1. Young Earth Creationism
The belief that the universe and all that is in it was created by God around ten-thousand years ago or less. They insist that this is the only way to understand the Scriptures. Further, they will argue that science is on their side using “catastropheism.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and the geographic phenomenon that might otherwise suggest the earth is old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
2. Gap Theory Creationists
Belief that the explanation for the old age of the universe can be found in a theoretical time gap that exists between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God created the earth and the earth became formless and void. Therefore God instituted the new creation which begins in Genesis 1:2b. This theory allows for an indefinite period of time for the earth to exist before the events laid out in the creation narrative. Gap theorists will differ as to what could have happened on the earth to make it become void of life. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation prior to humans that died out. This could include the dinosaurs. They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
3. Time-Relative Creationism
Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective. Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), the time at the beginning of creation would have moved much slower than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to the measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of years. This view, therefore, does not assume a constancy in time and believes that any assumption upon the radical events of the first days/eons of creation is both beyond what science can assume and against the most prevailing view of science regarding time today. This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. They can allow for in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
4. Old Earth Creationists
(also Progressive Creationists and Day-Age Creationists)
Belief that the old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not at literal 24 hour periods, but as long indefinite periods of time. The word “day” would then be understood the same as in Gen. 2:4 “. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” While this view believes the universe and earth are billions of years old, they believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
5. Theistic Evolution (with a literal Adam and Eve):
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. At some time, toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created Adam and Eve as the head of the human race. Some also believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humanoids as the representatives for humanity calling them Adam and Eve. They may or may not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.
6. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve)
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. Adam and Eve are simply literary and symbolic, representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse.
Problems with the more conservative views:
- Often does not recognize that the Bible is not a science book and was not meant to answer all our questions.
- Can create a “believe-this-or-do-not-believe-anything-at-all” approach.
- Can creates a dichotomy between the Bible and science.
Problems with the more liberal views:
- Often assumes uniformatarianism for all of human history (i.e. the measurement of things today can be applied to the same in the distant past).
- Can seem to twist Scripture to harmonize.
- It is difficult to know when actual (not accommodated history) history in Genesis picks up (i.e. if Genesis 1-3 are allegory or accommodation, where does “real” history start? Genesis 4? Genesis 6? Genesis 12? What is the exegetical justification for the change?)
I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. While I lean in the direction of number 3, that is the best I think anyone can do—lean. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.
This is an issue that normally should not fracture Christian fellowship.
1,207 replies to "Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate"
Re 898 and 899:
The reason people sit in the pews and think as described by Steve B. is that their teachers have failed them. They have not been taught what they should have been and suffer accordingly.
American conservative christianity has had a very strong streak of anti-intellectualism (see Novak, The Closing of the Evangelical Mind) that is to a largelyresponsible for the ignorance in the pew. Add to that the laziness of many church goers and the desire of many to be entertained in church and we get the present woeful state of Biblical knowledge.
Steve B. also ignores previous posts that discuss the fact that prima facie not all scripture has immediate perspicuity. It has been addressed above that Peter, in his letter 2 Peter, notes that even he–an apostle no less–had difficulty understanding the apostle Paul. If he had difficulty, wouldn’t one think that we might too? Even apart from Genesis, look at how much ink has been spilt on understanding Romans, or charismata, or divorce and remarriage. I find it highly doubtful that anyone in the pews can read most of the O.T. books of the prophets straight off and understand them.
Secondly, those of us who disagree with Steve B. have also pointed out that the central theme of the Bible is not creation but Christ and that it is possible to understand this theme clearly and easily. Christ’s message of salvation is straightforward and easy to grasp, regardless of difficulties in other parts of the Bible.
Similarly, it is quite easy to get the gist of Genesis 1 & 2: God did it, not any other God. Humankind is made in the image of God, not the other way around, and not in the image of anything else.
Third, previous exegetes and interpreters in both Jewish and Christian history have been able to figure out that the creation period is not 144 hours, even without access to our better understandings of ANE culture and life.
Fourth, is the fact that Genesis itself gives interpretive clues as to the proper way of understanding it. In my presentations of the framework view, I presented a number of textual indications that Genesis is not to be understood as a continuous 144 hour period. These are indications that exist apart from one’s understanding of ANE culture. Understanding ANE culture helps us understand why God gove us scripture as He did, but it is far more than just our understanding of ANE culture that directs us to a framework interpretation of Genesis.
Fifth, American Christians are impoverished by their lack of appreciation of excellent art and literature. Most so-called “Christian” literature is second rate and not challenging. Consequently, American readers are unprepared to notice or deal with literary features or textual clues.
Sixth, the results of cultural and archeological understandings do make it into translations, which is why translations out of the original languages are as understandable as they are.
Re post 900:
No, the author of Exodus 20:11 did not misunderstand Genesis, but understood it correctly. He didn’t have a false notion or establish anything on a false notion; he would not have read Genesis 1 and thought that God created everything in 144 continous hours. He understood it the way the framework view understands it, which is why when inspired by God he made the connections he did between God’s presentation of work and rest and the institution for the Israelite nation of the 6 + 1 cycle of work and rest. If the writer had been as “literal” as the YECs, he would have drawn much tigher analogies between the type of work God did on each day and the types of work the Israelites should be doing.
