture.
Sometimes it is good to state your presuppositions at the start of an article. I believe the Bible to be the complete, authoritative, inspired and inerrant word of God. That is my basis for this article and all the articles that I write, as it is for the other writers in this magazine. Perhaps you are now expecting the word “but.” Often, a statement of belief, such as that above, is followed by the word “but.” There will be no “but” here, in the sense that I accept no exceptions to the statement.
The Place of Scientific Models


In the course of our work at Answers in Genesis–United Kingdom, we are sometimes asked questions for which the Bible does not give an exact answer. In a chapter that I penned for the New Answers Book, I stated:

“Skeptics often claim, ‘The Bible is not a science textbook.’ This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue. ... It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about.”1​

The issue that I was addressing in the New Answers Book was the question “How did animals spread all over the world from where the Ark landed?” The Bible doesn’t actually say how this happened, yet it is clear from the Bible that it did happen. That is why a scientific model was necessary. However, I said this about scientific models: such models should be held lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say, future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.
Building a Scientific Model

In describing a biblical model of post-Flood recolonization, I began with four facts, taken directly from Genesis.

1. Two of every kind of land animal and bird were on the Ark.
2. God brought the animals to Noah, so it was God’s intention to preserve them. The subsequent recolonization was not left to chance.
3. The Ark came to rest somewhere in the vicinity of modern-day Turkey.
4. God willed the earth to be recolonized (Genesis 8:15–19).

Any model that fits the above biblical criteria is potentially viable. Yet it is obviously sensible to use accepted scientific models in the construction of the biblical model—always remembering that our acceptance of science is secondary to our acceptance of scriptural inerrancy.
Building scientific models is a helpful step in fulfilling the Christian duty to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Some answers are not stated directly in Scripture, so it is fair to ask if we can work out an explanation. We just need to remember that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that the model is how things actually happened.
We need to be aware of the difference between operational science and origins science. Operational science is the result of experimental data or observations taken in the present, subject to peer review, and capable of repetition. Origins science is an extrapolation of presently observed phenomena into the past, in a manner which is not repeatable. When evolutionists are criticized for the latter, it is not because the principle of origins science is wrong, but because such a model cannot be accepted as a proven fact. So it is with creationists’ models.

This supernova remnant was born in 1987 when a star exploded. Since this object is 170,000 light years away, it is claimed that the event happened 170,000 years ago and that the light is just now reaching us. If God had created the light “in-transit,” then it would mean that this event never actually happened, and this object does not actually exist. So, most creation scientists reject the “in-transit” solution to distant starlight.

Case Study: Distant Starlight

A well-known example of the building of scientific models is the attempt to answer the so-called “distant starlight problem.” The problem is this: how do we explain that light appears to have taken millions of years to cross millions of light-years of space, when we believe that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day of creation, in a single 24-hour period?

Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle has examined the details of this issue on a number of occasions, including in The New Answers Book.2 In this article, I simply want to look at the flow of ideas rather than the detailed scientific models.

Scientific models, while helpful, must never take the place of Scripture. The scientific model can be superseded. Scripture cannot.​

In The Genesis Record, Dr. Henry Morris concluded that the light from distant stars could have been created in transit so that the universe only appears to be old, having the appearance of maturity. Lisle describes a problem with this view. “We see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.”3 Yet, if the light were created in transit, then we are observing events—novae and supernovae, for example—that never actually happened. It doesn’t seem reasonable that God would create “movies” of fictional events.
Some scientists suggest a second model, that the speed of light has changed (decelerated) over time. This idea can fit with the biblical account because, if the speed of light were much faster in the past, then it could be possible for the sun, moon, and stars to have been made on Day 4, just a few thousand years ago.
This model also has scientific, rather than scriptural, problems, in that the speed of light determines a number of other phenomena. For example, the energy produced by radioactive decay, using Albert Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation, would have been unreasonably great at the time of creation.
Another model is the rather complex one proposed by Dr. Russell Humphreys.4 He postulates that the universe is expanding but bounded. This would have been like a white hole at the time of Day 4 of creation. A white hole is similar to a black hole, except that matter emerges from a white hole rather than being absorbed. A bounded universe would have a center, and the gravitational field would cause the fabric of space-time to distort. According to Einstein’s principles, time will flow more slowly near the center of a bounded universe than it will closer to the edge. Humphreys showed that if our solar system were near the center of the universe, then what would appear to be millions of years’ worth of stellar processes could have occurred in the depths of space, while only 24 hours elapsed on earth. Humphreys’ model has been very influential in creationist circles, but even aspects of that model are challenged by other creationists.

