tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post713401857168754601..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: The New 'Answers in Genesis' New Testament-- Children's EditionBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-73915156200487676162007-06-27T13:32:00.000-07:002007-06-27T13:32:00.000-07:00Greetings Alvin,1) The genre question is a knotty ...Greetings Alvin,<BR/><BR/>1) The genre question is a knotty one especially since the poetry classification seems to be a modern one. I've read quite a few commentaries that go along the lines of: Well it seems to be written as six 24 hour days a few thousand years ago, but science tells us that this cannot be, therefore...<BR/><BR/>Assuming you are making a point by point response, my primary focus was Dr. Witherington's ignorance of the YEC position to the point where it sounds like the usual antiBible Lite skeptic talking. Included in that as an example was the read the Bible like a science paper thing.<BR/><BR/>2) Are similar Jewish and ANE Semitic historical documents also in that pattern? Is this an artifact of the low level of literacy and availability of books (scrolls, etc.) to make it easier to correctly memorize? I actually have a part I perform twice a year for a group that has several multiparagraph sections. Although not historical, it certainly isn't poetry, but the prose is written in a semipoetical "style" with rather obvious tricks written in to aid the memory in reciting.<BR/><BR/>3) And my point was that the context in relation to the rest of the OT, including other direct references to creation such as Exodus 20:11, directly point to reading the yom here as a 24 hour day. I can think of several reasons why God maybe said it that way when it wasn't so (Obi Wan's "From a certain point of view" line stuff), but I don't see a reason to do so.<BR/><BR/>4) If it weren't for a specific interpretation of data based on the assumption of uniformitarianism, would one have any reason to dispute the nearly-unanimous consensus by over 2000 years (including the Jews preChrist) by scholars on the issue of age from the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture? <BR/><BR/>Have to watch that consensus thing, especially as you can pick a great number of times in the past where the consensus opinion was flat out wrong. Declaring a matter settled on the basis of consensus is dogma of the worst stripe.<BR/><BR/>Note: There has been other controversies in earlier centuries over the creation account with its 24 hour days, but they were of the 'well God could do it in a split second, so the six days must be some kind of allegory'. To which I'd paraphrase a reply: <I>If you don't understand how God created in six days, the please allow the Holy Spirit to be more learned than you are.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I was giving pointers to those who wish to educate themselves more on what is potentially wrong with the "gold standard" dating methods that "prove" old age.<BR/><BR/>5) I'm against the entire "god of the gaps" concept since it applies in some form to all modern versions of age of the earth/universe and/or origins theories. There are always holes to be filled since speaking from any philosophical position, we do not yet have full knowledge. The "gap god" comes with a certain amount of baggage itself as an antitheistic debating tool often used by the "itjustgrowed" crowd despite their own version of this "god" that is pointed out by the derogatory nickname I gave them. The biggest difference is that since they use "Science", they aren't calling for a supernatural cause since by definition, no deity is involved (except possibly the one that wound the clock) when using "Science", therefore any unique situation they call for cannot be supernatural, even though simply attributing it to any deity besides "random chance" would automatically make it a miracle.<BR/><BR/>I agree that a scientist's philosophical worldview should not change his competency, but not everyone sees it that way. Heck, to virtually all people that work in scientific fields, the age of the earth and origins theories are totally irrelevant.kamatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04539485880680532574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33610787122873849332007-06-18T06:51:00.000-07:002007-06-18T06:51:00.000-07:00John Walton has an insightful take on the debate o...John Walton has an insightful take on the debate over <I>yom</I>. He reminds us that we can't simply plug the whole semantic range of a word into a text but must interpret according to context. He uses the illustration of going out for the evening and waiting for his wife to get ready. If she says she'll be ready "in a minute," he understands that she doesn't mean precisely 60 seconds but an indeterminate (but hopefully short!) period of time. But if he is going to teach a class and he's told that he has 50 minutes, he can't assume that he has 50 units of indeterminate time. He understands that these are 50 units of precisely 60 seconds.<BR/><BR/>When <I>yom</I> is in an immediate, repeated context of "evening and morning" and when it is repeatedly enumerated, how can we take it as anything other than a literal 24-hour period? The plural form <I>yomim</I> as used in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 is never used for eras.