Does Old-Earth Creationism Undermine the Gospel? A Response to Kevin Bauder

[Larry]

I think God wrote Gen. 1 as a mystery or parable.

What are the indications from God (i.e., the text) that this is a mystery or parable?

To apply later references of language usage to Gen.1 can be seen as anachronistic since this parable is not explained to us.

What do you mean by “later references of language usage”? It is true that this is among the earliest part of the OT, being written about 1440 BC, but it is also true that the usage of “yom” is fairly consistent throughout the next thousand years until the OT canon is complete. So in what sense is this standard word with consistent usage for a thousand years anachronistic? And assuming that “since” means “since” in a logical way not and not a temporal way, why are you tying anachronism to the lack of explanation? What is the connection between the two?

Following Cassuto who notes that Gen. 1.1-2.3 is perfectly symmetrical in Hebrew is one indication that this section is a device which is not to be taken as narrative. The conflict with Gen.2.4-7 is another marker to alert the reader of an employed literary device.

Gen. 1.1-2.3 was written by God (not Moses). Good evidence suggests that the early chapters of Genesis were preserved on clay tablets and these were presumably handed down through generations of the Jewish Patriarchs until the time of Moses who authenticated them. So, my point is: Gen.1.1-2.3 is written by God and not man. Later language development and meaning applied to Gen.1.1-2.3 is iffy at best. I hope that clarified my use of anachronism. I know some like to toss the charge of anachronism far too loosely but the way I used it, I believe is valid.

The author of the article also claims the Framework view of Meredith Kline, but has not interacted with some of Bob McCabe’s work over at DBTS (I studied Creationism under McCabe at CBTS for a PhD course a few years back). He also makes the claim that
“Scholars like Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher, and Jack Collins, for instance, are not simply caving in to pressures from the scientific community in their interpretation of Genesis 1; they are dealing with important textual and hermeneutical factors such as genre, historical context, authorial intent, intertextuality, etc. “

Such a statement is unfounded. Long before Jack Collins wrote either his book on Adam or his book on Gen 1-4, he wrote a book on Science and Faith - trying to work out these very issues (and he studied science before he studied theology).
We could also point out, that within the modern, scientific era, interpretations standing against the YEC position rose in response to the secular scientific conclusions (especially within geology), beginning with Arnold Guyot and the day-age theory (who began speaking on the subject in the 1850s, his ideas were first published by John Means in BibSac, based on a series of lectures that Guyot gave. Guyot published his work on the subject decades later). The gap theory was another response (which originated much later than the day-age), followed by the myriad of views that we have today - all done in order to maintain the relevance of the Bible with the scientific data.

The author of this article states, “Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to insist that “day” always means “24 hours” in these chapters, as 2:4 refers to the entire creative work with the words “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Yes, the word is still yom.” However, Jack Collins (in a 1994 article in Presbyterion titled “How Old is the Earth”) argued that the phrase “in the day” followed by the infinitive is rightly translated “when.” Thus, it is a colloquial expression using the term “yom.” It has no possible bearing of the meaning of “day” in Gen 1.

One more thing: Is there a way out of the question of death before the fall? The only intellectually consistent answer that I have read was offered by Bill Dembski in his book “The End of Christianity.” His argument is that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those who died before him and after him. Similarly, Adam’s sin affected the created order both before Adam and after Adam (Keller has a way out from Bauder’s argument, in other words, if he would only use it).
Having said all that - I am a firmly convinced YEC, but I wish that the arguments would not revolve around scientific evidence, but textual interpretation. Too many scientists (on both sides), and too few YEC theologians/exegetes are involved in this conversation.

Good reply. We have to deal with the text first. Too many have been quick to defer to those who are approaching the evidence from a secular humanistic worldview. Unfortunately, from discussions I’ve had, when it comes to Christians colleges and universities, it is often the science faculty who are more biblically consistent when it comes to origins and Genesis 1-11 than the Bible faculty are. This is unfortunate, and I have no idea what it will take to begin to turn the tide back towards a textually consistent viewpoint. One friend who is heavily involved in YEC apologetics regularly laments that the Old earth guys wont even read the YEC stuff and interact with it. A genuine discussion is almost impossible to have.

Alex, that’s not convincing as an argument that deserves a place at the table. The grammar and syntax of Gen 1:1-2:3 indicate it is historical narrative. Symmetry is a well-known literary device, but it does not indicate some symbolic or non-historical meaning. In fact, “the art of biblical narrative” (to borrow from Alter) means that historical narrative uses very carefully structured forms such a parallels, symmetry, etc. There is nothing in the symmetry that would point us away from narrative.

