Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

[DavidinKnoxville]

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.

(1) The snake does crawl on his belly the rest of his days. Nowhere in the text does it say that Satan will crawl on his belly the rest of his days.

(2) The fact that the snake has a personality proves nothing one way or the other. So if there is an account in the bible that occures only once then it is an allegory?

(3) You have the preincarnate Christ bodily interacting with people throughout the Old Testiment. There are three persons of the God head. One of which has appeared in bodily form throughout scripture. I don't see a contradiction here.

If the account in Genesis is an allegory then where does said allegory end?

 

[Narnian]

One argument I have seen used in this thread for a literal 6 day creation period is that death could not have occured before the Fall. (from the contexts I am assuming physical death).

As one who currently leans strongly against 6 literal days I would agree that this would be a very convincing (if not clinching) argument for a 6 literal day interpretation if it is true that Genesis teaches no physical death before the Fall.

Now the verse that makes me think that physical death was possible before the Fall is Gen 3:22-24.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

If Adam and Eve had eternal life before the Fall, how could they lose it? Apparently they had to eat of the Tree of Life to obtain it. If they never ate of the Tree of Life would they have died some type of natural death?

I have many questions from this, including the Fall itself:

1. Do we differntiate between physical and spiritual death in Genesis? Was the death mentioned in the Fall only spiritual death? I am currently inclined to think it is and it was here where Satan sowed confusion in Eve's mind be mixing the two.

2. Would physical death be bad before the Fall? Since there would be no judgment it would mean immediate entry into the eternal glory.

3. Did Adam and Eve have the same glorified bodies we are to receive in the new earth? Or were they closer to our current bodies, just much better since they did not have the curse of the Fall on them? They would wear out but just take much longer. The declining lifespans in the early geneologies give some creedence to that view.

I have never really studied this in detail and am very open to correction if I am stepping into something way off base.

 

[Bygracealone]

Hi Richard,

I'm not a Klinean per se, but would recommend reading his work "Kingdom Prologue" as well as Thomas Boston's "Human Nature in its Fourfold Estate." These works proved to be very helpful to me...

You asked:
1. Do we differntiate between physical and spiritual death in Genesis? Was the death mentioned in the Fall only spiritual death? I am currently inclined to think it is and it was here where Satan sowed confusion in Eve's mind be mixing the two.

First, it's important to note that our parents were living in a probationary state before the Fall. Had they fulfilled perfectly the demands of the Covenant of Works,they would have been eternally confirmed in that state of perfection.

That said, when they broke God's Covenant, they died physically and spiritually. After the Fall, we read about the deaths of Adam, Eve, and their posterity, so they did die physically. They began dying immediately after the Fall. We know that they died spiritually as well since we know that in Adam all die and by also noting that by faith in Christ we are given new life (spiritually at the moment of regeneration and physically at the resurrection).

You asked:
2. Would physical death be bad before the Fall? Since there would be no judgment it would mean immediate entry into the eternal glory.

I believe physical death would have pretty huge implications if it occurred before the Fall because it would directly contradict God's Word: Romans 5:12 12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men." Death entered the world through sin, therefore before sin there was no death.

To further answer your question, to speak of death before the Fall would be judgment and would not result in glorification, but damnation.

You then asked:
3. Did Adam and Eve have the same glorified bodies we are to receive in the new earth? Or were they closer to our current bodies, just much better since they did not have the curse of the Fall on them? They would wear out but just take much longer. The declining lifespans in the early geneologies give some creedence to that view.

??? But they did have the curse of the Fall upon them; they died... So, yes, they will have glorified bodies just like us; we will all have glorified bodies like our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hope this was helpful...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'm a staunch young earther and I'm not going to get involved in this debate but I do want to observe that, after 120 plus replies and over 1400 views the answer to the question - "Is it worth the battle?" is answered in the affirmative.

Battle on!

Well said.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Joshua,

Thanks again for your response. Sorry to take so long to respond. I've been away speaking at a conference (not on Genesis!, but on Haggai).

[By the way, I'm an Australian, so feel free to call me "Marty" rather than the more formal "Mr / Rev Foord"; but not if it contravenes your conscience].

All of the toledoth's, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history.

As I see it that's putting the cart before the horse. You can only determine how the toledoths work when we investigate what goes on in between them. That can only be done by inductively investigating the contents. The word toledoth usually means "generations" in a sense of physical birth. However, as according to the first use of the toledoth the "heavens and the earth" give birth. Already that is a unique meaning of the word, which should give us pause not to assume too much about what the word must demand.

I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical per se (a la Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.

That is true, and I should have been more careful in my speaking. Is there a short article or something that treats Scotist's view to which you could refer me?

Yes, try the book Scotus for Dunces by Mary Beth Ingham. It's a tremendously important issue.

If I were reading a three page except on Alexander the Great in a history textbook that mentioned him "fighting as a lion", or even referring to him as a "lion of war" (avoiding the simile), I wouldn't therefore take the whole passage as a-historical. I would recognize the flexibility of human language, and the necessity of colorful language, and common figures of speech, without therefore "scrapping" the rest as something other than history.

Yes, that is precisely my point. The position that we are to read Gen. 1-3 literally actually doesn't work precisely because it selectively chooses to treat some parts literally and others not. The days are meant to be taken literally but a snake eating dust must not (and it's not a statement about all snakes but the snake).

We must approach the text according to the genre that it is.

Lastly, there are different ways (off the top of my head) to think about the serpent eating dust:

1) Humiliation, a la Micah 7:17.

Humiliation to what, a snake? A snake can't be humiliated, it's an impersonal animal. But in this story it is the snake with a personality who talks and deceives.

However, I'm happy with this explanation concerning the way I understand the text. It is that this snake (who talks and deceives) is to undergo humiliation because of what he / it has done. Later in the canon we discover that this is analogically a reference about Satan.

2) A reference to the enmity between the serpent and humankind, since Adam was taken from dust, and would return to dust. This seems to be a common theme in Genesis, or at least a present theme, since Abraham told the LORD that he was only "dust and ashes." So if "dust" is clearly symbolic of humankind in Genesis, why could it not be here? Surely that has some textual support.

3) Phenomenological language. Anyone who has ever seen a snake sees it flicking its tongue out as it writhes upon the ground. To overly stress the literal idea of "eating" dust seems to be the same technique used by scientists who criticize the Bible for its three-tiered earth, or for geocentricity (granted that two respected men in this thread hold to such), to discredit the Bible. For those of us who are not geocentrists, the language could be easily phenomenological.

Again these options don't work precisely because it's not what the text actually says. I'm an inerrantist and the actual words of the text to me are critical. The text speaks of one snake who is cursed, not all snakes. It says nothing about Satan in and of itself. That's only determined elsewhere from the canon.

