Questions for theistic evolutionists

[nightbringer]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective. I tend to find most discussions focus on the Genesis 1 text but I do not think Genesis 1 alone would demand a young earth. I am personally persuaded by the view put forward by John H. Walton in 'The Lost World of Genesis One (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281785673&sr=8-1)' that Genesis 1 describes functional origins not material origins.

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11


Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (NIV)

Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

[shunyadragon]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective. I tend to find most discussions focus on the Genesis 1 text but I do not think Genesis 1 alone would demand a young earth. I am personally persuaded by the view put forward by John H. Walton in 'The Lost World of Genesis One (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281785673&sr=8-1)' that Genesis 1 describes functional origins not material origins.

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

The best reference I can give is grmorton. He has had some threads in the past that deal directly with this issue. If he does not respond to this thread send him a PM or email.

From my perspective you simply have to deal with the overwhelming physical evidence against the YEC view.

In response to the Exodus quote, the day to God may be a different time reference than a day on earth. There is a reference in the Bible that describes a day may refer to a long period of time. I refers to 1,000 years to a day, and this may be symbolic to longer period of time.

[nightbringer]

Yeah just dropped grmorton a PM, good suggestion.

The problem I have with the 1 day = 1000 years argument is that while I agree that the 1000 years is symbolic, I don't see why God would reason for a 7 day week based on some unrelated period of time.

[rogue06]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective. I tend to find most discussions focus on the Genesis 1 text but I do not think Genesis 1 alone would demand a young earth. I am personally persuaded by the view put forward by John H. Walton in 'The Lost World of Genesis One (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281785673&sr=8-1)' that Genesis 1 describes functional origins not material origins.

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!
This is a question that should be addressed to OECs of various stripes as well since it is one dealing with the nature of the creation days rather than anything exclusive to TE.

The first thing I’d point out is that it might be the other way around. Instead of the six day motif in Exodus being used to reinforce the notion of a creation week it could be that the six day motif in Genesis to reinforce the concept of the work week with a holy seventh day of rest.

IOW, the only thing it demonstrates is that God gave us a pattern of work/rest not that the 24-hour long day model is the correct interpretation. Essentially the text establishes the principle of six periods of work followed by one period of rest.

Second you should probably understand that many of those considered leading figures in the Biblical Inerrancy movement have little or no trouble with either the idea of an old Earth and evolution. Some were even advocates of evolution.

B.B. Warfield, whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), was a theistic evolutionist (TE): "I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution."

While he had questions he makes it clear that,

“The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

He further said that, "If under the directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by propagation from brutish parents [that is, per saltum evolution (evolution by mutation)], it would be quite consonant with the fitness of things that it should be provided by his creative energy with a truly human soul."

IOW, God created the matter of the universe with the forces of nature ex nihilo, through evolution he providentially formed man, and by a special act of mediate creation he created the soul of humans.

Warfield also held that

“All that has come into being since [the original creation of the world stuff] – except the souls of men alone – has arisen as a modification of this original world-stuff by means of the interaction of its intrinsic forces…. [These modifications] find their account proximately in ‘secondary causes’; and this is not only evolution but pure evolutionism.”

D.I. Packer, considered one of the most influential evangelicals in America and defender of Biblical Inerrancy wrote an endorsement for the pro-TE anti-ID book called 'Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?' in 2008 and has said that he could not see anything that bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other.

Returning to the days of creation as well as the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) that I mentioned earlier in association with Warfield, with the exception of one of the founders of the modern YEC movement Henry Morris, they unanimously agreed to not include a 144-hour (six 24-hour long days) creation as an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy.

The ICBI also advocated freedom of interpretation on the age issue. In their "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics," Articles XX-XXII relate to Bible and science issues the ICBI conferees refused to link Biblical inerrancy with a specific view of the age of the earth in interpreting Genesis 1, allowing freedom of interpretation.

Dr. Norm Geisler wrote that Article XXII of the ICBI Statement affirmed the factual, historical nature and scientific accuracy of Genesis 1-11, but it "left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference." (Explaining Hermeneutics, ICBI, 1983).

Biblical scholars point out that the Bible is inerrant with respect to religious truth, not in matters that are of no significance to salvation. That was made clear by the ICBI’s statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, article 23: “WE AFFIRM the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation from sin. We deny that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the message of redemption.”

As Merrill F. Unger another prominent advocate of Biblical Inerrancy IIRC put it this way: "The Naïve View that creation was effected in one ordinary week about 4,000 B.C. is shaky on hermeneutical grounds and absurd on scientific grounds."

Some current prominent, conservative, evangelical scholars who firmly believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the historicity of Genesis, and believe in long creation days include Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, and Norman Geisler.

So, realizing that the Earth and surrounding Universe is actually far older than a few thousand years is not opposed by biblical inerrancy. And neither is accepting that evolution took place.

Sorry. Meant for this to have been a quick answer.

[KBertsche]

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!
I had a Bible professor in seminary who viewed it the same way Rogue does. He thought this verse makes the days less likely to be literal 24-hour periods, and more likely to be a divine "accommodation" or literary construct to serve as an example for man's work week.

