Nowadays I am saved, and lean towards a straightforward reading of the book of Genesis. After all, God was the eyewitness to Creation – and either He lied to us or He told us the truth when the Bible repeatedly describes all creation arising at the command of His Word.

Admittedly, I don’t think a Christian’s salvation necessarily hinges on their perspective. But a lot of people, I mean, heaps, do reject the Gospel because of these issues.

As for the dinosaurs thing, I’m a big fan of dinosaurs. I think they’re fascinating. So-called “YECs” don’t necessarily teach that dinosaurs are the result of God’s practical joke. If anything, the reptilian orders Saurischia and Ornithischia and the family Herrerasauridae are all land-based creatures, and could be said to have been created on the 6th day – along with the other land animals. The fossil record can be explained as a result of the global flood. It’s probably not a co-incidence that most fossil deposits are described as evidence of (presumably localised) ‘flash flooding.’

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out! The fossils didn’t need to be planted by God in the Flood, because the natural processes of flooding are suitable for the fossilisation process.

I just went to the link, and I should apologize, it does appear that you have done more “homework” than I gave you credit for initially. I still disagree with you, and maybe there can be a dialogue about certain things that you find lacking in the YEC positon, so that maybe I could tgry to better explain.

Either way, I do wnat to thank you for at least (or so it appears from your site) trying to dig in and figure out why each side believes what it believes. Very few people seem to be genuinely interested in learning and much more interested in elephant hurling (on both sides)!

Dave

I own and have read this book (earlier this year in fact). However, may I just point you to a review/refutation of this book instead of trying to point out a lot of the inaccuracies on my own?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826

As with most anti-creationists (which I’m not trying to bash him due to his disbelief in the YEC position), he is guilty of building straw-man arguments and not doing his homework.

I would challenge you to provide evidence (or more reasonably point to some) that the earth is really billions of years old. ALL of the methods that point to the earth’s age as being old, or young (with the possible exception of C-14, if the appropriate corrections for error are used, which usually aren;t because it gives ages much younger than 10kyrs, and C-14′s upper limit is around 50kyrs anyway) have very faulty assumptions which have been shown by some very in-depth research by ICR/CMI/AiG in the RATE project. If you want some additional info, let me know. I’ll even send you copies of the RATE books if you are seriously interested (keep in mind that they are hyper-technical).

In the end, I just want you to know I’m not trying to say that you have to believe the YEC position. I just want people who dismiss it to do their homework and approach it with a certain level of intellectual honesty. To just dismiss it out of hand will only hurt. Even if you vehemently disagree, its always best to read the “enemy’s” work so that you can beter fight them

In Christ,
Dave

Here’s a link as well to my class web page on the creation story in Genesis 1.

What I meant referring to Hebrew scholars is that they almost all agre on what the text is trying to say, not whether they believe it to be true.

If I understand you correctly, I agree with the meaning of day, not the mechanics. There have been some studies fo the Hebrew that suggest the very first part of creation was God saying let there be light, so maybe the light (from God as most presume) was even before the earth. Either way, I think the light from God, with a rotating earth (even if it is still void) is all you need for a day.

I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are making between reading it literarily or literaly. If the literary style is one of historical account, then why does it matter that I’m reading it literally? I think thats the normal way to read history. For instance, if you read a book about WW2, its obvious by the way its written that the literary device is historical narrative. Given that, the approach shouldn’t be to find the hidden literary structure or device, you just read what it says. My ultimate point about this, and the deception comments earlier, is that the intended Hebrew auience read it as literal history, and believed it that way. If it isn’t true that it took 6 24-hour days, then I find that deceptive.

Again, I don’t think it is hard to grasp a vast amount of time. Like I said the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the earth had existed for eternity and went through cyclical changes. I think that ancient man (especially since they were closer to Adam and had many less built up genetic defects) could’ve easily grasped the concept. At least as easily that you and I can.

Have a great night!

I would have thought it was the other way… that most scholars would be looking at parallels to the common mythological or allegorical elements in other cultural documents, while most theologians would tend to regard it as literal history.

Based on this, I would say in response to your thesis, that God said and wrote day with the dual intention for us to understand AND to describe a day to God as it applies to creation. The very definition of the word day is from the Genesis account “and there was morning and there was evening, the 1st day.” To say that a day to God is unknowable to us is just semantics. God is outside of time, and has no “day.” He has no need to mrk the passage of time because there is no time for Him. The word day has no other use than for us to know the timing of some event, as used in Genesis.

And yet, the word “day” is used to describe experiences that have no natural or scientific relationship to evening and morning on earth. How can there be a literal day when there is no sun, no separation of waters, no land? For that to make sense, you’d have to start with day 4 (vss. 14-19). That is, unless the mechanics of a literal day (sun/moon) are different from the meaning of a day (light/dark, evening/morning). I’m just saying that to understand the meaning of a creation day, the written structure of Genesis 1 has to be read literarily, not literally.