4) Surely the context presupposes or at least infers that the serpent was "other than it is now" prior to the curse and punishment. That view might even be more common (I would assume) among some liberal commentators because it seems to make the Biblical position even more ludicrous, e.g., that snakes had wings, or were somewhat different than they now are. However, seeing as that comes from the text itself, it would seem to lend support to seeing the "eating the dust" and "upon thy belly" as humiliation, since this once lofty creature has been humbled.

The problem is the snake spoke and deceived--it had a personality, something animals now don't have, precisely because they're not made in the image of God.

Perhaps it would help me (and presumably others) to understand your position further if you would give a positive explanation of your view, the interrelation of the toledoth's, Adam and Eve, whether she was really formed from his rib, the nature of theological language, etc.

I'd love to expound more, but I'm a little pushed for time at the moment. It's the beginning of the teaching year here in Australia, so it's a bit of a bottleneck for me. If you want a clear explanation of where I'm coming from I suggest you read Blocher's Original Sin.

God bless you dear brother, Marty.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Again I'm probably expressing this badly but it is the distinction Mr. Winzer drew between taking something literally and naturalistically, as if the literal ruled out the supernatural and spiritual: that is to draw a false distinction, a distinction modern science fundamentally adopts -- & they never find God anywhere in spite of His being everywhere revealed -- but that I reject.

The distinction between the literal and the naturalistic has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm a thoroughgoing supernaturalist. My concern is with what the text actually says. It never says anything about the snake being possessed or controlled by the devil. It simply refers to one snake, who talks and deceives. Indeed, the Bible nowhere says the snake was possessed or controlled by the devil. They're all assumptions read into (not out of) the text.

BTW housewives are never "mere", they're a wonderful gift from God, who are a great blessing to husbands and children, and it's a very high calling.


God bless dear sister.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear David,

Thanks for your response.

(1) The snake does crawl on his belly the rest of his days. Nowhere in the text does it say that Satan will crawl on his belly the rest of his days.

However, the text never says anything about Satan. All there is, is a talking deceiving snake. Why would one literal snake be cursed as a result of the fall?

(2) The fact that the snake has a personality proves nothing one way or the other. So if there is an account in the bible that occures only once then it is an allegory?

Of course not. There's way more to it than this. But a snake with a personality certainly gives pause to consider something out of the ordinary is going on. Animals aren't made in the image of God with a personality.

(3) You have the preincarnate Christ bodily interacting with people throughout the Old Testiment. There are three persons of the God head. One of which has appeared in bodily form throughout scripture. I don't see a contradiction here.

Well you can't prove definitely it's pre-incarnate Christ, because the text doesn't say so. Either way, it's not God in se--that would be impossible (1 Tim. 6:16).

If the account in Genesis is an allegory then where does said allegory end?

We have to look hard at the text to work out that. But that objection per se is not really an argument against.

Every blessing David.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Matthew,

Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been away.

On the temporal level the serpent is cursed, and on the eschatological level "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" is cursed. One might choose to ignore the eschatological aspect, but such ignorance only veils the eyes of the OT reader.

Precisely my point. How do we determine the eschatological element except from beyond the Genesis narrative. All those chapters say is that a snake (who talks and deceives) is cursed. To grasp the eschatological significance we must place it in its full canonical context.

Marty, whatever your own personal view may be, on this thread you have presented arguments against the literal historical approach to the text of Gen. 1-3. You haven't merely made a case that some language is figurative -- such should be easy to establish on the basis of literal markers within the text;

No you're missing the point I'm trying to make: I want to read the early chapters of Genesis literally! The days are to be understood in the story as literal days. The snake is to be understood as a real literal snake (who also talks and deceives). I want it all literally otherwise the story doesn't make sense.

What I've been arguing is that if we read it literally (as I want to) but also say it's literal history we run into huge problems (like the fact that Satan is never mentioned and one snake is blamed on the fall who's punishment is to literally eat dust etc. etc.).

but you have clearly said you believe the text should be read as one would read a parable of our Lord.

Again, no that's not what I said. I want to say it like a parable, in that it's analogical.

Now that is a radical approach. Conservatism and radicalism are not determined by reference to "self," but by reference to schools of thought.

It certainly is not if we use the word "radical" according to the theological literature in this debate. To be "radical" means to deny things like: the existence of a space / time fall, that Adam and Eve were real literal people, the infallibility of Scripture (let alone the inerrancy of Scripture). I go by what all of Scripture says. Genesis must be understood in its canonical context.

The Bavinck statement is true to life. Christian theology has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as historical.

Matthew, with very great respect I can only say you are wrong here. Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous and the majority of theologians (as Anselm affirms) followed him for at least 1000 years. Almost every commentator following Basil the Great argued that the creation days were not identical to ours in their nature. William Perkins argued that the first three days could not be classic solar days. He opposed the instantaneous view of Augustine but contends the days are “distinct spaces of times" (Workes 1:143-144). The majority Westminster divines believed in 24 hour days like ours. However, John Lightfoot, argued that the first day was 36 hours, and that the seventh day was everlasting (Works 1:691, 693). To say that there is unanimity in the Christian tradition on Gen. 1-3 is simply not true. (And this is only the tip of the iceberg).

First, concerning macro-genre, it is generally accepted that writings might be separated by thousands of years and alien cultures and still be essentially the same type of writing. A treaty is a treaty, a law code is a law code, and a history is a history. They had them in the ANE and they have them now. No doubt there are micro-elements which differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the writing is still essentially the same.

Generally I agree, but your illustrations I have concerns about.

Secondly, as has already been noted, the NT itself presents its allusions to Gen. 1-3 from the perspective that these things happened. Not merely that they are written, but that the events recorded are historical realities.

Well that's a really big call. I'm not going to say that the burden of proof lies on you, because on this one it lies on us all. But your statement masks extremely large theological debates and issues among believers.

Even before we get to the NT we need to be aware of the OT references to creation, which contain great variety--some using ANE allusions about a cosmic battle.

The only way these historical allusions could be explained away is on the supposition that the writers of the NT accommodated themselves to the false beliefs of the people to whom they were writing;

Again, I'm not sure you've appreciated my position. I haven't said anything about Genesis containing false beliefs of the ANE era. If anything it's a strong polemic against the creation myths of the period like Enuma Elish etc.

The Christian's supernaturalistic worldview overcomes such rash conclusions.

Well "rash" is a strong word. I see the opposite position in the same way because it doesn't read the opening chapters of Genesis closely enough.

Matthew, on the issue of the snake having a personality you're just not interacting with my point. I agree that animals in some texts are said to have human characteristics (metaphorically!). However, semantically speaking words have meaning in their context. It is precisely because the snake is crafty that he / it deceives the woman (read and reread Gen. 3:1). Why is the snake cursed if it wasn't he / it that committed some crime in the story but the devil? Snakes are moral creatures. I want to take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime. But see the snake as an analogue of the Satan. That's at least how I see the NT understanding the early chapters of Genesis. There's no hint in the NT that the snake was possessed like a demoniac.

