"Our supposedly eminent Bible scholars are now going on record to say that we must subordinate the authority of Scripture to the higher and more objective standard of secular science."
His 3rd point is worth its weight in gold!
“Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of creation issues? What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection? The 20th Century gives us the answer. Moreover, do they think they can avoid worldly scorn merely by jettisoning biblical creation, while still holding to even more obnoxious doctrines like substitutionary atonement? The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.”
“Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of creation issues? What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection? The 20th Century gives us the answer. Moreover, do they think they can avoid worldly scorn merely by jettisoning biblical creation, while still holding to even more obnoxious doctrines like substitutionary atonement? The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword.”
I think Phillip’s post is great, but I understand these guy’s struggle to a degree. We have revised our interpretations in light of “science” before. It’s why we don’t believe the earth is the center of the solar system anymore.
It’s true that the geocentrism/heliocentrism shift is quite minor compared to revising beliefs about how creation occurred, but I wonder how different the process really is. That is, I don’t think theologians in the era of Galileo were studying Scripture and began to think, “Wow, we have been interpreting the ‘sun rising’ texts inaccurately in light of these other texts.” Rather, “scientific data” got them thinking “Maybe we were a bit hasty in how we read those passages.”
But Phillips is right about all the problems this process creates, especially in this modern/postmodern era where—as Bauder has been explaining in Nick of Time—what is observable is assumed to be absolutely and ultimately “real” and, often, also viewed to be “all we can really know is real.” And then you have our society’s general worshipfulness toward science.
It’s not the same ball of yarn as in Galileo’s day.
But if you have friends and colleagues who are deeply involved in research in what appears to be mountains of data for a very old (relative to the usual YEC point of view) earth, you find yourself scratching your head and wondering if you got something wrong. I don’t envy them their task. This is a very difficult problem of our times and is only going to get harder as the “information age” marches on.
It’s true that the geocentrism/heliocentrism shift is quite minor compared to revising beliefs about how creation occurred, but I wonder how different the process really is. That is, I don’t think theologians in the era of Galileo were studying Scripture and began to think, “Wow, we have been interpreting the ‘sun rising’ texts inaccurately in light of these other texts.” Rather, “scientific data” got them thinking “Maybe we were a bit hasty in how we read those passages.”
But Phillips is right about all the problems this process creates, especially in this modern/postmodern era where—as Bauder has been explaining in Nick of Time—what is observable is assumed to be absolutely and ultimately “real” and, often, also viewed to be “all we can really know is real.” And then you have our society’s general worshipfulness toward science.
It’s not the same ball of yarn as in Galileo’s day.
But if you have friends and colleagues who are deeply involved in research in what appears to be mountains of data for a very old (relative to the usual YEC point of view) earth, you find yourself scratching your head and wondering if you got something wrong. I don’t envy them their task. This is a very difficult problem of our times and is only going to get harder as the “information age” marches on.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Yes, there will always be challenges in harmonizing science and the Bible, and it isn’t wrong to ask questions about interpretations. Enns and Waltke, however, reveal a deeper authority issue. They say that they believe in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but their stance on this issue reveals that their ultimate authority is really their intellect. We must be careful to maintain a humble scholarship, carefully trying to understand the Bible in light of science and scholarship, but keeping our thinking submissive to the Bible.
The history of Christianity and evolution is not one of unilateral rejection. Just through cursory reading in the last few months, I’ve found positive appraisals of, or at least openness to, evolution in a number of early writers: James Orr, B. B. Warfield, A.A. Hodge, and James Orr all embrace some aspects of evolutionary biology. I mention these people not just because they’re recognizable theologians, but because they formulated the modern definition and defense of inerrancy as embraced by evangelicals today, their ideas being reflected in the Chicago Statment on Inerrancy, for example. Also, between the mid-nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, 6/24 creation was a rare animal. Most of the contributers to The Fundamentals were not 6/24. Although there were critics of evolution all along, it doesn’t seem until the mid-twentieth century American evangelicals began taking a consistently hard line against evolution. I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to read [URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520083938/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i1?pf_rd…] The Creationists[/URL] by Ronald Numbers, a very thorough history of the people and organizations responsible for the birth of “creation science” as we know it today. The overall prominence of Seventh Day Adventists and the explicit use of Ellen White’s prophecies in forming the flood geology ought at least to raise some eyebrows.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I don’t think we’re going to successfully navigate the road ahead by being dismissive.