As for the conflict with Gen 2:4-7, there is none that arises from the text. Seeing a conflict there only comes from a presupposition. We don’t treat any other kinds of stories that way and there is no reason to treat this story that way.

As for who wrote it, there is no biblical evidence of which I am aware of any prehistory to the text (unlike genealogies which may well have a prehistory). The Bible’s uniform assertion is that Moses wrote it under the inspiration of God. So yes, God wrote it, but he used man to do so. But that is hardly helpful to your point. It would actually mitigate against it. One could argue that Moses said something incorrectly. It’s hard to argue legitimately that God said something incorrectly.

In short, I don’t think your explanation has anything to commend it. It has much to detract from it. We have to get back to the text, and understand the text in its genre, context, syntax and grammar, and intent.

Is there a way out of the question of death before the fall? The only intellectually consistent answer that I have read was offered by Bill Dembski in his book “The End of Christianity.” His argument is that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those who died before him and after him. Similarly, Adam’s sin affected the created order both before Adam and after Adam (Keller has a way out from Bauder’s argument, in other words, if he would only use it).

The question of death before the fall again has to be answered from Scripture. What, in Scripture, is death attributed to? Isn’t it the fall? And if so, on what basis do we say it is actually attributed to something else?

Regarding Adam’s sin affecting the created order both before and after Adam, it is true provided we understand that the effect of the fall was experienced only after the fall, not before it. It is therefore unlike Jesus’ death.

[CAWatson]

Having said all that - I am a firmly convinced YEC, but I wish that the arguments would not revolve around scientific evidence, but textual interpretation. Too many scientists (on both sides), and too few YEC theologians/exegetes are involved in this conversation.

Do you REALLY know what you are saying? I’d ask more but that would mean that a scientist was in your conversation! Holy mackerel! I sometimes really can’t believe this…

Larry,
I don’t disagree with you - I”m simply stating that there are arguments being made that are not acknowledged by either side, but are apropos to the discussion here.

observes nature….it doesn’t read Scripture. Of course scientists may read Scripture, but the idea is to let observation and previously established theories guide science.

If your Scripture interpretation is right, observing nature honestly and properly will lead to the answer you claim. Don’t fear it or reject it. Embrace it!

Mark,

What I’m asking for is not for scientists to stay out of the conversation. I’m saying that I don’t need to know the details about ice core drilling or about DNA in fossils, or be able to determine the helium-leak rate from rocks in order to make a biblical argument for YEC. I need the text. I’ll let the scientists build their own model. I’m commanded to “Preach the Word,” not explain the science. And besides, my training is in biblical/theological studies, not science. Look at the faculties of ICR or AIG or CMI and ask yourself - how many trained theologians/exegetes are there?

How about I let you do your job, AND YOU LET ME DO MINE without being ambushed and being accused of being apostate! We might just BOTH learn something.

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is right, then the helium-leak rate will match up, etc.

Dare I ask, WHAT IF your interpretation were wrong?

FWIW I am a YEC but I don’t pretend that any Old Earth views are wrong by default. I consider it all.

[Larry]

The question of death before the fall again has to be answered from Scripture. What, in Scripture, is death attributed to? Isn’t it the fall? And if so, on what basis do we say it is actually attributed to something else?

Not to get too far off the rails here, but what do we do with something like the seeds Adam may have ingested before the fall? Of course, I am in no way claiming that plant death is anything like animal death, let alone human death, but the reality is that there were organisms that likely ceased to exist pre-fall. If that is not death, then it’s because we are reserving the term “death” for something beyond that.

James Stambaugh makes the following argument, and I am indebted to him for it. If we look at what the Bible describes as something that is “living,” there are three characteristics that must be met. First, there must be consciousness (this is how Stambaugh sees the concept behind nephesh in the Hebrew and psuche in the Greek). Second, it must have respiration or some mechanism for gas exchange (often referred to as the “breath of life”). Third is the possession of blood. Leviticus 17:11 tells us that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” People and animals possess these qualities while plants do not. He does a nice job of addressing the few biblical texts that speak of plants “dying.” He does good textual work on this issue in Coming to Grips with Genesis.

[Mark_Smith]

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is right, then the helium-leak rate will match up, etc.

Unless a supernatural event took place that make uniformitarian assumptions unwarranted.

We wouldn’t know what Helium is!

Helium was found by studying the light from the Sun by its spectrum. Scientists made the AUDACIOUS assumption that natural laws operate the same on the Sun as they do here on Earth. Scientists knew what hydrogen spectral lines looked like (and others), but they found unexplained lines in the Sun’s spectrum. Scientists called the atom those lines represented Helium (from helios, the Greek word for the Sun).

So, no Uniformitarianism, no helium. Ironic isn’t it?