There is a town here in Virginia called Williamsburg. It seeks to replicate Colonial America, and does so well enough to attract large numbers of tourists and field trips.
My question is this: Is it sinful to create a town with the appearance of age? To make something that looks older than it really is? Are the designers of Williamsburg being deceptive? Manipulative? Are they lying by making their modern town out to be something that it is not?
I believe God has made a young universe that looks old. Some Christians do not like this approach to Genesis 1, arguing that it turns God into a deceiver. But assuming that God has made a young universe with the appearance of great age, does it necessarily follow that this makes him a deceiver?
Is Williamsburg deceptive? The answer, of course, is no. Visitors are informed clearly up front that Williamsburg is not really a colonial town. And the same can be said of God's work of creation. He states clearly "up front" (in Genesis 1, no less) that he took just six days to make the heavens and the earth. Yet the text is equally up front about the appearance of age (Adam and Eve have adult bodies, they are able to see the stars, etc.).
There is no deception in making a young thing that looks old as long as you openly admit that it is young. Furnitute makers craft fake antiques all the time. Some do so with wicked motives, that they might inflate the price of their wares. Other craftsmen create fake antiques because some customers like the look and wear of old furniture, but cannot affort real antiques. These furniture makers are not being deceptive because they tell their customers the truth: this table looks old, but it is not.
God has told us the truth about his creation. It is about 6000 years old. Thus there is no deception in giving said creation the appearance of age. We all live in Williamsburg, VA. And there is nothing sinful about it.
Showing posts with label young earth creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label young earth creationism. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Relevance of Six-Day Creation
Is it adequate simply to "believe in creaton," or is there some value in embracing the specific details recorded in Genesis 1-2? I am a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), which some consider the more remarkable given my chemistry background, interest in amateur astronomy, study of formal logic, and authorship of several science fiction novels (not silly end times nonsense, but real SF, set far in the future and showing the church alive and well).
The Bible teaches that the universe is about 6000 years old. Scientific observation shows that the Earth appears to be about 4.5 billion years old, while the universe as a whole appears to be about 14 billions years old. One can quibble on these numbers a bit, but it is obvious that we are dealing with two radically different views of the world.
Thus the many efforts to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with the competing conclusions reached by modern scientists. Some Christians question the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, preferring to think of the word "day" as symbolically referring to long periods of time. Other Christians attack the methods and interpretive paradigms of modern scientists, asserting that perhaps the universe does not really appear to be that old after all.
Although this post is not intended to defend my own attempt at reconciliation, let me say in passing that I believe God has made a young universe that appears old. This is the "appearance of age" theory, and it has many detractors. Let me suggest, however, that unlike all the tortured treatments of Genesis 1, the "appearance of age" theory does flow naturally out of the text. On the day they are created, Adam and Eve are clearly portrayed as looking older than they really are (they have adult bodies, not infant bodies). But more on this another time.
What I'm really interested in discussing here is why the whole topic matters. Some of us have a natural aversion to controversy (not always a bad thing), and the issue of the earth's age can needlessly divide and distract the church (aren't there much more important matters worthy of our time and energy?). Nevertheless, I would be so bold as to assert that the age of the earth actually matters. The issue is relevant, in other words. Please allow me to explain why.
The Doctrine of Original Sin teaches the following:
1) God made a world that was very good, a world very unlike the one we now inhabit.
2) Adam sinned against God, resulting in negative consequences for the creation in general and mankind in particular.
3) As a result of Adam's sin, all humans descending from him (by ordinary generation) inherit a sin nature - we are sinful from the moment of conception.
4) Because Adam carried the office of Federal Head for humanity, the guilt of Adam's first sin is credited or imputed to the whole human race. This means God considers all people guilty of Adam's first transgression.
5) Adam was not only head of the human race; God made him king over the entire physical creation. When Adam fell, the creation fell with him. Death and decay entered the world. The creation is now in bondage to decay, and awaits the day when it will be redeemd and transformed.
The key idea I'd like you to focus on is this: the world as we see it now, as we experience it now - this is not the way God made the world. The pre-Fall world was radically different. A world without decay. A world without death. Given how all physical processes in this world are governed by entropy increases, it is frankly impossilbe for us to even imagine what the pre-Fall world was really like. But the key idea is that it was nothing like this world.
Why is the current world so horrible? Because we screwed it up. God made it very good. We rebelled. God is now keeping his promise: the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
It is essential to guard this Doctrine of Original Sin, that all the blame for the world being the way it is stays where it belongs: on our shoulders. God did not make the world this way. It is our fault that the world is the way it is.