The questions involved are serious, won’t go away, and future generations thinking people in fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not going to shrink from asking them.
(As for RC theologians in Galileo’s day… whatever non-Pope adoring theologians there were at the time also embraced geocentrism, I’m pretty sure. The point is that they did not depart form this point of view as a result of their study of Scripture but because of “science.” But I reject the idea that the the RC theologians of the era were sitting around saying “Pope, tell us what to think today.” They were studying the Bible and their traditions, but they were studying the Bible.)
The questions involved are serious, won’t go away, and future generations thinking people in fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not going to shrink from asking them.
(As for RC theologians in Galileo’s day… whatever non-Pope adoring theologians there were at the time also embraced geocentrism, I’m pretty sure. The point is that they did not depart form this point of view as a result of their study of Scripture but because of “science.” But I reject the idea that the the RC theologians of the era were sitting around saying “Pope, tell us what to think today.” They were studying the Bible and their traditions, but they were studying the Bible.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I found the initial article delightful.
I think we have to look at this issue on two levels: meaning and implication.
Meaning
From a hermeneutic perspective, it is dishonest to bring an outside, modern, and disconnected source of data such as modern science into the interpretive process. It is clear that the intent of Scripture was to give us six literal days of creation. Yes, Genesis’ creation account was set up in opposition to pagan creation myths of the time. And yes, it does have to be read through the lens of what ancient folk of the Levant would see in the story. But having said that, it is also clear that the ancient folk of Scripture, such as Moses in Exodus 20:11, interpreted it as six literal days. Christ Himself took Moses’ interpretation seriously (Matthew 19), not calling into question specific details from the account. Hermeneutically, six literal creation days is one intended meaning that can be drawn from the Genesis account. The fact that it was not the intended primary spiritual message of the author does not change the fact that it is one of the intended meanings that can be drawn from the text.
Implication
The implications of the above conclusion are serious. We have here the intended meaning of the Genesis creation account, which is in direct opposition to the modern scientific theory of origins. And this from a book that claims for itself divine authorship and inerrancy. This leaves us with only a few options:
1). Reject the modern scientific theory and accept the Genesis account as accurate.
2). Reject the Genesis account and accept modern science’s account – which then calls into question the Scriptural claim to divine authorship, or at least inerrancy as we have understood it.
3). Accept modern science’s account while simultaneously trying to refine our understanding of the Genesis account in such a way as to defend the divine authorship and inerrancy of Scripture.
The last option is fraught with difficulty. It requires us to step backward from the implication level to re-invent the meaning level. Some of the scholars mentioned in the lead article seem to interject another authority (modern scientific theory) into the hermeneutic level – which is not honest hermeneutics. Others have taken the approach of trying to explain the Genesis creation account as a literary device without intended historical meaning – but this is a tough position to prove given the use of the Genesis account elsewhere in Scripture in both theological and instructional passages. Thus the 3rd point of the lead article is valid: you cannot open the door of letting science redefine the meaning of one passage without leaving it wide open to redefine others.
Aaron, your point is well taken, but the Galileo situation was different on several levels. One of these is that it was entirely legitimate to see the “sun rising and setting” or “sun standing still” passages as descriptive rather than scientifically definitive. They were “point of view” passages. The problem with the Genesis account of creation is that its viewpoint is set as an all-knowing 3rd party observer telling God’s story. In some ways, God’s view is the point of view of the Genesis creation account, though it’s told as though an independent observer is penning it.
