Creation question.....

[RamistThomist]

And the waw is used more in the first 2 chapters of Genesis than anywhere else in Scripture.

Mark Futato (Spring 1998). "Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3". Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1): pp. 1-21. 

There are loads of articles here.

Hasel, G. F. “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 10 (1972) 1-20.

Hyers, M. Conrad. “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic Yes: Scientific No,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36.4 (1984) 208-15.

I refuse to do "copy/paste" theology and I refuse to do "footnote refutation." I can link to a number of Jim Jordan articles and Doug Kelly books and that should end the day.

Biblical Horizons » 9-12: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 3

Biblical Horizons » 9-11: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 2

Biblical Horizons » 9-10: The Sequence of Events in the Creation Week, Part 1

Refuting Kline, part one.

Refuting Kline, part 2

How do you like them apples?

If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.

 

[greenbaggins]

Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.

This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.

But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."

 

[RamistThomist]

Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.

This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.

But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."

Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!

 

[CDM]

Problem is, there is STILL no reason to think that all six days of creation are anything other than 24 hours except to bow to the evolutionist and his need for millions of years.

This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.

Where are all the knock-down drag-out theological debates pre-Darwin? Who and where are these sources of all the Old earth arguments? I may be wrong, but I have searched and found none. And Augustine commenting on time in Genesis does not fit the criteria.

And, sure, you can "repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist". But the question is "why"? Who was arguing that Genesis did not teach 6 - 24 hour solar days pre-Darwin?

 

[AV1611]

If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.

You raised grammatical considerations which Futato deals with in his article. I agree that there are problems with Klines analysis that is why I accept Futato's with whom Jordan has not interacted (as I am aware). Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.

By way of background: Bruce Waltke (Professor of Old Testament); Mark Futato (Professor of Old Testament); Meredith Kline (Professor of Old Testament); and, James Jordan (Th.M.)

 

[A5pointer]

At the risk of ruffleing feathers, I see the debate as unecessary. I do not think we can know how long it took. However we can agree that the purpose of the account as has been said was to show that Yahweh unlike the mesopotamian gods created all from nothing and rested. Some mesopotamian gods were thought to be in constant struggle with the creation even having to recreate at times.

 

[BobVigneault]

Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.

You see, here's where I have to bow out. All I have is the rather regular and plain faculties of understanding. God has revealed himself in a manner that takes into account the fact that I am a sea slug compared to his great mind.

However, this is one of those many cases where there are other sea slugs who have the 'gnosis', Kline, Jordan, et al., who can shroud the plain understanding with layers and layers of esoteric words and phrases and frame works - the gnosis.

Answering the original post - God created the world in 6 days as commonly understood by a hebrew slave, a hebrew king and a country boy from Vermont. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

 

[AV1611]

At the risk of ruffleing feathers, I see the debate as unecessary. I do not think we can know how long it took. However we can agree that the purpose of the account as has been said was to show that Yahweh unlike the mesopotamian gods created all from nothing and rested. Some mesopotamian gods were thought to be in constant struggle with the creation even having to recreate at times.

I agree with you completely.

 

[RamistThomist]

If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.

You raised grammatical considerations which Futato deals with in his article. I agree that there are problems with Klines analysis that is why I accept Futato's with whom Jordan has not interacted (as I am aware). Further, Jordan fails to take note of the contextual issues as well as redactional questions i.e. the presentation of YHWH's supremacy in the form of an ANE cosmology.

The bible gives its own cosmology. I believe that imposing a foreign hermeneutical structure on the Bible, such as ANE, is just as dangerous as NT Wright imposing Second Temple Judaism.

By way of background: Bruce Waltke (Professor of Old Testament); Mark Futato (Professor of Old Testament); Meredith Kline (Professor of Old Testament); and, James Jordan (Th.M.)

So what? Is truth determined by degrees? Are we now elitists?

 

[Poimen]

If the nature of theological debate is to paste as many urls as possible, hoping the other person will actually read them, then I think I have a good shot at this.

 

[RamistThomist]

Oh wait,

Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.

 

[AV1611]

The bible gives its own cosmology.

Indeed but it is against the backdrop of ANE cosmologies. When Moses was writing the main enemy was Canaanite Baalism and when the redactors were writing the main enemy was Babylonian Marduk. This mythopeotic practice can also be found in the Psalter (see here).

So what? Is truth determined by degrees? Are we now elitists?

What it demonstrates is that on one side we find professors of Old Testament who have written Hebrew grammars and are well versed in scholarly works and engaged in research into these issues against whom you pit James Jordan who is who precisely?