Yes, I want to read the story eschatologically. But I don't want to import later canonical ideas into the story itself. Nowhere are we told in the story that snake was possessed / ruled by the devil. Indeed, nowhere is the Satan mentioned. Let's leave the details of the story pristine and then make sense of it, in its canonical context.

Thanks for your interaction.

Have a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow dear brother.

 

[MW]

Matthew, with very great respect I can only say you are wrong here. Augustine believed that creation was instantaneous and the majority of theologians (as Anselm affirms) followed him for at least 1000 years. Almost every commentator following Basil the Great argued that the creation days were not identical to ours in their nature. William Perkins argued that the first three days could not be classic solar days. He opposed the instantaneous view of Augustine but contends the days are “distinct spaces of times" (Workes 1:143-144). The majority Westminster divines believed in 24 hour days like ours. However, John Lightfoot, argued that the first day was 36 hours, and that the seventh day was everlasting (Works 1:691, 693). To say that there is unanimity in the Christian tradition on Gen. 1-3 is simply not true. (And this is only the tip of the iceberg).

Marty, I haven't stated there is "unanimity," but, as the Bavinck reference shows, there is a consensus in "Christian theology." Concerning the "facts" you have here presented, I can remember reading these in another paper somewhere (perhaps from Rowland Ward) and concluding the author was clasping at straws. First, Augustine aside, as his various statements make him hard to pin down, all the other references you have noted presuppose an "historical" reading of the text. Perkins not only speaks of "six spaces of time," but also says, "hee began and finished the whole worke in six distinct daies." He proceeds to give an account of the history of how things came to be in these distinct days, and then makes application of the significance that "God made the world, & every thing therein in sixe distinct daies," even accounting for the creation of light without the sun on the first day. Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source. When an author relates the opinions of others he is not to be credited with holding that opinion unless he specifically owns it. In his Chronicle of the Times Lightfoot has given an historical account of the creation day by day, and concerning the first day he writes, "Twelve hours was there universal darkness through all the world, and then was light created in this upper Horizon, and there it inlightned twelve hours more; and then flitted away, as the light of the Sun now doth to the other Hemisphere; and thus was the measure and work of the first day, Verse 3, 4, 5."

 

[MW]

Matthew, on the issue of the snake having a personality you're just not interacting with my point. I agree that animals in some texts are said to have human characteristics (metaphorically!). However, semantically speaking words have meaning in their context. It is precisely because the snake is crafty that he / it deceives the woman (read and reread Gen. 3:1). Why is the snake cursed if it wasn't he / it that committed some crime in the story but the devil? Snakes are moral creatures. I want to take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime. But see the snake as an analogue of the Satan. That's at least how I see the NT understanding the early chapters of Genesis. There's no hint in the NT that the snake was possessed like a demoniac.

Marty, if you "take the text literally and say that the snake did commit the crime," then we have no disagreement. At that point if you are using ordinary language it tells me you regard the criminal activity of the snake as a space-time event. But if you go back through the posts you will see that this topic commenced discussion because you asked a question in relation to the my statement that the apostle Paul took the Genesis narrative as history -- that the serpent beguiled Eve. It was only on the basis of your question concerning talking snakes that we went down the road of "personality" and such things. Now, as I've said, I'm quite content to say this is historical and also that something out of the ordinary is happening here. If that is what you are saying then there is no point continuing to disagree over nothing.

Yes, I want to read the story eschatologically. But I don't want to import later canonical ideas into the story itself. Nowhere are we told in the story that snake was possessed / ruled by the devil. Indeed, nowhere is the Satan mentioned. Let's leave the details of the story pristine and then make sense of it, in its canonical context.

The only point I would make here i that the eschatological aspect of the text cannot be divorced from the historical aspect of it. Eschatology separated from history is mere allegory. I would also add that the "canonical" concept of Satan's activity is also grounded in history because our Saviour referred to the Devil as a murderer from the beginning. There is therefore no basis for making the serpent's activity merely analogous to the activity of Satan, but good cause for concluding that the activity of the serpent and Satan were one. Blessings!

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Matthew,

First, Augustine aside, as his various statements make him hard to pin down, all the other references you have noted presuppose an "historical" reading of the text.

Well leaving Augustine aside skews the data considerably. Augustine's statements are as clear as crystal, there is no doubt what his position is, and it appears to be the dominant one for next 1000 years.

Augustine clearly believed that creation of everything was instantaneous from Gen. 1:1. In this he follows Ambrose. Ambrose believed that the 6 days recounted the fashioning (not the creating from nothing) of what had already been created. Augustine didn't follow Ambrose on this. However, he was very clear that he had no idea what the days referred to:

What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (City of God 11.6)

Hence, Augustine believed that it is beyond us to determine what the “light” of day one was. He speculates that it could be either material light, or a reference to the holy city of God, made up of angels and spirits. He even speculates that the six days are to be understood as stages in the creature’s coming to knowledge of creation.

Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo wrestles with Augustine's position. On the one hand he knows that if creation is instantaneous it has an impact on how we understand the "days":

If the whole creation was produced at once, and the days of Moses’ account, where he seems to say that the world was not made all at once, are not to be equated with the days in which we live [then …]

However, he also feels the weight of understanding creation to have occurred over the 6 day period. But comes to no conclusion. What he does acknowledge is that the "majority" of theologians follow Augustine.

If there is a consensus in the first 1500 years of the tradition it is that God instantaneously created everything in Gen. 1:1, not in "the space of 6 days".

Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source.

I have indeed. It's all there in his original text:

A Few and New Observations Vopn the Booke of Genesis, London, 1642.

He's clearly propagating his own views, not simply recounting the views of others. There is no doubt that the majority of Westminster divines believed in a 6 24-hour day creation. But there was not complete unanimity, neither were there great debates about this.

That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.

The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything ex nihilo and a space-time fall.

God bless dear brother.

 

[MW]

Well leaving Augustine aside skews the data considerably. Augustine's statements are as clear as crystal, there is no doubt what his position is, and it appears to be the dominant one for next 1000 years.

Augustine was far from clear in his presentation on this subject. He wrote four different works which espoused at least three different theories. First, an allegorical approach; second, revelation to angels approach, which some mistakenly liken to the framework theory; third, in the City of God, a literal historical approach, in which he vaguely states that it is not for us to say what the days were. In this last work he takes at least the chronology of the days literally because he argues when the angels must have been created in relation to them. He also espouses the Eusebian chronology of history from the creation of the world, which is essentially the same methodology as that employed by young earthers.

Concerning Lightfoot, you need to check the primary source.

I have indeed. It's all there in his original text:

A Few and New Observations Vopn the Booke of Genesis, London, 1642.

He's clearly propagating his own views, not simply recounting the views of others.

This is simply incorrect. The "Few and New Observations" are the opinions of others, not his own. The text is as follows, and contains no personal acceptance:

Twelve hours did the Heavens thus move in darkness, and then God commanded and there appeared light to this upper Horizon, namely to that where Eden should be planted [for, for that place especially is the story calculated] and there did it shine other twelve hours, declining by degrees with the motion of the Heavens to the other Hemisphere, where it inlightned other twelve hours also, and so the first natural day to that part of the world was six and thirty hours long, so long was Joshua's day, Josh. 10. And so long was our Saviour clouded under death.