[Marshall Janzen]

Hi Nightbringer,

Good question. I'm going to answer it from my perspective by looking at a few related texts to Exodus 20:11.

In Exodus, the six days of creation are twice mentioned when talking about the Sabbath. The other mention is in Exodus 31:17 where we also read that on the seventh day God "rested and was refreshed." I believe this is more symbolic than literal. God didn't actually become tired and need refreshment. As Jesus later declared when questioned about working on the Sabbath, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." If God ever took a break, we wouldn't be here! In the Genesis 1 account and the Exodus references to it, God is personified as a human labourer. God works during the day and rests each night, as seen by how each day ends with "and there was evening and there was morning" with no activity during this time. Finally, God sets apart the seventh day to rest and be refreshed. (And like rogue, I think Genesis 1 describes creation in a structure that we can emulate, rather than us emulating the literal work time and break time that God used, since God doesn't literally take breaks.)

The same humanization happens in the other key explanation of the Sabbath command in a parallel account to Exodus 20. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorates the exodus. I don't take the "mighty hand and an outstretched arm" as a literal description of God's body and how he defeated the Egyptians, but rather a more symbolic reference to his miraculous deliverance. I also take the six-and-one day framework as symbolic. There is no reason that a symbolic reference to six creation days would be out of bounds in the Decalogue, just as it isn't out of bounds to have a symbolic reference to the exodus.

If that is hard to accept, consider how another ordinance was instituted. Not the Sabbath, but the Lord's Supper. Jesus said "this is my body", and many Christians believe this must be literal, especially since the same thing is described in more detail in another account (John 6). Others think it is a true statement by Jesus, but symbolic. So too, many Christians insist that the Sabbath command explanation that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11) must be literal, especially since the same thing is described in more detail in another account (Genesis 1:1-2:3). Others think it is a true statement, but a symbolic one. The six days are just as symbolic as the seventh, which represents God's rest, which we can still enter today because it is ongoing (Hebrews 4:1-11). Support for this is found in Psalm 104:10-30, which describes many of God's creative acts from Genesis 1 as being ongoing and not confined to six days in the past.

Seeing symbolism in how human ordinances are tied to God's indescribable work doesn't make God's work false, but it does change how we understand it.

[nightbringer]

This is a question that should be addressed to OECs of various stripes as well since it is one dealing with the nature of the creation days rather than anything exclusive to TE.

Yes quite right. I didn't think about that.


The first thing I’d point out is that it might be the other way around. Instead of the six day motif in Exodus being used to reinforce the notion of a creation week it could be that the six day motif in Genesis to reinforce the concept of the work week with a holy seventh day of rest.

IOW, the only thing it demonstrates is that God gave us a pattern of work/rest not that the 24-hour long day model is the correct interpretation. Essentially the text establishes the principle of six periods of work followed by one period of rest.

I don't think this is a plausible option. The logic found in the Exodus passage is "God did X, therefore the Israelites ought to do Y". This solution changes the logic to "The Israelites ought to do Y, therefore God gave them a model of X." There might not be anything intrinsically bad about the logic of the solution, it just isn't found in the text.


Second you should probably understand that many of those considered leading figures in the Biblical Inerrancy movement have little or no trouble with either the idea of an old Earth and evolution. Some were even advocates of evolution.

I realise this but the fact that some people believe both TE/OEC and Biblical inerrancy does not mean that they are consistent in doing so. Consistency is what I'm concerned with here. Saying that, I am not of the YEC stripe that says all non-YECers are consciously compromising exegetical integrity to harmonise modern science with the Bible. I don't think the Biblical case for YEC is as a clear cut as most proponents claim. Thus I recognise the issue as one very much open to debate. Hence my inquiry here :smile:


Sorry. Meant for this to have been a quick answer.

Hah no worries. Thanks for the response.

[nightbringer]

Hi Nightbringer,

:hi:


Good question. I'm going to answer it from my perspective by looking at a few related texts to Exodus 20:11.

In Exodus, the six days of creation are twice mentioned when talking about the Sabbath. The other mention is in Exodus 31:17 where we also read that on the seventh day God "rested and was refreshed." I believe this is more symbolic than literal. God didn't actually become tired and need refreshment. As Jesus later declared when questioned about working on the Sabbath, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." If God ever took a break, we wouldn't be here!

I agree, God does not need refreshing! Walton, in the book I mentioned in the OP, makes a case that the "resting" talk refers to the temple where God is enthroned to rule (he sees the Genesis 1 account as described the setting up of the functional temple of the cosmos.)


In the Genesis 1 account and the Exodus references to it, God is personified as a human labourer. God works during the day and rests each night, as seen by how each day ends with "and there was evening and there was morning" with no activity during this time. Finally, God sets apart the seventh day to rest and be refreshed. (And like rogue, I think Genesis 1 describes creation in a structure that we can emulate, rather than us emulating the literal work time and break time that God used, since God doesn't literally take breaks.)

I think the same problem occurs here, that the logic of the Exodus 20:11 passage does not reflect this sort of thinking.