 

[AV1611]

Oh wait,

Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.

A PhD in what?

 

[Ravens]

Richard, let me preface this by saying that any of the emotional frustration you may detect is not directed at you. I have great respect (not lip-service, it is sincere) for your desire to please the Lord (even when you hold a minority position), and myself agree with may of your distinctives. That being said, I think you are very wrong here, but we are all wrong on some things, and I trust that your Lord will give you light when and how He chooses; and that holds true for all of us. Anyhow.

For my part, I find it tedious when people begin referring to ANE cosmologies and cosmogonies, polemics, etc. A few years ago I listened to Glenn Beck quite a bit; I always found it to be highly funny when he would pull the duct tape and talk about taping up his head to hold it together. That is my reaction to most of these discussions (in general), and to the polemical language (to be specific).

If I had the I.Q., time, and resources, I would like to comb through older commentaries on Genesis and Exodus and see how many times it mentioned "polemics" against the pagan gods of other cultures. I could be woefully mistaken, but I wager that the references were few and far between, if, indeed, there are any at all. My hunch (and someone feel free to correct me) is that this stuff started out in the liberal tradition, and was later picked up by conservative scholars for some reason or another.

To shift gears: In my mind, discussions on cosmology and cosmogony are really quite chicken-and-the-egg, when all is said and done. Since some, if not many, divines argued that Hebrew was the Edenic tongue, who is to say that Tiamat was not a garbled recollection of an oral tradition concerning the tehom? Does the fact that clay tablets existed north of Israel prior to the written records of the Old Testament really, in any way whatsoever, prove or establish that there were not oral and or written traditions in Israel of the true event, and that the Sumerian-Assyrian-Babylonian stories weren't the garbled ones? The Enuma Elish seems to be the garbled version, and not the Old Testament.

Furthermore, in my mind these discussions usually assume, tacitly, an evolutionary view of history. Somehow all of these things that actually function to prove the Deluge, and a common descent from Noah are flipped around on their head, and used to argue against the Divine origin or authority of the Oracles of God. When I read the Enuma Elish, I think, "Ya' know, this is exactly the kind of stuff that one would expect to find in the world's most ancient civilization, that, Biblically, must have had some cultural memory of Noah and the Deluge."

Also, the "cosmogonic" similarities are extensive, so why confine it to the ANE? Read the Poetic Edda. Ymir's skull becomes the Dome of the Sky. The Iroquois seem to say that the earth was all watery chaos, until mud was brought up from the bottom to form the earth. The Poetic Edda also speaks of the Earth rising out of the sea. The Japanese myths, if I remember, speak of a watery world in the beginning, as do many others. So if these watery legends are actually global, and not just local, then a: Why bother seeking an origin in the ANE, and b: you would think it would fill the Christian with some confidence, seeing as how the Biblical records trace all the rivulets of red, yellow, black, and white, back to the Fount of Noah, from whom they could have learned about creation and the Deluge.

Anyhow, one thing that is very telling to me (and this is a point that is rarely made on the PB, I think), is that attitude and approach taken by all of the respective positions towards the rest of Genesis 1-11.

This might be a rather broad stroke, but for my part, YEC people are more willing to take the rest of Genesis very literally, i.e., "If there was a global flood, shouldn't we find evidence thereof?" "If the Bible is God's inspired word, and the genealogies in Genesis do not allow for chronological gaps, then doesn't Genesis more or less tell us how long human beings have been around, when the Flood took place, etc., and shouldn't we adjust world history, be it from Manetho or from Yale, accordingly?"

Very few of those who take a Framework or Day-Age view ever seek to lay out a philosophy of history and historical analysis that makes sense of both the apparent data of history and science and the Biblical record. For my part, and I might be wrong, I think that most Frameworkers and Day-Agers are implicitly and subconsciously embarrassed by all of the talk about Cain, Genesis genealogies, Nimrod, Shinar, Babel, etc. That's why they never really emphasize defending the Biblical accounts.

When one position tends to lead to a wholesale defense of Biblical veracity and history in general, and the other position tends to lead to a "We won't talk about if you don't talk about it; it's true, but let's not actually try to reconcile Gen. 1-11 with world history, at least not in print and public...", then that gives me a clear indication of which side is standing in the right, and which side is standing in the fog.

 

[Poimen]

First of all, I don't think that understanding Genesis 1 as some kind of Caananite diatribe is necessarily antithetical to the chronological, solar day view. That hasn't been demonstrated and until it is, will remain a red herring (not intentionally however).

