In "The Seventh Day...Today?" I explained that in a recent episode of Greg Koukl's "Stand to Reason" radio show, he appeared to use the opening verses of Hebrews 4 as an argument against the "Young-Earth Creationist" understanding of Genesis 1. He responded to a caller, saying based on that passage, "it's clear that the seventh day isn't a day" because we are in the 7th day of creation even today. That is in his view consistent with his understanding of the so-called days of creation being long periods of time, rather than 24-hour solar days.
Having called in to Greg's show once before, and having found him to be very humble and gracious, I decided to call in again to challenge his argument from Hebrews 4. Once again, Greg exhibited humility and openness, and explained that in that call he was only attempting to "defeat a defeater," that is to explain how Moses' application of the days of creation with regards to the Sabbath day of rest for the Israelites is not a legitimate challenge to his view. And by the end of the call, he agreed--assuming I am correct that numerous commentators throughout history do not share his view of the 7th day--that my understanding of Hebrews 4 is just as "sound theology" as his.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the conversation, and it seems to me that Greg did, too. Give the episode a listen if you're so inclined; my call begins at about 33:40 into the episode. Consider also subscribing to the "Stand to Reason" podcast, at which his live shows are archived the day after they air. I highly recommend his ministry, and think you'll enjoy it.
Showing posts with label In the Beginning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the Beginning. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
In the Beginning: The Seventh Day... Today?
In "Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages" we looked at the so-called "days of creation" in Genesis 1, and learned that the author's use of the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning," strongly suggests that he had ordinary, 24-hour days in mind. There are additional reasons to understand the passage in this way, but before we look at those, I want to address an argument I had never heard until a couple of days ago. In short, this argument is that the book of Hebrews claims that the seventh "day" of creation is ongoing, presumably even to this day. If true, then we would be forced to understand the "days" of creation as being long ages of time, despite the author's use of "evening" and "morning."
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
In the Beginning: Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages
Christians' beliefs concerning the age of the universe typically fall somewhere under one of two broad categories. One view, popularly called "Old-Earth Creationism"—hereafter abbreviated OEC—holds that the universe is approximately as old as the majority of scientists in the modern era insist it is, billions of years in age. This view, by and large, is the result of interpreting the biblical data in such a way as to be consistent with modern scientific interpretations of natural evidence. The alternate view, popularly called "Young-Earth Creationism"—hereafter abbreviated YEC—is that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. In contrast with the former view, proponents of YEC generally interpret the natural evidence in such a way as to be consistent with a seemingly straightforward interpretation of the biblical data.
It is important to keep a couple of things in mind when entering into a discussion or study of this issue. First, proponents of both broader categories listed above vary widely within those categories when it comes to their beliefs concerning the particulars. For example, some OECs believe in evolution whereas others do not, and YECs differ in how they explain the natural evidence, such as distant starlight suggesting the universe is very old. As such, one cannot assume much about what any given adherent to one of these views believes beyond the age of the universe. Second, despite rhetoric to the contrary coming from both sides, adherents to both views often take both Scripture and science very seriously. It is not as though one views the Bible as authoritative and the other views science as authoritative. Instead, both groups highly value both God's special revelation and His natural revelation.
With this introduction out of the way, I wish to begin this series in earnest by arguing against one particular view held by many OECs.
WHERE DO YOU FIND THE TIME?
When we want to know how someone with a hectic schedule manages to squeeze in time for certain activities, we'll often ask, "Where do you find the time?" This is, in essence, one of the first questions I'm interested in answering when examining any particular OEC position: Where in the opening chapters of the Bible (or thereafter) does one see the alleged millions of years of cosmic history fitting in?