The same humanization happens in the other key explanation of the Sabbath command in a parallel account to Exodus 20. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorates the exodus. I don't take the "mighty hand and an outstretched arm" as a literal description of God's body and how he defeated the Egyptians, but rather a more symbolic reference to his miraculous deliverance.

Agreed. But it would be quite different if God commanded the Israelites to develop mighty hands with always outstretched arms because he himself has so. In this scenario we would have to consider either that the arm descriptions of God are literal, or that God has some very funny logic.


I also take the six-and-one day framework as symbolic. There is no reason that a symbolic reference to six creation days would be out of bounds in the Decalogue, just as it isn't out of bounds to have a symbolic reference to the exodus.

If that is hard to accept, consider how another ordinance was instituted. Not the Sabbath, but the Lord's Supper. Jesus said "this is my body", and many Christians believe this must be literal, especially since the same thing is described in more detail in another account (John 6). Others think it is a true statement by Jesus, but symbolic. So too, many Christians insist that the Sabbath command explanation that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11) must be literal, especially since the same thing is described in more detail in another account (Genesis 1:1-2:3). Others think it is a true statement, but a symbolic one. The six days are just as symbolic as the seventh, which represents God's rest, which we can still enter today because it is ongoing (Hebrews 4:1-11). Support for this is found in Psalm 104:10-30, which describes many of God's creative acts from Genesis 1 as being ongoing and not confined to six days in the past.

I don't think the lord's supper is a relevant analogy here. In the lord's supper Jesus gives us a symbolic means to remember a literal event. That is different from the Exodus 20:11 passage where you are claiming God gave the Israelites a literal 7 day week to pattern themselves after a non-literal creation period.

[nightbringer]

As it happens, through re-reading parts of The Lost World of Genesis One to think about your responses, I realised I totally misunderstood part of Walton's conclusion. He in fact agrees that the creation days are literal, it's just that those days didn't consist in material creation, but in the ordination of creation's function. So I accept that the Exodus 20:11 does correspond to literal days without making any statement about how long the material process that created us took. So I've kinda answered my own question. I very much appreciated everyone's input though!

I'd like to ask another question if that's cool! In Genesis 3:14-15 God describes the curse he has put on the serpent for deceiving Eve. Of particular note is the part where God says,


... on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

YECs typically interpret this to mean that snakes had some morphological change after the curse (they lost their legs when previously they had some, or something.) Obviously, by the standard chronology, leg-less snakes predate humans. How do OEC/TE-ers interpret the curse?

[KBertsche]

I'd like to ask another question if that's cool! In Genesis 3:14-15 God describes the curse he has put on the serpent for deceiving Eve. Of particular note is the part where God says,



YECs typically interpret this to mean that snakes had some morphological change after the curse (they lost their legs when previously they had some, or something.) Obviously, by the standard chronology, leg-less snakes predate humans. How do OEC/TE-ers interpret the curse?
It seems to me that the text primarily has in mind a curse on Satan, and perhaps on the one particular serpent (indwelled by Satan) involved in the Fall. Does this apply to all other serpents as well? I don't see that the text clarifies this, and it is dangerous to go beyond the text.

Likewise, when the ground is cursed, it is in relation to man's productivity and livelihood, somewhat analogous to the curse on woman's productivity in childbearing. I don't see that this implies any sort of wholesale change to the rest of the created order, such as the rocks and the stars and the animals.

[nightbringer]

I think you make some good points. I'm going away now for a few days but I'll respond in more detail when I return.

[Marshall Janzen]

Addressing two issues together:

I think the same problem occurs here, that the logic of the Exodus 20:11 passage does not reflect this sort of thinking.
I don't think the lord's supper is a relevant analogy here. In the lord's supper Jesus gives us a symbolic means to remember a literal event. That is different from the Exodus 20:11 passage where you are claiming God gave the Israelites a literal 7 day week to pattern themselves after a non-literal creation period.
Certain interpretations may not reflect that sort of logic, but I don't think we can put that back on the text. The example with the Lord's Supper is indeed instructive. Many Christians would not read that as symbolic the way you do -- many think there is something more literal in the wording. Now, I agree with you on the symbolism in how the Lord's Supper is equated with Jesus' body, but I do so for the same reason that I see symbolism in how the six days are equated with God's work in creation, and the Sabbath is equated with God's rest. As Walton's book states (though I've only read his Genesis commentary, not the one you mentioned), and as Hebrews 3-4 alludes to, God's rest is much more than a literal day. I don't think we can press the previous six days to be more literal than the last one.

Now, I do agree that the days are presented as literal in Genesis 1. However, this is no different to how the bowls of Revelation 16 are presented as literal. Within the account, God's wrath is a liquid of some sort that is contained in these bowls and can be poured out onto the earth. Within Genesis 1, the seven days encapsulate God's creation and rest just as later the seven bowls encapsulate God's wrath. So, I don't think we need to try and stretch the days to ages or the bowls to cisterns, because within the accounts they do refer to days and bowls. But, the whole framework is used to tangibly describe something that physical terminology really can't do justice to. God is condescending to speak, and thank God for that, because otherwise we'd have no revelation at all!