Second, the structure that Richard (aka AV1611) outlines for us regarding the days also does not necessitate a rejection of the chronological, solar day view. Others (such as Bavinck) also point out the progression of the days as they find fulfillment in the apogee of creation (man) and his intended goal (Sabbath rest) as indicative of a clear chronological perspective.

In the end Bob V's objection cannot be overthrown. Where in the text, outside of naturalist presuppositions, can it be demonstrated that the days were not intended to teach a chronological, solar view? We can rearrange them all we want, but until we demonstrate clear warrant from the text aside from speculation, we are left with the ordinary view.

And if it could be (plausibly) demonstrated, how would one explain this to the ordinary man of Moses time, let alone the man in the pew today?

I think any other view does violence to the perspicuity of scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

Oh wait,

Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.

A PhD in what?

I don't know. Table-tennis, probably. I understand the question. I think you want to imply the following: "A PhD is nice, sure, but unless he has a PhD in Old testament/Hebrew, then he must take a backseat to the other scholars."

I don't buy that logic for one minute. Luther overthrew the Roman priesthood. What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist.

Kelly's PhD is probably in systematic theology, which would make him an ideal polemicist. A systematician would have a broader understanding of presuppositions (including Kline's dualistic, quasi-neo Platonic framework) going into the debate.

 

[AV1611]

What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist.

The Book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago in a culture that we are ignorant of. Language reflects culture hence the language that reflects a culture that we are ignorant of is very difficult to comprehend. Moses, who was living in this culture, was writing to Israel, an infant nation. On all sides of this emerging nation in the Ancient Near East, were nations with their own gods, their own culture, their own languages. The biggest threat to Israelite religion was the Baalism of the Canaanites. This was the god of the rain and fertility (read vegetation). So when set in this historic context the fact that the creation account declares YHWH to be the source of vegetation and humankind, Moses has launched a polemical attack upon the gods of Israel's neighbours. The six days then are seen to be thematic (days 1-3 and 4-6) afterwhich God rests his work is done.

Now does that rule out six creation days? Well, is the account chronological? No. Ok, so what? Further, what is the significance that yom has been used? These are still on going thoughts in my mind. Is it science? No. So then is it myth, poetry, narrative etc?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.

But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."

Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!

 

[Ravens]

Brother Richard,

There was a critical piece of reasoning which was missing in your post. You talked about the infancy of the nation of Israel, and the Baalism of the Caananites, and more or less made a colossal jump to, "So, when Moses writes, he is writing polemic..." The one does not establish or necessitate the other.

Here is another problem that I have with the whole concept and language of reading "polemics" into the Scriptures: Paganism has gods for everything. Athens was a famous example of that; I'm sure we've all heard the famous quote that it was easier to find a god in Athens than a mortal. They even covered their bases by honoring "the unknown God."

You can see the same thing in Hinduism. I am not even quite sure if there is an "official tally" of the number of Hindu deities, but I have heard it reaches into the thousands. The Norse myths of the ocean couldn't even contain all of the gods that supposedly had power over the sea: Njord, Ran, AEgir; and let's throw Jormungandr in to boot. Point being, what Chesterton said about the Greeks applies, in general, to all pagans: "They couldn't see the trees for the dryads [not verbatim]."

Why do I bring that up? Because the overflowing polytheism of darkened nations allows any text to be turned into a "polemic". I don't often like when people flippantly mention our Lord in order to prove a rather trite or academic point, but I don't see any other way around making my point. So let me show you what polytheism, coupled with a "Let's Find a Polemic" approach, makes possible.

Here's a sample commentary from 2014:

"The authors and redactors of the documents that eventually came to be collected in what was formerly called the "New Testament" were writing, primarily, to people of low socio-economic status, surrounded and beleaguered on all sides by the impressive majesty of the Roman empire. The claims that the faith community later placed back into the mouth of Chr*st (we should not associate these claims, of course, with the historical Y'shua ben Yosef) clearly clashed with the prevailing polytheism of Imperial Rome."

"Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient religion of the Greco-Roman pantheon was now being superseded by mystery cults and Emperor worship, the august pantheon of antiquity still exerted quite a sway in the minds of the commoners. We must also keep in mind that the documents of what would later be styled the "New Testament" were written to people of a different culture, who spoke a different language. Ergo, we must take off our lenses of preunderstanding and see these ancient texts in a way that the average proselyte or catechumen would have understood them."