There are two main camps into which most OEC proponents I've met can be grouped. One of the two positions is that the seven "days" of creation in the first chapter of Genesis are not 24-hour periods of time, but rather long "ages" or "epochs" of determinate but indeterminable time, perhaps spanning millions of years each. The Genesis creation "week," then, actually comprised of millions upon millions of years, is where one often sees the bulk of the universe's history. I'll address the other view in the future, but I'd like to first spend several posts arguing against this position.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
I have a few objections to this understanding of the so-called "days of creation." Today we'll look at the first of my objections. The Hebrew word rendered "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read "the first day," "the second day" and so forth, is the word יוֹם (yom). It has various meanings throughout Scripture, including the idea of a long period of time. Proponents of OEC claim that since yom can carry this meaning, it is valid to understand it this way here in "the first day" and so on. However, it is the word's context that determines its meaning.
This article correctly points out that there are many different ways in which yom is used throughout Scripture, and that even in the text in question it is used in a few different ways. However, when one looks at the ways in which the word is used, one sees that the context determines its proper translation. For example, in Genesis 4:3 we’re told Cain’s offering of fruit came after the “process of time [yom],” something we know man hasn’t the ability to do in 24 hours. In Isaiah 30:8 we’re told God’s words were to be inscribed on a scroll to serve “as a witness forever,” thereby defining the “time [yom] to come.” Similarly, we’re given the context with the days of creation as well: evening and morning. The explicit inclusion of evening and morning I think clearly defines the period of time represented by the word yom in each case: 24 hours.
EVENING AND MORNING
The article attempts to refute this argument, but does so very poorly. It claims that evening and morning require “a sunrise and sunset,” and since “the Sun was not created until Day Four…they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.” This is incredibly silly. Isn’t it in Alaska, among other places, where there are periods of days and days when the sun never sets, and other periods of days and days when the sun never rises? The author(s) of this article would seem to suggest that during these periods of times, these places in Alaska do not have evenings and mornings. This is ludicrous! Of course evenings and mornings exist whether the sun appears to set and rise or not. The article’s subsequent claim, then, falls utterly flat when it says, “The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise [sic] and sunsets.” Total nonsense.
It goes on to claim that “Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6.” Oh really? First of all, 3 isolated verses in the poetic writings of the psalms constitutes a “pattern” set for us to interpret Genesis 1 in this way? That is ridiculous in and of itself, but I don’t think these verses make the case the author(s) intend to make anyway. They do use the picture of a 24-hour day, comprised of evening and morning, to symbolically represent a longer period of time. However, in each case evening and morning still mean a half of a 24-hour day, and the context tells us what evening and morning symbolize within that symbolic day. In the first passage, the weeping in an evening explicitly symbolizes God’s momentary anger, and the shout of joy in the morning God’s lasting favor. In the second passage, morning doesn't symbolize a period of time at all but an instant in time, so it's irrelevant. And in the third passage, the brief watch in the evening explicitly symbolizes the brevity of a thousand years to the Lord. The point is, whenever evening and morning symbolize larger periods of time, the fact that they are being used as symbols is made explicit in the text. In the days of Genesis, however, there is no such indication whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, there appears to be utterly no contextual purpose of including evening and morning apart from defining the length of the yom! Think about it—as we've seen, in other passages there are expressed purposes behind using evening and morning symbolically, explicit realities symbolized by those pictures. In the days of Genesis, on the other hand, there is nothing described which evening and morning are intended to symbolize. There is nothing about an evening or morning depicted as being analogous to the first and second halves of the creative period. Try reading those verses without "the first day" or "day one" or whatever at the end. "And there was evening and there was morning," and don't mention the day. It becomes totally disconnected from anything else in the text. Its presence becomes utterly jarring and meaningless. Only when "the first day" or whatever is included does evening and morning have any relevance in the text. Thus, its presence pretty clearly is intended to define a "day."
AN EXCEPTION IN DANIEL?
I recently happened upon one objection to my "evening and morning" argument which at first blush seemed to have some validity. This article makes the following claim:
It is true that in verse 26 the words ערב ('ereb, "evening") and בקר (boqer, "morning") are in the singular, rather than in the plural. However, what is not mentioned in this article is that the same words are used in their singular forms shortly before this verse but are explicitly numbered! Verse 14 reads, "He said to me, 'For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.'" In this verse, 'ereb and 'boqer again appear in the singular, and yet are numbered in the thousands. Clearly, despite the author's use of the singular, the plural is intended, and as such every major translation renders it accordingly.