Often called the Andromeda Galaxy, M31 is over 2 million light-years away. Yet it is one of the nearest galaxies.

Without needing to understand every detail of the various scientific models, the principles are these.
Asking about the distant starlight problem is a fair question, to which Christians should seek an answer. Yet the Bible does not give a specific answer.
The Bible teaches that God made the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4.
Models have been developed that accept the Bible as true and apply scientific principles in a manner consistent with Scripture. However, even these models may need to be overturned if other scientific ideas suggest that the model is not correct—though the scriptural principles are never overturned.
Conclusion

We have seen that scientific models can help us carry out our 1 Peter 3:15 obligation always to have an answer. The scriptural principles behind the construction of a model are absolute. The model itself may contain reasoned conjecture, according to established scientific ideas, so long as these do not conflict with the scriptural facts.
Scientific models, while helpful, must never take the place of Scripture. The scientific model can be superseded. Scripture cannot.
Paul F. Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his masters in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in Genesis-UK.

Above: The Sombrero galaxy, Messier 104, is located 28 million light-years from earth. Because we start from the Bible, which teaches a young universe, creation models seek to understand how light can travel vast distances in a short period of time.
Bottom: The creation model of created kinds starts with the fact that only two animals of each kind (with the exception of certain animals) entered Noah’s Ark as the Bible teaches.

• http://javascript<b></b>:OpenPrint()

References

1. Taylor, P. F., How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? in Ham, K. (ed.), The New Answers Book (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2006), p. 141. Back
2. Lisle, J., “Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?” in Ham, K. (ed.), The New Answers Book (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2006), p. 245. Back
3. Ibid., p. 246. Back
4. Humphreys, R., Starlight and Time (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1994). Back

 

[BertMulder]

Well, if you do not believe that God created us in the manner described in Genesis 1, what does that do to the manner God recreates us as described in the rest of Holy Writ?

 

[JohnV]

I'm not saying that I agree with all the activities and published articles of Answers in Genesis. I'm not so sure that's the right way to go about it; and on some things I'm sure that its not the right way to go about it. I see no need, for example, to give in to the demand from the atheists' challenges to provide scientific models, because that inescapably ties human speculations in with the Bible's revelations. It follows from the same sort of reasoning that we ought not to allow pictures of Jesus: it is an (unintended) addition to Scripture.

But what I am trying to stress is that even calling the Genesis account a story without any overt attempts to tie it with truth or historical accuracy still has inherent in it the necessary suggestion that it is true and historically accurate. Not to recognize that, as so many atheists do, is to do injustice to your own integrity in understanding, let alone the integrity of the Word of God. Whether any account allows 1% or 100% truth to the account, it requires at least some of it to be true and accurate. Even if it is metaphor, it has to be metaphor for something; and that something is not found anywhere else in God's revelation except Genesis.

So what part is it that is "honestly" deemed as true and accurate? And why is it that this part alone is true and accurate, and not the other parts? What sets that one section of Genesis apart as true and accurate that we can call it a story, or lend support to alternative theories of origins? If it is analogical, it is analogical for something that can be understood, or the purpose of analogy is defeated.

As I said, calling it a story does not say anything about Genesis. Admiring it for its beauty without giving content to that beauty is meaningless. As with any story, intrinsic in it's beauty is it's relation of the intent and aim within that story, and what it either teaches us or what it imparts to us.

