Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

[Reformed Covenanter]

Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.

This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.

This is simply begging the question. Since you believe the Genesis creation account to in fact be a "plain historical account," you can certainly make arguments for why that must be the case; but in saying that the error of those who disagree is chiefly seen in the further implications for biblical hermeneutics because they don't take "a plain historical account" seriously, you are completely assuming that the creation account is in fact "a plain historical account," which is the very question being asked in the debate.

It is a plain historical account according to Exodus 20. Moreover, it is a principle of Protestant exegesis that we consider what the passage meant to the original audience. Did it refer to thousands/millions of years or to six literal days?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I can't honestly see how this is anything but an ad hominem that again begs the question, since you are automatically assuming that any non-literal reading of the creation account is "unbelieving science." In other words, Reformed theologians who have held to a non-literal view would not logically respond with an implication that "No, unbelieving science, not God, is sovereign," but rather would simply respond by making a case that their view is not, in fact, rooted in "unbelieving science." You can certainly argue otherwise, and indeed, that is where the very debate lies.

Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?

 

[sotzo]

Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?

But it is not necessarily the case that it is unbelieving science that creates the tension between general and specific revelation. It may full well be believing scientists who peer through their microscopes and find tension and we cannot automatically chalk up non-literal renderings of Genesis 1 as coming from Richard Dawkins-esque presuppositions. Believers like Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig and Charles Hodge have deemed the issue of young vs old earth to be quite peripheral and I would agree. I just don't see where the Bible calls us to linger on such a question, especially since it threatens unity...you have even embarked upon the thought of calling those who hold to a non-literal interpretation as heretics (see above). If such a view is heretical, we will all end up consigned to hell due to some aberration or incomplete understanding of the text.

Pratt does a good job in his lectures and writings on Genesis and Exodus to demonstrate that OT Israel was given these books by God via Moses in order to understand / be edified as to why they were to secure the promised land. The creation account becomes normative for what the world should be like. But saying "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day" versus "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day because God created in 7 days and that observation would be rendered meaningless within a non-literal 7-day interpretation" are 2 very different things. Observation of the Sabbath is a clear command...as with Adam and Eve, God is not required to give us all the details on why it is that we should or should not partake in something.

So if the old-earthers don't observe the Sabbath, discuss the issue in terms of the fact that "God hath said". Trying to weave an argument on the basis of Gen 1 literal days to justify the Sabbath is as unnecessary as it it is to reconcile election and freewill in someone's mind prior to pointing them to their guilt and then to the Saviour.

 

[sotzo]

Excellent observations here, Joel. I would only seek clarification or possibly suggest otherwise on your first point: Are issues where the very Gospel itself is at stake really the only issues worth fighting for? What about issues concerning the sacraments? Ecclesiology? Confessional subscription? Although I would never claim the Gospel itself to be threatened by any of the orthodox yet differing positions on those matters, yet would certainly say they are worth fighting for, since they have great implications for the life of the Church and the believer.

Good point. You are right on the need for me to clarify here. When I made the point on the Gospel being at stake, I was really intending to mean that when we are discussing the various views on Gen 1, it should not become something that threatens unity to the point where the unbelieving world observes discord amongst us. This would be another way (along with political parties, legalism, etc) of shrouding the clear message of the Gospel with which the Church has been entrusted.

As for other doctrinal issues such as the sacraments, et al, we should absolutely take these seriously and fight when needed...with wisdom and in charity.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But it is not necessarily the case that it is unbelieving science that creates the tension between general and specific revelation. It may full well be believing scientists who peer through their microscopes and find tension and we cannot automatically chalk up non-literal renderings of Genesis 1 as coming from Richard Dawkins-esque presuppositions. Believers like Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig and Charles Hodge have deemed the issue of young vs old earth to be quite peripheral and I would agree. I just don't see where the Bible calls us to linger on such a question, especially since it threatens unity...you have even embarked upon the thought of calling those who hold to a non-literal interpretation as heretics (see above). If such a view is heretical, we will all end up consigned to hell due to some aberration or incomplete understanding of the text.

The fact that believers have bought the presuppositions of unbelievers does not mean that they are free from the charge of imbibing the spirit of unbelieving science. Above I stated that I did not want to use the "H" word, yet if we apply the same logic, as those who deny the plain meaning of Genesis 1, to the historical accounts of the virgin birth and the resurrection then we will end up being heretics. That is why I believe it is potentially very dangerous to abandon literal 6 day creation.