But it would be quite different if God commanded the Israelites to develop mighty hands with always outstretched arms because he himself has so. In this scenario we would have to consider either that the arm descriptions of God are literal, or that God has some very funny logic.
God commanded the Israelites to rest and be refreshed because he himself rested and was refreshed. Yet, neither of us takes that refreshment literally for God, even though I assume we think the Israelites were supposed to literally be refreshed (whatever else the Sabbath included, it's clear it included rest and refreshment).

[grmorton]

Yeah just dropped grmorton a PM, good suggestion.

The problem I have with the 1 day = 1000 years argument is that while I agree that the 1000 years is symbolic, I don't see why God would reason for a 7 day week based on some unrelated period of time.

Being the president of a startup geophysical company leaves me, unfortunately, very very little time to debate. I do books, I program product, I am a salesman, accountant, treasurer and all round flunky for my partner, who is also all the same things to me.

I just answered Nigtbringer. For anyone else, I would suggest looking at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm

I believe that the 6 days were 6 pre-temporal events and God used days to memorialize them. The Exodus verse, in my opinion, does not have to be interpreted as indicating the temporal time of creation. My view goes back to the 4th century AD so it isn't original to me and I owe Basil, Whiston, Capron and Hayward for their previous work on this viewpoint. I am a mere follower to those great men--yes they are all great, even if I disagree with some of the theological views of some of them.

[superdan54]

Hi nightbringer, thanks for asking these questions!

I don't have too much to add except that even Scripture itself seems to shy away from the idea that we are privy to know the exact details of God's creation. For example, the wise Solomon reflected this in Ecclesiastes 3:11

"He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

I certainly understand the desire to keep the simplicity of the text, but Scripture continually paints a picture of a God who's thoughts and actions are much higher than our own. This, of course, applies both ways, no matter how you view the text :wink:.

[mostlyharmless]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective.

It would be helpful if you stated exactly what you mean by biblical inerrancy. Because most TE's do not believe that scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man in any way. As such any scientific inaccuracies in scripture are simply a reflection of the cultural period and so do not affect Biblical inerrancy.



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?


Lot's of commentators believe God works within the culture and beliefs of the people. If we understand the creation stories as inspired retellings of creations stories common to the area then God is just again reusing an inspired cultural artifact for an inspired purpose (establishing a work rest schedule for man). The literalism of the account is simply not an issue since that was never the purpose of the creation story anyway.

Blessings

[greentwiga]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective. I tend to find most discussions focus on the Genesis 1 text but I do not think Genesis 1 alone would demand a young earth. I am personally persuaded by the view put forward by John H. Walton in 'The Lost World of Genesis One (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281785673&sr=8-1)' that Genesis 1 describes functional origins not material origins.

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

Well, the Temple is only a representation of something in heaven. There is no literally identical thing in heaven (Heb 8:5,9:23) In the same way, there is no reason for the heavenly concept of day to be a literal day. God rested for a day. What is a day to him? It isn't 24 hours.

[nightbringer]

Addressing two issues together:

Certain interpretations may not reflect that sort of logic, but I don't think we can put that back on the text. The example with the Lord's Supper is indeed instructive. Many Christians would not read that as symbolic the way you do -- many think there is something more literal in the wording. Now, I agree with you on the symbolism in how the Lord's Supper is equated with Jesus' body, but I do so for the same reason that I see symbolism in how the six days are equated with God's work in creation, and the Sabbath is equated with God's rest. As Walton's book states (though I've only read his Genesis commentary, not the one you mentioned), and as Hebrews 3-4 alludes to, God's rest is much more than a literal day. I don't think we can press the previous six days to be more literal than the last one.

Even if the Lord's supper is not symbolic I still don't think it's particular illuminating with regard to how we should treat the Exodus passage.

Let's say a man uses a metaphor to express the beauty of his wife's eyes. He says "her eyes are diamonds." Diamonds are beautiful and it is that property of them that he is drawing upon to express how beautiful this woman's eyes are. There are many properties of the diamond that he is overlooking in his description. He does not intend to say, for example, that his wife's eyes are hard like a diamond.

Now imagine that this married couple have children and the husband instructs the children not to poke sticks in their eyes saying "you are to have diamonds for eyes like their mother". While a little unusual to hear, this command makes sense - he is aiming to preserve the beauty of their children's eyes. But imagine instead that the husband says to his children "you must pour cement into your eyes for you are to have diamonds for eyes like your mother." This second command doesn't make sense because hardness is not a property that the diamond metaphor seeks to express.

If we take the creation days to be metaphorical or symbolic in some way then Exodus 20:8-11 displays similarly warped logic. Obviously under this metaphorical view, the creation days do not intend to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in 24 hour periods. '24-hourness' is not the property that the day metaphor is seeking to express. Rather the days would convey non-descript periods of time or something to that effect. But it is precisely the 24-hourness of the days that the Exodus passage uses as the justification for a command. So it seems clear that whatever the creation days express, they do express 24-hourness. This doesn't in itself necessitate that God materially created the whole world in seven 24 hour days. Genesis 1 might be talking about something other than material creation as John Walton argues (and I'm sure he's not alone). Either way, we need to preserve the 24-hourness.