But to me the most important part is whether Genesis remains as revelation from God, if it is true that it is only a story. It must reveal something to us from God. Without any relation to truth or accuracy not even the most elaborate or thorough alternative explanations have any meaning for us: the Day-Age Theory, the Analogical Day Theory, the Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution; all these are as nothing if they do not rely at least to some degree upon the accuracy and truth of Genesis. Calling it a story without any predisposition to truth or accuracy empty's the word "story" of its meaning, and empties Genesis of its revelation from God. We have no obligation to a story unless it imparts something to us from above.

 

[weinhold]

This thread is very interesting to me, being a grad student studying Science and Religion (and the interaction of the two).

Paul, why do you believe that God chose to not reveal the event (creation) with historical precision (I agree that it was not revealed with scientific precision: God did not give us a detailed explanation of the formation of the atom)? Is it because of modern scientific understanding of the origin of man?

I agree with you that from a literary perspective the creation account is beautiful (the structure of the days of creation and the events that take place each day is awe inspiring), but I also believe the story can be both beautiful in prose and historically accurate at the same time.

As a side note: I agree with Paul that science cannot prove the creation account of Genesis; however, neither can it disprove it. So then, how do we know what happened? We must rely on revelation, which tells us God created in 6 days of evenings and mornings.

Seth, I'm glad to see your comment in this thread since you will likely bring expertise that I certainly lack in the area of science and religion. I am not sure what a "modern scientific understanding of the origin of man" even is anymore; it seems to change with the wind, and we should expect as much from science, since its hypotheses about human origins must always be provisional. All that aside, my statement about Genesis lacking historical precision is not meant derisively; it merely delimits what readers should expect from Scripture.

Let's assume a fiction: that an objectively accurate and comprehensive historical account is possible. What would we expect from Genesis if we demanded that it be such an account? Several things would need explanation: God's creative speech, the primordial void, Eve's creation from Adam's rib, light prior to the sun, the meaning of "His image," etc. Some of these might require scientific explanation, but these are nonetheless also historical explanations, since a precise and factual history thoroughly explains a past event. Genesis does not engage in this type of factual analysis. I thank God that it does not, because what an ugly story that would make!

 

[sastark]

Paul, first, if I completely miss your point, my apologies. Second, it sounds like you are saying that the miraculous is not possible, at least not in the first few chapters of Genesis.

When you say "several things would need explanation" do you mean beyond the explanation of God said it, and it happened? I would agree that a detailed anatomical/scientific explanation of Eve being formed out of Adam's rib would make for a boring narrative (and as a side note, wouldn't be "scientific" since science cannot account for the supernatural) and that isn't what we should expect from Scripture; however, what little information we are given, I believe to be historically and factually accurate.

 

[weinhold]

Actually it implies no such thing. I have seen no evidence to convince me one way or the other about your Christianity. I am sorry you felt that way.

Mark, you have succeeded in making an implicit statement explicit. Since this line of ad hominem neither strengthens your argument nor relates to the thread, I propose we deal with my personal belief (which, I assure you, exists) via private messaging.

You missed my point. I will make another attempt to clarify it. When we re given a story that claims specifics of certain events in most cases we cannot recreate those events. What we do do s to verify them by the expected results of such events. Much of what is described in scripture has evidence tat supports the described events. archaeology continues to reveal the validity of the claims in Scripture. I gave you the small example of Job. Who said that God hung the earth on nothing. No one in his time could have known this. Yet we now know this is accurate in our time. It is false that we always need science to prove science. What Job said is scientifically correct. The earth hangs on nothing.

I suppose that if one reads "earth" as "planet," which I doubt is the case, one might accept Job 26:7 as a rather simplistic statement about our planet's gravitational orbit, but even that seems quite a stretch and incidental to the story of Job. The real point of Job's statement seems to be its place in the broader cosmography of chapter 26 that includes: Sheol, Abaddon, void, earth, waters, clouds, the moon, heaven, and winds. Job's point, as I read the chapter, is the existence of God's overwhelming power in the cosmos. But if 26:7 becomes a golden apple that we pursue to disprove science, then we have actually missed the frail beauty of the story itself. In seeking to preserve Scripture we shall have left it behind.

Do you find that the New Testament accounts of Christ on earth to be of the same nature as Genesis? why or why not?