EricW’s problem is that he is bringing a 21st YEC American English perspective and worldview to that passage and is imagining that the writer would have had the same problems that he is having. Not so. The writer would have “got” the literary structure of Genesis 1 & 2, and in fact did get it. That a 21st century YEC can’t grasp that is his 21st century YEC problem, not the writer’s. It is the YEC view of Genesis 1 & 2 that is false, and a view that would not have been held by the ANE writer of the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT).
Apparently Steve B. and EricW have missed it, but I am not proposing that the ANE people’s would have written or read Genesis 1 as a 144 hour creation period, and thus believed something false because God actually took billions of years. In fact, their posts illustrate both how and why the YEC criticisms and the YEC fear of losing confidence in scripture is so misplaced. But it is in fact they who are creating a problem that does not exist. The YECs also have an incorrect epistomology, but I’ll address that in separate post.
Regards,
#John
EricW,
From #John in #889:
“To play devil’s advocate:
Genesis & “When”
Genesis does not give a “when”. Genesis 1 is written as two parallel triads, with the second one giving additional particulars. The triads are a literary device, which is also used to sanction the work/rest cycle for humans. The only “when” is relative in that Adam is before his descendents.”
I have a hunch this is the way the died in the wool ANE folks might answer your questions above in #900. (Can anyone believe this thread has gone on for this long??)
However, I have a lot of concerns here too. How do we know what is literal and what is not? How do we know what is ANE language speaking and what is outright telling it like it really is truth?
And for that matter, when it comes right down to it, how are the folks that are so strongly committed to this ANE position so certain that all men can understand what the Bible says about salvation and Jesus and man’s need for redemption very clearly from what is written if parts of the rest of the Bible are given in ways only to accommodate man’s faulty understanding at the time it was written? What guarantees do we have that that is not the case with much of the New Testament also?? Or had folks at that time come to such a much more modern way of thinking to the point where this was no longer an issue?
That last line of questioning may be a reach and I may be playing devil’s advocate here. However, it seems to me to be a question that maybe needs to be asked because I could almost bet my last dollar, if I was a betting person, that someone is going to ask it somewhere along the way.
#John1453: EricW’s problem is that he is bringing a 21st YEC American English perspective and worldview to that passage and is imagining that the writer would have had the same problems that he is having.
EricW was educated in the 20th century, not the 21st; he’s not YEC; and he’s Jewish (which explains his comments here – i.e., ask 2 Jews a question and you’ll get 3 opinions; also see Tevye’s “he’s right” and “on the other hand” scenes in Fiddler on the Roof). 😀
#John,
“No, the author of Exodus 20:11 did not misunderstand Genesis, but understood it correctly. He didn’t have a false notion or establish anything on a false notion; he would not have read Genesis 1 and thought that God created everything in 144 continous hours. He understood it the way the framework view understands it, which is why when inspired by God he made the connections he did between God’s presentation of work and rest and the institution for the Israelite nation of the 6 + 1 cycle of work and rest. If the writer had been as “literal” as the YECs, he would have drawn much tigher analogies between the type of work God did on each day and the types of work the Israelites should be doing.
I realize that a lot is known about the ANE way of thinking from other literature than the Bible, etc.
However, it seems to me that to state with such absolute 100%, no chance of being wrong certainty that this IS how they thought about things and would of understood them is a bit of a stretch. They lived thousands of years ago, did they not? How can you be so absolutely adamant that you know EXACTLY how they thought and understood things?
Re 904: Thanks for sharing the personal information, however, you will note that the quote was cleverly written not to make assertions about “EricW” personally, but only about the perspective from which the comment was written. : ) Hence, my statement would be just as accurate even if “EricW” had written the entire post as devil’s advocate (which seems to be implied that he did). I’m not implying that EricW misunderstood my reply, only that my reply remains true regardless of the personal characteristics, history or beliefs of the writer whose perspective and argument I was critiquing.
Regards,
#John
John:
Not only do I play devil’s advocate at times, but I also find myself arguing with myself, which some might say is the same thing. I’m sure there is a Freudian explanation. 🙂
Re 903:
We understand which parts of the Bible are more figurative or symbolic and which are less by using the clues that I presented when describing the framework view. The process is similar to interpreting correctly such shorter literary techniques as phrases like “the arm of God”. That phrase does not literally mean that God has a physical arm, but rather is a reference to God’s strength, power and action. We also read the Psalms differently than 1 & 2 Kings and both differently than we read and understand Isaiah. There are always clues respecting how we are to interpret different passages.
Cherylu’s post is typical (but I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense) response of YECs to the difficulties involved in human knowledge and interpretation, and the problems of human fallibility and epistomology. Epistomolgy refers to how we know what we know. Human knowledge is fallible, and there are three basic responses to that problem. One is a thoroughgoing skepticism, in which one states that because we make some mistakes, everything we know could be mistaken, and so we no nothing for certain. Such a reply also engages the fallacy of “The Appeal to Fear”.
