Rejecting Six Literal Days - What's the Real Motivation?

[dgszweda] First, I would like to see anywhere else in history that solid conservative evangelicals have done this. And by “this” I mean taken a secular argument with mounds of data to support this secular argument and reinterpet Scripture

Um, that is what I presented in my comments on geocentrism.

John Calvin commenting on Ps. 93:1 “he hath also established the world, it shall not be moved”:

The Psalmist proves that GOd will not neglect or abandon the world, from the fact that he created it. A simple surve of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective posiitons. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? (pg. 6-7, Volume 6, Calvin’s Commentaries, Baker: 2005)

His comments were representative of an idea and a way of understanding Scripture that was modified in light of scientific discovery.

[Bob Hayton]

“Ideas outside of Scripture” helped the church eventually reject geocentrism. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing natural revelation push us to reexamine our interpretation of special revelation.

Bob, what you are talking about here is not natural or general revelation but rather scientific evidence. Revelation from God is inerrant and generally opposed my sinful man (Rom 1:18). Additionally, general revelation is general in the sense that it is shown to all men throughout all history. Science on the other hand is not inerrant, generally accepted by man, and is progressive in what we can learn from it. So, I would be hesitant to put scientific inquiry on the level of divine revelation in regard to its authority, infallibility, and general trustworthiness.

Andy,

I actually was trying to type on a mobile device and it was easier to copy a line I had used on another site, in the thread at DTBS’s blog on this question. The topic of special and natural revelation came up there.

Nature, and observations of nature, mean something. And just because man accepts a “fact” from nature doesn’t mean we should immediately be suspicious of gravity, electrical current or etc. Not to say observations from nature are inerrant either. But they can help us in evaluating our interpretation of Scripture in the sense that God is author both of nature and of Scripture and what we know of God’s character leads us to assume we would not find direct contradictions between the book of nature, and the book of Scripture.

Bob,

Facts are not the same thing as “truths.” Facts are objects or events which must be predicated - i.e. interpreted. I am very wary of speaking of “natural revelation” in terms of the “book of nature.” One may end up, as some do, asserting the 67 books of revelation - and thus interpreting revelation by revelation. But who is to say that Arnold Guyot’s interpretation of geologic fact is better George Fairholme? Both were evangelicals - and both came to different conclusions - the latter believing in a global flood affecting geology, and the former accepting the long ages, and reinterpreting Scripture to the day-age theory. So who is correct?

Also, in your original statement you said, “”Ideas outside of Scripture” helped the church eventually reject geocentrism. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing natural revelation push us to reexamine our interpretation of special revelation.”

Fine - to a possible extent. Where does natural revelation hold that resurrection is a possibility? Or the Red Sea being divided? Or fire falling from heaven to burn an altar? Or a blind man being made to see apart from some sort of surgery? Or something being created ex nihilo? So there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing natural revelation to push us to reexamine our interpretation of special revelation? Is there a line? Where do you draw a line? Why do you impose an arbitrary line (like inerrancy?)?

I have a question concerning whether Genesis 1 is allegorical or not. For those that are against that position, can you deny that there is at least some allegory in the chapter? When it says “evening and morning were the first day,” there was no sun to define evening and morning. It seems impossible that the terms “evening and morning” were referring to what we consider them now. So how could this not be allegorical?

[Bob Hayton]

But they can help us in evaluating our interpretation of Scripture in the sense that God is author both of nature and of Scripture and what we know of God’s character leads us to assume we would not find direct contradictions between the book of nature, and the book of Scripture.

Bob, we have to be very careful here. Scripture is very explicit that our understanding of how the world was created was not by science, but by faith (Hebrews 11:3). We also know that man cannot find the truth, unless it is revealed to Him by God (I Cor. 2:10-16). I know that many people would agree with your statement that somehow, if man just works hard enough at understanding the things around him through science, that at some point this knowledge of science will resolve with the revealed knowledge of God as revealed by God in His Word. The problem is that 1) Scripture doesn’t teach this, 2) Creation was a supernatural event, by a supernatural God, both of which by their very definition are not science, (Genesis 1, Hebrews 11:3…) 3) Sin entered into the world and had a severe negative impact on the creation, (Romans 8:18-25) 4) Man is a fallen creature and not omniscience, and therefore does not have the ability to find truth on his own ability, has a limited view of his surroundings, and sin has blurred his ability to find the truth (John 3:19-20, 2 Cor. 4:3-6, 2 Timothy 3:7….). The facts that man gathers, are never truly complete. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that outlines what you state above.