No, I think the Gospels are different. First, the Gospels occurred closer to our own time; second, clear historical data exists for dating the Gospels (e.g. reign of kings); third, we can still visit many places where Gospel stories occurred; fourth, the gospel writers themselves are far more concerned with narrative precision (e.g. Lk. 1:3); fifth, we have four Gospel accounts, and the synoptic Gospels verify one another consistently; sixth, the rapid growth of the Christian church soon after the events in the Gospels surely allowed for revision of factual mistakes. So while the Gospels are not really trying to be historically precise in a 19th century historicist sense, they are certainly as factual, maybe more, than Thucydides, Heroditus, Plutarch, Xenophon, etc.

I did not suggest Eve understood it in any way. I made reference to how we can understand it. Do you believe in eternal penalty and the wrath of God?

Eve is the speaker in the verse you cited, Genesis 3:3. She is recounting (with her subtle addition, "neither shall you touch it") God's words to the serpent. I am not sure whether Eve understood "death" as "eternal penalty" at that moment. So yes, I believe that hell exists as the Bible explains it, but I don't think I get that from Genesis.

Statement 4: These would hardly have been clear to Adam and Eve, though the Gospel reality makes them clear as crystal for us.

How do you know?

I don't for sure, but I also don't see any textual evidence in Genesis that Adam and Eve understood anything more than a vague prophecy of hope.

Yes God was there. Interestingly enough, He did not choose to reveal the event with historical or scientific precision. Instead, He chose to write a story. Again, the gown analogy applies.

Again you missed the point. I will try to be a bit clearer. The sovereignty was spoken of in the context of revealing His revelation exactly and without error.

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

As far as the differences in typology and prophecy they are night and day. Typology has no need to have all the details exact. Prophecy must be fulfilled exactly.

I yield the distinction.

 

[weinhold]

John, I believe that Genesis is a true story:

Even if Genesis were proven false in their factuality (a conclusion science cannot provide), it would still be a true story.

What we have in Genesis is a tremendously beautiful story, which we as a faith community believe is a true story.

By contrast, I assert that fact is a species of truth and is not equal to it, so that my reading of Genesis allows for it to be a true story, without demanding that it be a factual story in the sense of strict historical precision. It may indeed be such an account, but I don't think the text demands that we take it that way; I don't think that is what it is trying to be. Genesis is first and foremost a story (a noun that I would never modify with "mere" or "only" or "just"), and because it is so, its primary mode of imparting knowledge is different from fact but nonetheless true.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

Mark, you have succeeded in making an implicit statement explicit. Since this line of ad hominem neither strengthens your argument nor relates to the thread, I propose we deal with my personal belief (which, I assure you, exists) via private messaging.

Again there has beenno implication and certainly no ad hominem. As far as relating to the thread, I simpy responded to your accusation.

 

[JohnV]

John, I believe that Genesis is a true story:

I know that is what you say, Paul, but I don't know what you mean by that, since you also say,

Even if Genesis were proven false in their factuality (a conclusion science cannot provide), it would still be a true story.

and,

What we have in Genesis is a tremendously beautiful story, which we as a faith community believe is a true story.

and,

By contrast, I assert that fact is a species of truth and is not equal to it, so that my reading of Genesis allows for it to be a true story, without demanding that it be a factual story in the sense of strict historical precision. It may indeed be such an account, but I don't think the text demands that we take it that way; I don't think that is what it is trying to be. Genesis is first and foremost a story (a noun that I would never modify with "mere" or "only" or "just"), and because it is so, its primary mode of imparting knowledge is different from fact but nonetheless true.

I read Genesis as part of God's revelation of Himself, from which I may be instructed in my faith. When I say I believe Genesis, it is more than saying I believe it is a true nonfactual story. It is more than admiring the beauty of what it says. It must include believing what it says for the factual truth it conveys. If Genesis is metaphor, then we have no idea of what truth it actually portrays to us.