Now this is why the age of the earth matters. It seems to me that the idea of the earth being 4.5 billion years old is linked pretty tightly with the idea that the world has always been as we see it now. A world governed by death and decay. A world that has experienced no radical discontinuity between the way things are (meaning the basic physical laws of the universe) and the way things were.
For example, let's examine a layer of sedimentary rock full of fossils. Fossils = death. If you claim that the layer of rock of 300 million years old, then you are claiming that death has been around for at least that long (i.e., long before Adam and Eve showed up on the scene). Then the presence of death and decay is no longer Adam's fault. It is God's fault. The world is the way it is because God is a lousy Creator.
So far from being some secondary issue best shunted to the side for the sake of unity, the age of the earth actually finds itself inextricably bound up with the core Doctrine of Original Sin. This is not a secondary matter. It is, rather, the very issue of blame bantered back and forth in Genesis 3. Who is to blame for the world's fallen condition? (This planet is a horrible place. If you think otherwise, just give it a little time.)
According to Genesis 3, Adam (and by extension, the whole human race) is to blame for the world being the way it is. Before Adam sinned, the world was not like this. We need to guard this piece of the Biblical worldview, for what is at stake is not only God's reputation as a good and wise Creator, but also the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. For only if the sin of the First Adam is the cause of everything wrong in the world, only then is the obedience of the Last Adam the solution for everything wrong in the world.
Those fossils can't be older than Adam, because before Adam there was no sin, no death, no decay, no disaster - none of the stuff that today produces dirt full of dead animals.
Guard the Doctrine of Original Sin.
The Bible teaches that the universe is about 6000 years old. Scientific observation shows that the Earth appears to be about 4.5 billion years old, while the universe as a whole appears to be about 14 billions years old. One can quibble on these numbers a bit, but it is obvious that we are dealing with two radically different views of the world.
Thus the many efforts to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with the competing conclusions reached by modern scientists. Some Christians question the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, preferring to think of the word "day" as symbolically referring to long periods of time. Other Christians attack the methods and interpretive paradigms of modern scientists, asserting that perhaps the universe does not really appear to be that old after all.
Although this post is not intended to defend my own attempt at reconciliation, let me say in passing that I believe God has made a young universe that appears old. This is the "appearance of age" theory, and it has many detractors. Let me suggest, however, that unlike all the tortured treatments of Genesis 1, the "appearance of age" theory does flow naturally out of the text. On the day they are created, Adam and Eve are clearly portrayed as looking older than they really are (they have adult bodies, not infant bodies). But more on this another time.
What I'm really interested in discussing here is why the whole topic matters. Some of us have a natural aversion to controversy (not always a bad thing), and the issue of the earth's age can needlessly divide and distract the church (aren't there much more important matters worthy of our time and energy?). Nevertheless, I would be so bold as to assert that the age of the earth actually matters. The issue is relevant, in other words. Please allow me to explain why.
The Doctrine of Original Sin teaches the following:
1) God made a world that was very good, a world very unlike the one we now inhabit.
2) Adam sinned against God, resulting in negative consequences for the creation in general and mankind in particular.
3) As a result of Adam's sin, all humans descending from him (by ordinary generation) inherit a sin nature - we are sinful from the moment of conception.
4) Because Adam carried the office of Federal Head for humanity, the guilt of Adam's first sin is credited or imputed to the whole human race. This means God considers all people guilty of Adam's first transgression.
5) Adam was not only head of the human race; God made him king over the entire physical creation. When Adam fell, the creation fell with him. Death and decay entered the world. The creation is now in bondage to decay, and awaits the day when it will be redeemd and transformed.
The key idea I'd like you to focus on is this: the world as we see it now, as we experience it now - this is not the way God made the world. The pre-Fall world was radically different. A world without decay. A world without death. Given how all physical processes in this world are governed by entropy increases, it is frankly impossilbe for us to even imagine what the pre-Fall world was really like. But the key idea is that it was nothing like this world.
Why is the current world so horrible? Because we screwed it up. God made it very good. We rebelled. God is now keeping his promise: the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
It is essential to guard this Doctrine of Original Sin, that all the blame for the world being the way it is stays where it belongs: on our shoulders. God did not make the world this way. It is our fault that the world is the way it is.
Now this is why the age of the earth matters. It seems to me that the idea of the earth being 4.5 billion years old is linked pretty tightly with the idea that the world has always been as we see it now. A world governed by death and decay. A world that has experienced no radical discontinuity between the way things are (meaning the basic physical laws of the universe) and the way things were.