Berkhof in his book, Systematic Theology, states:

“Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God’s original self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are republished, corrected, and interpreted. … Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.”

[GregH]

I have a question concerning whether Genesis 1 is allegorical or not. For those that are against that position, can you deny that there is at least some allegory in the chapter? When it says “evening and morning were the first day,” there was no sun to define evening and morning. It seems impossible that the terms “evening and morning” were referring to what we consider them now. So how could this not be allegorical?

An allegory is an extended metaphor. We would not call a single phrase an allegory, we would call the entire passage an allegory, and a single phrase a metaphor. I am assuming that you are referring to the fact that some points appear to be a metaphor and not what some may believe, which is the notion that the entire passage is allegory. What you see in Psalms is Hebrew Poetry that uses metaphors and in some cases some allegory. When you read Psalms and you read Genesis, the writing styles in relation to Hebrew Poetry look nothing the same.

I struggle why conservative evangelicals struggle with this notion of a real day. Here is what Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), states in terms of these “days”:

“So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.”

You can find the same understanding by many other world class scholars. The argument is not did the authors write this clearly in “real 24 hour days”, but the argument from Biologos and other sites is that the authors wrote it to state this and this was clearly their understanding, but that there understanding was flawed and influenced by Near Eastern thought, which by the way has just recently been discovered to be the case. The problem is that an attack on the author is an attack on the Holy Spirit. It is an attack that on the fact that Holy Spirit 1) did not guide the writers correctly and 2) that the Holy Spirit did not complete its work in its revelation, that secondary source material (archeological findings of Near Eastern authors, and on science) to complete the right revelation that was truth. Which essentially means that for the vast majority of the life of these writings, there was not a single individual who could have understood this correctly until a number of atheistic archeologists and scientists discovered new “truth” in the last 50 years that finally sheds the correct light on what the Holy Spirit was writing.

Liberal Professor Marcus Dods, of New College, Edinburgh, stated in his book Expositor’s Bible:

“If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”

[dgszweda]

Bob Hayton wrote:

But they can help us in evaluating our interpretation of Scripture in the sense that God is author both of nature and of Scripture and what we know of God’s character leads us to assume we would not find direct contradictions between the book of nature, and the book of Scripture.

Bob, we have to be very careful here. Scripture is very explicit that our understanding of how the world was created was not by science, but by faith (Hebrews 11:3). We also know that man cannot find the truth, unless it is revealed to Him by God (I Cor. 2:10-16)….

I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that outlines what you state above.

Psalm 19:1-3 / Rom. 1 / Job 12

God reveals himself through creation and invites us to look and see. And God does not deceive.

Sorry, you can’t see this, but it seems obvious to me.

For more: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

[Bob Hayton]

dgszweda wrote:

Bob Hayton wrote:

But they can help us in evaluating our interpretation of Scripture in the sense that God is author both of nature and of Scripture and what we know of God’s character leads us to assume we would not find direct contradictions between the book of nature, and the book of Scripture.

Bob, we have to be very careful here. Scripture is very explicit that our understanding of how the world was created was not by science, but by faith (Hebrews 11:3). We also know that man cannot find the truth, unless it is revealed to Him by God (I Cor. 2:10-16)….

I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that outlines what you state above.

Psalm 19:1-3 / Rom. 1 / Job 12

God reveals himself through creation and invites us to look and see. And God does not deceive.

Sorry, you can’t see this, but it seems obvious to me.

For more: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

I edited my post above, after you posted this, but

Berkhof in his book, Systematic Theology, states:

“Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God’s original self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are republished, corrected, and interpreted. … Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.”

You cannot gather any true knowledge solely by general revelation without it being in agreement with special revelation.