The difference, as I see it, is how you understand what true faith consists of. I divide it into three categories, the same as that which is demanded of office-bearers in the Church: that which is required of us to believe; that which we may believe, though not required; and that which may not be believed. The first is that which God reveals in His Word; the second is that which we might be convinced of in our own minds out of God's Word, but may not be required of us nor become a disqualificaton to our memberships (i.e., adiaphora, might be true or might not be true; and the third is that which disqualifies us, or beliefs which are not true. Ministers may only preach, and elders only require and defend, the first. That's because this is what the Church says God tells us in His Word. The second may not be required nor preached because the Church does not know whether God tells us these things or not, though they do not in themselves negate anything in the first category. The third ought not to be believed because they stand against or militate against, or outrightly contradict, the first category.

I only regard the first as doctrine, which it that which God reveals to us in His Word. And that includes Genesis. For Genesis to be included, I am not able to regard it as metaphor, or as a true story which has no relation to factuality. I must believe that the things stated as fact are indeed fact. And I find no clear markers making a distinction between metaphor and fact other than that which is common and well known in literature. That means that I cannot regard Genesis as metaphor. To me it is not a possibility.

Nor, then, is it in any way meaningful to call Genesis a true story without any demand to whether the account is factual. Either way, whether metaphor or non-factual story, it is meaningless to me, even if you still make a claim to believing it as true. The only way it is meaningful to me is if it tells me a true and factual account. Otherwise the content of Genesis goes into the second or third categories, and therefore outside the requirements of faith.

 

[caddy]

John, I believe that Genesis is a true story:

I know that is what you say, Paul, but I don't know what you mean by that, since you also say,


I read Genesis as part of God's revelation of Himself, from which I may be instructed in my faith. When I say I believe Genesis, it is more than saying I believe it is a true nonfactual story. It is more than admiring the beauty of what it says. It must include believing what it says for the factual truth it conveys. If Genesis is metaphor, then we have no idea of what truth it actually portrays to us.

The difference, as I see it, is how you understand what true faith consists of. I divide it into three categories, the same as that which is demanded of office-bearers in the Church: that which is required of us to believe; that which we may believe, though not required; and that which may not be believed. The first is that which God reveals in His Word; the second is that which we might be convinced of in our own minds out of God's Word, but may not be required of us nor become a disqualificaton to our memberships (i.e., adiaphora, might be true or might not be true; and the third is that which disqualifies us, or beliefs which are not true. Ministers may only preach, and elders only require and defend, the first. That's because this is what the Church says God tells us in His Word. The second may not be required nor preached because the Church does not know whether God tells us these things or not, though they do not in themselves negate anything in the first category. The third ought not to be believed because they stand against or militate against, or outrightly contradict, the first category.

I only regard the first as doctrine, which it that which God reveals to us in His Word. And that includes Genesis. For Genesis to be included, I am not able to regard it as metaphor, or as a true story which has no relation to factuality. I must believe that the things stated as fact are indeed fact. And I find no clear markers making a distinction between metaphor and fact other than that which is common and well known in literature. That means that I cannot regard Genesis as metaphor. To me it is not a possibility.

Nor, then, is it in any way meaningful to call Genesis a true story without any demand to whether the account is factual. Either way, whether metaphor or non-factual story, it is meaningless to me, even if you still make a claim to believing it as true. The only way it is meaningful to me is if it tells me a true and factual account. Otherwise the content of Genesis goes into the second or third categories, and therefore outside the requirements of faith.

 

[shackleton]

As I read these arguments back and forth it seems as though Weinhold is saying that Genesis cannot be proven "scientifically" because to do that it would have to be, (A) observed and (B) reproducable, and since it was not observed, it was a story handed down for several generations then put to paper by Moses, and it obviously cannot be reproduced there is no "scientific" way of prooving the events in Genesis. Wienhold is not saying that these events did not happen nor that they are not true. He is saying that it is given to us in the form of a "true" story.

Weinhold, is this an accurate assumption, or am I way off?

 

[Wannabee]

Creation cannot be proven scientifically because of the reasons stated. Even the simplest hypothesis must be observable. However, it can be proven historically because history is based on circumstantial evidence. There is more circumstantial evidence for the verity of the Genesis account being literal than for any other theory (proven throughout this thread).
However, as edifying as this is, the testimony of Scripture is all that is needed. As has been stated, the language is clear.