The “Appeal to Fear” fallacy is also known as “Scare Tactics”, “Appeal to Force”, or “Ad Baculum” (for you latin fans). The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim. In Cheryu’s post (and in several similar previous posts by others in this thread), and especially on the YEC websites, the fear is raised that if the Framework View is true, or the YEC view is false, then we cannot have certain knowledge about anything in the Bible.
That is not correct, of course. The correct response to the fallibility of human interpretation and knowledge is to realize in humility that human reasoning is, well, “human”. We do know many things, and we do know some things clearly and with great certainty, but the amazing and glorious complexity and depth of reality and the limits of human language and brain power means that the our human understanding is often exceeded. But failure to understanding everything infallibly does not mean that we cannot understand anything or that we will descend down a slippery slope from not taking Genesis in a so-called “literal” fashion to rejecting all of the Bible.
The 17th and 18th centuries also saw attempts tp find some areas of absolute certainty, such as in math. This pursuit was also motivated by the reformation views about the depravity of man. It was believed that Adam had perfect knowledge, and there was much writing and speculation about how one might correct or overcome our fallen state of knowledge.
Re 907. Though I’m not Jewish, I do sympathize and even empathize with your “problem”. My parents used to tell me that I would argue that black was white and day, night. No wonder I became a lawyer. But seriously, your statements–regardless of whether you’re arguing for the devil–are thought provoking and push me and cause me to think through things in greater depth and detail. Cheers, John.
Regards,
#John
cheryl, have you ever read this quote from Augustine? It’s from his commentary on Genesis (how appropriate):
John, any progress on the evidence for common descent? We can discuss the ANE perspective until the cows come home, but I’m still hoping you’ll grapple with this evidence at some point. If you do, we might even make it to 1000 posts…
RE Cherylu’s post 905:
If it were not for God being infallible and incapable of telling a lie, we would not have certainty, only high probability of how the ANE Hebrews would have thought. Given what we know about life back then, including knowledge from thousands of documents and inscriptions and cultural artifacts, it certainly is plausible that the ANE Hebrews thought as the framework view proposes. From there I would proceed both deductively and inductively.
Deductively, if God knows all truth and sees reality as it is (because he creates and then sustains reality as it is), then He does know that He created the universe in billions of years ago and all of instantaneously with the potential for unfolding development (e.g., star and planet formation). Given that, He would not lie and tell the Hebrews (or Adam, who then handed it down orally and in written documents until the Genesis story was incorporated by Moses into the pentateuch) that he did it 144 hours when he actually did not. So, if He did not tell the Hebrews a lie, and He instead told the truth about creation not being continuous 144 hours, then the ANE Hebrews must have understood it that way.
Inductively, we know with great confidence that the YEC young earth and catastrophic flood geology theories are wrong and not true (with as great a confidence as we have about our knowledge of how airplane wings work, that is, with certainty that our knowledge of the earth’s age is trending in only one direction, confirmed in multiple ways, and will not be overturned). Since YECism cannot be true, God would not have presented that view to the ANE Hebrews nor would the ANE Hebrews have believed such a thing.
Regards,
#John
“But failure to understanding everything infallibly does not mean that we cannot understand anything or that we will descend down a slippery slope from not taking Genesis in a so-called “literal” fashion to rejecting all of the Bible.”
Unfortunately, if what I have heard and read is correct, that is exactly what seems to happen to people quite often. Specially young people.
And very frankly, I would not ever dare to mention to some of my Christian friends and family members that I am now questioning whether Genesis 1 is literal or not. They would likely think I was losing it completely and becoming some kind of a heretic that was very likely to throw my whole faith overboard any day now!
re 910. Yes, but my parents have just arrived from out of town. I may not be posting for a week, but I do intend to correspond with you on theistic evolution. Have you any responses to my above questions about the version of theistic evolution that you believe is most likely? or which ones are plausible? or fit with Scripture? And how do you see the jump from animal to human being made (with the ensoulment of humans)?
Re 912. I’ve not read testimonies of people that have started with a belief in Old Earth and some corresponding interpretation of Genesis and then lost faith because of some down hill slide from there respecting their confidence in Scripture. But I have read many testimonies of YEC believers who lose faith because of that very issue, because they’ve been taught so deeply that it’s all or nothing. If OEs lose faith, it’s for other reasons, not their interpretation of Genesis. So actually, going by my anecdotal experience, you are more at risk of losing your faith over this issue than I am. However, if you ended up being convinced properly of the OE view, with the concomitant confidence in scripture. I believe that your faith would survive.
Regards,
#John
gabriel,
That is a very interesting, and applicable quote of Augustine’s.
The thing is, a very large share of the church, the part that I grew up in and have mostly been associated with all of my life, has held to extremely strong views regarding the literalness (if that is a word) of Genesis one. To believe anything else was simply not an option. It was a, “This is what God said and He meant exactly what He said–creation in 6 literal days”–kind of thing.