I think the early Fundamentalists and Evangelicals understood all of this, and were seeking for legitimate escapes that might explain the discrepancy between the Biblical account and the scientific account of creation – much like the literary escape used to reject geocentrism and accept heliocentrism. This was a legitimate exercise on their part. I’m sure we’ve all tried on a few novel interpretations to see if they fit different scenarios before. But time and effort have worn away our options. I think any reasonable interpreter who is drawing meaning entirely and only from the Biblical text has to be skeptical of finding a way to reconcile evolutionary theory and the Bible account. It’s all been tried; none of it works well.
I, for one, am content to have a view that flies in the face of modern science in this area. 300 years from now, when a new theoretical scientific paradigm has replaced evolution, we will all be somewhat vindicated.
I think we have to look at this issue on two levels: meaning and implication.
Meaning
From a hermeneutic perspective, it is dishonest to bring an outside, modern, and disconnected source of data such as modern science into the interpretive process. It is clear that the intent of Scripture was to give us six literal days of creation. Yes, Genesis’ creation account was set up in opposition to pagan creation myths of the time. And yes, it does have to be read through the lens of what ancient folk of the Levant would see in the story. But having said that, it is also clear that the ancient folk of Scripture, such as Moses in Exodus 20:11, interpreted it as six literal days. Christ Himself took Moses’ interpretation seriously (Matthew 19), not calling into question specific details from the account. Hermeneutically, six literal creation days is one intended meaning that can be drawn from the Genesis account. The fact that it was not the intended primary spiritual message of the author does not change the fact that it is one of the intended meanings that can be drawn from the text.
Implication
The implications of the above conclusion are serious. We have here the intended meaning of the Genesis creation account, which is in direct opposition to the modern scientific theory of origins. And this from a book that claims for itself divine authorship and inerrancy. This leaves us with only a few options:
1). Reject the modern scientific theory and accept the Genesis account as accurate.
2). Reject the Genesis account and accept modern science’s account – which then calls into question the Scriptural claim to divine authorship, or at least inerrancy as we have understood it.
3). Accept modern science’s account while simultaneously trying to refine our understanding of the Genesis account in such a way as to defend the divine authorship and inerrancy of Scripture.
The last option is fraught with difficulty. It requires us to step backward from the implication level to re-invent the meaning level. Some of the scholars mentioned in the lead article seem to interject another authority (modern scientific theory) into the hermeneutic level – which is not honest hermeneutics. Others have taken the approach of trying to explain the Genesis creation account as a literary device without intended historical meaning – but this is a tough position to prove given the use of the Genesis account elsewhere in Scripture in both theological and instructional passages. Thus the 3rd point of the lead article is valid: you cannot open the door of letting science redefine the meaning of one passage without leaving it wide open to redefine others.
Aaron, your point is well taken, but the Galileo situation was different on several levels. One of these is that it was entirely legitimate to see the “sun rising and setting” or “sun standing still” passages as descriptive rather than scientifically definitive. They were “point of view” passages. The problem with the Genesis account of creation is that its viewpoint is set as an all-knowing 3rd party observer telling God’s story. In some ways, God’s view is the point of view of the Genesis creation account, though it’s told as though an independent observer is penning it.
I think the early Fundamentalists and Evangelicals understood all of this, and were seeking for legitimate escapes that might explain the discrepancy between the Biblical account and the scientific account of creation – much like the literary escape used to reject geocentrism and accept heliocentrism. This was a legitimate exercise on their part. I’m sure we’ve all tried on a few novel interpretations to see if they fit different scenarios before. But time and effort have worn away our options. I think any reasonable interpreter who is drawing meaning entirely and only from the Biblical text has to be skeptical of finding a way to reconcile evolutionary theory and the Bible account. It’s all been tried; none of it works well.
I, for one, am content to have a view that flies in the face of modern science in this area. 300 years from now, when a new theoretical scientific paradigm has replaced evolution, we will all be somewhat vindicated.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t think we’re going to successfully navigate the road ahead by being dismissive.I don’t personally believe it is dismissive to hold forth that (a) the Bible is crystal clear on origins, and (b) evolution (the system, not the people who adhere to it as a philosophical system) is a fraud and an empty suit which bears no resemblance to the narrative in Genesis.
