I am not a geologist, but a recent article, written by a geologist, presents abundant geological evidence that the arrangement of rocks and fossils does not support the Young-Earth Creationist belief in a world-wide flood.
Thanks for reading.
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts with label age of the earth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label age of the earth. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2024
Saturday, June 13, 2020
The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton
I recently read John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, which, judging by things I had read about it, is an important book. It lived up to what I had heard.
What lost world is Walton discussing? It is the worldview of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the culture of the human author of Genesis, and of those who heard and read that book. Walton believes that we, living in the 21st century, have our own worldview, and that we often do not understand that another one is possible, or, in the case of ANE people, that a different worldview is to be expected, let alone understood.
Walton does not believe that we, of the 21st century, mean the same thing about God’s creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, as the people of the ANE meant and understood. His book summarizes what Walton believes is a major consequence of our worldview, so different from that of the human writer(s?) of Genesis one. Walton states that “I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins.” But, he says,
Most interpreters have generally thought that Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.
and All of this indicates that cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established.
As an example, Walton uses the sun and moon. ANE culture didn't understand that the sun and the moon were large bodies beyond our atmosphere, nor that the moon was in orbit around the earth, and the earth was in orbit around the sun. The ANE understanding of Genesis 1:14-18 would have resembled someone painting, or installing, these lights on the the firmament. Walton sees that passage as about function, not about creating from nothing, and notes that Genesis 1 indicates the functions of what we now think of as heavenly bodies:
Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18a and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (World English Bible, public domain)
By the way, ANE culture believed that the clouds and the heavenly bodies were held up, and in place, by a transparent sphere, a ceiling, the firmament. There isn't a firmament. Does that mean that the Bible is in error? Not so. The Bible is inerrant, but inerrant in what it affirms, not in what it reports or adjusts to in the culture of the time it was written. It doesn’t affirm ANE concepts of astronomy, nor, for that matter, 21st century concepts of astronomy. It just reports them, or uses them. Walton points out that we usually talk and write as if the sky really was blue, (It is often red or pink near dawn and sunset. For the reasons for that, see this Scientific American article.) and as if the sun really rose and set. Neither is really true, but, if some portion of the Bible were to be written today, and made reference to these phenomena, it would not be in error, unless blue sky and a rising sun were an integral part of the message of the gospel.
There are other ANE concepts that we no longer hold, such as that the earth is flat, with four corners.
To Walton, Genesis 1 was not meant, by God, to be taken as sequential history, setting forth a literal description of God’s acts in making things. Rather, it was meant to contradict other creation stories, about false gods, and to describe God’s work in making a functioning, harmonious earth, with its inhabitants.
Walton discusses the first three days, so-called, from Genesis 1, and concludes that they, as described, were meant to credit God for creating time, weather, and food, in that order.
Even humans, says Walton, were mentioned not principally as something made, but as something with functions in God's creation:
Genesis 1:26b “... Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
He also writes that “Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (days 1, 3 and 7).”
Beside his interpretation of Genesis 1 as describing function, not making, Walton has another important idea, namely that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as God preparing a temple for himself, and, on the seventh day, inhabiting it. Besides his interpretation of what the original Bible language says, Walton has also looked at lots of ancient writings by non-Hebrew ANE authors, and that, too, has influenced his view of what he calls temple inauguration. Walton explicitly denies that Genesis is based on these other writings.
It so happens that I was reading a book by N. T. Wright, an important bible scholar, as part of my devotional reading, while I was writing this. I was surprised to read the following:
Now, finally, about the age of the earth. Says Walton: If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.
and “The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth.”
Walton does not claim that he wrote as he did with a view to contradicting Young-Earth Creationism, but, as he says, it is clear that this important Bible scholar is not wedded to YEC.
Thanks for reading!
This graphic below (not from Walton) indicates that it is impossible to read both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simple narratives, expressing events in sequence as they happened:
What lost world is Walton discussing? It is the worldview of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the culture of the human author of Genesis, and of those who heard and read that book. Walton believes that we, living in the 21st century, have our own worldview, and that we often do not understand that another one is possible, or, in the case of ANE people, that a different worldview is to be expected, let alone understood.
Walton does not believe that we, of the 21st century, mean the same thing about God’s creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, as the people of the ANE meant and understood. His book summarizes what Walton believes is a major consequence of our worldview, so different from that of the human writer(s?) of Genesis one. Walton states that “I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins.” But, he says,
Most interpreters have generally thought that Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.
and All of this indicates that cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established.