John wrote:
Then please explain how stars and planets formed in this scenario of billions of years. Long ago on this blog I repeated challenged OEs to explain star formation…no one even tried. (see post 145 for example)
It’s simply taken *by faith* that the consensus scientific view *must be correct* despite the scientific difficulties, and therefore God *could not have meant* what the straightforward reading of scripture states. Thus the current attempt to use ANE understandings to reinterpret scripture to allow for the current scientific consensus on origins.
The difference between John and Gabe is in how much of the current consensus is accepted as *fact*.
They would likely think I was losing it completely and becoming some kind of a heretic that was very likely to throw my whole faith overboard any day now!
That’s okay. Since they are likely Evangelical Protestants, they are already themselves heretics in the eyes of most Christians (the majority of Xians in the world are Catholic or Orthodox) for rejecting baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and an apostolic-succession ordained priesthood. 😀 And if they include the filioque in the Nicene Creed, then they’re double heretics in the eyes of some of the aforementioned Xians.
Further to my post 913. By referring to my view as OE, it’s a bit of cart before the horse. Actually, my view is “non-144 hours”. I’m open to various interpretations of Genesis that do not demand 144 hours, including the gap view or progressive/day-age view. However, I am most convinced of some sort of literary framework view.
So the key is not the science, but the interpretation of scripture. My view leaves the age of the earth an open issue. If science underwent a revolution tomorrow and declared the earth was young, nothing would happen to my interpretation of Genesis or to my faith. My interpretation of Genesis is not coupled to a particular view of it’s age. Current science does, however, convince me that the YEC view is mistaken. But I’m still left with very valid, reputable and convincing and consistent understandings of Genesis that work well in the over all Biblical context.
On the other hand, YECism is chained to a particular view of the age of the earth and a particular view of science and the answers that will be found by science and the conclusions that science will come to. So if science continues to come up with completely different answers over a wide range of phenomena, by a wide range of investigators with very different world views, then YECs face a debilitating and catastrophic problem with no resources to sustain it. YECism has no other answer but a young earth and a catastrophic flood. The framework view, on the other hand, does have the resources to deal with anything that science comes up with.
Personally, I do believe that radiometric dating does work, and that it and starlight do point in the direction of an old earth. But those areas of science are very complicated. Much easier to grasp for me are the more geological issues, like the ones I have spent the most time discussing. Particulary convincing for me are layers of pollen in rocks, and evidences of several cycles of submergence under and emergence from water with the corresponding types of plant or animal growth and erosion. And if a thousand years is as a day to God, why wouldn’t He enjoy his “good” handiwork for billions of years?
I suppose that another reason I’m not convinced by YECism and its fears is that every day I deal with science, with conflicting evidence, with partial understanding, with partial knowledge and with issues of interpretation. And I don’t see that partial knowledge prevents me from knowing some things, or from knowing some things with great confidence–such as my salvation in Jesus. Jesus saved me, not the Bible, and it is with Him that I have a personal relationship. I would believe even if I didn’t have a Bible (Abraham didn’t have one either). I know Jesus, and my knowledge of Him is greater than just what is revealed about him in the Bible, my knowledge also includes relational and experiential knowledge. Cheers, John
RE Richard’s post 915. Patience, Richard, weve discussed many things in these 900 posts so it’s not like we’ve avoided discussing things. Nor is it like there isn’t a response on the star issue or that you won’t disagree with whatever we propose.
It is fallacious to imply that because we haven’t responded yet to the star issue we therefore don’t have suitable response on that issue. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence; it may just be that the evidence has not yet been presented.
Furthermore, neither I nor Gabe nor scientists believe something simply because there is a consensus on the topic. To do so would be to commit the “Fallacy of Popularity”, also know as “Ad Populum”. The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.
(I make no claims to the originality of the above description).
We believe what we believe not because of its popularity, but because there are many corresponding and complementary evidences that it is so. The consensus exists because of the evidence, not the other way around. Moreover, there is a range of confidence levels regarding the various evidences. Some we hold with great confidence, some we hold with less–but they all point in the same direction: old earth.
Furthermore, debate respecting how stars are formed does not provide any proof against their age. They are separate issues, and to throw in a dispute in astronomhy about star formation is the fallacy of a “Red Herring”, which is also Known as a “Smoke Screen” or “Wild Goose Chase.” A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic (star formation) is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue (age of the universe). The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following . . . [cont.]
[continuation of my 918]
This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
To argue that we simply take the old age of the earth simply on “faith” is an ad hominem argument, implying that we are dupes and so follow whatever is popular. No, we are following the evidence.
By the way, I would also remind Richard that he has not provided a counter argument or response to the Joggins Cliffs phenomena, the Green River Formation, ice cores, or coral. Bang. Bang. Bang. Goes the hammer.
Regards,
#John
Postcript on the ad hominem fallacy, which is latin for “against the man” or “against the person.” An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Richard, if you keep this up, I’ll end up defining all three dozen or so logical fallacies.
cheryl said:
I agree this is a hard issue – I feel your pain. I am in a similar position, except for me it is about evolution. Pretty much the whole evangelical church rejects evolution (even though I am in a denomination that accepts the age of the earth- well, at least it allows one to do so).