<BR/><BR/>How could God have made any clearer in a creation account that He created everything in 6 literal days? Which is more deceiving: to create a fully mature creation that is misinterpreted because of the uniformitarian assumptions of many scientists, or to repeatedly specify a creation in 6 days, each including an evening and morning, when the creation actually took billions of years?<BR/><BR/>Walton doesn't teach a literal 6-day creation, but he shows that <I>yom</I> can't be taken as anything other than 24-hour periods. He places great significance on the parallels between the first 3 days and the last 3 days. But why does such symmetry dictate a non-literal interpretation? Can't God create in an orderly, meaningful way? Why can't the account of His creation be orderly, meaningful, and literal? Don't we have examples throughout Scripture of God working in ways where even small details are rich with significance? Why does this force us into an either/or choice?<BR/><BR/>I find Walton's conclusions interesting, but unconvincing. But he is helpful in showing the literal nature of <I>yom</I> and showing, in my opinion, the difficulty of establishing a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1.<BR/><BR/>I think the question that must be answered is: What <I>in the text itself</I> points to a non-literal interpretation of the creation account? <BR/><BR/>If there is no justification based on the text itself for such an interpretation, then reading such a view back into the text is simply eisegesis.<BR/><BR/>Scientific consensus has a way of changing, as well it should. I am profoundly disturbed by the idea of using fluctuating scientific inquiry as <I>the</I> determining factor in interpreting a biblical text. <BR/><BR/>As I mentioned earlier, it would seem that the person proposing a non-literal interpretation of any biblical text has the burden of proof.Curthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147195839091407203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-52226879050568489882007-06-17T19:50:00.000-07:002007-06-17T19:50:00.000-07:00John Walton's Genesis NIVAC commentary has some ex...John Walton's <I>Genesis</I> NIVAC commentary has some excellent material on this debate. It's easy to understand and an enjoyable read. <BR/><BR/>Most AiG folks don't take Genesis 1 literally either. You don't see conferences defending the existence of a solid firmament with waters on top of it. Yet that's a part of the OT cosmology.<BR/><BR/>As for poetry in Genesis 1, notice that the days correspond to each other. Day 1 (light)to Day 4 (sun, moon, stars). Day 2 (the firmament and the waters) to Day 5 (seas that dwell in those realms). Day 3 (land, trees, vegetation) to Day 6 (land creatures).Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401274223522991973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-30926087034211508182007-06-17T11:15:00.000-07:002007-06-17T11:15:00.000-07:00Huh? No way!Huh? No way!RChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11340006144797496514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58250590110988896182007-06-17T02:10:00.000-07:002007-06-17T02:10:00.000-07:00I just checked back here and saw some more interes...I just checked back here and saw some more interesting stuff. I'd like to say a couple of things about kamaeq's points, simply because they seem to beg for a reply:<BR/><BR/>1) I don't think that anyone is arguing that the presence of a of data in a text implies its non-literalness, based on genre. I think that the argument is that, based on genre, one would not necessarily infer its literalness, either. I would personally argue that there are not "scientific facts" (depending on how one defines that rather loaded term) anywhere in the creation accounts.<BR/><BR/>2) Even if it isn't poetry, which it seems to be, it is certainly artistic and stylized, considering the obvious parallelism, even in English translations.<BR/><BR/>3) Definitions change with context, and I think that a "day" is a perfectly poetic, artistic, and stylized way of referring to something which is significant. <BR/><BR/>4) If it weren't for a specific interpretation of some passages in the Bible, would one have any reason to dispute the nearly-unanimous scientific consensus on the issue of age?<BR/><BR/>5) The "god of the gaps line," as it was put, is appropriate when one says that, since he doesn't presently have an explanation for something, God must have just "done it," independent of natural processes. I am not saying that, at times, that God simply "did" something is not the most likely explanation; I am saying, however, that science seeks to describe <I>how</I> something happened, not appeal to supernatural forces to explain whatever isn't covered by present theories. Granted, science isn't an epistemological end unto itself; it is merely an epistemological tool. However, it has proven to be a very useful epistemological tool. I don't know why one would say that anyone is "using a system that considers it axiomatic that no deity exists." If you are referring to science, then I must say that science is