Now, I do agree that the days are presented as literal in Genesis 1. However, this is no different to how the bowls of Revelation 16 are presented as literal. Within the account, God's wrath is a liquid of some sort that is contained in these bowls and can be poured out onto the earth. Within Genesis 1, the seven days encapsulate God's creation and rest just as later the seven bowls encapsulate God's wrath. So, I don't think we need to try and stretch the days to ages or the bowls to cisterns, because within the accounts they do refer to days and bowls. But, the whole framework is used to tangibly describe something that physical terminology really can't do justice to. God is condescending to speak, and thank God for that, because otherwise we'd have no revelation at all!

The revelation passages just aren't comparable. These are metaphors true enough, but nothing is being based on some actual property the object being used as a symbol has.


God commanded the Israelites to rest and be refreshed because he himself rested and was refreshed. Yet, neither of us takes that refreshment literally for God, even though I assume we think the Israelites were supposed to literally be refreshed (whatever else the Sabbath included, it's clear it included rest and refreshment).

This would be a more persuasive argument however Walton (yeah I sure am blowing his trumpet in this thread) argues that the rest terminology doesn't refer to disengagement as recooperation and refreshment like we immediately think it does.

"What does divine rest entail? Most of us think of rest as disengagement from the cares, worries and tasks of life. What comes to mind is sleeping in or taking an afternoon nap. But in the ancient world rest is what results whena crisis has been resolved or when stability has been achieved, when things have "settled down." Consequently normal routines can be established and enjoyed. For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities." - John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 2009: 72-73.

Our modern sense of rest which expresses a recooperative action (which God would obviously not need to do) is not what is being described of God here so it isn't symbolic in that sense and so is not an adequate comparison to the 24-hourness of the creation days.

[nightbringer]

Hi nightbringer, thanks for asking these questions!

Thanks for trying to answer them!


I don't have too much to add except that even Scripture itself seems to shy away from the idea that we are privy to know the exact details of God's creation. For example, the wise Solomon reflected this in Ecclesiastes 3:11

"He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

I agree that it is pretty unlikely that we will find out all the details of God's creative acts. But God has revealed some information about this in his Word. I'm not looking for full information on the creative acts, I'm looking to see whether what information God gives us in Scripture is compatible with evolution. I certainly don't think God would include falsehoods in his own revelation.


I certainly understand the desire to keep the simplicity of the text, but Scripture continually paints a picture of a God who's thoughts and actions are much higher than our own. This, of course, applies both ways, no matter how you view the text :wink:.

Absolutely God's thoughts are higher than our own, but if he has revealed some of his thoughts in Scripture, then we are not over-stepping the line by examining whether those Scriptures are true.

[nightbringer]

It would be helpful if you stated exactly what you mean by biblical inerrancy. Because most TE's do not believe that scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man in any way. As such any scientific inaccuracies in scripture are simply a reflection of the cultural period and so do not affect Biblical inerrancy.

To put it simply I believe the Bible is inerrant in that it teaches no falsehood in what it intends to teach. I too do not believe that Scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man. But I do expect that when it intends to convey messages relevant to science, it teaches no falsehood.


Lot's of commentators believe God works within the culture and beliefs of the people. If we understand the creation stories as inspired retellings of creations stories common to the area then God is just again reusing an inspired cultural artifact for an inspired purpose (establishing a work rest schedule for man). The literalism of the account is simply not an issue since that was never the purpose of the creation story anyway.

Blessings

Certainly God uses a culture's literary genres, phrases of expression etc to convey his message but I have a problem with the idea that God actually supports the false ideas of a given culture. If he does this for a culture's science, why not a culture's theology? I can't believe in a God who lies.

[nightbringer]

Well, the Temple is only a representation of something in heaven. There is no literally identical thing in heaven (Heb 8:5,9:23) In the same way, there is no reason for the heavenly concept of day to be a literal day. God rested for a day. What is a day to him? It isn't 24 hours.

I agree there is no fully identical thing in heaven. But this isn't relevant to my point. My point is that it is fuzzy logic for God to reason for a command based on a property that a metaphor doesn't intend to express.

[nightbringer]

It seems to me that the text primarily has in mind a curse on Satan, and perhaps on the one particular serpent (indwelled by Satan) involved in the Fall. Does this apply to all other serpents as well? I don't see that the text clarifies this, and it is dangerous to go beyond the text.

I think your interpretation is possible. I know that some YEC'ers argue that because the passage says "cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field" that implies that the other animals are cursed as well. But I think it could also just be emphasising the cursed status of the serpent/satan. A dip into the original Hebrew is probably in order to clarify the issue.


Likewise, when the ground is cursed, it is in relation to man's productivity and livelihood, somewhat analogous to the curse on woman's productivity in childbearing. I don't see that this implies any sort of wholesale change to the rest of the created order, such as the rocks and the stars and the animals.

Yeah I can buy this.

[Marshall Janzen]

Welcome back nightbringer! Hope you had a good trip.