Cheryl, I’ll take some time to pray for you today. Just keep in mind this issue isn’t one that makes or breaks your faith, even if you’re surrounded by people who think so. To your own Master you stand or fall, and He calls us to love Him with heart, soul and mind. God’s big enough to handle your questions and searching Him out. Remember that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
John, you’re right in that I haven’t responded about my flavor of TE – my apologies, I forgot! The various versions are very similar; primarily they differ on how they view Adam and Eve. Waltke comes closest to my view (see the book linked above). In short, I don’t see how a literal Adam & Eve as the parents of all humanity is possible, even with Hugh Ross-type stretching of time (see the Seely article linked previously). Population genetics data demonstrates pretty clearly that our species has never been below about 1000 – 10,000 individuals.
I will be away from internet access for the next three or so days, give or take. Blessings to all in the meantime, and I’ll rejoin the conversation when I return.
one last thing: I came across this quote yesterday and thought it would be of interest here. This is from a graduate of Bryan College (a YEC-only college in Dayton).
I think experiences like those described in this quote, more than anything else, demonstrate why it is a dangerous thing to tie one’s faith to an antievolution position, and why it is important that we expose our children to the full range of Christian thought on these issues. Sooner or later someone will – would you rather it was an atheist?
Re post 921 by Gabe
Scot McKnight has an interesting blog on the very issue of whether one needs to believe in monogenesis (all descended from Adam and Eve) or not (e.g., God created more than just the singular Adam when he created humankind): http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/06/outside-the-pale-rjs.html#more
This is how Scot describes the question coming to him:
# John,
What do you believe is the answer to the question asked in your last post? Or have you thought it through? I know you have always said that you believe in special creation–not evolution for mankind?
Once upon a time I thought that the Christian faith was a rather simple and straightforward thing! I had no idea of the huge differences of opinion there are out there on just about any topic imaginable that are related to the Bible. My last few years spent in several different churches that were hyper charismatic and some of the blog conversations that I have been a part of have been real eye openers for me.
Cheryl, I remember discovering that myself, but I think it’s been good for me. Big differences, and yet for the most part we still call ourselves Christian. It has made me look closely to determine what are the actual essentials. It has also made me more humble. I figure that’s a good thing. I used to be quick to condemn those who thought differently than me, then I began to learn that they often have pretty good scriptural backup for what they believe.
We see the differences here, but the real differences are much greater in the big picture. After all, this is still pretty much a conservative evangelical blog. The Christian world is much wider.
Dave Z,
The blog conversations have only been a bit of it–and it has not been just this blog by any means. And if you have never been exposed to the hypercharismatic or word/faith churches, you have no idea of the differences that are out there. (Maybe you have, I don’t know.) And very frankly, there are many that seem to have no basis in Scripture at all, at least not Scriputre that is not twisted totally out of context and turned into a huge doctrine that can’t be lived without. Besides that, you have all of the prophets bringing forth “words” all of the time and since “God is doing a new thing” it can be about as far out as you can imagine. It has been an interesting few years to say the least.
And very frankly, about the only thing that I haven’t had to question in the last years is that Jesus is the Saviour and that I still desperately need Him.
I think we may hit 1,000 posts after all!
Welcome back Richard. Did you get a chance to read my post where I said I would buy you a copy of Walton’s latest book? Its up there somewhere, and the offer still stands.
To anyone entering the discussion, I recommend you read John Walton’s book, “The Lost World of Genesis One” or watch his lecture here: http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php
Steve B,
Re: Post # 898 & 988,
In conclusion, researching ANE culture and even becoming familiar with the original languages of these people is a worthwhile and potentially rewarding endeavor, but concluding that such knowledge is NECESSARY to properly understand Scripture is completely unjustifiable and, as I stated earlier, brazenly esoteric and smacks of elitism.
This position creates these kinds of problems for you.
Knowing the original languages of scripture is ABSOLUTELY necessary to properly understand scripture. Our English translations didn’t just fall out of the sky into our lap. Groups of elitist Hebrew and Greek scholars had to get together and translate the Bible into English so we can read it.
Do you read the original languages? If not, your argument fails because you rely on scholars for ANY and ALL of your understanding of God’s Word. Even if you could read in the original languages, you’d still rely on scholars to teach you those languages and even provide you with the accurate text of scripture.
Your entire existence as a modern Christian is based upon the work of countless scholars throughout the last two thousand years teaching and preserving and translating God’s Word. Without them your Christian faith would not exist, so don’t go saying that their work is unnecessary for properly understanding scripture. Their work is the foundation of your very faith.
Further, we must always remember that we are the body of Christ. It is absolutely necessary that we rely upon others to help us, encourage us, and teach us. We cannot do everything ourselves. There will always be someone who knows more about a certain topic whom we can learn from, and it is good for us to recognize this. Using your argument, your own pastor is elitist because he went to seminary and you didn’t. He knows more about certain subjects than you do and you rely on him for teaching.
My focus is more on scripture and theology, so I rely on other people in this blog to cover other subjects that I’m weak in. John on the science of an old earth and Gabe on evolution, for example.
I hope you rethink your position. I know you don’t like the extra work of understanding Genesis through the ANE worldview, but it really is necessary if you want a deeper understanding of what it is saying. Please, if you didn’t when I first posted it, read Post 782. I go into this more in reply to Cheryl U.