 

[weinhold]

Seth, I should begin by affirming your previous statement that science can neither prove nor disprove the factuality of Genesis. I don't think I emphasized it enough in my last reply to you.

I can see why you would inquire about miracles in your follow-up reply. I affirm the reality of miracles, though I think the bifurcation between natural and supernatural might be as confusing as it is helpful. At least on some level, the sovereignty of God makes "natural" and "supernatural" synonymous. After all, aren't "natural" processes governed by God just as much as anomalies? You see what I mean.

But your point remains: can't we just say that the creation event was miraculous and leave it at that? To me, that answer is very satisfying. But I would stop short of calling it "factual," since that word might bring with it the connotation that it is quantifiable. So perhaps all the difference between our perspectives is word choice, which I hope is not too wide a gap to overcome.

 

[weinhold]

As I read these arguments back and forth it seems as though Weinhold is saying that Genesis cannot be proven "scientifically" because to do that it would have to be, (A) observed and (B) reproducable, and since it was not observed, it was a story handed down for several generations then put to paper by Moses, and it obviously cannot be reproduced there is no "scientific" way of prooving the events in Genesis. Wienhold is not saying that these events did not happen nor that they are not true. He is saying that it is given to us in the form of a "true" story.

Weinhold, is this an accurate assumption, or am I way off?

Erick, that sounds about right.

 

[weinhold]

I read Genesis as part of God's revelation of Himself, from which I may be instructed in my faith. When I say I believe Genesis, it is more than saying I believe it is a true nonfactual story. It is more than admiring the beauty of what it says. It must include believing what it says for the factual truth it conveys. If Genesis is metaphor, then we have no idea of what truth it actually portrays to us.

John, I don't think I would use the term "metaphor" to describe Genesis as a whole, since I think of metaphor as a specific trope employed in language. For example, "I see what you mean" is a metaphor we use so frequently that we fail to recognize it: sight is perception. Nevertheless, I would say that Genesis is a true story, and that we most certainly have access to the truth it conveys. For instance, God's creative speech that created the world ex nihilo is most certainly true--it really happened!--but I would not call it factual. How would one quantify it? Can it be scientifically observed? Etc. As I wrote to Seth, I think our difference of opinion centers upon semantics, and I hope it is not too great a gap, despite your closing comments:

Nor, then, is it in any way meaningful to call Genesis a true story without any demand to whether the account is factual. Either way, whether metaphor or non-factual story, it is meaningless to me, even if you still make a claim to believing it as true. The only way it is meaningful to me is if it tells me a true and factual account. Otherwise the content of Genesis goes into the second or third categories, and therefore outside the requirements of faith.

By the way, I don't think that my reading of Genesis is outside the requirements of faith. Where is it held that your reading of Genesis is a requirement for belief?

 

[weinhold]

I have probably already posted enough for today, but I had a passing thought that I wanted to share. I think the crux of our debate (which I am thoroughly enjoying, by the way) is our definition of truth. If one demands that truth be factual, then my reading of Genesis just doesn't compute. But as I have said before, I don't think truth needs to be factual, and as evidence I plead with readers of this thread to scroll back and read Tennyson's "The Eagle" again. While those encyclopedic facts might be useful in a narrowly technical sense because they provide information about eagles, Tennyson's poem gives readers access to an eagle's ontological essence. This is what I think Genesis does; it gives readers access to the essence of the creative act.

 

[gene_mingo]

This has been an interesting discussion. While I have hesitated to make any comments, I have some questions for Paul Weinhold.

Well, maybe comments and questions.

My first question is...

Can you please point to an example of the truth being non factual? Besides your opinion of the Genesis narrative. You have cited a poem by Tennyson. It is a nice poem, but is not the truth. It is merely an artistic description of a bird by a man. I honestly fail to see how his opinion can be considered the truth.

Would you please define what you mean when you use the word truth?

Would you please define what fact means to you?

lol. It is a multiple part question. Sorry. My mind starts running off in all direction when i think about this.