His own view is that which was stated in his Chronicle of the Times:

Twelve hours was there universal darkness through all the world, and then was light created in this upper Horizon, and there it inlightned twelve hours more; and then flitted away, as the light of the Sun now doth to the other Hemisphere; and thus was the measure and work of the first day, Verse 3, 4, 5.

That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.

Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.

 

[Ravens]

Calvin's comments on Genesis 3, and how the serpent relates to Satan, are very instructive and on-topic:

1. Now the serpent was more subtil: In this chapter, Moses explains, that man, after he had been deceived by Satan revolted from his Maker, became entirely changed and so degenerate, that the image of God, in which he had been formed, was obliterated. He then declares, that the whole world, which had been created for the sake of man, fell together with him from its primary original; and that in this ways much of its native excellence was destroyed. But here many and arduous questions arise. For when Moses says that the serpent was crafty beyond all other animals, he seems to intimate, that it had been induced to deceive man, not by the instigation of Satan, but by its own malignity. I answer, that the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from making use of the animal for the purpose of effecting the destruction of man. For since he required an instrument, he chose from among animals that which he saw would be most suitable for him: finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he was preparing might the more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise. Hitherto, he had held no communication with men; he, therefore, clothed himself with the person of an animal, under which he might open for himself the way of access. Yet it is not agreed among interpreters in what sense the serpent is said to be Mwre (aroom, subtle,) by which word the Hebrews designate the prudent as well as the crafty. Some, therefore, would take it in a good, others in a bad sense. I think, however, Moses does not so much point out a fault as attribute praise to nature because God had endued this beast with such singular skill, as rendered it acute and quick-sighted beyond all others. But Satan perverted to his own deceitful purposes the gift which had been divinely imparted to the serpent. Some captiously cavil, that more acuteness is now found in many other animals. To whom I answer, that there would be nothing absurd in saying, that the gift which had proved so destructive to the human race has been withdrawn from the serpent: just, as we shall hereafter see, other punishments were also inflicted upon it. Yet, in this description, writers on natural history do not materially differ from Moses, and experience gives the best answer to the objection; for the Lord does not in vain command his own disciples to be 'prudent as serpents,' (Matthew 10:16.) But it appears, perhaps, scarcely consonant with reason, that the serpent only should be here brought forward, all mention of Satan being suppressed. I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be collected than that men were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is declared to be 'the father of lies,' the fabricator of imposture, and the author of death. The question, however, is not yet solved, why Moses has kept back the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit then purposely used obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ. In the meantime, the prophets prove that they were well acquainted with the meaning of Moses, when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin upon the devil. We have elsewhere said, that Moses, by a homely and uncultivated style, accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people; and for the best reason; for not only had he to instruct an untaught race of men, but the existing age of the Church was so puerile, that it was unable to receive any higher instruction. There is, therefore, nothing absurd in the supposition, that they, whom, for the time, we know and confess to have been but as infants, were fed with milk. Or (if another comparison be more acceptable) Moses is by no means to be blamed, if he, considering the office of schoolmaster as imposed upon him, insists on the rudiments suitable to children. They who have an aversion to this simplicity, must of necessity condemn the whole economy of God in governing the Church. This, however, may suffice us, that the Lord, by the secret illumination of his Spirit, supplied whatever was wanting of clearness in outward expressions; as appears plainly from the prophets, who saw Satan to be the real enemy of the human race, the contriver of all evils, furnished with every kind of fraud and villainy to injure and destroy. Therefore, though the impious make a noise, there is nothing justly to offend us in this mode of speaking by which Moses describes Satan, the prince of iniquity, under the person of his servant and instrument, at the time when Christ, the Head of the Church, and the Sun of Righteousness, had not yet openly shone forth. Add to this, the baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived, that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given, by the hand of God, into subjection to them, they yet suffered themselves to be led away by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God. As often as they beheld any one of the animals which were in the world, they ought to have been reminded both of the supreme authority, and of the singular goodness of God; but, on the contrary, when they saw the serpent an apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but, in violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it, as participators in the same apostasy. What can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? Thus, I understand the name of the serpent, not allegorically, as some foolishly do, but in its genuine sense.

And he said unto the woman. The impious assail this passage with their sneers, because Moses ascribes eloquence to an animal which only faintly hisses with its forked tongue. And first they ask, at what time animals began to be mute, if they then had a distinct language, and one common to ourselves and them. The answer is ready; the serpent was not eloquent by nature, but when Satan, by divine permission, procured it as a fit instrument for his use, he uttered words also by its tongue, which God himself permitted. Nor do I doubt that Eve perceived it to be extraordinary, and on that account received with the greater avidity what she admired. Now, if men decide that whatever is unwonted must be fabulous, God could work no miracle. Here God, by accomplishing a work above the ordinary course of nature, constrains us to admire his power. If then, under this very pretext, we ridicule the power of God, because it is not familiar to us, are we not excessively preposterous? Besides, if it seems incredible that beasts should speak at the command of God, how has man the power of speech, but because God has formed his tongue? The Gospel declares, that voices were uttered in the air, without a tongue, to illustrate the glory of Christ; this is less probable to carnal reason, than that speech should be elicited from the mouth of brute animals. What then can the petulance of impious men find here deserving of their invective? In short, whosoever holds that God in heaven is the Ruler of the world, will not deny his power over the creatures, so that he can teach brute animals to speak when he pleases, just as he sometimes renders eloquent men speechless. Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it. For he warily insinuates himself at that point at which he sees us to be the least fortified, that he may not be perceived till he should have penetrated where he wished. The woman does not flee from converse with the serpent, because hitherto no dissension had existed; she, therefore, accounted it simply as a domestic animal.

 

[ChristianTrader]

That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.

The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything ex nihilo and a space-time fall.

God bless dear brother.

Who in Church history disbelieved that the earth was from 10,000 - 6000 years old?

CT

 

[Ravens]

Marty,

All of the toledoth's, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history.

As I see it that's putting the cart before the horse. You can only determine how the toledoths work when we investigate what goes on in between them. That can only be done by inductively investigating the contents. The word toledoth usually means "generations" in a sense of physical birth. However, as according to the first use of the toledoth the "heavens and the earth" give birth. Already that is a unique meaning of the word, which should give us pause not to assume too much about what the word must demand.

I do not think that I am putting the cart before the horse in terms of methodology and exegesis; I just fast-forwarded through the obvious for sake of discussion. I don't mean that to be loaded language. If you feel that any of the other 9/10 toledoth's do not deal with history, then we can discuss that. But as it stands, I think it is safe to say that, via an inductive approach to Genesis, we discover that all of the toledoth's both set forth and purport to be history.

Once again, I'm not basing my argument on the lexical meaning of toledoth; I'm basing it on how Moses himself uses the term in the evident structure of Genesis.