deity-agnostic. Some scientists are theistic and some aren't. Science, in general, doesn't address those kinds of questions; it attempts to generalize based on observations. One need not be a naturalist to be a good scientist, no matter what anyone says. Likewise, one not need to be an interventionist to be a good Christian, I would argue.Alvin Grissom IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00387400470469389655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25340437358518003712007-06-16T09:47:00.000-07:002007-06-16T09:47:00.000-07:00Ok, a couple of comments, yes they are sketchy, bu...Ok, a couple of comments, yes they are sketchy, but then a lot of this stuff is on the web in much greater detail:<BR/><BR/>1) The picture is in very bad taste (excrementally bad), at best showing a vast ignorance of the YEC position. Confirmation surfaces over and over in Dr. Witherington's responses to this thread. <BR/><BR/>Prime example: "But the deepest flaw in the whole young earth theory is the assumption that one can read the book of Genesis as if it were a scientific treatise giving us precise information about a whole host of scientific issues. This frankly is false. It addresses theological, historical, and ethical issues-- not geological, cosmological or other scientific issues."<BR/><BR/>Ahem, Dr. Witherington, FYI, a YEC (at least of the AiG or ICR stripe) would agree with you on the reading and point out that they don't try to read it like a modern scientific treatise. They would add the proviso that where it does mention scientific facts, it should be correct. This point actually seems silly, since using that kind of logic, I can pull out a variety of [insert genre of choice here] books on say the Napoleonic era and by using the "not a science book" logic, it would obviously mean that things like cannon, firearms, etc. don't exist.<BR/><BR/>2) The genre of Genesis 1-11 can be generously considered disputed, which at best would work as a draw as evidence. I'm ceding the field a bit on this, because I haven't dug around recently, but a "consensus" on it being poetry would contradict what I've researched in the past unless it is of the "science has 'proven', therefore it *must* be poetry (allegory)" variety.<BR/><BR/>3) Yom. The most fun word in the Bible. Yes, it can mean all kinds of things, but it can also mean 24 hour day. If you want to pull that card out, then you need to find out how many times in the OT that "yom" in relation to an ordinal number and the "evening and morning" phrase means something other than a 24 hour day. Trying to make a special case for Genesis 1-11 smacks of special pleading especially with other references that support a young earth in both the OT and NT.<BR/><BR/>4) "Proof" of age by multiple dating methods. Several issues here, for a short list: 1) problems with assumptions for initial conditions, 2) problems with assumptions over contamination of samples, 3) large majority of other "clocks" to get dates using old age uniformitarian principles used for the "proof" methods result in much "younger" dates for the maximum age. <BR/><BR/>5) I'd suggest dumping the "god of the gaps" line if anyone is using it. Firstly, it shows ignorance and secondly, it sounds stupid to hear hurled at the "goddidits" from the "itjustgroweds" since at our current state of knowledge, there are plenty of "gaps" to be found in all origin theories. Also, using a system that considers it axiomatic that no deity exists to attack or ridicule other Christians appears to me something one should be careful of.<BR/><BR/>Oh, if you want some help with it, I'll start the accusations for you. Take your choice(s), I'm a: Luddite, unscientific, ignorant, don't understand what science is, should study science, ignorant, not a Bible scholar, probably don't have any training in the relevant fields, ignorant, have totally misread history, stupid, moron, don't understand what I read, ignorant, just need to read the "right" book or whatever. I've missed a few I'm sure.kamatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04539485880680532574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-85267906583963288212007-06-16T08:24:00.000-07:002007-06-16T08:24:00.000-07:00Chuck and Gordon:Thanks for your posts. In my atte...Chuck and Gordon:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your posts. In my attempt to be brief I didn't communicate very clearly. Let me clarify my point.<BR/><BR/>I definitely am not claiming that genre is irrelevant or that it should not be used as a contributing element of biblical interpretation. Perhaps I worded this more strongly than I should have. However, what I seem to be hearing from many who have posted is an <I>a priori</I> presumption of poetic genre. I don't feel that this is warranted without first establishing exactly what the genre is. The diversity of scholarly opinion on this issue doesn't mean that a poetic view is wrong, but it does mean we should be careful about assuming such a view as an established premise. (At least without presenting some evidence.)