So when we come to verse 26, then, how are we to understand 'ereb and boqer when used in the singular? The author already used the singular forms of these words to refer to many evenings and mornings, so the only valid understanding of their use here is likewise. Besides, as we've seen, evenings and mornings are only used symbolically elsewhere in Scripture when explicitly said to symbolize something, which they are not here. Therefore, the NIV, NASB, Amplified, NLT, ESV, CEV and NKJV versions are all justified in rendering verse 26, "evenings and mornings." The author clearly has in mind the same 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to earlier. As the NLT renders it, "This vision about the 2,300 evenings and mornings is true."
Daniel's use of evenings and mornings is clearly intended to communicate a length of time in number of days. The KJV renders verse 14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days" (and the NKJV renders it similarly). Therefore, far from lending support to the particular OEC position which views the evenings and mornings of creation as long periods of time, this passage in Daniel actually undermines it. Just as evening and morning are used in Genesis 1 to specify the length of time comprising each "day," so, too, are they used in this fashion by Daniel.
It is important to keep a couple of things in mind when entering into a discussion or study of this issue. First, proponents of both broader categories listed above vary widely within those categories when it comes to their beliefs concerning the particulars. For example, some OECs believe in evolution whereas others do not, and YECs differ in how they explain the natural evidence, such as distant starlight suggesting the universe is very old. As such, one cannot assume much about what any given adherent to one of these views believes beyond the age of the universe. Second, despite rhetoric to the contrary coming from both sides, adherents to both views often take both Scripture and science very seriously. It is not as though one views the Bible as authoritative and the other views science as authoritative. Instead, both groups highly value both God's special revelation and His natural revelation.
With this introduction out of the way, I wish to begin this series in earnest by arguing against one particular view held by many OECs.
WHERE DO YOU FIND THE TIME?
When we want to know how someone with a hectic schedule manages to squeeze in time for certain activities, we'll often ask, "Where do you find the time?" This is, in essence, one of the first questions I'm interested in answering when examining any particular OEC position: Where in the opening chapters of the Bible (or thereafter) does one see the alleged millions of years of cosmic history fitting in?
There are two main camps into which most OEC proponents I've met can be grouped. One of the two positions is that the seven "days" of creation in the first chapter of Genesis are not 24-hour periods of time, but rather long "ages" or "epochs" of determinate but indeterminable time, perhaps spanning millions of years each. The Genesis creation "week," then, actually comprised of millions upon millions of years, is where one often sees the bulk of the universe's history. I'll address the other view in the future, but I'd like to first spend several posts arguing against this position.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
I have a few objections to this understanding of the so-called "days of creation." Today we'll look at the first of my objections. The Hebrew word rendered "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read "the first day," "the second day" and so forth, is the word יוֹם (yom). It has various meanings throughout Scripture, including the idea of a long period of time. Proponents of OEC claim that since yom can carry this meaning, it is valid to understand it this way here in "the first day" and so on. However, it is the word's context that determines its meaning.
This article correctly points out that there are many different ways in which yom is used throughout Scripture, and that even in the text in question it is used in a few different ways. However, when one looks at the ways in which the word is used, one sees that the context determines its proper translation. For example, in Genesis 4:3 we’re told Cain’s offering of fruit came after the “process of time [yom],” something we know man hasn’t the ability to do in 24 hours. In Isaiah 30:8 we’re told God’s words were to be inscribed on a scroll to serve “as a witness forever,” thereby defining the “time [yom] to come.” Similarly, we’re given the context with the days of creation as well: evening and morning. The explicit inclusion of evening and morning I think clearly defines the period of time represented by the word yom in each case: 24 hours.