I also still believe, that if God used a vast amount of time, as it applies to us, to create, He would’ve just said so. It is not a hard concept, and the account of Genesis smack of subterfuge and deciept on His part if it is really intended to mean long ages of some kind.

I’m still having a hard time with this one. I think that the concept of hundreds of millions of years is incredibly difficult for humans to grasp with our limited individual self-awareness of less than 1000 years (in the Biblical extreme, 100ish years for modern mankind). I see the use of “day” as a way for mankind to try and fit what happened during creation using the vocabulary and concepts of what they/we know.

Additionally, I keep coming back to this also: If Genesis, which is written as literal history is such an interpretive problem, why not any other Biblical historical narrative written in the same manner. Take for instance Jericho. It is written in the same style of historical narrative in the Hebrew, but you probably won’t find many who believe that the Israerlites marched around Jericho for 7 billion years or something.

No, I wouldn’t suggest that either because the majority of the Bible was written by humans in “man time”, not “God time”. Jericho was experienced by humans; Creation was experienced by God and interpreted by humans.

It’s all good stuff, Dave. That’s all I have for now… I’ll try to work on some new posts this week.

As far as your thesis for these comments is concerned, I think that you may be trying to draw a line where none needs to be drawn, I’ll try to explain. We will never know 100% for sure if God gave us Genesis as literal history, a narrative framework, an allegory, myth, whatever, because we obviously can’t know the mind of God. However, that being said, we do know that God has been exceedingly kind by giving us His testimony to man via the Bible, which for the most part was written to be understandable and clear to us, the end user (admittedly, some of that clarity is lost on us now that we are 1000s of years removed from the original autographs, and excepting also some of the apocalyptic writings). Given that, certain things are written in certain ways to convey His message in the intended way. Thats why the Bible has historical narratives, chronologies, geneaologies, poetry, allegory, suzerain treaties, parables, apocalyptic writings etc. Based on those styles of writing, we determine the best hermeneutic to interpret the text. Most all Hebrew scholars (jewish, christian, and secular, regardless of their beleifs about the truth or accuracy of the text) regard it as being written as literal history. Based on this, I would say in response to your thesis, that God said and wrote day with the dual intention for us to understand AND to describe a day to God as it applies to creation. The very definition of the word day is from the Genesis account “and there was morning and there was evening, the 1st day.” To say that a day to God is unknowable to us is just semantics. God is outside of time, and has no “day.” He has no need to mrk the passage of time because there is no time for Him. The word day has no other use than for us to know the timing of some event, as used in Genesis. I also still believe, that if God used a vast amount of time, as it applies to us, to create, He would’ve just said so. It is not a hard concept, and the account of Genesis smack of subterfuge and deciept on His part if it is really intended to mean long ages of some kind.
Additionally, I keep coming back to this also: If Genesis, which is written as literal history is such an interpretive problem, why not any other Biblical historical narrative written in the same manner. Take for instance Jericho. It is written in the same style of historical narrative in the Hebrew, but you probably won’t find many who believe that the Israerlites marched around Jericho for 7 billion years or something.
Thats all I’ve got for now. Hopefully I stayed on topic…I really tried!
Looking forward to the upcoming post.
Dave

I think one of the fundamental questions behind the entire discussion is (regardless of who God narrated or revealed Genesis to, whether it was Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or someone else) did God interpret His acts of creation into oral or written language for his original audience (mankind), or did He literally describe what happened as it happened?

Let’s leave that as the central question for this comment thread – I’ll try to address the remaining issues in separate topics.

My “thesis” is that God said and/or wrote “day” as it was understood by mankind, but that our understanding of a “God day” is incomplete and unknowable. If God chose to take 100 million earth years to accomplish something and call it a “day”, then that is his sovereign prerogative. As such, I’ve been reading “day” as a literary construct that frames each creative step of the written account of Genesis 1 (and I mean “literary” to also apply to oral communication if the divine transmission happened before written language was used).

As far as the fossils are concerned, how much reading do you want to do? If its alot, try this overview page at CMI (a YEC site with many PhD scientists who work for/write for them): http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001

Or this article gives a good summary:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3864

You said, “Nor do I. That’s why I said, “Genesis says that ‘God created…’; it does not tell us how He created.” What in the Bible requires a specific belief in how God created? I would think long and hard about any position that required a specific belief in “how” as a test of orthodoxy”

To this I would respond that Genesis DOES tell us how God created. It says He Spoke, and it happened. (e.g, God siad let there be light, and there was light). To me, the act of speaking indicates an immediate thing. If it really meant, God spoke and a billion years later the first gas clouds started to collapse to start to form a star that would one day give light, it is just misleading.