The questions involved are serious, won’t go away, and future generations thinking people in fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not going to shrink from asking them.
Charlie, you are correct — The Fundamentals were a mess on origins. That proves…that The Fundamentals were a mess on origins. But Seventh Day Adventists were not the only ones preaching creation before The Genesis Flood. I grew up as a conservative Lutheran and didn’t know that Christians could have another view other than “6/24” until I was in my teens.
If I may be a bit self-serving, these questions have all been answered at length, scholarly and brilliantly in Coming to Grips with Genesis — written in in honor of Dr. Whitcomb.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
To clarify, what’s dismissive is to take a “Hey, this is all simple” kind of attitude. It isn’t.
As for the Galileo argument being an old shoe, that may well be, but I’d like to hear the way I used the argument refuted. That is, am I incorrect that students of the Bible revised their theology (in the case of geocentrism) based on information from outside the Bible? … and were correct to do so in that case?
How is it dishonest?
I would argue that we do this all the time. For example when the Proverbs say meddling in business that is not our own is like taking a dog by the ears, we rely on observation of dog behavior to interpret the meaning of the metaphor. When Isaiah refers to sins becoming as white as snow, re rely on what we have observed about snow to get the picture. In fact, when we assert that “the evening and the morning were the first day” describes a 24 hour day, we are relying on observation of how long a day normally is in our experience. Interpretation looks to “outside” sources of data all the time.
My point is not that Waltke and Enns are right. Far from it. Rather, my point is that in the long run, we need to correctly identify what’s gone wrong here. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m confident it is not that they should ignore observed data regarding “immanent reality” when interpreting Scripture. It isn’t that simple.
So what I’m saying is that Waltke and Enns have either gone down the wrong road or have gone down the right road too far. I’m not sure which.
But abandoning study of the created world to unbelievers and/or painting the issue in terms of a simple case of “the Bible vs. science” is another wrong road. By doing that, we just continue the science brain-drain from fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.
As for the Galileo argument being an old shoe, that may well be, but I’d like to hear the way I used the argument refuted. That is, am I incorrect that students of the Bible revised their theology (in the case of geocentrism) based on information from outside the Bible? … and were correct to do so in that case?
[Mike Durning] it is dishonest to bring an outside, modern, and disconnected source of data such as modern science into the interpretive process.
How is it dishonest?
I would argue that we do this all the time. For example when the Proverbs say meddling in business that is not our own is like taking a dog by the ears, we rely on observation of dog behavior to interpret the meaning of the metaphor. When Isaiah refers to sins becoming as white as snow, re rely on what we have observed about snow to get the picture. In fact, when we assert that “the evening and the morning were the first day” describes a 24 hour day, we are relying on observation of how long a day normally is in our experience. Interpretation looks to “outside” sources of data all the time.
My point is not that Waltke and Enns are right. Far from it. Rather, my point is that in the long run, we need to correctly identify what’s gone wrong here. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m confident it is not that they should ignore observed data regarding “immanent reality” when interpreting Scripture. It isn’t that simple.
So what I’m saying is that Waltke and Enns have either gone down the wrong road or have gone down the right road too far. I’m not sure which.
But abandoning study of the created world to unbelievers and/or painting the issue in terms of a simple case of “the Bible vs. science” is another wrong road. By doing that, we just continue the science brain-drain from fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
Dr. Terry Mortenson of AiG recorded an outstanding program on this several years ago for the “Origins” TV program. I am not sure if that is available online somewhere, and I do not have much time — but the gist of it, to the best of my recollection, was this-
Politically correct version: Scientists (heliocentrists) correct stupid Bible-thumping geocentrists
Real history: Politically-correct Roman Catholic Church (geocentrists) opposes scientifically astute Bible Christians (heliocentrists)
Mortenson went on to draw applications for the current ecclesiastical and political debates over evolution.