You point out that the first toledoth concerns what the heavens and the earth bring forth. In the context of your statement, you seem to be introducing this so as to broaden the semantic field. But once again, I'm not basing it on the lexicon, I'm basing it on it's usage in Genesis.

But that being said, it is still "literally" true. What you have just said is tantamount to saying, "Man's origin is unique." Would not the "bringing forth" of the first man, from whom all others descend in natural generation, of its very nature have to be of a different sort than that of his descendants?

If you do not want to have an infinite regression of births and begets, then you are eventually going to come to the First Man. Scripture says the earth "begot" him. The only other alternative would be to say that God "begot" Him. Anything beyond that is speculation. But there are ample reasons, from the terms used to refer to Christ (monogenes), to the Creator-creature distinction, to reinforce the humble origins of man and that he owes everything to his Creator, etc., to refer the origin to the earth, and not to YHWH. Also, doing this links the account structurally to the Creation narrative of Genesis 1, the origin of which was Divine fiat.

But to safe-guard against any idea that the earth brought forth man of itself, the text immediately uses very intimate language to show how the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth and gave Him life.

Those are just my thoughts. Regardless, I still desire your feedback and thoughts on a couple points I made:

1) Can you name one other Scripture wherein historical people (Adam and Eve) are placed in an "allegory", or in a "fictional setting" described by theological language (however you want to define the Garden in the text, since it didn't exist in your scheme)? That is, can you name one other place in Scripture that mixes historical people and non-historical, non-literal events, in this manner?

2) You don't seem to think that the usage of the other 9/10 toledoth's should have any bearing on the first toledoth. I don't grant that, but I will proceed for purposes of the discussion.

Does not the first toledoth at least have reference to itself? This is the toledoth of Cain and Abel, which Scripture takes as simple history. We have a unit of Scripture that includes a multiplicity of historical people between chapters 3 and 4. And the text in question by you has two of those historical people. If the text does not draw a line of distinction wherein we pass from Narnia to England, then why should we?

Yes, that is precisely my point. The position that we are to read Gen. 1-3 literally actually doesn't work precisely because it selectively chooses to treat some parts literally and others not. The days are meant to be taken literally but a snake eating dust must not (and it's not a statement about all snakes but the snake).

We must approach the text according to the genre that it is.

I must dissent from the observation that we were making the same point. My point was, metaphorical language and figures of speech can be used within the confines of historical narrative. The proof of that is simple. Christ calling Herod "that fox" does not relegate the whole passage to a non-literal reading. It is a metaphorical statement used in historical narrative, and everyone can see that it doesn't therefore relegate the whole passage to a-history or theological language. Is there not some metaphorical or figurative or loaded language used when Christ gives his disciples power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy? Is the text primarily concerned with scorpions? Can Christ tell His disciples to be harmless as doves and wise as serpents, thereby attributing "wisdom" to serpents in much the same way that Genesis does, without us needing to relegate the Gospels to a-history?

Humiliation to what, a snake? A snake can't be humiliated, it's an impersonal animal. But in this story it is the snake with a personality who talks and deceives.

My point is that the imagery of "eating the dust" is one used elsewhere in Scripture for humiliation. It is inflicted on the animal for the same reasons that men-goring oxen were slaughtered. Also, it serves as a sign to Satan of his own humiliation.

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, and I doubt you do, it still seems that once again you are departing from the text. You say that this curse applies to this snake only, and not to all snakes. I grant that your point might be technically accurate, or at least not technically refutable, but for my part I don't see how anyone can miss the "corporate" nature of both the punishments and the enmity.

What happens in Genesis 3:15-16 and onwards affects not only the woman and the serpent, but the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and what with the long-lasting implications for childbirth, relationships, the earth, and human death, and the corporate nature of the serpent (having seed), I find it odd that we would relegate the punishment to that particular serpent.

Lastly, even if you disagree with that, I still don't think you've touched on animals in Scripture. Calvin said that there may well have been something inherent in the created nature of the snake and its capacities and disabilities which proved to be of usefulness to the Devil. Augustine said the same thing, and I believe it can be found in the quote from Calvin's commentary above.

Scripture does attribute certain "attributes" to certain animals, or at the very least identifies certain animals with certain characteristics in a fairly objective way. That is, the dove with peace, the serpent with wisdom, the lion with nobility (and other things), etc. Even human experience and our lawful evaluation of the world yields the same thing.

Who can honestly say that dolphins and elephants are not more "intelligent" than mice? Monkeys are "playful" in a way that beetles aren't. Though we don't understand it, and though the chasm between man and animal is fixed, in that we bear the image of God and they do not, surely there are gradations of intelligence and a variety of characteristics in the animal kingdom.

So in an objective way I do believe that the serpent could be arum without attributing personality to it, and it was this faculty that made it an ideal instrument to be picked up and utilized by Satan.

However, I'm happy with this explanation concerning the way I understand the text. It is that this snake (who talks and deceives) is to undergo humiliation because of what he / it has done. Later in the canon we discover that this is analogically a reference about Satan.

Brother, I'll reiterate, at this time, my main contention:

For all of your emphasis on letting the "text speak for itself", I can't help but think that your position actually "sets aside" the text more than the consensus position does.

If we were to base the interpretation of this text on the statements you have made, then, as I have said before, we would not end up with allegory, theological language, or anything else.

We would end up with a snake who has a personal soul or mind, who seduces Eve into sin by his own craftiness or maliciousness, that God curses. You seem to recognize this and proceed to draw allegorical lessons from it based on the canon of Scripture.

Given your presuppositions and interpretation, I don't see that "procession" you are making as valid. You are making a judgment that a serpent couldn't be arum, and since "we all know" serpents don't speak, therefore it is not literal history.

Brother, if we were secularists or materialists, then I could see the viability of that hermeneutic. But we see the supernatural on all the pages of Scripture. Staffs don't normally turn into serpents; donkeys don't normally speak; the sun doesn't normally stop in its course; the waters of the Jordan don't typically cure leprosy; little dead girls don't typically come back to life; fish don't help us to pay our taxes in the normal order of things.

The Scripture, the Old Testament, the Torah, and Genesis itself have an abundance of the supernatural. So encountering something "out of the ordinary" doesn't give one the hermeneutical "right" to relegate it to Narnia. So, if you really want to let the Text be normative and self-interpreting, it seems as if you would banish Satan altogether, and take the narrative seriously as real history. And, like I said, you would be left with one malicious talking serpent who acted of his own nature, devices, and impulse.

I would reiterate that those of us arguing for the historical nature of the first toledoth end up giving the text more respect than, I believe, your position does. Because at the end of the day, we are willing to submit our minds to the apparent "childishness" of Scripture and affirm the garden, the creation of woman from the side of man, the trees, the serpent, etc. We allow the canon to inform us, following the analogia Scriptura, that a demonic power, namely, the chief of the demonic powers, was using this instrument to plant doubt in the woman's mind.