<BR/><BR/>To say either "the text is poetry and therefore must be interpreted symbolically" or "the text is narrative and therefore must be interpreted literally" without first establishing the validity of our classification is circular reasoning. I can't simply claim that a text should be interpreted non-literally because it's non-literal when there's a huge body of scholarship contradicting me. This would be assuming my conclusion.<BR/><BR/>The genre of Genesis 1 is a very important issue, but we must support our view not simply presume it. IMHO, the burden of proof is on those who would suggest a non-literal approach to any text. John 1 shows signs of poetry. How literally do we interpret that?Curthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147195839091407203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-75950996194654172452007-06-16T07:08:00.000-07:002007-06-16T07:08:00.000-07:00Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creatio...Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female<BR/><BR/>There you have it: Jesus was a "Young" creationist.lisa ransdellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16996378226393440972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-92227642317227897882007-06-15T21:30:00.000-07:002007-06-15T21:30:00.000-07:00Curt,I'm with Yuackabuck on this one. I don't get ...Curt,<BR/><BR/>I'm with Yuackabuck on this one. I don't get where you're coming from in calling the genre argument circular either. I suppose I see how someone could make it in a circular manner, but I don't see it as per se circular at all. If we first establish the genre and then determine how it should be interpreted based on that, then it is not circular. <BR/><BR/>Even if we start by recognizing some problems with a literal interpretation, then go back to the text and reexamine it, decide it is poetry and hence can't be interpreted literally, this is still not circular reasoning. That, in fact, is the hermenuetical spiral, in which experience plays a part in helping us to come to a better interpretation of the text. <BR/><BR/>It is only circular reasoning if we cannot reasonably independently establish the genre of the text (ie. we assume a literal interpretation is wrong, then declare the text to be poetry, then declare that because it is poetry a literal interpretation is wrong.)Gordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342433273604253495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-9379399706504741442007-06-15T19:51:00.000-07:002007-06-15T19:51:00.000-07:00I must add---1) Happy Anniversary to Dr. Withering...I must add---<BR/><BR/>1) Happy Anniversary to Dr. Witherington (assuming that such was the reason for the vacation).<BR/><BR/>2) great quote from Jose-<BR/>"God is certainly not a liar but he certainly was not about to start explaining the details of the creation of the universe to anyone six or ten thousand years ago."<BR/><BR/>We say that "God works with us where we are," but many of us never allow that He may have also chosen to work with the Israelites where they were. I know I am not as wise as the Lord, but even I can see that it would not have been a good idea for God to have gone into scientific detail regarding humanities origins with the still-paganized children of Israel. Surely there were other things a tad more important God was trying to accomplish, like getting the people to turn from idols and such.yuckabuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05286909279733012915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-55873090300430596922007-06-15T19:41:00.000-07:002007-06-15T19:41:00.000-07:00curt,I'm sorry, but I am not understanding your ar...curt,<BR/>I'm sorry, but I am not understanding your argument in the last comment. <BR/><BR/>Your premises seem to be that, since there is no universally accepted scholary consensus on the genre of Genesis 1, then it is wrong to argue for a non-literal reading of Genesis 1 on the basis of genre. But this itself is special pleading. One could repeat your post, substituting a literal reading of Genesis 1-<BR/><BR/>1) One should always accept the "plain meaning" of the Bible.<BR/>2) Therefore, Genesis 1 is meant to be taken in a completely literal fashion.<BR/>3) Because there is no scholarly consensus on genre, this is a circular argumant.<BR/>Such a line would pretty much close down all meaningful debate.<BR/><BR/> I don't think arguing from genre is a circular argument. It is actually one of the crucial issues, if not THE crucial issue. The best laymen's Bible study method book I ever read was based on first identifying the genre of each book. ("How to Read the Bible For All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart)<BR/>God Bless You,<BR/>Chuckyuckabuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05286909279733012915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-10590216811662138372007-06-15T13:29:00.000-07:002007-06-15T13:29:00.000-07:00Quick note on genre:If you survey the available co...Quick note on genre:<BR/><BR/>If you survey the available commentary on Genesis 1, you will find many scholars who identify this as poetry, many that label it as prose, and some that argue that it is unique and not easily classifiable.<BR/><BR/>The consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Therefore, to use a supposed classification of poetry to argue for a non-literal interpretation of Gen. 1 is circular reasoning.