Dr. Terry Mortenson of AiG recorded an outstanding program on this several years ago for the “Origins” TV program. I am not sure if that is available online somewhere, and I do not have much time — but the gist of it, to the best of my recollection, was this-
Politically correct version: Scientists (heliocentrists) correct stupid Bible-thumping geocentrists
Real history: Politically-correct Roman Catholic Church (geocentrists) opposes scientifically astute Bible Christians (heliocentrists)
Mortenson went on to draw applications for the current ecclesiastical and political debates over evolution.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
It was Dr. Jerry Bergman who did the program I referred to in the last post: http://www.ctvn.org/programs-origins-viewshow.asp?id=13
You can view the PowerPoint slides here:
http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/505.pdf
You can view the PowerPoint slides here:
http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/505.pdf
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer]Thank you. I revise my wording, as follows: It is inappropriate to allow an outside, modern, and disconnected source of data such as modern science to rule over the interpretive process.[Mike Durning] it is dishonest to bring an outside, modern, and disconnected source of data such as modern science into the interpretive process.
How is it dishonest?
I would argue that we do this all the time. For example when the Proverbs say meddling in business that is not our own is like taking a dog by the ears, we rely on observation of dog behavior to interpret the meaning of the metaphor. When Isaiah refers to sins becoming as white as snow, re rely on what we have observed about snow to get the picture. In fact, when we assert that “the evening and the morning were the first day” describes a 24 hour day, we are relying on observation of how long a day normally is in our experience. Interpretation looks to “outside” sources of data all the time.
My point is not that Waltke and Enns are right. Far from it. Rather, my point is that in the long run, we need to correctly identify what’s gone wrong here. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m confident it is not that they should ignore observed data regarding “immanent reality” when interpreting Scripture. It isn’t that simple.
I take issue though with your statement thereafter. There is a distinction between science in the sense of “observed reality” and the “science” industry of today. In discussing evolutionary theory, we are talking about a major industry, in which large amounts of money are spent (research grants) and secured (tenure) by adhering to a particular set of theories about what the observations of reality mean. Allowing modern science’s constructed theories to drive our interpretation is fraught with danger. The observation of a dog’s ears helping me understand a proverb is a totally different thing, operating at a totally different level. I need neither a study nor a theory to interpret that Proverb. I just need to be a dog-owner.
[RPittman]Dear RPittman,
Aaron, you will recall that I have posted frequently in the several months calling for a rejection of Modernity especially in its religious expression of Modernism-Liberalism. Older Fundamentalists and their orthodox allies used Modernism to refute Modernism. In other words, they used the rationalistic methodology of Modernism to answer and refute its questions and attacks. They were successful up to a point in that the tide was turned and Modernism-Liberalism began to decline. Well, the plague has returned in a more virulent secular form.
As one with a scientific background, I have always had reservations about “Scientific Creationism,” although I greatly appreciate the work of Morris, Gish, et. al., I fear that we come to depend upon it instead of Scripture. After all, we’re using the same scientific methodology in “Scientific Creationism” to refute evolution as the evolutionists use to prove their side. Yet, we make the strong and valid point that both positions are ultimately a matter of presuppositional faith.
Thanks for these important observations. The importance of scientific creationism should always have been [directed at evolutionists] “Look, we’re using your own tools to disprove your theory.” It should never have been “Look, we just used your tools to prove our Bible is true. Hurray! Now we know!”
In swallowing the Modernistic methodology into our apologetic systems, we drank a slow-acting poison, did we not?
I still encounter older believers who are enamored of this thinking in churches today. They would ten times rather hear me explain scientifically why the earth must be young than hear me explain why I believe the Bible must be saying 6 literal days of creation. The science confirms their faith more than the Bible does – revealing their epistemology.
Mike D
Well, I’m seeing assertions repeated, but not substantiated.
Have Waltke and Enns gone down the wrong road or too far down the right one?
Do we, or do we not, use “scientific” data in the interpretive process? Mike D. seems to concede that we do. Not clear on where RPittman or P Scharf are on that one.