For example, let's examine a layer of sedimentary rock full of fossils. Fossils = death. If you claim that the layer of rock of 300 million years old, then you are claiming that death has been around for at least that long (i.e., long before Adam and Eve showed up on the scene). Then the presence of death and decay is no longer Adam's fault. It is God's fault. The world is the way it is because God is a lousy Creator.
So far from being some secondary issue best shunted to the side for the sake of unity, the age of the earth actually finds itself inextricably bound up with the core Doctrine of Original Sin. This is not a secondary matter. It is, rather, the very issue of blame bantered back and forth in Genesis 3. Who is to blame for the world's fallen condition? (This planet is a horrible place. If you think otherwise, just give it a little time.)
According to Genesis 3, Adam (and by extension, the whole human race) is to blame for the world being the way it is. Before Adam sinned, the world was not like this. We need to guard this piece of the Biblical worldview, for what is at stake is not only God's reputation as a good and wise Creator, but also the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. For only if the sin of the First Adam is the cause of everything wrong in the world, only then is the obedience of the Last Adam the solution for everything wrong in the world.
Those fossils can't be older than Adam, because before Adam there was no sin, no death, no decay, no disaster - none of the stuff that today produces dirt full of dead animals.
Guard the Doctrine of Original Sin.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Why the Doctrine of Creation Matters
Though I am a Six Day Creationist, I want to acknowledge the value of "just believing in creation." In other words, many people (Christians and non-Christians) believe that God made the universe in general and life in particular, yet do not accept the various details recorded in Genesis 1-2. Before explaining why I think the details do matter, allow me to emphsize the common ground shared by all people who believe that God is Creator.
Why "Creation in general" matters. If God is Creator...
1) Life has a purpose. If life arose through a random, natural process, life is meaningless. Only created things have purpose, meaning, telos, end.
2) Time is linear. The view of many religions that history is cyclical destroys all incentive toward cultural and intellectual progress. Cultures with such a view of time stagnate, since nothing anyone does can actually make a difference. But if the universe has a definite beginning point, our decisions and actions affect the future and therefore matter.
3) God is not one of us. This sounds a bit strange, but most ancient religions viewed the gods as part of our world. There existed no fundamental difference between the human and the divine. The Creator-creature distinction results in a radically different view of God. He is transcendent, set apart, possessing being as part of his very essence.
4) God possesses an absolute right to command us, judge us, and dispose of us and all our circumstances as he sees fit. If God is Maker of all things, visible and invisible, he is a debtor to no man, owing us nothing. We have (and can have) no claim upon him. No one has ever given to God that God should repay him. It is literally impossible for God to be unfair.
5) Likewise if God is Maker of all things, we have no right to complain about anything, or charge God with wrongdoing, or get bent out of shape, put out, feel imposed upon, etc., if God does not give us what we want when we want it. Any sort of bad attitude presupposes that God owes us something, that we are entitled or have a right to something that God is withholding. The doctrine of Creation forever destroys all notions of entitlement. God is free to do with us as he sees fit. No one can charge him with wrongdoing or say to him, "Who do you think you are?"
6) All religions are not basically the same. The creation myths of various religions show the gods (or nowadays, aliens) making the universe and life out of pre-existent matter. In other words, gods and/or aliens simply rework the basic elements that have always existed apart from their creative act. But the Biblical doctrine of creation is creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing. God spoke the universe into being. Before God created space, matter, energy, physical forces, etc., only God existed. Don't let the pluralists get away with saying all religions are the same. They are not.
7) We understand why all men possess an inherent need to worship. Because we are creatures, worship is hardwired into us. It is literally impossible for a human not to worship. The question is only ever a matter of what we will worship: our Creator, or a substitute. But the actual act of worship is unavoidable. To say it somewhat differently, only the doctrine of creation explains why we are the way we are. Thus apart from the knowledge of God as Creator, it is impossible for us to understand ourselves.
8) We have an explanation for why "general revelation" works. Romans 1 teaches that we learn about God's "invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature" through our observation of the world around us. The creation teaches us about God because that is what it is: creation! There is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." There is only God's world. All of it is made by him, sustained by him, and governed by him. Thus every bit of the creation teaches us something about the God who created it. Indeed, through our study of the world in general and ourselves in particular, we learn enough about our Creator's righteous requirements as to render all of us without excuse for our rebellion against him.