<BR/><BR/>Just trying to keep things fair!Curthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147195839091407203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70952078284836298852007-06-15T12:20:00.000-07:002007-06-15T12:20:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington:Congrats on the big 3-0! Have you...Dr. Witherington:<BR/><BR/>Congrats on the big 3-0! Have you read/studied much on the idea that the image of God imprinted on man is community, or the need of which?Michael Gilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00079643017537005996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23309245351362557282007-06-15T11:44:00.000-07:002007-06-15T11:44:00.000-07:00(Welcome back Dr. Witherington and congratulations...(Welcome back Dr. Witherington and congratulations on your 30th anniversary. I thought I’d drop some definitions and reflections related to these “dissertations.”)<BR/><BR/>“Poetry : writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound and rhythm.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary<BR/><BR/>“Poem: . . . 2. a composition that, though not [necessasrily] in verse, is characterized by great beauty of language or expression.” Random House Dictionary<BR/><BR/>“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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.”<BR/><BR/>What a magnificent poem! The writer of these words was not there to see the creation. By succinct, inspired images he evokes a mythic visualization of that primordial event. We don’t really know what this means but we can certainly feel the movement, the pulsating rhythm of something wondrous. We hush and contemplate the marvelous metaphors and in splendid awe we can recite these words over and over again as we approximate what that might have been like. We are given images of God’s initial creative work. <BR/><BR/>To take a literal approach to these words I feel simply shatters the mood, the state of being into which the author seeks to transport us. <BR/><BR/>Christianity need not be in opposition to either science or art.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25817367097727492932007-06-15T10:12:00.000-07:002007-06-15T10:12:00.000-07:00Holy smokes! I go off to a tropical island or two...Holy smokes! I go off to a tropical island or two for 12 days with my wife of 30 years and I come home to find a doctoral length dissertation or two on Genesis on my blog. Just for the record, I also believe there were a primal pair of human progenitors and I believe in an historical fall as well. What I am quite sure of is that Genesis is not trying to answer geological or age of the earth questions, nor age of the human race either, since the genealogies are not meant to be exhaustive in any sense, only representative. For me the big question is whether humans were uniquely created in the image of God, or not. I believe they were. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91207049138022724472007-06-15T09:31:00.000-07:002007-06-15T09:31:00.000-07:00I love this blog, and, really, the post was a joke...I love this blog, and, really, the post was a joke. I smirked.<BR/><BR/>I find all of this debate about Genesis to be interesting. <BR/><BR/>There are a few pithy points I'd like to make, some of which have, I'm sure, been made by others here:<BR/><BR/>First, poetry is almost never taken completely literally. I do not see how anyone can believe that Genesis 1 is not poetry. Even in English translations, the same phrases are repeated again and again at the end of a stanza.<BR/><BR/> Even if it weren't poetry, the Torah often uses allegory to communicate spiritual truths. The opening chapters of Genesis would seem to be prime examples of this. When I read Genesis, the main point I see is this: God created man in his "image", and thus man is good; however, something went wrong, and man sinned/sins. <BR/><BR/>In any case, it is strange, indeed, when one treats parts of the Bible -- especially passages such as these -- as though they were a scientific treatise. The Bible is mostly a collection of pious texts. I don't think that the author(s) of Genesis really cared about whether they had a common ancestor with apes, or whether they were literally created from dust. Theologically, I think that it is simply not terribly important.<BR/><BR/>At this point, it would be overkill to discuss the authorship of the Torah, but suffice it to say that splitting hairs over words therein strikes me as pointless, in this regard.<BR/><BR/>Christians, if they are to be taken seriously, cannot be anti-scientific sheep, as they are so often characterized. It is true that there are just as many "scientific sheep," but it is, indeed, bothersome when, as someone in science myself, I see Christians who react with such fear and hostility to anything which causes them to question their assumptions. Some segments of the Church have an unfortunate history of just that, and they always ultimately look like idiots when newer, more enlightened paradigms are accepted.