Pratt does a good job in his lectures and writings on Genesis and Exodus to demonstrate that OT Israel was given these books by God via Moses in order to understand / be edified as to why they were to secure the promised land. The creation account becomes normative for what the world should be like. But saying "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day" versus "we should observe the Sabbath on a single day because God created in 7 days and that observation would be rendered meaningless within a non-literal 7-day interpretation" are 2 very different things. Observation of the Sabbath is a clear command...as with Adam and Eve, God is not required to give us all the details on why it is that we should or should not partake in something.

But the rationale behind Sabbath-keeping in Exodus 20 is the fact that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the Sabbath. The divine pattern of creation is why we have one weekly day of rest.

 

[Narnian]

Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?

My point was Dr. Payne was appealing to the original Hebrew. He did not believe in evolution. He did not believe the earth was billions of years old. He did not know how long the days were except to say the context and usage argued against 6 literal days of creation. Apparently other solid Reformed theologians have seen the same thing. I would not dismiss them offhand as kowtowing to "unbelieving science". (I also recognize the reverse is true, that many Hebrew scholars see the literal 6 day creation - but it is this disagreement with notables on both sides that tells me that the Hebrew is not as clear as either side might like it to be).

As Mr. Blum pointed out if we hold that a "plain historical" reading is the only option then where do we stand on Revelation and other such literary forms used in the Bible? I have dispensational friends who argue that point constantly. Poetry and allegory, stories and parables, history and prose are all part of scripture. Our disagreement here is which is Genesis 1. (Note - these literary forms are not mutually exclusive.)

To clarify a few points:

1. I am very much open to 6 literal day creation - I am not going to be the one telling God what He can and can't do. After reading from a number of scholars my position is Genesis 1 allows for a 6 literal creation day cycle, but does not require it. (In that sense I differ fom Dr. Payne who said the Hebrew didn't even allow a literal 6 days).

2. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall was an historical incident. (when we get the new heaven and earth I hope to go up to Adam, give him a dope slap and ask "why did you do that?" )

3. Not all science is unbelieving.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well, put it like this, would these Reformed theologians have adopted a non-literal view of Genesis 1 if it was not for unbelieving science? After all, how many mornings and evenings do you know which last for thousands/millions of years?

My point was Dr. Payne was appealing to the original Hebrew. He did not believe in evolution. He did not believe the earth was billions of years old. He did not know how long the days were except to say the context and usage argued against 6 literal days of creation. Apparently other solid Reformed theologians have seen the same thing. I would not dismiss them offhand as kowtowing to "unbelieving science". (I also recognize the reverse is true, that many Hebrew scholars see the literal 6 day creation - but it is this disagreement with notables on both sides that tells me that the Hebrew is not as clear as either side might like it to be).

As Mr. Blum pointed out if we hold that a "plain historical" reading is the only option then where do we stand on Revelation and other such literary forms used in the Bible? I have dispensational friends who argue that point constantly. Poetry and allegory, stories and parables, history and prose are all part of scripture. Our disagreement here is which is Genesis 1. (Note - these literary forms are not mutually exclusive.)

To clarify a few points:

1. I am very much open to 6 literal day creation - I am not going to be the one telling God what He can and can't do. After reading from a number of scholars my position is Genesis 1 allows for a 6 literal creation day cycle, but does not require it. (In that sense I differ fom Dr. Payne who said the Hebrew didn't even allow a literal 6 days).

2. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall was an historical incident. (when we get the new heaven and earth I hope to go up to Adam, give him a dope slap and ask "why did you do that?" )

3. Not all science is unbelieving.

I agree that not all science is unbelieving, but I think that those who compromise on six day creation make concessions to it. Why are they making such a concession? There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. That is why we should not apply the same principle to Revelation, as the book of Revelation is not historical literature but apocalyptic literature.

 

[MMasztal]

If I recall correctly, the OPC has determined that they will allow for other than a literal 6 24-hour-day creation.

As Spurgeon once said (paraphrased) Where Scripture is confeddedly scant, it is for no one to speak dogmatically.

 

[GenRev1611]

If the first Adam was just an allegory then it stands to reason that the second Adam was also an allegory. I've heard it said by theistic evolutionists that Adam is an allegory. The most subtle error would be the Progressive Creationist View. It holds to the idea that dinosaurs existed before the fall and that they somehow died before the creation of Adam and Eve. Death before the fall.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?

How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need both a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".

 

[JohnOwen007]

Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.

This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.

Because there are significant points in Genesis 1-3 that cast the "plain historical" reading into doubt, such as:

[1] The snake was cursed and told he would crawl on the "dust of the earth" all his days. But we don't believe Satan is a literal snake who is literally crawling in the dust on his belly the rest of his days.