EVENING AND MORNING
The article attempts to refute this argument, but does so very poorly. It claims that evening and morning require “a sunrise and sunset,” and since “the Sun was not created until Day Four…they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.” This is incredibly silly. Isn’t it in Alaska, among other places, where there are periods of days and days when the sun never sets, and other periods of days and days when the sun never rises? The author(s) of this article would seem to suggest that during these periods of times, these places in Alaska do not have evenings and mornings. This is ludicrous! Of course evenings and mornings exist whether the sun appears to set and rise or not. The article’s subsequent claim, then, falls utterly flat when it says, “The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise [sic] and sunsets.” Total nonsense.
It goes on to claim that “Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6.” Oh really? First of all, 3 isolated verses in the poetic writings of the psalms constitutes a “pattern” set for us to interpret Genesis 1 in this way? That is ridiculous in and of itself, but I don’t think these verses make the case the author(s) intend to make anyway. They do use the picture of a 24-hour day, comprised of evening and morning, to symbolically represent a longer period of time. However, in each case evening and morning still mean a half of a 24-hour day, and the context tells us what evening and morning symbolize within that symbolic day. In the first passage, the weeping in an evening explicitly symbolizes God’s momentary anger, and the shout of joy in the morning God’s lasting favor. In the second passage, morning doesn't symbolize a period of time at all but an instant in time, so it's irrelevant. And in the third passage, the brief watch in the evening explicitly symbolizes the brevity of a thousand years to the Lord. The point is, whenever evening and morning symbolize larger periods of time, the fact that they are being used as symbols is made explicit in the text. In the days of Genesis, however, there is no such indication whatsoever.
Quite the contrary, there appears to be utterly no contextual purpose of including evening and morning apart from defining the length of the yom! Think about it—as we've seen, in other passages there are expressed purposes behind using evening and morning symbolically, explicit realities symbolized by those pictures. In the days of Genesis, on the other hand, there is nothing described which evening and morning are intended to symbolize. There is nothing about an evening or morning depicted as being analogous to the first and second halves of the creative period. Try reading those verses without "the first day" or "day one" or whatever at the end. "And there was evening and there was morning," and don't mention the day. It becomes totally disconnected from anything else in the text. Its presence becomes utterly jarring and meaningless. Only when "the first day" or whatever is included does evening and morning have any relevance in the text. Thus, its presence pretty clearly is intended to define a "day."
AN EXCEPTION IN DANIEL?
I recently happened upon one objection to my "evening and morning" argument which at first blush seemed to have some validity. This article makes the following claim:
"Evening and morning" is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase "evening and morning" can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the "evening and morning" phrase in just such a way. In Daniel 8 we read the account of Daniel's ram and goat vision and the interpretation given by Gabriel. The vision covers many years; some commentators believe the time has not yet been completed. Daniel 8:26 says, "The vision of the evenings and the mornings that have been given to you is true, but seal up the vision for it concerns the distant future" (RSV). In Hebrew manuscripts, "the evenings and mornings," is not in the plural but in the singular, identical to the expression we find in Genesis 1. Translated literally, the verse would red, "And the vision of the evening and the morning that has been given you" Here we have a clear indication from scriptural usage that this phrase does not demand a 24-hour-day interpretation and can refer to an indefinite epoch.
It is true that in verse 26 the words ערב ('ereb, "evening") and בקר (boqer, "morning") are in the singular, rather than in the plural. However, what is not mentioned in this article is that the same words are used in their singular forms shortly before this verse but are explicitly numbered! Verse 14 reads, "He said to me, 'For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.'" In this verse, 'ereb and 'boqer again appear in the singular, and yet are numbered in the thousands. Clearly, despite the author's use of the singular, the plural is intended, and as such every major translation renders it accordingly.
So when we come to verse 26, then, how are we to understand 'ereb and boqer when used in the singular? The author already used the singular forms of these words to refer to many evenings and mornings, so the only valid understanding of their use here is likewise. Besides, as we've seen, evenings and mornings are only used symbolically elsewhere in Scripture when explicitly said to symbolize something, which they are not here. Therefore, the NIV, NASB, Amplified, NLT, ESV, CEV and NKJV versions are all justified in rendering verse 26, "evenings and mornings." The author clearly has in mind the same 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to earlier. As the NLT renders it, "This vision about the 2,300 evenings and mornings is true."