<BR/><BR/>The passages in Genesis were taken figuratively by many before there even existed a theory of evolution. I read one poster who used the old argument that, since, if evolutionary theory is true, physical death existed before sin, it cannot be true. The assumption here is that a particular interpretation of the salvation offered by Jesus is the correct one. There are other models, and I would recommend, perhaps, NT Wright's book, <I>The Challenge of Jesus.</I> He seems particularly appropriate, since he often speaks of moving beyond "the arrogance of modernism" and its strict, certain categories, and taking heed to the "postmodern critique."<BR/><BR/>I've deviated a bit, but I suppose that I am simply advocating a bit of flexibility on the part of conservative Christians. I understand that, under certain theological frameworks, bad theology = Hell (and thus such questioning is often discouraged); however, I have to try.Alvin Grissom IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00387400470469389655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-6773191907200810332007-06-15T07:24:00.000-07:002007-06-15T07:24:00.000-07:00"For the creation was subjected to frustration, no..."For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:20-21).<BR/><BR/>When exactly was the creation subjected to frustration? When did this bondage to decay begin? Was it part of the original creation that God called very good? Is it not significant that the curse in Genesis 3 specifically includes the ground? If this involved a fundamental change to the created order, how would we apprehend that change through purely scientific means?<BR/><BR/>"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:12).<BR/><BR/>If sin entered the world through Adam, and if death entered the world through that sin, how do we account for death prior to human life? Is death a result of sin or not? Did sin enter the world through one man or not?<BR/><BR/>I agree that we should not label each other as uncaring about Scripture or presume to know our opponents' motives based on their position on this issue. However, we also need to realize that there are serious implications for one's interpretation of these Scriptures. This issue transcends a simple argument about whether the six days of creation are literal. If you relegate the opening chapter of the Bible, one that describes the origins of creation, to myth or symbolism, you should expect a vigorous opposition from those who see this as adapting Scripture to the latest scientific consensus.<BR/><BR/>I don't doubt the devotion or sincerity of those who interpret Scripture to allow for creation billions of years ago or a local Noahic flood. But I remain unconvinced by these attempts and feel that there are serious ramifications to these interpretations. The ongoing debate on this subject should be charitable, but no less vigorous.Curthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147195839091407203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61780985886125332007-06-14T22:20:00.000-07:002007-06-14T22:20:00.000-07:00I of course could be wrong but I can honestly only...I of course could be wrong but I can honestly only see the Genesis creation story as totally symbolical. It is a myth inspired by God to reveal—to whomever can grasp its profound understandings—how God has brought all things into being. It has imagery that relates not only to the creation of the universe but to the ongoing creation of individual human lives, humanity in general and their transformations in time and history, both individual and collective. And it is much more.<BR/><BR/>Yet, I have no problem whatsoever if anyone takes this story simplistically and literally. It may even be that the author himself saw it this way in the naivete of his state, but God was working through him nonetheless to bring us a truthful explanation of how creation comes into being and how humanity collapsed and collapses. <BR/><BR/>My suspicion (intuition) is that the author (or authors) was not naïve at all but grasping with a revelation of astounding magnitude and seeking as best he could to distil its essential multi-dimensional meanings into the simplest terms that would profit the greatest number of people throughout the ages. Clearly he has been successful in an extraordinary measure. <BR/><BR/>God is certainly not a liar but he certainly was not about to start explaining the details of the creation of the universe to anyone six or ten thousand years ago. After all, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God was not writing an astronomy or quantum physics book for the earliest human beings. This discovery, to the extent that the human mind can fathom it—and it hardly can even today—God left to the developing human being to search out. It is enough for anyone to simply realize that it is indeed God’s creation, that he created it out of simply nothing, and that he totally rules over it. That in itself must totally humble us and leave us with gaping jaw in our relationship to God.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56602767652598265512007-06-14T21:00:00.000-07:002007-06-14T21:00:00.000-07:00Now I still see regional floods, so your viewpoint...Now I still see regional floods, so your viewpoint appears to suggest God is a liar..." <BR/><BR/>Will,<BR/><BR/>Garbage like the above statement is the reason that so many of us find it difficult to take Young-earth creationism seriously at all. Are you really so lacking in imagination and critical thinking skills, not to mention charity towards a fellow Christian, that you think the above statement represents some kind of serious knockdown argument? Do you really think it is good form to accuse another Christian of calling God a liar?