The days of Genesis 1 and what they mean in relation to their mention in Exodus have been brought up and I’d like to add my understanding.
First, watch the Walton lecture I posted above. You simply have to understand what I mean by Genesis 1 being the inauguration of God’s cosmic temple. Better yet, read the book. It goes into more of the nitty gritty details and Walton’s reasoning and evidence for why he thinks this way.
Building off the cosmic temple idea, it has been noted by Walton (in the book) that other cultures in the ANE would hold a type of yearly creation festival in which they would re-enact the events of their creation texts. Sometimes these festivals would be three days in length, other times seven days. Walton hinted that Israel may have had a similar creation festival and Genesis 1 may have served as a guide for it. (see chapter 9).
With that in mind, I asked Walton this question:
*What follows is speculation on Walton’s part. He has NO solid scriptural, textual, or archeological evidence that Israel did this. Thus it is not in his current book but based off of the email exchange I had with him. I am summarizing his answer.*
He replied and said that this understanding is plausible IF Israel actually held a creation reenactment festival. He was very cautious with this idea because he has no biblical support for it outside of what other cultures in the ANE did. (Walton also mentioned that seeing the days just as literary devices, as the Framework theory proposes, isn’t necessarily impossible, though he is less inclined to think so.)
(Continued)
(Continued)
So with this in mind, it may be possible to view the days of creation as a guide to a creation festival, if Israel had one. I’m actually very intrigued by this idea and would be comfortable holding it as an hypothesis that could use further research.
Exodus 20 may be referring to the common knowledge of the seven-day reenactment festival that the Israelites would have undoubtedly been familiar with, as they were with other festivals that contained theological significance. What better way to inoculate the Israelites against turning from the True God than to remind them on a yearly basis who made the heavens and earth?
This is a very neat idea, but it needs more study.
Knowing the original languages of scripture is ABSOLUTELY necessary to properly understand scripture. Our English translations didn’t just fall out of the sky into our lap. Groups of elitist Hebrew and Greek scholars had to get together and translate the Bible into English so we can read it.
True, but while that solves many problems, it can open up other cans of worms. E.g., how do you translate ινα (hina) in the NT, e.g., in Romans? The default way people are taught (as well as find in the standard lexica) is “in order that” (i.e., telic/purpose). My Lexham Clausal Outlines of the NT (Logos) regards some of them as “result.” This started me looking and asking questions, because translating it as result changes the translation and meaning of some (to me) significant things. I’m currently reading this doctoral dissertation http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1395/1/Sim_thesis.pdf that challenges the longstanding lexical asssumptions and arguments. And this is only one example. Read Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography for some critical essays on the sad state of Ancient Greek lexicography. And then you have native Greek speakers and scholars like Chrys Caragounis who argue against some long-held views, but they themselves have their conclusions/statements challenged.
And when it comes to Hebrew, how much Sumerian and Akkadian does one also need to learn to help with some of the etymologies of some obscure words whose translation is perhaps wrongly affected by the pointing of the consonental text? And then there’s culture. Frank Moore Cross, I believe, argues that the “they shall become one flesh” in Genesis 2 is not about sexual cleaving.
Etc.
Oy!
Greg,
If I remember correctly, Steve B’s statement you quoted above was not in regard to people knowing original languages to translate the Bible, but an implication made be someone else that everyone today needed to know these languages in order to understand Scripture. Maybe that was not what was meant in the person’s statement, but that was the implication I got and obviously others did too.
Correction. Looking back, I guess Steve said both.
68 responses to go to reach 1,000 comments.
I bet once # John and gabriel are back, it won’t take long to pass the l,000 mark!
John
1. In post # 911, you stated that, “Inductively, we know with great confidence that the YEC young earth and catastrophic flood geology theories are wrong and not true.”
2. II Peter 3:3-6 states. “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the sign of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the Word of God the heavens existed long ago and th earth was formed out of water and by water, THROUGH WHICH THE WORLD AT THAT TIME WAS DESTROYED, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER.”
3. Inductively, your denial of “catastrophic flood geology” makes you one of the “mockers” of God’s Word that Peter prophesied about 2,000 years ago.
Bang. Bang. Bang.
Regards
Steve
2 Peter 3:3-6:
3 τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν [ἐν] ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι 4 καὶ λέγοντες, Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; ἀφ’ ἧς γὰρ οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. 5 λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας, ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι καὶ γῆ (gê) ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ, 6 δι’ ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος (kosmos) ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο:
Note that 2 Peter 3:6 says “the then kosmos”; it does not say “the then whole/entire (ὅλος holos) kosmos” or “all (πᾶς pas) the then kosmos,” and note the different possible meanings for kosmos.