I stand really firm on this point. The truth is always factual. Facts are subject to the truth. If your facts don't point to the truth then your facts are wrong. True facts always point to the truth. The absence of facts does not make the truth non factual. Let me give you an example of this. Thousands of years ago men thought the earth might be round. Even though science at the time was set in the flat earth theory. The men who thought the earth was round told a truth. The earth is round. Even if they could not scientifically prove their statement, that didn't change the truth of the statement. We know that it is a fact the earth is round. It has always been a fact that the earth is round. Regardless of what was provable with scientific examination.

Ok, now you need to convince me that I am wrong. This is a big challenge, seeing how your other arguments really didn't budge my position much.

All in all I have really enjoyed this thread.

 

[weinhold]

Josh, thanks for jumping into the discussion. I was glad to read your reply because it gets right to the heart of what I've been trying to say all along, and so hopefully this time I will communicate with greater clarity and persuasion. The central point of contention, as you point out, is our definition of terms. You (and others) assert that fact=truth; I assert that fact is a species of truth. I should not be surprised at your equating of fact and truth; it is, after all, the common usage of the term: There are facts and there are lies. Any dictionary would indicate agreement with your definition in at least one of its entries, probably more. So I concede the general usage of the word, and accept the necessary task of defining the way I am using "fact."

Let's start by surrounding the term with a cluster of modifiers and see if that helps:

Fact: mathematical, quantifiable, statistical, scientific, technical, logical, empirical, rational, analytic, literal

"Fact" is a word born in the Renaissance and reared during the Enlightenment. In my understanding, equating it with "truth" implicitly limits our idea of reality to the narrowly naturalistic perspective that emerged from Enlightenment skepticism. Now Josh, I certainly know that you do not mean to imply all this when you equate fact with truth, but nevertheless I think the word carries that baggage with it. If we blithely accept factuality as the only type of truth, then we will live out the lament of William Faulkner: "There are no longer any problems of spirit. There is only one question, 'When will I be blown up?'" By expanding the definition, I am trying to acknowledge those spiritual realities that we seem to have lost during the modern era. Reality is more than statistics, more than sense perception, more than what can be quantified.

Given this fuller definition of reality, which I have been calling "truth" (perhaps reality would be better?), I hope that you will see the point Perrine and Arp are making about eagles. Tennyson's poem is not just the artistic description of a bird; it is a mode of knowledge, every bit as valid (I think more valid) as an encyclopedia article. As Perrine and Arp argue, factual data about eagles leaves us feeling

"a little disappointed, as though we had grasped the feathers of the eagle but not its soul. True, we have learned many facts about the eagle, but we have missed somehow its lonely majesty, its power, and the 'wild grandeur' of its surroundings that would make the eagle a living creature rather than a mere museum specimen. For the living eagle we must turn to literature."

And it is not just literature that provides this mode of knowledge. All forms of art communicate this type of nonfactual truth: painting, sculpture, music, dance, drama, architecture, Etc. Art is not just beautiful; it is true.

Ok, well that's a start. Glad to have you on board!

 

[sastark]

Seth, I should begin by affirming your previous statement that science can neither prove nor disprove the factuality of Genesis. I don't think I emphasized it enough in my last reply to you.

No problem.

I can see why you would inquire about miracles in your follow-up reply. I affirm the reality of miracles, though I think the bifurcation between natural and supernatural might be as confusing as it is helpful. At least on some level, the sovereignty of God makes "natural" and "supernatural" synonymous. After all, aren't "natural" processes governed by God just as much as anomalies? You see what I mean.

We actually had an interesting discussion about miracles in one of my classes last night. I agree with what you say above: What is "miraculous" to us is not so to God. He is above natural processes and is not bound by them. God does not "break" any natural laws when he acts in what we perceive as a "supernatural" way. God's ways are not our ways.

But your point remains: can't we just say that the creation event was miraculous and leave it at that? To me, that answer is very satisfying. But I would stop short of calling it "factual," since that word might bring with it the connotation that it is quantifiable. So perhaps all the difference between our perspectives is word choice, which I hope is not too wide a gap to overcome.