[2] It is a story with a snake who has a personality (3:1) and talks. Nowhere else in the Bible does that occur (note that Balaam's ass did not have a personality). [We're not told in the story who the snake is, we must get that from other parts of Scripture].

[3] God walks around in the cool of the day, but the Bible tells us that God doesn't have a body--he is "spirit" and uncreated without material substance.

[4] Morning and evenings can only occur with a sun and an earth but the sun was created on the 4th day.

etc. etc.

I don't believe the issues surrounding Gen. 1-3 are as simple and black and white as you make them to be brother Daniel.

God bless you.

 

[MMasztal]

Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?

How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need both a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".

Yes. This is why I don't subscribe to the literal 24 hour-day theory.

 

[caddy]

This is a good discussion. I want to preface my comments and questions by making it clear that I have not yet been convinced of one position over another, and am simply thinking through and comparing various issues as they relate to each side of the broad issue. That said, there are certain arguments within the issue that I am convinced are weak or flawed; but none of those so far are enough in themselves to fully carry the weight of the whole issue, one way or another.

I likewise sympathize with definitely challenging and taking to task, and pushing for clear textual evidence for, the claim that the creation account easily has a different natural reading than the parts of Scripture we all agree to be literal history. But I'm curious as to your second sentence here (bold emphasis above): What about people who hold a non-literal position for a lifetime? What about Charles Hodge, or Meredith Kline?

I wasn't familiar with the fact that Hodge or Kline held that view for a lifetime Chris, so that is duly noted. I should have recalled that Warfield certainly understood and accepted many of the evolutionary tenets being put forth in his day. The truth is, I just don't know. I am honestly humbled by the fact that great men of God can be swayed here and there in any given decade and century because they want to attempt to side with current theories as they attempt to understood them during in their lifetime. If they can do it, I certainly can. I always want to err on the side of caution. Sometimes the best thing we can say is the most honest: I simply don't know.

 

[DMcFadden]

Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?

How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need both a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".

I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.

Kelly's exegetical/theological work was sufficient to have persuaded R.C. Sproul of the young earth view. BTW, I erred in attributing to Kelly (in an earlier post) the chapter in Thousands not Billions regarding the statistical analysis of Genesis regarding poetry vs. narrative. That was, of course, done by a Hebrew scholar at Master's Seminary.

Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.

BTW, I also agree with those concerned about this as a threat to unity. This side of the "see through a glass darkly," I'm not sure we will ever reach consensus on the meaning of Genesis 1-3. That will not stop me from arguing the case for young earth creation, however. Hey, even the Big Bang theory has it's own "distant starlight" problem (i.e., the "horizon problem"). Accepting the conventional time frame for the Big Bang does not allow sufficient time for light to make it from one place to another in the universe in 13.8 billion years. So, while Genesis was certainly not written to answer 21st century science, I aver that it accurately presents what God wanted to say to us about the creation. And, the canons of grammatical interpretation militates for a straight forward reading of the text here.

 

[Covenant Joel]

I agree that not all science is unbelieving, but I think that those who compromise on six day creation make concessions to it. Why are they making such a concession? There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. That is why we should not apply the same principle to Revelation, as the book of Revelation is not historical literature but apocalyptic literature.

And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.

 

[SRoper]

There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days.

I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.

A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.

Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.

The framework view is not necessarily an old earth view.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?

How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need both a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".

Marty it is clear from Exodus 20 that the days were ordinary days.

 

[DMcFadden]

A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.

The framework view is not necessarily an old earth view.

As to the first comment, yes, a very extraordinary day. But, you almost have to employ phenomenological language anchronistically when describing that which happened BEFORE the sun was created. Even Big Bangers use conventional time markers to portray the age of the universe. And, if our sun is a relatively recent creation in cosmic history (according to them) we are using "years" anachronistically to measure the passage of days prior to the creation of the sun in our solar system. So, yes, even with the Big Bangers, you must speak of "days" prior to the creation of our sun.

Secondly, the framework view is a literary, not scientific, theory . . . granted. But, most of the people who see Genesis in terms of a literary reading seem to do so because they want to accommodate the billions of years of scientific "consensus." Otherwise, the normal reading of Genesis would militate against looking for a more elegant/complicated theory (Ockham's razor).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days.

I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.

A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.

[qoute]Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.

I am talking about a day of ordinary length.

 

[DMcFadden]

I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.

When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

The Reformers fought against the opposite problem. Arguing that it took a full six days to create ran counter to the prevaling ideololgy of the day that saw creation as a more instantaneous example of ex nihilo. Luther argued for taking the creation as six days because the Bible said so contrary to the scholars of his day. I hold to six days contrary to the scholars of our day for the very same reason . . . the Bible says so.