γῆ,n {ghay}
1) arable land 2) the ground, the earth as a standing place 3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water 4) the earth as a whole 4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens 4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals 5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region
κόσμος,n {kos’-mos}
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government 2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe 4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family 6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ 7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly 7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ 8 ) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort 8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) 8b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19
re: the II Peter verses:
But doesn’t it seem significant that it speaks of the “heavens and the earth” together? If heavens means the whole heavens, why doesn’t earth mean the whole earth? Also, the whole flood issue is compared to the coming day when all things will be destroyed by fire. So it seems to me very likely that Peter is speaking of a global flood, although I certainly can’t prove it. Does that make sence to anyone else?
cheryl u:
2 Peter doesn’t say the “earth” was destroyed by flooding; it says the kosmos was. The author switches words, from earth (gê) to “world” (kosmos), which is one reason I noted those two words in the Greek text, as well as gave their definitions afterwards.
Strangely, the “through which” is in the plural, even though “water” is in the singular (but used twice).
Through translates the same preposition rendered “by means of” in verse 5. Which is a plural relative pronoun and can be interpreted in many ways, three of which are worth mentioning:
1. It goes back to “word” in verse 5. This makes verses 5, 6, and 7 structurally parallel: heaven and earth were created, the world was destroyed by water, and all creation will be destroyed by fire, all by means of God’s word. However, the plural form of the Greek for which argues against this position.
2. It refers to both “word” and “water.” These three verses will then be structurally connected thus: word and water (verse 5), word and water (verse 6), word and fire (verse 7).
3. It refers to “water.” The plural form can either refer to the two types of water (water above and water below the heavens) from which the flood had come (Gen 7.11), or be taken as a Hebrew idiom, since in Hebrew, water, like heaven, is usually plural in form.
This third possibility is the choice of by far the most translations.
Arichea, D. C., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the letter from Jude and the second letter from Peter. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (148). New York: United Bible Societies.
Re post 984 by Steve B
YECs think entirely too much of themselves when they apply 2 Peter 3:3-6 to scoffers of a young earth. The verse defines scoffers as those who deny the return of Christ. That’s it. Doesn’t refer to OEs. The phrase “long ago” could apply to any period of time that is longer that a few hundred years (though one could apply it tongue in cheek YECs who don’t believe the earth is very old). And the reference to the flood could apply equally to a non-YEC global flood (i.e., YECs believe in a particularly violent flood that moves the continents around, createst the Himalayas, and lays down thousands of feet of sedimentary rock; a non-YEC flood just covers the earth), or to a local flood that destroys the known and inhabited world. So the verse does nothing to prove or support YECism.
God’s revelation in the universe that He sustains is one of consistency and regularity in basic processes, so much so that we call the regularities “laws”, like the law of gravity, or Boyles law, or Stokes law, etc. Because of that basic regularity and consistency and constancy we can investigate what God has declared in His handiwork. We can investigate the settlement of sediments, the explosions of volcanoes and other catastrophes, wind, etc. We can redo experiments and expect to see the same results each time. We can predict the orbital positions of planets. We can date the earth and determine its ancient age.
The Bible, on the other hand, is composed of words, in human languages, that need to be interpreted. Interpretation of words is not as definite as investigation of the natural world. There is often more than one viable interpretation. Why do you, Steve B and other YECs assume that only your interpretation is correct? (e.g. your interpretation and application of 2 Peter 3, or Genesis 1 & 2?). OEs have interpretations that are just as supportable as YEC interpretations–and I would argue more so. Science, on the other hand, can be investigated until we have great confidence in our conclusions (such as in geology). Of course, we have different levels of understanding and confidence in various areas of science, and some areas of science have competing explanations of the phenoma (e.g. some parts of astronomy). But other parts have only one explanation that will never change. For example, we know that stars generate their energy by way of nuclear fusion. That conclusion will never change. There is much in geology that has that same level of confidence and which leads to a conclusion of ancient age.
Anyway, back to preparing for my trial tomorrow.
Regards,
#John
John
You say in #939: “YECs think entirely too much of themselves when they apply 2 Peter 3:3-6 to scoffers of a young earth. The verse defines scoffers as those who deny the return of Christ. That’s it. Doesn’t refer to OEs.”
In II Peter 3:5 the word “they” (“for when THEY maintain this …”) connects the proceeding condemnation to the “mockers” or “scoffers” referred to in the 2 previous verses. Thus, the condemnation for failing to recognize that the “world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water,” obviously applies to these very same people.
You are truly a mastere at twisting the obvious meaning of scriptural text to fit your own world view, John. Do you ever tire of it?
Steve B,
I think there is huge difference between those who are scoffers in the sense scripture means it, and those who see different evidence for a literal 6 day creation, and/or a local vs. global flood.
Let us remember that this is a debate of several different positions on creation, and the flood, ALL of which have some theological merit and support.
I, for one, appreciate #John’s attention to detail, as well as Eric Z’s, and Dave W’s. And, yes, Gabe’s and Richard’s as well, even though I don’t agree with their conclusions. I have learned much from all of them about why they believe as they do. They have all obviously spent a great deal of time on researching their presentations.
Scoffers scoff at the things of God, and deny Christ. I don’t think anyone on this thread has done that, whether they disagree or not, and I think to accuse someone of that when they are merely the examining the truth of scripture is not only wrong, but stops what has thus far an excellent exchange of ideas between Christians in it’s tracks.