"When we approach the texts in this fashion, we see clear traces of early proto-Christian polemic against the ancient Roman triad of gods (namely, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto) woven throughout the gospel narratives. Why does the gospel record numerous examples of (1) Chr*st walking on the water, (2) Chr*st calming the wind and the waves on the way to free the Gadarene epileptic, along with concomitant gloss of the "believing community" that "even the wind and the waves obey him", (3) Chr*st calling up a fish to pay taxes for Peter, (4) Chr*st enabling a miraculous catch of fish, (5) et al. Clearly these are to be understood in the prevailing cultural context of the time, and we see clearly that a polemic is being made that Chr*st is L*rd of the Waves and King of the Sea, and not Neptune."

"This insightful approach yields further results. Now we understand that when Chr*st called back Lazarus from the grave, or the text records saints rising after a great earthquake following the crucifixion, or, if we may, Chr*st himself rising from the earth and from the dead, we clearly see that a polemic is made against Pluto. The New Testament author-redactors are showing that the Christian G*d, and not Pluto, is the true L*rd of life and death."

"Lastly, this gives a profound and decisive meaning to the ascension. What is the ascension, but a grand exclamation point punctuating the end of the Chr*st-story? How does it do so? Namely, in one decisive stroke, as it were, it wrests power from the high god of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, by showing that, indeed, Chr*st is L*rd of the Skies. That the early church spoke of him being enthroned at the right hand of the F*ther only establishes and seals this fact."

"What a pity that the assured results of higher-critical scholarship were not known to the church as it formulated some of the distinctive dogmas that we now know to be muddle-headed and rather mistaken...."

Anyhow, that fictional account, I believe, makes my point rather well. Namely, when pagans have a "god" for everything, then "everything" can be turned into a polemic. Polemics against rock gods, sky gods, fire gods, fish gods, etc. There is no logical chain of reasoning that necessitates any of it, and the commentary I just provided, in my opinion, is 100% as plausible as the so-called Baal polemic.

 

[Ravens]

BTW, I wasn't exactly sure whether I violated the 3rd commandment in that "mock" commentary. I don't know any other way to make my point as effectively. If anyone feels that I did, feel free to post or PM, and I'll take it down.

 

[RamistThomist]

What we are seeing today is the priesthood of the scholar, be he theologue or scientist.

The Book of Genesis was written thousands of years ago in a culture that we are ignorant of. Language reflects culture hence the language that reflects a culture that we are ignorant of is very difficult to comprehend. Moses, who was living in this culture, was writing to Israel, an infant nation. On all sides of this emerging nation in the Ancient Near East, were nations with their own gods, their own culture, their own languages. The biggest threat to Israelite religion was the Baalism of the Canaanites. This was the god of the rain and fertility (read vegetation). So when set in this historic context the fact that the creation account declares YHWH to be the source of vegetation and humankind, Moses has launched a polemical attack upon the gods of Israel's neighbours. The six days then are seen to be thematic (days 1-3 and 4-6) afterwhich God rests his work is done.

Now does that rule out six creation days? Well, is the account chronological? No. Ok, so what? Further, what is the significance that yom has been used? These are still on going thoughts in my mind. Is it science? No. So then is it myth, poetry, narrative etc?

How does that in anyway address my post?

On second thought, it perfectly illustrates what I mean by the priesthood of the scholar (and I know Hebrew and ANE for what its worth).

At the end of the day I am tempted to ask whether all of this would be going through the mind of the ancient Hebrew. but taht isn't a fair question to ask. We really can't know that. But we can also note its absence from most of ancient, medieval, and modern Christian discussions of creation.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

This is incorrect. This debate has been present since at least the time of Augustine in the 4th century, who actually believed that Genesis 1 was figurative and not a literal chronological account. Calvin believed in strict 24 hr periods, but he acknowledged that either God limited Himself to six 24-hr periods for our sake, or Moses wrote them that way for our understanding. So, the debate is hardly new and one can completely repudiate evolutonary theory and still be an Old Earth creationist.

But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."

Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!

I think you're missing the point. I never said Augustine had an old earth view. I said he viewed the Genesis 1 chronology as metaphorical rather than literal. My post was in response to Bob V, who claimed that the only reason not to believe in 6 24 hr days is to accommodate evolutionary theory. My point in bringing up Augstine is that the exact chronology of Genesis 1 has always been debated. Other pre-Darwin theologians have also questioned the literal 24 hr period. William Perkins, a 16th century Puritan, argued that creation took place in "six distinct spaces of time" rather than 6 actual day-night rotations. And as I mentioned in my first post, Calvin at least acknowledged there was room for debate on the issue, though he believed the literal 24-hr period view. So the debate over the Genesis 1 has indeed raged for centuries, well before Darwin and evolution.