As an example, Walton uses the sun and moon. ANE culture didn't understand that the sun and the moon were large bodies beyond our atmosphere, nor that the moon was in orbit around the earth, and the earth was in orbit around the sun. The ANE understanding of Genesis 1:14-18 would have resembled someone painting, or installing, these lights on the the firmament. Walton sees that passage as about function, not about creating from nothing, and notes that Genesis 1 indicates the functions of what we now think of as heavenly bodies:
Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18a and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (World English Bible, public domain)
By the way, ANE culture believed that the clouds and the heavenly bodies were held up, and in place, by a transparent sphere, a ceiling, the firmament. There isn't a firmament. Does that mean that the Bible is in error? Not so. The Bible is inerrant, but inerrant in what it affirms, not in what it reports or adjusts to in the culture of the time it was written. It doesn’t affirm ANE concepts of astronomy, nor, for that matter, 21st century concepts of astronomy. It just reports them, or uses them. Walton points out that we usually talk and write as if the sky really was blue, (It is often red or pink near dawn and sunset. For the reasons for that, see this Scientific American article.) and as if the sun really rose and set. Neither is really true, but, if some portion of the Bible were to be written today, and made reference to these phenomena, it would not be in error, unless blue sky and a rising sun were an integral part of the message of the gospel.
There are other ANE concepts that we no longer hold, such as that the earth is flat, with four corners.
To Walton, Genesis 1 was not meant, by God, to be taken as sequential history, setting forth a literal description of God’s acts in making things. Rather, it was meant to contradict other creation stories, about false gods, and to describe God’s work in making a functioning, harmonious earth, with its inhabitants.
Walton discusses the first three days, so-called, from Genesis 1, and concludes that they, as described, were meant to credit God for creating time, weather, and food, in that order.
Even humans, says Walton, were mentioned not principally as something made, but as something with functions in God's creation:
Genesis 1:26b “... Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
He also writes that “Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (days 1, 3 and 7).”
Beside his interpretation of Genesis 1 as describing function, not making, Walton has another important idea, namely that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as God preparing a temple for himself, and, on the seventh day, inhabiting it. Besides his interpretation of what the original Bible language says, Walton has also looked at lots of ancient writings by non-Hebrew ANE authors, and that, too, has influenced his view of what he calls temple inauguration. Walton explicitly denies that Genesis is based on these other writings.
It so happens that I was reading a book by N. T. Wright, an important bible scholar, as part of my devotional reading, while I was writing this. I was surprised to read the following:
When God made the world, he “rested” on the seventh day. This doesn’t just mean that God took a day off. It means that in the previous six days God was making a world—heaven and earth together—for his own use. Like someone building a home, God finished the job and then went in to take up residence, to enjoy what he had built. Creation was itself a temple, the Temple, the heaven-and-earth structure built for God to live in. - N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters
Now, finally, about the age of the earth. Says Walton: If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.
and “The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth.”
Walton does not claim that he wrote as he did with a view to contradicting Young-Earth Creationism, but, as he says, it is clear that this important Bible scholar is not wedded to YEC.
Thanks for reading!
This graphic below (not from Walton) indicates that it is impossible to read both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simple narratives, expressing events in sequence as they happened:
Friday, February 22, 2019
Some thoughts on Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis
I have gladly re-read, for the I don't know how manyth time, Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, the first two parts of what is referred to as the Space Trilogy, by C. S. Lewis. I will not attempt to summarize these fine books -- see the links above for the Wikipedia articles on them.
I wish to point out two relatively minor points about these books.
First, Lewis was a fine nature writer, or could have been, judging from his made up Mars and Venus. We now know that Mars doesn't have canals, nor much water, and we have no evidence that there is any kind of intelligent life there. But Lewis took what some early astronomers called as "canals," and made them into great valleys, with scenery, water, vegetation, intelligent life, and animals. He described the effect of lower gravity on the shape of waves and ridges. If Mars was more accessible, and was really like that, it would be a fabulous place to visit, indeed, rivaling the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and any other natural scenic spot you care to mention. Lewis's Venus was mostly a water world, (some astronomers used to believe that) and, again, he clearly loved making up descriptions of animals, floating islands, undersea and cave-dwelling life, and vegetation, including fruit. Again, were Venus really at a temperature compatible with a giant world-wide ocean, and if we could get to it, this would be a fabulous place, for sight-seeing, eating the fruit, surfing, swimming, and spelunking. He knew how to make his made-up nature attractive.
Second, Lewis apparently believed that Venus (and, therefore, Mars and the Earth) were very old. This is a quotation from Perelandra: "Some day, no doubt, it would be peopled by the descendants of the King and Queen. But all its millions of years in the unpeopled past, all its uncounted miles of laughing water in the lonely present . . ."
Thanks for reading! Read Lewis.
I wish to point out two relatively minor points about these books.
First, Lewis was a fine nature writer, or could have been, judging from his made up Mars and Venus. We now know that Mars doesn't have canals, nor much water, and we have no evidence that there is any kind of intelligent life there. But Lewis took what some early astronomers called as "canals," and made them into great valleys, with scenery, water, vegetation, intelligent life, and animals. He described the effect of lower gravity on the shape of waves and ridges. If Mars was more accessible, and was really like that, it would be a fabulous place to visit, indeed, rivaling the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and any other natural scenic spot you care to mention. Lewis's Venus was mostly a water world, (some astronomers used to believe that) and, again, he clearly loved making up descriptions of animals, floating islands, undersea and cave-dwelling life, and vegetation, including fruit. Again, were Venus really at a temperature compatible with a giant world-wide ocean, and if we could get to it, this would be a fabulous place, for sight-seeing, eating the fruit, surfing, swimming, and spelunking. He knew how to make his made-up nature attractive.