If we take the creation days to be metaphorical or symbolic in some way then Exodus 20:8-11 displays similarly warped logic. Obviously under this metaphorical view, the creation days do not intend to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in 24 hour periods. '24-hourness' is not the property that the day metaphor is seeking to express.
I think you misunderstood my view. I do think the creation days in Genesis 1 are intended to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in literal days. That is the whole reason for including this highly structured template of days here while all the other creation accounts in Scripture lack it. However, the point isn't to contradict the other accounts, such as by declaring that God's creation of animals was confined to two days unlike Psalm 104 that sees these activities as ongoing. The point is to take God's indescribable creative work and present it in a physical template that we as human beings can follow. This is why the only places the days show up outside Genesis 1 is when they are connected with this template for humans to follow (Exodus 20:8-11, 31:12-17).

The true nature of God's work (which Jesus alludes to in John 5:16-17) and the true nature of God's rest (as glimpsed in Hebrews 4) goes well beyond what we can literally imitate and is not bound to a certain number of physical days.


But it is precisely the 24-hourness of the days that the Exodus passage uses as the justification for a command.
That is your way of reading it. A number of us have presented a different way. If you applied your method to the Lord's Supper, then it is precisely the fact that the bread was literally Jesus' body that Jesus uses as the justification for commanding them to eat it. In that case, you probably recognize that it may be the other way around: Jesus said it was his body to reveal the meaning of the symbol, rather than telling them to eat the bread because of what it already was. I'm saying it can be the other way around in the case of the work week and Sabbath as well. God's creative work and rest was described in a template of six days and a seventh for our benefit, rather than the Israelite work week and Sabbath merely being a reflection of the literal way God worked and rested.


The revelation passages just aren't comparable.
Can you think of any part of Scripture that is written more similarly to Genesis 1:1-2:3 than the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation? Aside from the obvious difference of language (Hebrew versus Greek), they seem to me to have a lot in common. They all use highly structured accounts of seven items (days, seals, trumpets, bowls). There is a repeated refrain, with only subtle differences, in each item. The last item is set off as special. In each case, the account describes how God's activity in his realm directly affects earth. There also appears to be anthropomorphism and/or symbolism in how God's activity is described in physical terms (e.g. creative daily speech or liquid wrath in bowls). All the accounts give us a glimpse of scenes that no human could have naturally witnessed.


These are metaphors true enough, but nothing is being based on some actual property the object being used as a symbol has.
The destruction of the earth is based on God's wrath being a liquid that can be placed into and poured out of bowls! At least, that's the case if one reduces these accounts to the face value, ignoring the way the activity of God that transcends the physical is being represented in physical terms we can identify with. (And, in the case of the days, also in terms that we can imitate.)


Our modern sense of rest which expresses a recooperative action (which God would obviously not need to do) is not what is being described of God here so it isn't symbolic in that sense and so is not an adequate comparison to the 24-hourness of the creation days.
It isn't merely our modern sense. The other times the Hebrew word for "refreshed" shows up in Scripture, it expresses that recuperative action. Yet, this word is also applied to God. I agree with Walton that God's rest is much more than this. However, God condescends to being described like a weary labourer so that the Israelites would have a template to follow -- a template that included being quite literally recuperated after a hard week's work. We can't imitate the full nature of God's rest, but God allowed it to be described in a more physical and human way that we can imitate.

We are also called to enter God's rest in a deeper way (again, Hebrews 4), sharing in his shalom that continues to this day, even as his creative and sustaining work also continues.

[greentwiga]

I agree there is no fully identical thing in heaven. But this isn't relevant to my point. My point is that it is fuzzy logic for God to reason for a command based on a property that a metaphor doesn't intend to express.

We agree that there is some entity in heaven called day. There is no reason to suppose that heaven's day is 24 hours long. Just as God had a temple built on earth that in some earthly way represented the one in heaven, the day and the seven days in some way represent the ones in heaven. I believe the heavenly day is far more real than the earthly one.

[mostlyharmless]

To put it simply I believe the Bible is inerrant in that it teaches no falsehood in what it intends to teach. I too do not believe that Scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man. But I do expect that when it intends to convey messages relevant to science, it teaches no falsehood.

It can only be conveying a message relevant to science if that was the intention of the writing. You cannot take a metaphor and try to force scientific meaning out of it just because it uses natural objects to convey its meaning.


Certainly God uses a culture's literary genres, phrases of expression etc to convey his message but I have a problem with the idea that God actually supports the false ideas of a given culture. If he does this for a culture's science, why not a culture's theology? I can't believe in a God who lies.

Hidden within your paragraph is the assumption that the creation story was intended to be an accurate cosmology. That is the only way the story can be a scientific lie. Just as scriptural uses of metaphor cannot be lies, so the creation story cannot be a lie about science if it is not a scientific account.

In any case there is no scientific or historical genre of writing in those periods (in the modern sense).

[nightbringer]

Welcome back nightbringer! Hope you had a good trip.

Thanks I did, I helped in taking my church youth group to a Christian summer festival. It was a really good time and one of the guys who came recommitted his life to Christ :). Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, I had to go away again!


I think you misunderstood my view. I do think the creation days in Genesis 1 are intended to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in literal days.