Perhaps you can think of other ways in which the doctrine of "creation in general" profits its advocates. If you do not agree with the details of Genesis 1-2, yet nevertheless believe that God is your Maker, you at least enjoy the eight benefits listed above.
But Genesis 1-2 does give us specific details about how and when God made all things. I believe these details matter.
Why "Creation in general" matters. If God is Creator...
1) Life has a purpose. If life arose through a random, natural process, life is meaningless. Only created things have purpose, meaning, telos, end.
2) Time is linear. The view of many religions that history is cyclical destroys all incentive toward cultural and intellectual progress. Cultures with such a view of time stagnate, since nothing anyone does can actually make a difference. But if the universe has a definite beginning point, our decisions and actions affect the future and therefore matter.
3) God is not one of us. This sounds a bit strange, but most ancient religions viewed the gods as part of our world. There existed no fundamental difference between the human and the divine. The Creator-creature distinction results in a radically different view of God. He is transcendent, set apart, possessing being as part of his very essence.
4) God possesses an absolute right to command us, judge us, and dispose of us and all our circumstances as he sees fit. If God is Maker of all things, visible and invisible, he is a debtor to no man, owing us nothing. We have (and can have) no claim upon him. No one has ever given to God that God should repay him. It is literally impossible for God to be unfair.
5) Likewise if God is Maker of all things, we have no right to complain about anything, or charge God with wrongdoing, or get bent out of shape, put out, feel imposed upon, etc., if God does not give us what we want when we want it. Any sort of bad attitude presupposes that God owes us something, that we are entitled or have a right to something that God is withholding. The doctrine of Creation forever destroys all notions of entitlement. God is free to do with us as he sees fit. No one can charge him with wrongdoing or say to him, "Who do you think you are?"
6) All religions are not basically the same. The creation myths of various religions show the gods (or nowadays, aliens) making the universe and life out of pre-existent matter. In other words, gods and/or aliens simply rework the basic elements that have always existed apart from their creative act. But the Biblical doctrine of creation is creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing. God spoke the universe into being. Before God created space, matter, energy, physical forces, etc., only God existed. Don't let the pluralists get away with saying all religions are the same. They are not.
7) We understand why all men possess an inherent need to worship. Because we are creatures, worship is hardwired into us. It is literally impossible for a human not to worship. The question is only ever a matter of what we will worship: our Creator, or a substitute. But the actual act of worship is unavoidable. To say it somewhat differently, only the doctrine of creation explains why we are the way we are. Thus apart from the knowledge of God as Creator, it is impossible for us to understand ourselves.
8) We have an explanation for why "general revelation" works. Romans 1 teaches that we learn about God's "invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature" through our observation of the world around us. The creation teaches us about God because that is what it is: creation! There is no such thing as "nature" or the "natural world." There is only God's world. All of it is made by him, sustained by him, and governed by him. Thus every bit of the creation teaches us something about the God who created it. Indeed, through our study of the world in general and ourselves in particular, we learn enough about our Creator's righteous requirements as to render all of us without excuse for our rebellion against him.
Perhaps you can think of other ways in which the doctrine of "creation in general" profits its advocates. If you do not agree with the details of Genesis 1-2, yet nevertheless believe that God is your Maker, you at least enjoy the eight benefits listed above.
But Genesis 1-2 does give us specific details about how and when God made all things. I believe these details matter.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Appearance of Age in Genesis 2
The Bible is supposed to be accessible to children. This is one reason the various tortured interpretations of Genesis 1 are so painful. No child would ever read Genesis 1 and come away with the Day-Age, Gap, or "It's-all-just-poetry-so-it-doesn't-really-mean-what-it-sounds-like-it-means" interpretations.
Contrast this with Genesis 2. Read Genesis 2, then ask a child to draw a picture of Adam and Eve. What do Adam and Eve look like? Invariably, the child draws a picture of two adults. The child realizes that although Adam and Eve are less than a day old, they are created with the appearance of age. In other words, they look older than they really are. And the great thing about this is that you don't have to read it into the text. It is obvious, right on the surface (unlike the gruesome gymnastics to which Genesis 1 is so often subjected).
Why is it reasonable to conclude that Adam and Eve are made with the appearance of age? Because they are given adult tasks to perform. Naming the animals, tending the garden, having children, and defending Eve from the serpent - all of this dominion labor requires a grown-up body.