Second, Lewis apparently believed that Venus (and, therefore, Mars and the Earth) were very old. This is a quotation from Perelandra: "Some day, no doubt, it would be peopled by the descendants of the King and Queen. But all its millions of years in the unpeopled past, all its uncounted miles of laughing water in the lonely present . . ."
Thanks for reading! Read Lewis.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Conditions for redemption
If the earth is six thousand years old, people can be redeemed from sin.
If the earth is six billion years old, people can be redeemed from sin.
If the rapture will occur in the middle of a seven year tribulation, people can be redeemed from sin.
If the Bible doesn't really teach that there is a rapture, but, instead, that there is a triumphant procession welcoming Christ back to earth, people can be redeemed from sin.
If women can be divinely called to be ministers, people can be redeemed from sin.
If women can't be divinely called to be ministers, people can be redeemed from sin.
If . . .
If . . .
Should I go on? Some things are peripheral.
But if Christ didn't come to earth as a human embryo, live a sinless life as the God-man, die a sacrificial death on the cross, and rise again, people can't be redeemed from sin.
Some things are essential. (See 1 Corinthians 15:13-21)
(This post was modified, by adding the reference to 1 Corinthians, and the graphic, on December 24, 2014.)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
More about the days of creation in Genesis 1
I did a Google search, on the words (not phrase) theories on Genesis 1 days. I don't have time, or inclination, to go through the roughly 3,000,000 web pages that Google says it can find for me. However, I was interested in the first few that came up. (I'm not giving the URLs. One reason is that I'm not sure these pages are authoritative exponents of a particular position. If you want to see these pages, you can do a Google search yourself!)
I found that there was a diversity of views on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1, just among the first ten hits.
Here are some such views:
1) The six, or seven, days of creation were literal days, approximately 24 hours in length.
2) The days refer to long periods of time (ages).
3) There was a gap in God's creative activity, between day 1 and day 2.
4) The days were days of revelation. God revealed different truths on different days.
All of these views have problems, as do any other views of the time frame of Genesis 1.
I indicated some of the problems with the first view in a previous post. Some of my readers were kind enough to comment. I may be missing something, but I remain convinced that Genesis 2:5 seems to be scriptural evidence against taking Genesis 1 as speaking of literal days. There are other scriptural reasons for questioning this view. (See this post, and the comments)
Although belief in literal days does not require belief in a young earth, at most thousands of years old, I'm not aware of anyone who believes that these days took place, say, several million years ago. The scientific evidence, what we can learn about nature from observation, is part of God's revelation, according to Psalm 19, Romans 1, and Colossians 2. Although there have been questions about the evidence, the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is much older than thousands of years.
The second view may be correct, but it is not possible to merely say that the days were long consecutive periods of time, and that making them so yields a scheme consistent with paleontological evidence. Birds appear before reptiles, in the Genesis account, and most paleontologists are convinced that birds descended from reptiles. Water animals, apparently including seals and whales and their relatives, appear before land animals, in Genesis 1. They are believed to have descended from land animals.
As to the third and fourth options, there is little scriptural evidence for them. One of them may be correct, and they both have some appeal.
I received a comment on the previous post, indicating that the commenter, a serious theologian, intends to post more about Genesis 2:5. He hasn't yet, but I await his contribution with interest.
Thanks for reading.
I found that there was a diversity of views on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1, just among the first ten hits.
Here are some such views:
1) The six, or seven, days of creation were literal days, approximately 24 hours in length.
2) The days refer to long periods of time (ages).
3) There was a gap in God's creative activity, between day 1 and day 2.
4) The days were days of revelation. God revealed different truths on different days.
All of these views have problems, as do any other views of the time frame of Genesis 1.
I indicated some of the problems with the first view in a previous post. Some of my readers were kind enough to comment. I may be missing something, but I remain convinced that Genesis 2:5 seems to be scriptural evidence against taking Genesis 1 as speaking of literal days. There are other scriptural reasons for questioning this view. (See this post, and the comments)
Although belief in literal days does not require belief in a young earth, at most thousands of years old, I'm not aware of anyone who believes that these days took place, say, several million years ago. The scientific evidence, what we can learn about nature from observation, is part of God's revelation, according to Psalm 19, Romans 1, and Colossians 2. Although there have been questions about the evidence, the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is much older than thousands of years.
The second view may be correct, but it is not possible to merely say that the days were long consecutive periods of time, and that making them so yields a scheme consistent with paleontological evidence. Birds appear before reptiles, in the Genesis account, and most paleontologists are convinced that birds descended from reptiles. Water animals, apparently including seals and whales and their relatives, appear before land animals, in Genesis 1. They are believed to have descended from land animals.
As to the third and fourth options, there is little scriptural evidence for them. One of them may be correct, and they both have some appeal.
I received a comment on the previous post, indicating that the commenter, a serious theologian, intends to post more about Genesis 2:5. He hasn't yet, but I await his contribution with interest.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)