I think you're confusing the meaning of literal. If I said "I punched that guy's lights out" and I meant it literally, I would be saying that I actually punched out the bulbs of the lights he owns. If we say that Genesis intends to convey the idea that God created in 6 literal days then it means God actually created in 6 days. It is non-sensical to say that Genesis descibes a literal 6 day creation and still doesn't have to be interpreted so that God actually created in 6 24 hour days.


The true nature of God's work (which Jesus alludes to in John 5:16-17) and the true nature of God's rest (as glimpsed in Hebrews 4) goes well beyond what we can literally imitate and is not bound to a certain number of physical days.

Sure, we can't literally imitate God's work in its entirity, but we can imitate that which God has said we can, like he does in the Sabbath commandment in Exodus. I'm not sure how you would use the passages in John or Hebrews to counter this.


That is your way of reading it. A number of us have presented a different way.

I just don't think these alternative readings are true to the logic of the passage. To maintain the logic of the passage, you must hold that the duration of God's creative act was in some way actually comparable to 6 days. I suppose the actual 24-hourness of them might not be what is being compared. But you certainly need some transposable time frame for God's creative acts.


Can you think of any part of Scripture that is written more similarly to Genesis 1:1-2:3 than the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation? Aside from the obvious difference of language (Hebrew versus Greek), they seem to me to have a lot in common. They all use highly structured accounts of seven items (days, seals, trumpets, bowls). There is a repeated refrain, with only subtle differences, in each item. The last item is set off as special. In each case, the account describes how God's activity in his realm directly affects earth. There also appears to be anthropomorphism and/or symbolism in how God's activity is described in physical terms (e.g. creative daily speech or liquid wrath in bowls). All the accounts give us a glimpse of scenes that no human could have naturally witnessed.

The destruction of the earth is based on God's wrath being a liquid that can be placed into and poured out of bowls! At least, that's the case if one reduces these accounts to the face value, ignoring the way the activity of God that transcends the physical is being represented in physical terms we can identify with. (And, in the case of the days, also in terms that we can imitate.)

Sure, Genesis and Revelation have thematic similarities. But I can't see any true comparison between the Revelation metaphors and the way the creation days are being used in the Exodus passage. For instance there is no command for us to pour liquid out of bowls because God's wrath is descirbed like that. That would be bad logic given the metaphorical nature of the bowl language. The metaphors serve an illustrative point, but (given the logic of the Exodus Sabbath passage) I cannot conclude that the creation days are similarly metaphorical.


It isn't merely our modern sense. The other times the Hebrew word for "refreshed" shows up in Scripture, it expresses that recuperative action. Yet, this word is also applied to God. I agree with Walton that God's rest is much more than this. However, God condescends to being described like a weary labourer so that the Israelites would have a template to follow -- a template that included being quite literally recuperated after a hard week's work. We can't imitate the full nature of God's rest, but God allowed it to be described in a more physical and human way that we can imitate.

I would have to be shown specific passages that show a model of literal recuperative action being based on God's non-literal recuperatibe action to agree with this.


We are also called to enter God's rest in a deeper way (again, Hebrews 4), sharing in his shalom that continues to this day, even as his creative and sustaining work also continues.

I agree that his sustaining work continues to day, but his creative work is finished as I believe Hebrews 4:3 says.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on the nature of the days. I can't see myself changing my mind on the Exodus passage. But as I said earlier, it's not really an issue for me in accepting evolution as I take Walton's view of the creation days.

[nightbringer]

We agree that there is some entity in heaven called day. There is no reason to suppose that heaven's day is 24 hours long. Just as God had a temple built on earth that in some earthly way represented the one in heaven, the day and the seven days in some way represent the ones in heaven. I believe the heavenly day is far more real than the earthly one.

I think there might be some plausibility here.

[nightbringer]

It can only be conveying a message relevant to science if that was the intention of the writing. You cannot take a metaphor and try to force scientific meaning out of it just because it uses natural objects to convey its meaning.

I agree.


Hidden within your paragraph is the assumption that the creation story was intended to be an accurate cosmology.

I believe the creation story intends to convey some literal truth about cosmology based on the Exodus passage's logic.


That is the only way the story can be a scientific lie. Just as scriptural uses of metaphor cannot be lies, so the creation story cannot be a lie about science if it is not a scientific account.

I agree.


In any case there is no scientific or historical genre of writing in those periods (in the modern sense).

So, because there wasn't any of what we would call historical or scientific writings, the ancients were incapable of writing things that they intended to convey as literal truth when it comes to how the universe came about? I don't have to write a science textbook to write something that intends to convey truths about the material world. Consideration of literary genres are important but there isn't a black and white line between the kind of truths that can be expressed in scientific/historical writings and whatever else.

[capnkrik]

Amen to your post. Why do people put God in a box? From my research of rabbinical views, the Creation Story is just that, a story.