At the end of the day, we both use the analogia Scriptura to realize that Satan was involved in the fall of our first parents. But I find it ironic that the person who most insists on taking the Text seriously is the one who is not taking it literally. To say anything else would be to pry into your motives and doubts. But I would think at this point, we need to submit our minds to Scripture and the full teaching of the canon, even when it appears "unscientific".

As an aside, I think we all need to be on guard against all forms of chronological snobbery (and this is just a general thought, not an admonition to you, Marty). Within one generation of creation man knew how to build a city (c.f. Cain). Ancient man was as intelligent as we are, despite modern hit-pieces. None of us could build Stonehenge, and very few of us on here could calculate the courses of stars and planets (just two examples). We are only "smarter" because we sit on the cusp of ~ 6,000 years of human history and learning. I myself couldn't brew one beer or make one butane lighter. So I don't hesitate to say that I am most likely one of the dumbest, most foolish men to ever grace this planet when it comes to Creation.

That being said, men of old knew that virgins didn't conceive as a matter of course. They knew that dead people didn't come back to life. And they were certainly intelligent enough to know that worldwide light, apart from the sun, moon, and stars, was an oddity: A unique, unparalleled Divine wonder!

I was reading a commentary today of a more liberal stripe that I had to purchase in college, and it actually suggested that Israel was so 'pre-scientific' that it didn't know that light could not exist apart from celestial bodies (or something along those lines). Do we really think that an Israelite, or any man of the ancient world, would have read about the first three days of Creation and not realized that God must have been doing something out of the ordinary to supply light to the Earth?

No. They recognized the same things that we do. But they received the oracles that God had given them and passed them on to us. Men of old knew that serpents didn't intrinsically talk. But apparently one serpent did in fact talk. And nothing more is said about it. But the rest of the canon does clearly point to Satan as the culprit here. It does not invalidate the text or undermine the text. Rather, it "pulls back the curtain" in the same way that the readers of Job have the curtain pulled back to see the events in the heavenlies, in the same way that Daniel receives knowledge that his real life struggles were occasioned by conflicts among the angels of God and the (in my opinion) spiritual rulers of Persia and Greece: Scripture pulls back the curtain and points us to the prince of the power of the air, the prince of this world, the god of this world, a liar and a murderer from the beginning, that old serpent, the dragon, to let us see that he was the one playing the serpent like a lying flute.

Genesis 3 gives us literal history. The rest of the canon pulls back the curtain and lets us see who was playing the instruments.

Blessings to you brother,

Joshua

 

[Denton Elliott]

Do you think this was even a question before man invented evolution and the church scurried to smash evolution into the Scriptures to be relevant?

Anyone interested in understanding the importance of 6 literal 24hr days should visit AnswerInGenesis.org

Don't bow to the god of false science, Scriptures AND science both support a young earth created about 6000 years ago in 6 literal 24hr days.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Do you think this was even a question before man invented evolution and the church scurried to smash evolution into the Scriptures to be relevant?

Anyone interested in understanding the importance of 6 literal 24hr days should visit AnswerInGenesis.org

Don't bow to the god of false science, Scriptures AND science both support a young earth created about 6000 years ago in 6 literal 24hr days.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Augustine was far from clear in his presentation on this subject. He wrote four different works which espoused at least three different theories. First, an allegorical approach; second, revelation to angels approach, which some mistakenly liken to the framework theory; third, in the City of God, a literal historical approach, in which he vaguely states that it is not for us to say what the days were. In this last work he takes at least the chronology of the days literally because he argues when the angels must have been created in relation to them. He also espouses the Eusebian chronology of history from the creation of the world, which is essentially the same methodology as that employed by young earthers.

Matthew, I'm not sure you appreciated what I originally said about Augustine:

[1] He is clear that God created everything instantaneously (Gen. 1:1).

[2] He was crystal clear in saying that he had no idea what to do with the 6 days. This is precisely why he speculated about different (incompatible) interpretations of them. Indeed, he contended that we probably could never know what they meant (as we could never know what "light" meant before the luminaries were created on Day 4).

The "Few and New Observations" are the opinions of others, not his own. The text is as follows, and contains no personal acceptance:

Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:

"A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."

In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").

One page 2 we read:

and so the first natural day to that part of the world was six and thirty houres long

On page 6 you'll see his comments about the 7th day unbounded.

Hence, his opinion was that these were not controversial points. In other words 6 24-hour day creation is not necessary to believe. That's my point.

Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.

Far from it because you've factored Augustine (who was the most influential theologian prior to the reformation) out of the data. His position (and his "majority" followers) is that the 6 days were not necessarily literal history. Moreover, the modern "young earth" movement owes much to Seventh Day Adventist theology (through James McCready Price).

 

[JohnOwen007]

The only point I would make here i that the eschatological aspect of the text cannot be divorced from the historical aspect of it. Eschatology separated from history is mere allegory.

With great agreement! Although see below.

I would also add that the "canonical" concept of Satan's activity is also grounded in history because our Saviour referred to the Devil as a murderer from the beginning.

Also with great agreement!

There is therefore no basis for making the serpent's activity merely analogous to the activity of Satan, but good cause for concluding that the activity of the serpent and Satan were one.

Unfortunate disagreement.

Take for example Rev. 12:9:

9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him

The "dragon" I would assume you don't take as literal dragon here (just like I assume you wouldn't believe that Jesus has a "sword" literally coming out of his mouth, Rev. 1:16). Apocalyptic can refer analogically to real historic people and events using symbols.

The text identifies the dragon as the devil, through simple use of the unstated copulative. Thus, the symbol of the dragon refers in reality to the devil. Moreover, the "ancient serpent" is "called the devil". He is not identified as a personality who possessed the "ancient serpent". (Indeed, nowhere does the Bible actually say this).

I don't see therefore why it is necessary to say the the devil is literally the "ancient serpent" or a literal "dragon". Rather it seems clear to me that both are analogues of the literal devil.

Moreover, it'd be great if you could answer my questions concerning God cursing the snake in Gen. 3. Was God cursing a literal snake? Why do we hear nothing about the devil getting cursed but only a snake? Why does the snake get cursed (an animal with no moral ability) for the devil's actions?

If we don't have to read apocalyptic literalistically why the demand on Gen. 1-3 when there are such clear markers against it?

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Joshua,

Thanks for your response. I simply don't have time to deal with all of it. However, I would recommend (given some of the things you're saying) to read Henri Blocher's book In the Beginning, especially the first chapter. (This is different to the other Blocher book I recommended. Both are excellent).

1) Can you name one other Scripture wherein historical people (Adam and Eve) are placed in an "allegory", or in a "fictional setting" described by theological language (however you want to define the Garden in the text, since it didn't exist in your scheme)? That is, can you name one other place in Scripture that mixes historical people and non-historical, non-literal events, in this manner?

Yes apocalyptic and parable.