As for the AiG work on Galileo, I don’t doubt in the least that the “brilliant scientist trumps ignorant theologians” scenario is a myth. But has anyone made a case that the church would have changed its theology on this point without the pressure of information from science? It’s true, as RPittman points out, I haven’t proved that data from science was the instrumental factor, but I pointed out in my first or second post that it seems pretty unlikely on the face of it that the theologians found verses that lead them to question geocentrism. Does anyone want to make that claim? Yes, the truth is that believing scientists (or at least theistic ones) were involved, but it was still science.
It matters, because if it is legitimate to give data from observations (aka “modern science”) a role in how we interpret Scripture, it suggests that Waltke and Enns’ error is that of failing to recognize where some limits ought to be place on the role we give to science, not in granting science any role at all. If that’s correct, it would be more fair to handle their case as a problem of going too far down the right road rather than being about the wrong business in the first place, as several have implied. It would also indicate that finding the right place to plant our feet and declare here I stand is more difficult than it might seem if you’re going to interact with science at all.
It isn’t true that “no one is abandonding.” Many mock the work of creation scientists. It’s an increasingly lonely place to be these days as “mainstream science” mocks on the left and elements within evangelicalism mock it on the right. Where I sit, I hear broad framing of these issues as “Bible vs. science and obviously the Bible wins.” This way of putting things gives Bible-believers a false choice: either you believe the Bible or you believe in science—and it implies that to be orthodox you must reject science.
Have Waltke and Enns gone down the wrong road or too far down the right one?
Do we, or do we not, use “scientific” data in the interpretive process? Mike D. seems to concede that we do. Not clear on where RPittman or P Scharf are on that one.
As for the AiG work on Galileo, I don’t doubt in the least that the “brilliant scientist trumps ignorant theologians” scenario is a myth. But has anyone made a case that the church would have changed its theology on this point without the pressure of information from science? It’s true, as RPittman points out, I haven’t proved that data from science was the instrumental factor, but I pointed out in my first or second post that it seems pretty unlikely on the face of it that the theologians found verses that lead them to question geocentrism. Does anyone want to make that claim? Yes, the truth is that believing scientists (or at least theistic ones) were involved, but it was still science.
It matters, because if it is legitimate to give data from observations (aka “modern science”) a role in how we interpret Scripture, it suggests that Waltke and Enns’ error is that of failing to recognize where some limits ought to be place on the role we give to science, not in granting science any role at all. If that’s correct, it would be more fair to handle their case as a problem of going too far down the right road rather than being about the wrong business in the first place, as several have implied. It would also indicate that finding the right place to plant our feet and declare here I stand is more difficult than it might seem if you’re going to interact with science at all.
[RPittman][Aaron] But abandoning study of the created world to unbelievers and/or painting the issue in terms of a simple case of “the Bible vs. science” is another wrong road. By doing that, we just continue the science brain-drain from fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.
Whoa! This is overstatement or just an outright wrong statement. No one is “abandoning study of the created world to unbelievers and/or painting the issue in terms of a simple case of ‘the Bible vs. science.’” The Institute for Creation Research has been trying to deal with this for years. Surely, you know this.
It isn’t true that “no one is abandonding.” Many mock the work of creation scientists. It’s an increasingly lonely place to be these days as “mainstream science” mocks on the left and elements within evangelicalism mock it on the right. Where I sit, I hear broad framing of these issues as “Bible vs. science and obviously the Bible wins.” This way of putting things gives Bible-believers a false choice: either you believe the Bible or you believe in science—and it implies that to be orthodox you must reject science.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The Bible’s narrative regarding creation is not meant to be a narrative regarding the earth’s history, the solar system’s history, the galaxy’s or even the entire universe’s history, rather it is a narrative about man’s history and God’s intent and work with respect to man and in part, the concurrent and co-coterminous event of angels (fallen). Now if one subscribes to the interpretation of Genesis where it states:
We can view evidence of certain historical events on other planetary bodies that speak of a great cataclysm at some point in the past but a past that Scripture does not speak about in dative terms. Yet we can see the undeniable scars that mark our neighboring planets and beyond. With this in mind the student and the researcher who is considering such findings or evidence are forced to find order or placement for such events in their forensic examination and documentation. If they turned to the Bible for such a placement they would be met with certain limits, by some, regarding the time frame or context within which this could have happened. For those demanding the Bible speaks of the present universe (including the earth) as very young, at the most 25,000 years old and for some as young as 6,000 or 7,000 years old, they would they would be met with an impossibility and inability to reconcile, scientifically, that of which the evidence speaks. Because these planetary markings are not the marks of one or two nuclear bombs, rather they are disruptions in the structure of such bodies so intense and so large that the impacts causing them and its subsequent fallout would have resulted in biological obliteration and a fundamental atmospheric alteration.