Now is God being deceptive by making Adam and Eve look older than they really are? Is he like the fraudulant craftsman who specializes in making fake antiques? Or does God have good and necessary reasons for giving our ancestors the appearance of age? And if God had good reasons for giving Adam and Eve the appearance of age, is it not possible that he could have good reasons for giving the world (and universe) around them the appearance of age as well?
This is no way denies that God could have taken 14 billion years to create the universe. The question is why God would take 6 days to make a creation that looks 14 billion years old? What are his reasons for doing this? What advantages does he obtain that could not be achieved any other way?
Do not fight the obvious. The most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is that we live in a young universe that has been given the appearance of great age. The fun comes in meditating on why God created it this way!
Contrast this with Genesis 2. Read Genesis 2, then ask a child to draw a picture of Adam and Eve. What do Adam and Eve look like? Invariably, the child draws a picture of two adults. The child realizes that although Adam and Eve are less than a day old, they are created with the appearance of age. In other words, they look older than they really are. And the great thing about this is that you don't have to read it into the text. It is obvious, right on the surface (unlike the gruesome gymnastics to which Genesis 1 is so often subjected).
Why is it reasonable to conclude that Adam and Eve are made with the appearance of age? Because they are given adult tasks to perform. Naming the animals, tending the garden, having children, and defending Eve from the serpent - all of this dominion labor requires a grown-up body.
Now is God being deceptive by making Adam and Eve look older than they really are? Is he like the fraudulant craftsman who specializes in making fake antiques? Or does God have good and necessary reasons for giving our ancestors the appearance of age? And if God had good reasons for giving Adam and Eve the appearance of age, is it not possible that he could have good reasons for giving the world (and universe) around them the appearance of age as well?
This is no way denies that God could have taken 14 billion years to create the universe. The question is why God would take 6 days to make a creation that looks 14 billion years old? What are his reasons for doing this? What advantages does he obtain that could not be achieved any other way?
Do not fight the obvious. The most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is that we live in a young universe that has been given the appearance of great age. The fun comes in meditating on why God created it this way!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A Young Earth That Looks Old
According to the Bible, our planet is about 6000 years old. Yet our world and the universe around it look much older than this. Layers in rock and ice, radiometric dating, non-random distribution of species - all give evidence of a world millions or billions of years old. Astronomic observation reveals a universe that appears to be about 14 billion years in age.
These two views are so wide apart, that a year here or there in one's calculations hardly matters. It is convenient, therefore, simply to refer to these two views as Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Both views have earnest and intelligent Christian supporters. In the denomination of which I am a part, the PCA, men holding both positions labor together for the cause of the gospel.
I am a Young Earth Creationist. Holding this position leaves me with several obligations. First, I must be certain to live at peace with those who think otherwise on this matter. We are all brothers in Christ. Second, I must explain why the issue matters. What difference does it make, after all, how old the planet is - as long as we affirm that God made it? Third, I must answer the most obvious question raised by my position: why would God make a young planet that looks old?
Is God a deceiver? Imagine a furniture maker who specializes in creating fake antiques. He crafts a new table, for example, and then puts the table through a series of treatments that give it the appearance of having aged several hundred years. The trickster then puts "wear" into the table: nicks, scratches, bang marks - whatever it takes to convince a prospective customer that the table is a genuine antique.
If the creation really is only 6000 years old (and I believe that it is), then God must be really good at "faking it." The simple fact of the matter is that the world looks a lot older than this. It is in trying to deny this observation that Creation Science so badly goes awry. There is just no use getting around the pervasive appearance of great age.
Which leaves me with a question I have to answer if anyone is to going take the Young Earth Creationist position seriously: Why would God make a young earth that looks old?
These two views are so wide apart, that a year here or there in one's calculations hardly matters. It is convenient, therefore, simply to refer to these two views as Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Both views have earnest and intelligent Christian supporters. In the denomination of which I am a part, the PCA, men holding both positions labor together for the cause of the gospel.
I am a Young Earth Creationist. Holding this position leaves me with several obligations. First, I must be certain to live at peace with those who think otherwise on this matter. We are all brothers in Christ. Second, I must explain why the issue matters. What difference does it make, after all, how old the planet is - as long as we affirm that God made it? Third, I must answer the most obvious question raised by my position: why would God make a young planet that looks old?
Is God a deceiver? Imagine a furniture maker who specializes in creating fake antiques. He crafts a new table, for example, and then puts the table through a series of treatments that give it the appearance of having aged several hundred years. The trickster then puts "wear" into the table: nicks, scratches, bang marks - whatever it takes to convince a prospective customer that the table is a genuine antique.