Daniel's use of evenings and mornings is clearly intended to communicate a length of time in number of days. The KJV renders verse 14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days" (and the NKJV renders it similarly). Therefore, far from lending support to the particular OEC position which views the evenings and mornings of creation as long periods of time, this passage in Daniel actually undermines it. Just as evening and morning are used in Genesis 1 to specify the length of time comprising each "day," so, too, are they used in this fashion by Daniel.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
In the Beginning: From the Very First Verse
In introducing another series, "Discussing Destiny," I explained that as a new believer in Jesus, I was not immediately aware of the debate that had been raging for years within the historic Christian faith between two understandings of God's sovereignty and man's "free will." As I grew in my faith, I discovered another debate stretching far back into the history of the Church, but which in recent centuries has increased in intensity.
Growing up in the American secular public school system I was taught as a matter of fact that the universe is billions of years old and spontaneously leapt into existence solely as the result of natural processes. I was told that humans and all other species evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions of years through a random process undirected by any supernatural influence. And it was explained to me that the first living organism sprang from a "prebiotic soup" devoid of life as a natural consequence of chemical evolution.
As a new believer, it was obvious that the supernatural--the God of the Bible--had a hand in these processes. However, my years-long indoctrination in secular origins science still held sway when it came to my understanding of earth's history and the diversification of life. I continued to believe that the universe was billions of years old, and that life had evolved from a single original organism, and viewed the history depicted in the first chapters of Genesis--if I gave it any thought at all--as being allegorical in nature.
It wasn't long, however, before I discovered that this is not what many learned Christians throughout the past two thousand years have believed. In fact, most of the Church has historically taught that the universe was young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years young, based on the biblical record. Additionally, it has generally been understood that God created all kinds of life in the 6 days of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis. And to my surprise, many Christians today point to scientific evidence they argue supports these ideas.
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Despite the historic understanding of the origin of the universe and of life held by the majority of the Church for the past two millennia, many Christians today believe differently. The Church today is divided. There are "creationists" who believe God created all forms of life from nothing, mostly as they exist today, and there are "theistic evolutionists" who believe that all species have evolved from a common ancestor, but that evolutionary theory is compatible with the Bible, God operating as the driving force behind it. There are "young-earth creationists" who hold to the traditional view that the universe is young, and there are "old-earth creationists" who believe the modern, secular scientific view that the universe is billions of years old is consistent with Scripture.
Those Christians who do not hold firmly to either position, out of a genuine desire to preserve unity amongst the Church ask, "Why does it matter?" Pointing to the divisiveness that often results from this debate, they might urge others to leave this matter behind, quoting Jesus' prayer for unity amongst His followers: "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me" (John 17:22-23). And questioning the relevance of this debate they might say, as one did recently to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, "The gospel doesn't rise or fall on the days of creation." (Already Gone, Ken Ham & Britt Beemer, 2009, p. 81).
SCIENCE VERSUS FAITH
People who belong to the two sides of this debate answer this question differently. "Old-earth creationists" and "theistic evolutionists" may say that it matters because many in our modern culture create a false dichotomy between "science" and "faith," viewing them as being at odds with one another. Biblical faith, they say, teaches one thing about the age of the universe and of the origins of life, but "science" teaches another (nevermind the fallacy of reification they're committing when they put it this way).
Out of a desire to demonstrate the compatibility between faith and science, in an effort to draw unbelievers to Jesus, many Christians interpret the Bible as teaching an account of creation consistent with certain secular scientific ideas. At Reasons to Believe, for example, a ministry that teaches one "old earth" interpretation of Scripture, their stated purpose is as follows:
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
On the other side of the debate, "young-earth creationists" say it matters because of its impact on one's view of the authority of Scripture. They agree that faith and science are compatible, that believers needn't fear science, and that unbelievers are wrong in viewing the Bible as being at odds with modern science. However, they believe that interpretations of the Genesis account which view the days of creation as long periods of time, and the creation of life as symbolic of evolution, result from reading fallen man's fallible interpretation of the evidence into the text of the Bible, thus making man and his methods more authoritative than Scripture.