As far as a belief in “how” as a test of orthodoxy, I certainly won’t go that far. I could always be wrong (although, i think i’ve done enough research that i doubt i’ll be easily swayed!). As YEC scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says, “Nowhere does the Bible say it is an unforgivable sin to hold two mutually contrary thoughts in the same skull.” I definitely don’t believe you have to believe in a young earth to be saved or anything like that. I do think, however, that a little compromise at the beginning opens the door to a very slippery slope of rejecting more.

You said, “Which curse? In Genesis 3, God explicitly curses the serpent and the land. He introduces pain, labor and relational conflict to mankind and banishes them from Eden, but does not literally curse them. The curse on the land could be read as revoked after the Flood, whereupon God also installs fear of mankind into the animals.”

Take a look at Genesis 2:16-17: 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.”
Also look at Genesis 3:19: 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Another good verse s Romans 5:12

The only reason Adam will return to dust (i.e die) is because of the curse from the first sin, otherwise he would have (i assume, as is the orthodox viewpoint) lived forever in fellowship with God. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying since the whole foundation of any orthodox Christian faith is that Christ came to die for our sins, to die so we can be free of the curse of death and live with God forever. The result of the original sin was our condemnation to death.
I’m not sure where you are going with the Romans 8 quote. Maybe I’m missing your point really badly! sometimes I can be thick!

You then said, “I read it as an oral or literary device to describe the indescribable. Genesis was not discovered as a set of preexistant hidden scrolls, but authored. Mankind has always sought to express the inexpressible with the richness of different communication styles. To describe the origins of the world, in terms relevant to the original audience, would require language that was meaningful to that audience. Whether that author was divine or human is another issue, but ultimately not relevant to this point.”

I have several comments to this. 1st, Why do you read it that way? Based on what reasoning is it valid to read it as a literary device? The author was ultimately God. A lot of Genesis scholars believe the original author of the creation account in Gen 1 was God Himself, either told or transcribed for/to Adam and later compiled into Genesis by Moses (although I gagree with you that it is ultimately irrelevant to our discussion).
I completely disagree with the indescribable aspect. what is so hard to describe about evolution? Even if it isn’t described on a sub-microscopic level, you can give a good general overview that ancient man could understand. Why then the subterfuge by writing Genesis as an allegory in the guise of history (i say history because no serious Hebrew scholar disagrees that the writing style of Genesis is one of a historical narrative, not an allegorical/metaphorical one). The ancient Greeks and romans (and many other pagan cultures) had many myths and stories about the earth always existing and many long-age beliefs. Why couldn’t Genesis relfect that? The text is written as a historical document, by divine inspiration, so as far as i’m concerned, there is no other legitimate way to take it. Unless you bring outside ideas (i.e evolution) into the interpretation.

you said, “It has been discussed several times on this blog and elsewhere how NT authors, including Jesus, interpreted OT texts in order to present a specific understanding. The whole weight of the comparison between first and last Adams depends on the interpretation of Genesis as literal history. Reread that if you didn’t get the nuance of “the interpretation of Genesis” vs. “Genesis”.”

Sorry, I’m new to your blog (and blogs in general!), so I need to do my own homework it seems!
Maybe I’m again missing your point again, but I think i agree. The weight does depend on that interpretation as literal history, and since Paul interpreted it that way, why should we do otherwise?

You said, “Well, a day is not a day to God, so I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that the “fourth dimension” is ultimately meaningless. As far as God is concerned, we could be having this conversation at the same time that Jesus is being crucified at the same time that he is blessing Noah at the same time that the creative power of his Word is forming the Big Bang.”

I agree that a day is not a day to God, and that our concept of time is extremely limited when trying to understand Gods eternal nature, but God wrote the Bible for MAN, not Himself. Therefore, given He could’ve easily described a long-age, evolutionary time scale in an understandable way, but DIDN’T, I think it is important that we take Genesis as its written. A day may not be a day to God, but it is to US, who the Bible was written for (the audience), so why would He confuse us with concepts about time we can’t grasp fronm His level?

As I said before, look at Exodus 20, where it talks about how we are to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th as God did when creating. If it really took billions of years, then this is just a ludicrous command! If God meant billions of years in Genesis, and then expected us to understand the Exodus 20 command based on a literary framework, then that is deceptive of God in the extreme, IMO. And if the bible acts (in the OT and NT) as if Genesis is literal, why differ?

Sorry also for my rambling. I’m typing this one handed while eating dinner, so hopefully i didn’t leave any thoughts unfinished. I also apologize in advance if i sound too forceful, because i certainly don’t mean to be! Looking forward to your response.
Dave