<BR/><BR/>How about the human race was still pretty much located in the Middle East at the time of the flood, therefore it was possible for God to destroy them all with a local flood. <BR/><BR/>Second of all, the ongoing existence of regional floods in no way suggests that somehow the idea of a local flood makes God out to be a liar. The Genesis flood was a specific act of God sent for judgment in a way that no one believes currently local floods to be. Unless you're now prepared to argue that every local flood is a specific act of judgment.<BR/><BR/>Stuff like this is disgraceful and insulting to thoughtful Christians who work in the sciences, and to all those who try to think clearly and carefully about the relationship between science and Christian faith.Gordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342433273604253495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-59802092220598664082007-06-14T16:13:00.000-07:002007-06-14T16:13:00.000-07:00Part of my post:"The speaker, who apparently has a...Part of my post:<BR/>"The speaker, who apparently has a PhD in thermodynamics, talked about biblical Hebrew as if he were an expert, but I would be surprised if he had even an intro course under his belt."<BR/><BR/>Part of Will's post:<BR/>"Just because a man plays Golf it does not mean he cannot play Rugby too (I'm from England by the way...hope you all know of Rugby. If not, try Football). Similarly, just because a man is a professor of thermodynamics, it does not mean that he cannot know Hebrew."<BR/><BR/>Dear Will:<BR/>Let's represent my post honestly, shall we? If someone is a professor of thermodynamics, you are quite right to suggest that the same person MAY know Hebrew (whether a beginner, intermediate or expert) - I never suggested otherwise. <BR/><BR/>I simply contend that if someone is going to refer to anything, he/she should use it responsibly. And the extraordinary weight given to "yom" in the speaker's presentation was not responsible, especially given his other "arguments" e.g., people who believe in anything but AiG's interpretation are "succumbing to peer pressure" or "losing a spiritual battle" (!?) On the maturity scale, this is right up there with "my dad is stronger than your dad"!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01778917004531654254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-75522725871902693192007-06-14T15:15:00.000-07:002007-06-14T15:15:00.000-07:00Hi, I've only just seen this and I'm not particula...Hi, I've only just seen this and I'm not particularly well read but from what I've seen, here's a few points:<BR/>1) Mr. Witherington, you say that you believe that the flood was a regional flood. The Bible says God vowed never to destroy mankind again by flood. Now I still see regional floods, so your viewpoint appears to suggest God is a liar... so if anyone says the possibility of God creating a world that, to our eyes, looks 'old' is deceit on the part of God, isn't this a tad hypocritical?<BR/>2) I forget who stated this, but the head of RS at my school told me that someone once said that a miracle is anything which reveals something of God, regardless of whether it breaks 'natural law' or not. I recently started reading a book by a man named Vaughan Roberts, I forget the title, which focuses on the beginning of Genesis. His perspective is what we can learn about God from it. I think that's more important than arguing about whether it is literal.<BR/>3) C14 running out. The only problem with saying this is that you do not take into account the element which decays into C14 (and the element which decays into that et cetera), which would cause a replenishment, at least in part, of C14. One reason C14 becomes inaccurate is due to the decay curve and the irregularity of decay of nuclei after most of the sample has decayed.<BR/>4) As for the whole sun not being created before a couple of days had passed, thus they were not literal days. The problem with that reasoning is that it assumes that time depends upon the sun and the stars and the period of Earth's solar rotation in order to exist. Time could exist from 'Day 1' and days could be be measured in 24 hour periods. God could regulate that if he created it, couldn't he? Similarly, with the Hebrew word 'Yom' for day. If I remember correctly it does have multiple uses, but the way the word is being used can be calculated from the grammatical context in which it occurs. In this instance I seem to remember that it is used to mean a 24-hour period in this context. Similarly, I agree with the argument concerning translation of the Bible. If the Hebrew scholars translating the text translate it as day, I trust they have got it right. If I doubt this from very near the first verse, how can I logically support my belief that they got the rest right?