Now that I understand how you are using the word "fact" ("emperically true"), I agree. I do suppose, however, that if one wanted to press the point, one could argue that we do have a witness to the creation act, who is God himself. Of course, we cannot recreate creation, so it is still not scientific (in that it cannot be verified through reproduction of the "experiment"). But, as you and I already agreed, it is true.

I continue to enjoy this discussion immensely.

 

[gene_mingo]

Paul,
Thank you for your timely answer. I do believe our disagreement is partly with definitions of the terms truth and fact. I think you have added some terms to the word fact that are not required to be used to define it. Thats ok with me. At least it gives me a better understanding of your point.

I will go back to the poem of the eagle. You seem to place a strong bit of your argument on that.

First lets examine your quote.

"a little disappointed, as though we had grasped the feathers of the eagle but not its soul. True, we have learned many facts about the eagle, but we have missed somehow its lonely majesty, its power, and the 'wild grandeur' of its surroundings that would make the eagle a living creature rather than a mere museum specimen. For the living eagle we must turn to literature."

Words like, majesty, grandeur, and power, are all descriptions based on the persons opinion of the eagle. This is not a truth about eagles. I happen to live in an area where eagles nest and have been watching them most of my life. First off eagles, when hot, will poop down their legs to cool off. This is not the actions of anything i would describe as majestic. Eagles are smaller than the vultures that live here, not so grand In my humble opinion. I have seen eagles run off by sparrows. This leads me to believe that they are not so powerful. I would describe eagles in another way completely. These types of descriptions are subjective human expressions. You have to agree with the writers opinion of the subject. This is not truth. The poem by Tennyson is the same as above. I have to agree with his opinion about eagles for them to be valid. I agree that the poem can pass a kind of knowledge, but knowledge is not truth either. I hope this helps you understand my point better.

"If we blithely accept factuality as the only type of truth,"

I think you are missing my point. Facts don't make truth. Truth makes facts.

If we redefine what truth means then i agree that subjective human expression would be a type of truth, but then truth is subject to human opinion. If truth is subjective to human opinion, then the new definition of truth can't be applied to the truth of the word of God. God's word is not subject to human opinion.

Personally I don't see any truth outside of the word of God. Everything else is human perception.

I am really enjoying this discussion. Thank you for your patience in this matter. I can be very stubborn about things.

 

[weinhold]

Josh, I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read of your experience with eagles. You certainly have a different understanding than Tennyson, one that I would say is informed more by the facts of your own experience with eagles than with their ontology, which is what I think Tennyson is trying to encounter in his poem. You see, I think that it is the factual perspective that science brings to eagles which prevents us from experiencing their majesty, nobility, grandeur, etc. If this is true of eagles, it is even more true of human beings, for we know all too well that the facts of humanity mitigate against any qualitative claim we might make for ourselves. But your perspective on eagles, however humorous, probably necessitates my picking another poem with which to make my point, and I am glad to do so, especially after enjoying a moment of levity.

Before I offer another poem, however, I should mention that you make a good point about truth. I should clarify that I do not believe that truth is subjective; the truth is one just as God is one. But saying 2+2=4 is a very different type of statement than Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”:

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.

The first operates wholly within the abstractions of logic and arithmetic symbolism, while the other is analogical, forming a contemplative image through juxtaposition. Both are true, but they are very different modes of knowledge. Pound’s poem is a very simple simile, which we might simplify even further using the familiar SAT formula: “A is to B as C is to D,” (A:B::C: D)

Faces:Crowd:etals:Black Bough

So with Pound we gain a true statement, embodied within natural and cultural images and also embodied within language.

So now here is another poem. It's one with numbers in it, but they don't operate like 2+2=4. Tell me what you think of it (anyone else feel free to join in as well). Aren't there truths in it that are not factual?

For the first twenty years, since yesterday
I scarce believed thou couldst be gone away;
For forty more I fed on favours past,
And forty on hopes that thou wouldst they might last.
Tears drown'd one hundred, and sighs blew out two;
A thousand, I did neither think nor do,
Or not divide, all being one thought of you.
Or in a thousand more, forgot that too.
Yet call not this long life; but think that I
Am, by being dead, immortal; can ghosts die?

Looking forward to continuing our conversation, Josh.