[justsumguy]

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11

Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

My answer to both questions would be no. It doesn't make sense to me. When it comes to human literal interpretation of anything, we are talking about an "attempt" to do something. There is no such thing as humans literally interpreting anything. Try walking around with another human for two hours and literally interpreting what each of you say to one another. Our entire effort to communicate with one another is all about "interpretation". Claiming literal interpretation of the Bible is simple arrogance. It is simply saying, "I know what the Bible is saying because I am interpreting it correctly" or "I am interpreting it closer to how it should be interpreted". It is in defiance of first having to deal with literal translation which again, cannot be done without interpretation because we humans do not communicate in a literal fashion. Once we get to the point where droids are writing books, then we can hold to a literal interpretation.

Anyway, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be on this planet. The theory of evolution has to do with how life evolved once life came to be on this planet. Abiogenesis is one thing that deal's with how life came to be on the planet.

Absolute is simply something that so far is not attainable by humans in this physical universe. A couple examples would be absolute zero temperature and absolute literal interpretation.

[justsumguy]

KJV Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I don't see alot of people who claim to hold to literal interpretation insisting that God created evil.
In fact, I don't see any person who claims to hold to literal interpretation holding to literal interpretation of any verse in the Bible that is offered up as argument to one of their literally interpretated verses.
The creation order is interesting...
Life in the sea.
Life in the air.
Life on land.
Humans.

There are schools of thought within the scientific community that lean to that order of evolution. I'm just saying that's an interesting coincidence with regards to when Genesis 1 was supposedly written.

[nightbringer]

Amen to your post. Why do people put God in a box? From my research of rabbinical views, the Creation Story is just that, a story.

If the original author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, holding to a young-earth interpretation would not be "putting God in a box", it would be correct exegesis. If there are good exegetical reasons to take the account as a story like you say, then so be it.

[justsumguy]

If the author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, the earth orbiting around the sun should have been the first day instead of the fourth. Genesis 1 always looked like abstract art to me. I was reading it when I was seven and I have never suspected it to be literal. From 7 to 19, I always assumed there was great mystery in that chapter.

I guess I was a heretic from an early age.

[mostlyharmless]

some literal truth about cosmology based on the Exodus passage's logic.

Well if that's your belief then you are always going to have problems because reality does not coincide with a literal reading of genesis



So, because there wasn't any of what we would call historical or scientific writings, the ancients were incapable of writing things that they intended to convey as literal truth when it comes to how the universe came about? I don't have to write a science textbook to write something that intends to convey truths about the material world. Consideration of literary genres are important but there isn't a black and white line between the kind of truths that can be expressed in scientific/historical writings and whatever else.

I agree there isn't a black and white line, and this is obvious in the manner in which Genesis moves from the mythic toward the historical. But modern scientific writing emphasis is on literal provable truth while ancient cosmological writings were not focused on this at all, instead forming patterns and explanations that supported customs and manner of life of the culture they come from. The creation story in Genesis is perhaps most appropriately read this way and as a polemic against the pagan polytheistic religions around Israel. It is very hard to ascertain if the author intended any literal cosmology at all, and even if he did these secondary aspects of the text do not agree with reality.

Blessings

[nightbringer]

If the author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, the earth orbiting around the sun should have been the first day instead of the fourth. Genesis 1 always looked like abstract art to me. I was reading it when I was seven and I have never suspected it to be literal. From 7 to 19, I always assumed there was great mystery in that chapter.

I guess I was a heretic from an early age.

Why do you think the Sun ought to have been made on the first day? Is God incapable of creating light without the Sun?

[nightbringer]

Well if that's your belief then you are always going to have problems because reality does not coincide with a literal reading of genesis

I don't see this as a persuasive argument against YEC exegesis. A literal reading could be the correct reading, and the earth could be old, meaning that Genesis would contain falsehood. Your trying to fit Genesis with what you see as reality doesn't mean you're reading Genesis correctly. If Genesis is literal and false we need to be honest and say that inerrancy is wrong, or even that Christianty is wrong. But if there are good exegetical reasons to believe Genesis (and the Bible as a whole) is compatible with evolution then so be it.


I agree there isn't a black and white line, and this is obvious in the manner in which Genesis moves from the mythic toward the historical. But modern scientific writing emphasis is on literal provable truth while ancient cosmological writings were not focused on this at all, instead forming patterns and explanations that supported customs and manner of life of the culture they come from. The creation story in Genesis is perhaps most appropriately read this way and as a polemic against the pagan polytheistic religions around Israel. It is very hard to ascertain if the author intended any literal cosmology at all, and even if he did these secondary aspects of the text do not agree with reality.

Blessings

I don't see Jesus, the apostles, or anyone else in Scripture taking Genesis to be anything less than literal history. Certainly we need to believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures.

[justsumguy]

Why do you think the Sun ought to have been made on the first day? Is God incapable of creating light without the Sun?

Because a 24 hour period is based on the earth and sun. It appears as if (notice the word "appears") the sun was created on the fourth day.

We're not talking about the speed of light here. We're talking about a literal 24 hour day.

Sure, God is capable of creating everything in 24 hour periods without there being 24 periods. God could create the entire universe out of a giraffe that doesn't exist.

I'm simply speaking of supposedly literal interpretation. God made something on the first day, the second day and the third day before there was a day (and no...I'm not talking about light).