 

[RamistThomist]

But Augustine did not believe in an old earth. He actually believed that God created it all in a single moment. Old earthers cannot use Augustine as a handle to say "old earth views predate evolution."

Indeed. Augustine is the most extreme YECer. My view of creation is actually 5 days older than his!

I think you're missing the point. I never said Augustine had an old earth view. I said he viewed the Genesis 1 chronology as metaphorical rather than literal. My post was in response to Bob V, who claimed that the only reason not to believe in 6 24 hr days is to accommodate evolutionary theory. My point in bringing up Augstine is that the exact chronology of Genesis 1 has always been debated. Other pre-Darwin theologians have also questioned the literal 24 hr period. William Perkins, a 16th century Puritan, argued that creation took place in "six distinct spaces of time" rather than 6 actual day-night rotations. And as I mentioned in my first post, Calvin at least acknowledged there was room for debate on the issue, though he believed the literal 24-hr period view. So the debate over the Genesis 1 has indeed raged for centuries, well before Darwin and evolution.

Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.

My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Oh wait,

Douglas Kelly, PhD, somewhere in Scotland.

You could add everyone at GPTS.

CT

 

[MW]

I think that you are missing the point, whether yom means 24 hours is wholly irrelevant to the message of Genesis 1-2. The sequence is thematic (and polemical) not chronological. Oh, and I agree yom does mean 24 hours or at least thereabouts.

So if the scholars can prove the existence of a passion story in Mark's Gospel, or an apology for Christianity in the Acts of the Apostles, will this render these narratives any less historical? Surely not.

The scholarly assumption that theme negates history is not based on the "truth" nature of divine revelation, but emerges from a comparison of uninspired literature in which historical fact is sacrificed on the altar of ideology. It occurs to me that were Genesis 1 proven to be any thing less than history, then its theological value would be null and void, because its thematic message would be reduced to the same quality as the creation accounts of the Cannaanites, Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians -- mere propaganda.

The historicity of our faith is what makes it a true faith. The Bible does not only teach us about the nature of God in the abstract, but reveals to us what God has done in real time and space. In other words, the Bible gives us truth for our time, for the real world in which we live. Remove the historic element from the quality of truth, and truth becomes irrelevant or relative.

In reformed biblical theology, the starting point is act-revelation; this is followed by word-revelation, which explains the nature and significance of God's mighty acts. 1 Cor. 10:11, "these things happened unto them for ensamples" -- act-revelation; "and were written for our admonition" -- word revelation. This is the fundamental starting point of reformed exegesis. No interpretation of holy writ should be accepted which does not start with the basic belief that "these things happened."

What is written in Gensis 1-11 is history. In the OT, the Lord enourages and comforts His people concerning their future deliverance in terms of what He did at creation and the flood; but the NT especially draws numerous lessons from this section of Scripture, proceeding on the fundamental belief that "these things happened." God commanded light to shine out of darkness, made the earth stand out of the water and in the water, created them male and female, made man a living soul, made the Sabbath for man, joined together the man and woman, Eve was beguiled by the serpent, Cain slew Abel, Enoch was the seventh from Adam, Noah built an ark to the saving of his house. The credibility of the NT in terms of conveying absolute "truth" is severely undermined if these things did not in point of fact happen as the NT claims.

 

[RamistThomist]

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.

My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.

Several points:

1. I completely disagree with the last sentence that non-YECers impose "unbiblical" systems into the text; there is simply no basis for that statement. The point about Augustine (which I still don't think you're getting) and the numerous other theologians through the centuries is that you can view the Genesis 1-2 account as a time span other than 6 calendar days without imposing a non-Biblical view. Considering the meaning of the Hebrew word in various places in Scripture, the unique structure of the chronology, and the fact that it does not change the meaning of creation, or any other aspect of theology at all hardly seems anti-Biblical. Is our understanding of God, the Bible, or anything else changed if the world was created in some span other than 6 calendar days? Not at all. Which brings me to the second point...

2. Why is there such an aversion to the idea that creation was undertaken in spans of time other than 6 calendar days? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the validity and infalliblity of the Bible, the fact that God created all that is in existence and that He made man in His own image. Nor does it change the rest of the Garden of Eden narrative, including the Fall. Nothing about our Faith is changed at all with a general Old Earth view of creation.