“it will not do simply to equate the knowledge of nature with the knowledge of God’s general revelation, for this revelation deals with the knowledge of God himself. In our opinion, therefore, it is wrong to say, as is sometimes done, that the natural sciences ‘investigate’ God’s general revelation” (Berkouwer, Gerrit, General Revelation, 288-289)”

We may be missing each other here, but science is not general revelation. General Revelation is meant to reveal God and confirm Special Revelation. It is improper to look at Psalms 19, and view that as stating that God reveals himself in nature, if we study nature, we will find new things about God. That thought process is a distortion of General Revelation.

Not new things about God, but about nature. The creation God made reveals things - it speaks. Special revelation doesn’t tell us everything about nature.

But I agree, we are talking past each other. I agree sin taints our ability to evaluate evidence, but God still appeals to our reason. Again I say if nature clearly says the earth is old, we can reexamine our understanding of special revelation. The Bible is true, but I may not be interpreting it correctly, and you might not be either.

History of interpretation matters, but my example of geocentrism holds. History doesn’t trump Scripture.

[GregH]

I have a question concerning whether Genesis 1 is allegorical or not. For those that are against that position, can you deny that there is at least some allegory in the chapter? When it says “evening and morning were the first day,” there was no sun to define evening and morning. It seems impossible that the terms “evening and morning” were referring to what we consider them now. So how could this not be allegorical?

You don’t need the sun, you just need light and a rotating earth — which is what you have.

[Bob Hayton]

Not new things about God, but about nature. The creation God made reveals things - it speaks. Special revelation doesn’t tell us everything about nature.

But I agree, we are talking past each other. I agree sin taints our ability to evaluate evidence, but God still appeals to our reason. Again I say if nature clearly says the earth is old, we can reexamine our understanding of special revelation. The Bible is true, but I may not be interpreting it correctly, and you might not be either.

History of interpretation matters, but my example of geocentrism holds. History doesn’t trump Scripture.

Yes, but Bob, I think we would have to agree that the geocentric argument is very weak in its parallels. First Geocentricism was a scientific understanding, that was eventually trumped by Copernicus. Even when his work was published after his death his work was debated in the scientific community, because of his testing methods….. It wasn’t until 1615 that the controversy rose to large prominence. Scripture was not used to create a geocentric model. That model was created by Aristotle in the 6th century B.C. Only a handful of people in the Catholic church held to a geocentric model. A number of those views became very vocal during the early 1600’s and they began using verses to defend their ideas. While there is some parallels to the arguments around Creation, they are not truly identical. A number of poetic verses and allegories were used to defend a scientific model.

[Bob Hayton]

Not new things about God, but about nature. The creation God made reveals things - it speaks. Special revelation doesn’t tell us everything about nature.

But the Bible says that the subject of general revelation is God, not nature. That is my primary point. Whatever science is, it is not revelation from God and therefore should not be afforded the same level of confidence that we put in God’s revelation, which, because it conforms to God’s character, is completely righteous. I’m not saying that what we see in the world never has any bearing on how we understand scripture, only that we don’t put that observation on the same level as inerrant revelation from God. While all truth may be God’s truth, not all truth claims are of the same certainty, authority, or clarity.

[Bob Hayton]

Ultimately it comes down to what the text actually asserts (directly or from valid inferences).

It does come down to assertions and presuppositions. What wins, the words of God, or the research of men?

There is a limit to how far we can stretch the meaning of God’s words. Anytime we might consider that God’s words were not meant to be taken literally, I’m reminded of a professor who used to ask us, “But what if God had meant for us to take his words literally? How could God have made it clearer? ‘No really, guys, like, actual 24-hour days.’”

I just don’t see any reason from the text to read them as anything but literal, actual days. In this one piece I agree with Ham - the motivation to see otherwise does not come from God’s Word. I honestly don’t know how to reconcile what we observe about the world’s age with what God says - but I know that in a doubt between the two, I will trust that God is powerful enough to shape the world in any way he chooses and is wise enough to communicate His actions clearly.

Increasingly the choice is ‘Will I be faithful to God’s Word or will I like the popular views on social media’? God’s way or the world’s way?