Now if a person accepts that the narrative in Scripture, while quite true and intended with literalness, also includes in its interpretation a prior history and that this is not a universal inauguration but that of the human era which is the focus of Genesis, namely man and God’s relationship to man with an angelic sub-plot, then you have a context for prior events.
The question is, is such a view justified hermetically? Well there is a debate about that and I personally believe it is. But let me say, simply because we wish the Bible to say what we want it to say, we are not at liberty to go to the Holy Word and interpret in a way that satisfies our intellectual need so we may compensate for places where we don’t have immediate answers. And without getting into the exegetical argument seeing that most people are familiar with “became void” vs “was void” and so on, I will appeal to another translation that speaks to this human era context as opposed to a universal beginnings context which is found in Young’s literal translation:
______________________
Even though the above may not fit well into some fundamentalist or conservative evangelical circles it is not without company in other fundamentalist and conservative evangelical circles. It simply is not the most popular and current view but it is one with much more history than you might imagine, dating centuries back to Jewish writings and views. But even its history should not be its validation because history is only that, a reality of somethings existence over a period of time, not its integrity. But it is worth noting such concepts are not novel within the Judeo-Christian community.
And you would think with all that I made my point but I didn’t :).
Ultimately my point is that it isn’t the findings of science that should concern us, per se, but the interpretation and the narrative they attempt to create in light of their findings that deny the narrative of Scripture. And I admire many men who are active in this field that are believers. And mind you, there are believers in this field that are young earth/six day creationists and there are those that are old earth/young humanity creationists (and other as well) where both have come to differing narratives while keeping in tact the integrity of the Genesis account and man’s unique creation by God.
However, if we have drawn wrong theological boundaries and have forced ourselves into forms of reconciliation that cannot properly hold weight, we must at times face these realities and instead of acquiescing (waving the white flag) to the narratives of science when such narratives assault our faith because we don’t have an immediate or satisfying response (which is where it seems Waltke is headed but maybe not) we have to be willing to re-examine, re-evaluate, and re-order our approach
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earthThat this inauguration is one of universal beginning and not that of an era (the human era) then they do present themselves with a context that does not allow for any possible prior physical history of the earth or surrounding universe. And here is an example of a problem such a context presents:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
We can view evidence of certain historical events on other planetary bodies that speak of a great cataclysm at some point in the past but a past that Scripture does not speak about in dative terms. Yet we can see the undeniable scars that mark our neighboring planets and beyond. With this in mind the student and the researcher who is considering such findings or evidence are forced to find order or placement for such events in their forensic examination and documentation. If they turned to the Bible for such a placement they would be met with certain limits, by some, regarding the time frame or context within which this could have happened. For those demanding the Bible speaks of the present universe (including the earth) as very young, at the most 25,000 years old and for some as young as 6,000 or 7,000 years old, they would they would be met with an impossibility and inability to reconcile, scientifically, that of which the evidence speaks. Because these planetary markings are not the marks of one or two nuclear bombs, rather they are disruptions in the structure of such bodies so intense and so large that the impacts causing them and its subsequent fallout would have resulted in biological obliteration and a fundamental atmospheric alteration.