3. Scientific and historical correlation with Scripture fit much better with an Old Earth view. I'm NOT saying we should mold our understanding of the Bible to fit science or archaeology, but at the same time a Young Earth view creates not only scientific problems (I don't believe that many, actually), but numerous historical problems as well. If you accept an YE view, then there are other apparent chronological problems with the Old Testament, specifically the Exodus and Conquest account. An Old Earth view solves all these problems fairly neatly.

4. I won't hijack this thread to state my personal view of the Genesis account, other than to say it's fairly obvious I'm a Day-Age OECer. My personal view is that God revealed the creation to Moses, which was so mind-boggling and amazing the only way He could relay it to us is through a metaphorical 6-day account. But, I could be completely wrong and it could be 6 calendar days.

I suppose my point in this thread is that one can be an OECer and not simply be "accommodating" evolution, and that having an Old Earth view is a perfectly legitimate position, one that many prominent theologians have agreed with throughout the ages. Most other Christians I know are OECers, the pastor of my church is an OE creationist, and the official position of the PCA is that members can accept the Old Earth view "in good conscience." That hardly seems anti-Biblical to me...

 

[A5pointer]

I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Augustine still illustrates the problem that mdoern OECers have to deal with: Augustine was imposing anti-biblical presuppositions on the text. Augustine, given his neo-platonism, really couldn't see how God could get involved in something as messy as time and creaiton. But he knew that Biblical theology forced him to affirm that God did get involved in time and creation. So he compromised.

My point is not that Augustine is an extreme YECer, but like non-YECers, he is imposing unbibiblical systems onto the text.

Several points:

1. I completely disagree with the last sentence that non-YECers impose "unbiblical" systems into the text; there is simply no basis for that statement. The point about Augustine (which I still don't think you're getting) and the numerous other theologians through the centuries is that you can view the Genesis 1-2 account as a time span other than 6 calendar days without imposing a non-Biblical view. Considering the meaning of the Hebrew word in various places in Scripture, the unique structure of the chronology, and the fact that it does not change the meaning of creation, or any other aspect of theology at all hardly seems anti-Biblical. Is our understanding of God, the Bible, or anything else changed if the world was created in some span other than 6 calendar days? Not at all. Which brings me to the second point...

I understand completely. Augustine imposed neo-platonism on Genesis. That is a very unbiblical system.

2. Why is there such an aversion to the idea that creation was undertaken in spans of time other than 6 calendar days? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the validity and infalliblity of the Bible, the fact that God created all that is in existence and that He made man in His own image. Nor does it change the rest of the Garden of Eden narrative, including the Fall. Nothing about our Faith is changed at all with a general Old Earth view of creation.

It is not so much the days, per se, but rather whether it is historical. The Klinean system, as well as most OEC, strains (if not outright snaps) the history of the text.

3. Scientific and historical correlation with Scripture fit much better with an Old Earth view. I'm NOT saying we should mold our understanding of the Bible to fit science or archaeology, but at the same time a Young Earth view creates not only scientific problems (I don't believe that many, actually), but numerous historical problems as well. If you accept an YE view, then there are other apparent chronological problems with the Old Testament, specifically the Exodus and Conquest account. An Old Earth view solves all these problems fairly neatly.

Secular science be damned.

4. I won't hijack this thread to state my personal view of the Genesis account, other than to say it's fairly obvious I'm a Day-Age OECer. My personal view is that God revealed the creation to Moses, which was so mind-boggling and amazing the only way He could relay it to us is through a metaphorical 6-day account. But, I could be completely wrong and it could be 6 calendar days.

Um...wow.

I suppose my point in this thread is that one can be an OECer and not simply be "accommodating" evolution, and that having an Old Earth view is a perfectly legitimate position, one that many prominent theologians have agreed with throughout the ages. Most other Christians I know are OECers, the pastor of my church is an OE creationist, and the official position of the PCA is that members can accept the Old Earth view "in good conscience." That hardly seems anti-Biblical to me...

I don't doubt that these are good people. I have never made value-judgments on the character of non-YECers. But I can turn it around and say that I know so many good people who are YECers and just can't imagine they would be theologically wrong.

 

[RamistThomist]

I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.

Because of the waw conversive (consecutive). In 99.9% of the cases it is used in Scripture it is chronological narrative.

But the sword cuts both ways. Revelation 21-22 is obviously poetic. That means it very well could not be history, which means it is probably not real. Ergo, heaven is not a place (contra Belinda Carlyle) but a poetic expression of man's deepest longing.