And, Daniel is correct. Look at Exodus 20:11 and try to interpret it without the presumption that Genesis 1 describes ordinary days. It just doesn't work.

BTW - Joel S. comments . . .

And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.

I hope that I have not been perceived as denying this insight or in calling great scholars names. My admission that this was my position for at least 40 years before moving to the normal sense view 2 years ago should demonstrate that in my mind at least, this is an intramural conversation between orthodox brethren. Both of us affirm the full inspiration and authority of Scripture. We just disagree on the right application of hermeneutical principles to a particular passage.

 

[A5pointer]

All must be literal or nothing at all? Who here is taking John's Revelation literally? It is correctly taken by most, "literarily" not to be literal. If Genesis allows for a poetic or figurative way to express that Yaweh the only god has created all from nothing, it should not threaten us. I happen to see it that way, it actually makes more sense of the text and the harmonizing difficulties that have been discussed are not needed. The core message is the same Yaweh creates and ceases striving with his creation unlike the egyptian and mesopotamian gods.

 

[panta dokimazete]

When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.

A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.

 

[Bygracealone]

When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.

A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.

I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.

I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:

"What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"

I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.

For what it's worth,

Steve

 

[RamistThomist]

And I started off as a day-ager (but even then I didn't have the exegetical gymnastic abilities to go wtih Framework) and I gleefully ridiculed YECers. Doug Phillips at VisionForum exposed my humanistic thinking.

 

[CDM]

When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.

A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.

I have not found a theologian or Church Father having to "wrestle" with the Creation account pre Darwin.

Why do you suppose people have so much trouble with it now?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.

I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:

"What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"

I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.

hm - I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading - in fact I believe they bring even greater depth, which is why I try to carefully examine what my presuppositions are - are we to come to the text with the same understanding of physics as the Spirit-inspired author and leave it at that? Should we approach Revelation with the same (limited) understanding of world history as the author? God certainly wrote a timeless treatise of faith and practice, but He also has revealed His awesome complexity in the nature of the universe and the unfolding of His plan in time.

Scripture is authoritative in the areas it speaks to - particularly faith and practice - and should absolutely be the cornerstone of our quest to understand nature, but we should not limit the vastness of God's ability by the limitation of the vessel transcribing His thoughts or bind His timelessness to our time-centered view. Particularly the time comprehension of the authors.

I tend to agree when others state that Genesis has some elements of prophetic vision, just as Revelation does - and how elegant! Starting with the mysteries of Creation - resolving more and more to the revelation of the Saviour and ending with the glorious mysteries of the final Consummation!

His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.

I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:

"What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"

I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.

hm - I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading - in fact I believe they bring even greater depth, which is why I try to carefully examine what my presuppositions are - are we to come to the text with the same understanding of physics as the Spirit-inspired author and leave it at that? Should we approach Revelation with the same (limited) understanding of world history as the author? God certainly wrote a timeless treatise of faith and practice, but He also has revealed His awesome complexity in the nature of the universe and the unfolding of His plan in time.

Scripture is authoritative in the areas it speaks to - particularly faith and practice - and should absolutely be the cornerstone of our quest to understand nature, but we should not limit the vastness of God's ability by the limitation of the vessel transcribing His thoughts or bind His timelessness to our time-centered view. Particularly the time comprehension of the authors.

I tend to agree when others state that Genesis has some elements of prophetic vision, just as Revelation does - and how elegant! Starting with the mysteries of Creation - resolving more and more to the revelation of the Saviour and ending with the glorious mysteries of the final Consummation!

His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

If I were a full-fledged Darwinian, how exactly would I disagree with you? Any Darwinian who still wanted the "faith aspect" of Christianity could agree with your statement.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Huh? I doubt a Darwinist would agree with the presuppositional approach embedded in my statement. I acknowledge the mystery of God's will - where He has not given an exhaustive account, I do not press an exhaustive understanding. I just believe that we all should acknowledge it and not make it a divisive issue among the brethren.

 

[RamistThomist]

Huh? I doubt a Darwinist would agree with the presuppositional approach embedded in my statement.

Of course he would agree, for in the previous post you mentioned I am certain that not all scientific presuppositions are damaging to the reading. So which scientific presuppositions do we accept, and why? Don't answer. I know you are going to give the right orthodox answer, but given your criteria you can't be consistent on it. Can I apply scientific reasoning to the Resurrection?

I acknowledge the mystery of God's will - where He has not given an exhaustive account, I do not press an exhaustive understanding.

You have shifted the terms. We are talking about clarity, not exhaustivity.