Now if a person accepts that the narrative in Scripture, while quite true and intended with literalness, also includes in its interpretation a prior history and that this is not a universal inauguration but that of the human era which is the focus of Genesis, namely man and God’s relationship to man with an angelic sub-plot, then you have a context for prior events.
The question is, is such a view justified hermetically? Well there is a debate about that and I personally believe it is. But let me say, simply because we wish the Bible to say what we want it to say, we are not at liberty to go to the Holy Word and interpret in a way that satisfies our intellectual need so we may compensate for places where we don’t have immediate answers. And without getting into the exegetical argument seeing that most people are familiar with “became void” vs “was void” and so on, I will appeal to another translation that speaks to this human era context as opposed to a universal beginnings context which is found in Young’s literal translation:
1In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth —Here Young makes a nuanced but noticeable change from “in the beginning” to one of the beginning of an era, namely God preparing the heaven’s and earth for a certain event, for a certain context, again namely the human era which. Some might respond, “I don’t see Young saying anything about a human era” and you would be right. It isn’t based on what he translated but
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
howhe translated it. I assert it is translated that way for a reason. That reason being that the text, recognized by Young, was not intended to communicate the universal beginning but a certain kind of beginning which contained in his use of the qualifying prepositional phrase “of God’s preparing”. It was the beginning of God’s preparing the heaven’s and the earth for an event and such a context and translation speaks of prior history.
______________________
Even though the above may not fit well into some fundamentalist or conservative evangelical circles it is not without company in other fundamentalist and conservative evangelical circles. It simply is not the most popular and current view but it is one with much more history than you might imagine, dating centuries back to Jewish writings and views. But even its history should not be its validation because history is only that, a reality of somethings existence over a period of time, not its integrity. But it is worth noting such concepts are not novel within the Judeo-Christian community.
And you would think with all that I made my point but I didn’t :).
Ultimately my point is that it isn’t the findings of science that should concern us, per se, but the interpretation and the narrative they attempt to create in light of their findings that deny the narrative of Scripture. And I admire many men who are active in this field that are believers. And mind you, there are believers in this field that are young earth/six day creationists and there are those that are old earth/young humanity creationists (and other as well) where both have come to differing narratives while keeping in tact the integrity of the Genesis account and man’s unique creation by God.
However, if we have drawn wrong theological boundaries and have forced ourselves into forms of reconciliation that cannot properly hold weight, we must at times face these realities and instead of acquiescing (waving the white flag) to the narratives of science when such narratives assault our faith because we don’t have an immediate or satisfying response (which is where it seems Waltke is headed but maybe not) we have to be willing to re-examine, re-evaluate, and re-order our approach
[Aaron Blumer] Do we, or do we not, use “scientific” data in the interpretive process? Mike D. seems to concede that we do. Not clear on where RPittman or P Scharf are on that one…Many mock the work of creation scientists. It’s an increasingly lonely place to be these days as “mainstream science” mocks on the left and elements within evangelicalism mock it on the right. Where I sit, I hear broad framing of these issues as “Bible vs. science and obviously the Bible wins.” This way of putting things gives Bible-believers a false choice: either you believe the Bible or you believe in science—and it implies that to be orthodox you must reject science.Aaron,
I would be extremely uncomfortable with talking in terms of using science to interpret or inform the Bible. Is that not the essence of modernism? How would we then interpret miracles and the resurrection?
(That, of course, is also the essence of Hugh Ross’s program — he calls science the 67th book of the Bible. This is a total confusion of general and special revelation.)
Yes, creation scientists are in a lonley place…much like the Apostle Paul was (1 Cor. 4:13) :cry:
I am not trying to put down this discussion, but it seems like we are re-hashing things which, in my experience, have been answered, re-answered and re-answered again. No pun intended, but www.AnswersinGenesis.org has thousands of documents on these subjects by both scientists and theologians.
Obviously, I disagree with Alex, but could not possibly have time today to answer his last post. To do so would again be re-inventing the wheel, as this has all been done many times before by people more qualified than I…
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Discussion