If the creation really is only 6000 years old (and I believe that it is), then God must be really good at "faking it." The simple fact of the matter is that the world looks a lot older than this. It is in trying to deny this observation that Creation Science so badly goes awry. There is just no use getting around the pervasive appearance of great age.
Which leaves me with a question I have to answer if anyone is to going take the Young Earth Creationist position seriously: Why would God make a young earth that looks old?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Five Rules for Interpreting the Bible
Five Rules for Interpreting the Bible:
1) What type of literature is the passage? The simplest division is prose or poetry.
2) What is the context of the passage? Look at what comes before and after.
3) How would the original audience have interpreted the passage?
4) Scripture interprets Scripture. The unchanging triune God wrote every word of the Bible.
5) It's all about Jesus. The Bible is relentlessly Christocentric.
Let's apply these rules to Genesis 1.
1) Genesis 1 is historical narrative or prose. Its language should therefore be taken literally rather than figuratively or symbolically. This means one cannot escape the Young Earth interpretation by calling Genesis 1 poetry. It is not poetry.
2) The immediate context of Genesis 1 is Genesis 2. Gen 2 recaps the events of Day 6 in much greater detail. Since the events of Genesis 2 do not take an age or epoch to occur, Day 6 back in chapter 1 must also not take a long period of time.
3) The Israelites wandering in the wilderness (sometime between 1446 to 1406 BC) were Moses' original intended audience for Genesis. There is no way this nation of ancient near-Eastern slaves heard Genesis 1 and thought of any of the modern fanciful interpretations (Day-Age theory, gap theory, etc.).
4) Exodus 20:11, the fourth of the ten commandments, refers back to the days of creation in Genesis 1. God says that we should work six days and rest on the seventh because that is what he did. Because Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus, and because Ex 20:11 equates the days of Gen 1 with the days of our current work week, the days of Genesis 1 must be six literal, consecutive 24-hour days.
5) If we live on a young Earth (about 6000 years old), then the way we find the planet today is not the way God made it. He did not make a world with death, decay, misery, entropy, etc. He made a world radically unlike the one we experience. But when we fell into sin, the creation (placed under our dominion) fell with us. And if the sin of the First Adam is the cause of everything that is wrong in the universe, then the obedience of the Last Adam is the solution for everything that is wrong in the universe. Young earth creationism therefore exalts the Son of God by magnifying the comprehensiveness and efficacy of his redemptive work - strong correlative support that the six days of Genesis 1 are six literal, consecutive 24-hour days.
1) What type of literature is the passage? The simplest division is prose or poetry.
2) What is the context of the passage? Look at what comes before and after.
3) How would the original audience have interpreted the passage?
4) Scripture interprets Scripture. The unchanging triune God wrote every word of the Bible.
5) It's all about Jesus. The Bible is relentlessly Christocentric.
Let's apply these rules to Genesis 1.
1) Genesis 1 is historical narrative or prose. Its language should therefore be taken literally rather than figuratively or symbolically. This means one cannot escape the Young Earth interpretation by calling Genesis 1 poetry. It is not poetry.
2) The immediate context of Genesis 1 is Genesis 2. Gen 2 recaps the events of Day 6 in much greater detail. Since the events of Genesis 2 do not take an age or epoch to occur, Day 6 back in chapter 1 must also not take a long period of time.
3) The Israelites wandering in the wilderness (sometime between 1446 to 1406 BC) were Moses' original intended audience for Genesis. There is no way this nation of ancient near-Eastern slaves heard Genesis 1 and thought of any of the modern fanciful interpretations (Day-Age theory, gap theory, etc.).
4) Exodus 20:11, the fourth of the ten commandments, refers back to the days of creation in Genesis 1. God says that we should work six days and rest on the seventh because that is what he did. Because Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus, and because Ex 20:11 equates the days of Gen 1 with the days of our current work week, the days of Genesis 1 must be six literal, consecutive 24-hour days.
5) If we live on a young Earth (about 6000 years old), then the way we find the planet today is not the way God made it. He did not make a world with death, decay, misery, entropy, etc. He made a world radically unlike the one we experience. But when we fell into sin, the creation (placed under our dominion) fell with us. And if the sin of the First Adam is the cause of everything that is wrong in the universe, then the obedience of the Last Adam is the solution for everything that is wrong in the universe. Young earth creationism therefore exalts the Son of God by magnifying the comprehensiveness and efficacy of his redemptive work - strong correlative support that the six days of Genesis 1 are six literal, consecutive 24-hour days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