2) [...]
Does not the first toledoth at least have reference to itself? This is the toledoth of Cain and Abel, which Scripture takes as simple history. We have a unit of Scripture that includes a multiplicity of historical people between chapters 3 and 4. And the text in question by you has two of those historical people. If the text does not draw a line of distinction wherein we pass from Narnia to England, then why should we?

Again, you're making too much of the word toledoth. Just because it helps structure the text, why do we have to say that it demands literalistic history? What's to stop Moses prepending an ancient creation account in another genre to his text? It's just like saying that every time a book uses inverted commas (quote marks) it must ensconce literal history, because the majority use of inverted commas enfold literal history. Authors are free to quote all sorts of genres.

As I see it, you're not grappling with the contents in between the toledoths concerning talking snakes etc. and the very structure of the 1st tablet's account of creation (namely the first 3 days being the creation of spaces, and the second 3 days being the filling of those spaces, which I suspect follows the "formless" (1st 3 days) and "void" (2nd 3 days) of Gen. 1:2). It's these points where the debate lies, not the toledoths.

My point is that the imagery of "eating the dust" is one used elsewhere in Scripture for humiliation. It is inflicted on the animal for the same reasons that men-goring oxen were slaughtered. Also, it serves as a sign to Satan of his own humiliation.

But men-goring oxen is completely different. The oxen don't talk, deceive and have personalities.

Is the snake literally the devil? If he is then he still must be crawling on his belly. If he isn't then you're left with him being a symbol or analogue of the devil. If you say he possessed by the devil you're introducing an idea never found in one text of scripture, that makes no sense of the curse upon the snake.

If we were to base the interpretation of this text on the statements you have made, then, as I have said before, we would not end up with allegory, theological language, or anything else.

Nope just look at Jesus' parables and apocalyptic.

As for chronological snobbery, well, just look at the reformation. I'm glad it happened, and if I appealed to old is better I would've been a Roman Catholic, and never embraced imputed righteousness (a notion not to be found in the tradition until Luther).

We need to avoid 2 extremes: anything new is better, anything old is better.

God bless dear brother and friend.

Marty.

 

[MW]

Matthew, I'm not sure you appreciated what I originally said about Augustine:

[1] He is clear that God created everything instantaneously (Gen. 1:1).

[2] He was crystal clear in saying that he had no idea what to do with the 6 days. This is precisely why he speculated about different (incompatible) interpretations of them. Indeed, he contended that we probably could never know what they meant (as we could never know what "light" meant before the luminaries were created on Day 4).

Marty, you say Augustine is clear, but do not account for the fact that he varies from writing to writing in what he says on the creation account. Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context? How does this contrast with his approach in City of God? The fact is, Augustine does not provide a single point of view on this subject, and hence it is vain to appeal to Augustine's *view*, as if he actually presented one.

Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:

"A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."

In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").

Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange"), the only point I sought to rectify was your mistaken attribution of the 36 hour day one view to Lightfoot himself. Now it has been clarified that this was not his personal view, there's no point arguing what Lightfoot's actual view was. Those who have appealed to this particular work in various papers have only managed to show that they are desperate to find historical precedent for their own unusual approach, but even such speculations as a thirty-six hour first day presupposes the *historicity* of what is recorded.

Marty, you seem to be confusing the point as to what the consensus concerns. The consensus concerns reading Gen. 1-3 as literal history. Please consult the Bavinck reference again. But it is undeniable that amongst those who take the text as literal history the great majority would see the days as 24 hour evening/morning days.

Far from it because you've factored Augustine (who was the most influential theologian prior to the reformation) out of the data. His position (and his "majority" followers) is that the 6 days were not necessarily literal history. Moreover, the modern "young earth" movement owes much to Seventh Day Adventist theology (through James McCready Price).

If Augustine had have presented a "position" then there would be something to factor into the subject, but as it stands he did not present a uniform view. Not only so, but his City of God presupposes the historicity of Genesis. He adopted the Eusebian calculation for the age of the earth on the basis of the Greek version of the Old Testament genealogies, and this is essentially what young earthers do excepting that they use the pure Hebrew text. In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner, for they all taught a young age of the earth in contradiction to Greek philosophy, and many of them believed the history of the world would be consummated after 6000 years.

 

[JohnOwen007]

AnswerInGenesis.org

AIG is good at critiquing evolution. In my humble opinion they're not that careful reading Scripture. But their worst feature is their mocking and sometime abusive approach. It's not "full of grace" (Col. 4:4-6).

 

[ChristianTrader]

That there is a consensus in the history of the tradition that God created everything in a 6 24-hour period with an earth anywhere from 10,000 - 6,000 years old is simply not true. I'm very happy for people to believe this later position. When they force it onto others, claiming that's the only way the text could be read is unhelpful In my humble opinion.

The real battle lines, I submit, are the denial that God created everything ex nihilo and a space-time fall.

God bless dear brother.

Who in Church history disbelieved that the earth was from 10,000 - 6000 years old?

CT

Bump

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm immensely enjoying this discussion, and learning lots.

Marty, you say Augustine is clear, but do not account for the fact that he varies from writing to writing in what he says on the creation account.

Lots of people differ in their writings because their views change, and so it's best to look at their writings chronologically. If we turn to his very mature work, De Civitate Dei, we find that he varies on the "days" and the "light" in that one document itself! This is because he's unsure about about both, and explicitly (clearly!) says that he's unsure, and hence engages in speculation, not wishing to draw hard conclusions. Hence, it's clear what he's uncertain about.

Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context?

I'm at home and don't have my books. But on this point Augustine appears to be following Ambrose who also believed that creation was instantaneous from Gen. 1:1. Ambrose himself believed that the 6 days recounted the forming of the unformed creation (of Gen. 1:2).

Ambrose's take basically became the predominant view in England by the end of the 17th century, when the majority of theological writers had rejected a young earth.

Indeed, it was this view that paved the way for Thomas Chalmers to popularise the so-called "gap-theory".

it is vain to appeal to Augustine's *view*, as if he actually presented one.

I don't get you're point. The history of ideas demands that we study one's writings chronologically and watch them develop. We take the latest as "their" view. If a writer explicitly says they're unsure about something, then it's clear that they're "unsure". The fact Augustine says in DCG that he is unsure about the days says something significant; it's not simple. The creation account itself contains elements that aren't immediately obvious.

Well, Lightfoot's opinions of the "collection" is found in the work's title:

"A Few and New observations vpon the booke of Genesis: The most of them certaine, the rest probable, all harmlesse, strange, and rarely heard before."

In other words he doesn't find anything in his text "harmlesse" (indeed most of the "certaine").

Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange")

He does say; it's "harmlesse". That's the point; it's not controversial to believe it.

In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner [...]

Again, not so. We haven't brought Origen and the Alexandrians into this discussion. The former certainly didn't take the text literally.

Every blessing Matthew.