Here's how Ken Ham and Britt Beemer put it in Already Gone, in which they analyze the trend of young people leaving the Church:
What are the consequences of this usurping of authority? The authority of Scripture thus undermined, they argue, young people who leave the Church in their high school and college years and beyond were, essentially, "already gone" from an early age. Here's how Dr. Georgia Purdom put it her article at Answers in Genesis, "Science and Biblical Authority:"
HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?
In John 3:12 Jesus said, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Whichever side of this debate we fall on, we thus need to make sure that our beliefs are founded upon the authority of the God-breathed Bible. We certainly should expect that what we see in the physical universe lines up with what we see in the Bible. However, how we interpret the evidence drawn from scientific investigation should be recognized, since we are fallen man, as being fallible, whereas God and His Word are perfect.
This is particularly important for those of us (like me) who are parents, for our children are leaving the faith in droves as they get older, questioning the Bible's authority and trustworthiness. If our actions suggest we do not believe God when He tells us "earthly things," such as His account of creation, how can we expect our children to believe when we teach them of "heavenly things," like sin and salvation, hating fleshliness and loving righteousness? We can't.
Therefore, in this series we will look at what Scripture records in the book of Genesis, as it pertains to creation, the age of the universe and other issues. We will make it our effort to understand what it is that the Genesis account is communicating, comparing it with the rest of Scripture. And we will give it the place of authority it demands, interpreting what we see in the universe "through the lens" of the Bible. We will determine what God has told us "From the Very First Verse."
Growing up in the American secular public school system I was taught as a matter of fact that the universe is billions of years old and spontaneously leapt into existence solely as the result of natural processes. I was told that humans and all other species evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions of years through a random process undirected by any supernatural influence. And it was explained to me that the first living organism sprang from a "prebiotic soup" devoid of life as a natural consequence of chemical evolution.
As a new believer, it was obvious that the supernatural--the God of the Bible--had a hand in these processes. However, my years-long indoctrination in secular origins science still held sway when it came to my understanding of earth's history and the diversification of life. I continued to believe that the universe was billions of years old, and that life had evolved from a single original organism, and viewed the history depicted in the first chapters of Genesis--if I gave it any thought at all--as being allegorical in nature.
It wasn't long, however, before I discovered that this is not what many learned Christians throughout the past two thousand years have believed. In fact, most of the Church has historically taught that the universe was young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years young, based on the biblical record. Additionally, it has generally been understood that God created all kinds of life in the 6 days of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis. And to my surprise, many Christians today point to scientific evidence they argue supports these ideas.
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Despite the historic understanding of the origin of the universe and of life held by the majority of the Church for the past two millennia, many Christians today believe differently. The Church today is divided. There are "creationists" who believe God created all forms of life from nothing, mostly as they exist today, and there are "theistic evolutionists" who believe that all species have evolved from a common ancestor, but that evolutionary theory is compatible with the Bible, God operating as the driving force behind it. There are "young-earth creationists" who hold to the traditional view that the universe is young, and there are "old-earth creationists" who believe the modern, secular scientific view that the universe is billions of years old is consistent with Scripture.
Those Christians who do not hold firmly to either position, out of a genuine desire to preserve unity amongst the Church ask, "Why does it matter?" Pointing to the divisiveness that often results from this debate, they might urge others to leave this matter behind, quoting Jesus' prayer for unity amongst His followers: "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me" (John 17:22-23). And questioning the relevance of this debate they might say, as one did recently to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, "The gospel doesn't rise or fall on the days of creation." (Already Gone, Ken Ham & Britt Beemer, 2009, p. 81).