<BR/>5) This leads me on to the point of the gentleman (I think- forgive me if I have got your gender wrong) who complained about the professor of thermodynamics who seemed to talk of Hebrew as if he were an expert in it. Firstly<BR/>a) Just because a man plays Golf it does not mean he cannot play Rugby too (I'm from England by the way...hope you all know of Rugby. If not, try Football). Similarly, just because a man is a professor of thermodynamics, it does not mean that he cannot know Hebrew. One of my Physics teachers can read Greek. He learnt it as it is relevant to his Christian faith, not his job.<BR/>b) The professor (may I guess his name was Andy McIntosh?) may well know the area surrounding the word 'Yom' particularly well as he is a Creationist and it is and important area of the 'Creation vs. Evolution debate', something he is particularly interested in.<BR/>6) As for the counterpoint about Satan manipulating Creation to deceive humans about their God...He kinda DID do that...he manipulated people (who are a part of Creation as they are created) so that they would not trust God. Whilst I think it is unlikely that God would allow Satan to meddle with the fossil record, this objection does not remder the hypothesis incorrect, merely unlikely. I personally think that it is entirely possible that God created the universe as it is so that people would have Free Will- the choice of whether to believe in him or not. If God didn't provide an alternative hypothesis to a Divine Creation, surely he would be guilty of compelling man to believe in him? (I'll just point out that I am unsure whether this example is the case and only suggest it as a possible solution of the 'mature/old' debate.<BR/>I'm sure I had a couple of other points but I cannot remember them at present and it's getting late and I need to sleep so I can get up early and revise of my last 5 exams in my school life (what fun. Not.)...Thanks for your input and points (this is really interesting) and sorry for not remembering everyone's names whose posts I replied to. God bless and good night to you all.<BR/>-Will-<BR/>(P.S. just thinking...nobody's perfect, save God, so nobody's going to have the perfect explanation to all this, save God...)Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03323748769898598165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-43355090431858315942007-06-14T13:56:00.000-07:002007-06-14T13:56:00.000-07:00Thanks for keeping a blog up. I love you commenta...Thanks for keeping a blog up. I love you commentaries.<BR/>www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.orgMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12804021069554494090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32214875517682328462007-06-14T13:34:00.000-07:002007-06-14T13:34:00.000-07:00When i was young, I had no doubts about God and wh...When i was young, I had no doubts about God and what he could do. <BR/> As I got older I began to go with everyone opinion, trying to create my own theories. Now I realize that I was limiting what God can do. If God wanted to he could have created the whole universe with the snap of a finger or blink of an eye.<BR/> As I look out my window and watch the hummingbirds obtain their sweet nectar, I think God he dtook six days, and put some character in nature for me.lisa ransdellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16996378226393440972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-41505075257554920452007-06-14T05:54:00.000-07:002007-06-14T05:54:00.000-07:00Gordon I hear what you are saying but would you ap...Gordon I hear what you are saying but would you apply your statement to the whole Bible or just the Old Testament?BonScothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095857235029300306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58039966590117346112007-06-14T04:41:00.000-07:002007-06-14T04:41:00.000-07:00Bonscot,Actually the question as I see it is rathe...Bonscot,<BR/><BR/>Actually the question as I see it is rather or not we will allow the world of our experience to interact with the Bible or rather we will try to seal the Bible off from that world and insist that this one particular interpretation is the only possible valid one, no matter what our experience tells us. Almost since the beginnings of science, Christians have believed that the book of God's works and the book of God's word are mutually compatible, and they both give accurate information about the world. People have changed their interpretation of the Bible before based on scientific observation of the world. For example, everyone believes that the earth revolves around the sun, even though Joshua told the sun to stand still. Does this mean that we don't believe the Bible? No. It means that we understand that God was not interested in giving Joshua a complete scientific explanantion of the solar system at that time. <BR/><BR/>I could say more but I'm out of time for now. I am sick of Young-earth creationists who continually assert that they are the only ones who take the scripture seriously. Just because one doesn't interpret the Bible the same way as they do or believes that we need to allow our interpretation of it to be informed by the world of our experience doesn't mean that we don't believe the Bible.Gordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342433273604253495noreply@blogger.com