 

[MW]

Lots of people differ in their writings because their views change, and so it's best to look at their writings chronologically. If we turn to his very mature work, De Civitate Dei, we find that he varies on the "days" and the "light" in that one document itself! This is because he's unsure about about both, and explicitly (clearly!) says that he's unsure, and hence engages in speculation, not wishing to draw hard conclusions. Hence, it's clear what he's uncertain about.

Augustine's uncertainty cannot be made a basis for presenting his *position*. If he is agnostic, he cannot be called an exponent of any view. It was for this reason that I said I would leave Augustine to the side, because he cannot be pinned down.

Where does Augustine say creation is instantaneous, and in what context?

I'm at home and don't have my books. But on this point Augustine appears to be following Ambrose who also believed that creation was instantaneous from Gen. 1:1. Ambrose himself believed that the 6 days recounted the forming of the unformed creation (of Gen. 1:2).

How could Augustine be said to believe in "instantaneous creation" when it's clear from the City of God (which you say should be regarded as his mature thought) that he understood there were "days" of creation notwithstanding he didn't know how to explain them? His discussion on the creation of angels shows clearly that he understood each days' work as historical event, otherwise he couldn't have determined WHICH DAY the angels were made. And likewise in various other writings he descants on the various days of creation and what was made upon them.

Ambrose's take basically became the predominant view in England by the end of the 17th century, when the majority of theological writers had rejected a young earth.

Concerning Ambrose's stated position, please consider this perspicuous statement:

The beginning of the day rests on God’s word: ‘Be light made, and light was made.’ The end of day is the evening. Now, the succeeding day follows after the termination of night. The thought of God is clear. First He called light ‘day’ and next He called darkness ‘night.’ In notable fashion has Scripture spoken of a ‘day,’ not the ‘first day.’ Because a second, then a third day, and finally the remaining days were to follow, a ‘first day’ could have been mentioned, following in this way the natural order. But Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. (Hexameron, pp. 42-43.)

Indeed, it was this view that paved the way for Thomas Chalmers to popularise the so-called "gap-theory".

How could Chalmers be said to "popularise" a theory which he never took pen in hand to defend? Yes, he made an odd statement concerning it, but he never popularised it.

I don't get you're point. The history of ideas demands that we study one's writings chronologically and watch them develop. We take the latest as "their" view. If a writer explicitly says they're unsure about something, then it's clear that they're "unsure". The fact Augustine says in DCG that he is unsure about the days says something significant; it's not simple. The creation account itself contains elements that aren't immediately obvious.

Marty, if Augustine was "unsure," why are you trying to make him stand to a stated position. By all means, take him at his word, with all his honesty as to being "unsure." Here you say he is unsure about the "days." Above you assert he held to instantaneous creation. Which is it? The very fact that you are led by even a cursory examination of Augustine's writings to fluctuate as to what was his actual "position," shows that he didnt really have one.

Whatever his personal view of this particular "observation" (he doesn't say, and might have considered it "strange")

He does say; it's "harmlesse". That's the point; it's not controversial to believe it.

Where does Lightfoot say this particular observation is harmless? He doesn't. That's just what you are hoping he might have thought on the basis of the title. But the title also says these observations were sometimes strange. So there's the possibility that he thought it was strange, especially considering he clearly stated in his own chronology that the first day consisted of two periods of twelve hours length. At any rate, we have established that it wasn't Lightfoot's own opinion, so you should retract your previous assertion to the contrary.

In fact all the fathers approached the text of Genesis in this literal historical manner [...]

Again, not so. We haven't brought Origen and the Alexandrians into this discussion. The former certainly didn't take the text literally.

They certainly did. Notwithstanding their propensity toward allegorisation, both Clement and Origen taught the creation of the world could be calculated on the basis of the Scriptural record. Please note the following:

Clement of Alexandria: “From Augustus to Commodus are two hundred and twenty-two years,’ and from Adam to the death of Commodus five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days.” (Miscellanies 1:21).

Origen: Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its past duration. To these propositions I consider that none of the heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity with the nature of their opinions. ANF, 4:341.

Origen: After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. ANF, 4:404.

I am glad you are enjoying the discussion, Marty. Above all, I hope you can see the truth of Bavinck's statement that Christian theology regards Genesis as literal history. Blessings!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

AnswerInGenesis.org

AIG is good at critiquing evolution. In my humble opinion they're not that careful reading Scripture. But their worst feature is their mocking and sometime abusive approach. It's not "full of grace" (Col. 4:4-6).

Was Elijah wrong for mocking the prophets of Baal?

 

[Denton Elliott]

JohnOwen007,

Forgive me if this has already been stated, but AIG does indeed argue using Hebrew and Greek and proper hermeneutics along with science as a defense of the faith. They argue that the word for day used in Genesis when in conjunction with Morning and Evening is 100% always interpreted as 24hr literal period of time. Therefore the plain reading of Scripture without using a private interpretation would be 6 24hr days. Also, the definition of the Sabbath would make no sense otherwise...among many other issues that would be difficult to explain if it weren't 6 24hr days...

In my most humbling and full of grace tone.

 

[Poimen]

at what point does the Scriptural text of the book of Genesis "transition from being a non-literal, symbolic, or quasi-mystical account of creation, to the literal, historical narrative of the Fall?"

Right. Otherwise what do we do with Genesis 2:10-14?

 

[KMK]

This has been an awesome thread and Ii have learned much from both sides.

I think we must guard against going to extremes when faced with the natural sciences. Certainly they should not have authority over Scripture or form suppositions when coming to the Scriture, but neither should they be disregarded. Perhaps we should say that the natural sciences should 'inform' our understanding of the Bible. After all, the Bible teaches us to observe the natural world in order to understand the truths contained in the Bible. (gardening, shepherding, animal husbandry etc)

 

[Ravens]

This is unrelated to my discussion with Marty.

I realized something about the Day-Age view today. I think that the Day-Age view can be sufficiently set aside without this thought due to weighter considerations, and I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I'd never thought of it.

Adam was created on the sixth day, and, of necessity, experienced the seventh day.

Genesis 5 tells us that the length of Adam's life was 930 years. Therefore, from Adam's creation on the sixth day, to his death, was 930 years. So "Day 7" had to have been shorter than 930 years.

Adam begot Seth when he was 130 years old, and Seth was born after Cain slew Abel, which, in turn was after the fall.

So from the sixth day of creation until the birth of Seth, there were 130 years. Even moderate guesses as to the post-fall births of Cain and Abel would narrow the time span even more; regardless, that means that "Day 7" was, however you take it, not more than 130 years long, and we know that practically it would have to be much shorter than that, for everything just mentioned to take place.

So that categorically proves that "Day 7" was not an "age" of even hundreds (maybe not even one hundred), much less thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.

Like I said, it's a small point, but I've never thought about it from that perspective. If "yom" means "age" or "long period of time", then it should at least be consistent throughout the creation account. But we know that the seventh yom was not a large, expansive amount of time.

The stronger evidence is in the ordinals, the waw-consecutive, and normal meaning of day, morning-evening, the straight-forward reading, etc. But I'd never thought of it from that perspective.