SCIENCE VERSUS FAITH
People who belong to the two sides of this debate answer this question differently. "Old-earth creationists" and "theistic evolutionists" may say that it matters because many in our modern culture create a false dichotomy between "science" and "faith," viewing them as being at odds with one another. Biblical faith, they say, teaches one thing about the age of the universe and of the origins of life, but "science" teaches another (nevermind the fallacy of reification they're committing when they put it this way).
Out of a desire to demonstrate the compatibility between faith and science, in an effort to draw unbelievers to Jesus, many Christians interpret the Bible as teaching an account of creation consistent with certain secular scientific ideas. At Reasons to Believe, for example, a ministry that teaches one "old earth" interpretation of Scripture, their stated purpose is as follows:
"Many people assume that science and faith are at odds with one another. The common response: we must either choose between them or keep them apart...It is our conviction that since the same God who 'authored' the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted. We want to help seekers of truth to find answers to those questions that bar them from entrusting their lives to Christ. And we want to help Christians find new joy and confidence in worshiping the Creator as they shed their fear of science."
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
On the other side of the debate, "young-earth creationists" say it matters because of its impact on one's view of the authority of Scripture. They agree that faith and science are compatible, that believers needn't fear science, and that unbelievers are wrong in viewing the Bible as being at odds with modern science. However, they believe that interpretations of the Genesis account which view the days of creation as long periods of time, and the creation of life as symbolic of evolution, result from reading fallen man's fallible interpretation of the evidence into the text of the Bible, thus making man and his methods more authoritative than Scripture.
Here's how Ken Ham and Britt Beemer put it in Already Gone, in which they analyze the trend of young people leaving the Church:
"'The gospel doesn't rise or fall on the days of creation...But does the gospel rise or fall on the authority of Scripture? And does the authority of Scripture rise or fall on the days of creation?'...when a person believes in millions of years (or Darwinian evolution), and then reinterprets the days of creation to be long periods of time, they are undermining the very authority from which they get the message of the gospel. They are undermining the authority of the Word of God by taking man's fallible ideas on the age of the earth and using those ideas to change the clear meaning of the Word of God. It is an authority issue." (Already Gone, p. 81)
What are the consequences of this usurping of authority? The authority of Scripture thus undermined, they argue, young people who leave the Church in their high school and college years and beyond were, essentially, "already gone" from an early age. Here's how Dr. Georgia Purdom put it her article at Answers in Genesis, "Science and Biblical Authority:"
"the research shows that many '20 somethings' have left the church because they question the truthfulness of the Bible, especially as it concerns the age of the earth. As children, they were typically taught Bible 'stories' in church. They were shown bathtub-shaped arks overflowing with colorful animals but no mention of fossils, rock layers, and animal kinds.
Curriculum publishers, Sunday school teachers, and parents failed to connect the Bible to the real world. So, these children learned that you go to school to learn about history and science, and you go to church to learn moral 'stories' and spiritual truths."
HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS?
In John 3:12 Jesus said, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Whichever side of this debate we fall on, we thus need to make sure that our beliefs are founded upon the authority of the God-breathed Bible. We certainly should expect that what we see in the physical universe lines up with what we see in the Bible. However, how we interpret the evidence drawn from scientific investigation should be recognized, since we are fallen man, as being fallible, whereas God and His Word are perfect.
This is particularly important for those of us (like me) who are parents, for our children are leaving the faith in droves as they get older, questioning the Bible's authority and trustworthiness. If our actions suggest we do not believe God when He tells us "earthly things," such as His account of creation, how can we expect our children to believe when we teach them of "heavenly things," like sin and salvation, hating fleshliness and loving righteousness? We can't.
Therefore, in this series we will look at what Scripture records in the book of Genesis, as it pertains to creation, the age of the universe and other issues. We will make it our effort to understand what it is that the Genesis account is communicating, comparing it with the rest of Scripture. And we will give it the place of authority it demands, interpreting what we see in the universe "through the lens" of the Bible. We will determine what God has told us "From the Very First Verse."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)