This is a short argument against secular atheistic evolution:
At the very root of his being, man desires to deny his status as a creature. Modern man denies he is a creature by denying he is created. His first line of defense is to remove God as a necessary first cause. Evolution serves this purpose. This materialist doctrine exists to justify man’s existence without appeal to God as a necessary first cause. Science is not an objective impartial measure of things. It is the creation of man, and so is subject to the first principles of man. It is a servant and not a master. It is most emphatically not an independent source of Truth.
Large parts of science today has been organized around materialist philosophy. It is then presented as the impartial hammer that smashes the primitive doctrines of primitive men. Upon its authority we are told to desert the superstitions of the past and accept the objective realities that have been delivered to us by science. But they are not objective. They are the pre-ordained conclusions of materialist philosophers who see the world in a materialist sense and organize the models, the experiments, and the data to produce a materialist outcome. The illusion of compelled belief is no less an illusion simply because men can create fancy math models to sustain it.
We are called to confront men with the truth regardless of whether they accept it or not. The church does him no favor by conceding his materialist models, and then feebly grafting God onto the side.
We must be willing to spit in the face of the received wisdom of the world. We must be willing to deny its presuppositions, and its doctrines. We must be willing to walking into the courtyard and proclaim the truth in the face of authorities who will mock us, and ridicules us and hold us up to scorn. If we are not willing to do this in defense of God’‘s position as necessary first cause, then how can we expect to do it in defense of God’s position as necessary savior?
Let God be true, and every man a liar.
That would be EricW (no space) and Dave Z. 🙂
Here’s a good recent paper (originally published in the The Master’s Seminary Journal 18/1 (Spring 2007): 69-98) titled:
“Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth
The author’s bio is here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=20
Sorry for the mix-up on the initials Eric and Dave!
TU&D,
Eh, you do realize that biological evolution has nothing to say about a “first cause” right?
mbaker … re: #941
First of all, I completely agree that this blog has been an excellent exchange of ideas between Christians and that it has been very provocative. That having been said, I would like to respond to the rest of your comment. I hope very much that you will not put up an immediate wall but will carefully reflect upon what I have to say.
In post # 911 John said, “Inductively, we know with great confidence that the YEC young earth and catastrophic flood geology theories are wrong and not true.” According to John, in other words, the notion that the Genesis Flood was worldwide is “wrong and not true.” (He has made his opinion re: this matter abundantly clear throughout this blog).
Now, from my perspective, if the words of Scripture are understood in their plain, natural sense, the Genesis Flood was indeed worldwide and was a great catastrophe that “blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to the birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were left with him in the ark.” (Gen. 7:23) In II Peter 3, Peter states that in the last days “mockers” or “scoffers” – people who mock the teaching of God’s Word – will come, and one of the things that “escapes their notice” is that “the earth was formed out of water and by water, THROUGH WHICH THE WORLD AT THAT TIME WAS DESTROYED, BEING FLOODED WITH WATER.”
From MY perspective, this last phrase is very clearly a reference to a WORLDWIDE Flood, as described in Genesis 6-8. And from MY perspective anyone who denies this event must be included as a mocker of God’s Word. John definitely denies the worldwide nature of the Genesis Flood and therefore, based upon II Peter 3, in relationship to this particular issue, at least, from MY perspective John is a mocker of God’s Word.
The key point for you to grasp here is that this is the way I see John’s conclusion re: the Genesis Flood. I’m sure that you don’t agree with me, and that’s okay.
Steve
Joshua: “TU&D,
Eh, you do realize that biological evolution has nothing to say about a “first cause” right?”
Joshua, eh, you do realize that secondary school students are taught that evolution starts from non-life to primordial soup and then all the way to animals and humans, right?
You do realize that right?
So does biological evolution teach that organisms from this primordial soup evolve into fish and then land-based creatures and birds and then humans?
Steve,
I never discount honest disagreement between brothers and sisters unless it begins to get to the point that because you or I, or John or Richard, disagrees that any of one of us are ‘scoffers’. No one is scoffing at the Bible. I think indeed, judging by the number of comment,s everyone is trying to come to the truth. We cannot complete discount scientific discoveries in the process, because we cannot explain Jesus and His resurrection to others either except by personal faith.
I notice the scripture you are using says the ‘world at that time was destroyed”. Now, if we are YEC’s we can say that means the world as we know it now, or if we are OE’s we can say that much of the world, as we know it now, was not even formed at that time. So both views could conceivably be right. Looking at it that way, I would think there would be a big difference, because a world wide flood could have indeed been a local flood under those circumstances.
I believe if you will go back and read some of the previous comments, you will see #John1453 has repeatedly stated regarding the flood that he is quote ‘agnostic’ on that and has not fully made up his mind.
Of course he can much better defend this than I can. I am simply pointing why both views could be true.
TU&D: C.S Lewis’s “Argument From Reason” easily demonstrates the bankruptcy of materialism. IMO, saying that “if materialism were true, people would not have morals”, is a very poor rebuttal of materialism, and will be ignored by every evolutionist. Thankfully, it is possible to rebut materialism using the materialist’s favored tool of reason.