I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
In one of our culture’s many battles, the issue of our world’s age is a topic of great passion... and anger. Usually this is rolled into a battle over “creationism” and evolution. In fact, the latter topic often takes center stage and the former is relegated to footnote status by our secular culture. Whatever the case may be, I think that both fights are completely misplaced and unfortunate diversions from the people, ideas and things that matter most, namely, the power and unique potency of Jesus of Nazareth to heal our lives our nation and our world. Unfortunately, this was not a conclusion that I came to with the assistance of some well intentioned church people, pastors and Sunday School teachers. Rather, it was a conclusion that I arrived at after not a few crises of faith as I wrestled with what humans said that the Bible said, and what a different set of humans said about science and its explanatory power about the physical world we find ourselves in.
I suspect that I know what some readers are thinking at this point: “Corbin’s foray’s into education and science programs led him to encounter teachers and teachings that were atheistic and anti-Christian (not just anti-god or gods). I do enjoy science, especially biology and astronomy, but this alleged indoctrination was not the case at all. In fact, I suspect that many of my public school teachers and college professors were Christians, even if ones who had been handed their hat by “the system” regarding their ability to be forthright about their beliefs in front of students. No, what created those early crises of faith for me was the church’s positions against what was being taught in some of my educational experiences. Front and center: The age of the earth and evolution.
For example, in a book given to me by a well meaning Christian friend, the Christian author railed on evolution “because it cannot be proven.” He asked, "Do we believe the Bible, or have we placed our trust in the foolish speculations of men based on the scientifically unprovable assumptions of so-called science?"
This is an unfortunate and false dichotomy (either/or proposition) perpetrated by far too many Jesus followers. It causes people to pick a side and never considers the possibility that the answer might be a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.” Even if we do not buy evolution as it is usually conceived, we can have BOTH a very old universe AND God's Word without any watering down of faith for either category. That fossils do not match any currently living organisms is fairly convincing evidence that organisms DO change over time. But as I have learned, this need not be a crisis creating issue for the Christian believer. In fact, if we teach our children the biblically unsupported idea that organisms never change over time or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I suggest that we are setting them up to fail when they hit the classroom. If this is the track we take, it is inevitable that they will be forced to choose either Christ or science, and the statistics prove that this does not usually go well for the church. This should not be. No matter how well intentioned they are, Christian adults should not force their kids to choose EITHER science OR Jesus. We should set up our kids to succeed, and more often than not, this means that they can generally hold science and Christ together. All truth, after all, is God's truth.
But I digress, in a recent foray into the Christian blogosphere, the topic of the earth’s age resurfaced. In an interview featuring my friend, Jeremy Bacon, he said that he believed that a 24 hour designation offered the “easier reading” of the pertinent chapters in Genesis. This has also been the recently professed position of our mutual friend, Brian. I however, remain skeptical of a literal, 6-day creation event that measures a “day” by a 24 hour period. Like my friends, this is not because I disbelieve the biblical text, but because I am committed to it and esteem it so highly. But in this essay, I assume that the real question we should be asking is not “Why shouldn’t we believe in a young earth?” but rather “Why SHOULD we?” Without starting with science and philosophy to make a case against a young earth or for an old earth, I start here with the biblical text itself. Thus far, I have found no compelling reason to think that the “days” of Genesis must be interpreted as literal, 24-hour periods. I think that science is more than a proper place to start, but because of so many well-intentioned Christians’ skepticism against the hard sciences, scripture is also a good place to start.
To begin with, I have to ask why a 24 hour interpretation of “day” is the “easiest reading.” This seems to be an awfully subjective adjective to me. Who says it is best and what criterion are they using to measure it? For my part, I contend that the “easiest” or “best” reading is to define the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) to mean an unspecified period of time in these early chapters of Genesis. But this isn’t for some nefarious ulterior liberal agenda; it is an interpretive framework used to understand the text, and in this case, I presume that “best” indicates that which is most consistent or makes the best sense of all the data. And to be fair, I have a lot of respect for Jeremy and Brian, but I disagree with them on this issue.
So, why do I understand “yom” to be an unspecified period of time? It has to do with A) how humans have come to measure a “day” and B) how “yom” is used with the narrative regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the second chapter of Genesis.
First, it is generally accepted that we measure a “day” by the earth’s rotation in relation to the Sun (the star we call Sol). The Bible also goes through a poetic phraseology that ends each creative moment with the saying: “And there was evening and there was morning, the X day.” So far so good, and to be honest, this would indeed seem to reflect a literal 24 hour period. At least at first glance.
So where’s the hang up? My problem with this understanding is that a 24 hour designation seems entirely too mired in the physical mechanics of our solar system, the gravitational center of which is the Sun. I don’t contest any of this or intend to imply that Moses had to have a working knowledge of astronomy to pen this narrative (if it was indeed Moses). No, the problem comes with the progression of the “days” of creation if they are taken literally, for according to Genesis, the Sun was not created until “day” number 4. As such, what sense does it make to measure the first 3 “days” and “evening and morning” by the earth’s rotation in relation to a local star that does not yet exist? If we take the passage literally, the first light came not from the Sun, but from some other undisclosed source of light. And if that is the case, then by what measure can we gauge a regular “day” by? It simply cannot be the usual 24 hour revolution as we measure it by the usual earth-spin in relation to Sol. I don’t know any way around this. Of course we can still assume that those first 3 “days” were 24 hour periods, but that is little more than just that: an assumption.
Secondly, there is Adam and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam to steer clear of the Tree of Knowledge because, "...in the DAY that you eat of it you shall die." The NIV conspicuously changes "day" to "when,” but the original Hebrew word here is "yom" or "day." Either way, the text goes on to say that Adam lived for 930 years, at least 800 years of which were AFTER the alleged fruit eating. The only 3 possible conclusions I can come up with to make sense of this is that 1) God lied to Adam about death in the “day” of the eating, 2) the whole thing is a myth and God isn’t real at all, OR 3) God is real and told the truth but simply doesn't always mean for “yom" to mean a literal 24 hour period. For me, I am far more comfortable and convinced that the third option is the “best” one.
Taken together, the creation of the Sun in “day 4” and God’s warning to Adam in Genesis 2:17 casts sufficient doubt upon the practice of presuming that these “days” are literal, 24-hour periods. Furthermore, once we Christians are open to the interpretive possibility that a “day” in Genesis can actually refer to an unspecified epoch of time, we can allow ourselves to be better informed (or at least less suspicious) of scientific studies. I am trying to be brief, but below I outline the 3 main reasons that I adhere to an old earth creation model from a scientific perspective. Again, I would like to remind readers that it is the Bible AND science that have led me to my conclusions.
First off, I admit that Radiometric dating can prove to be inaccurate on a shortened time line. Indeed, it can be off by a few hundred thousand years, but in the scope of geologic time, that is really an inconsequential drop in the bucket. Furthermore, radiometric dating (the measuring of entropy concerning radioactive isotopes) is also only one of several tools that are employed to gauge the age of the earth. Others are perhaps even better.
1) Continental Drift: The same kinds of fossils have been found in the central, eastern tip of South America that paleontologists have found in the central, western corner of Africa. There is no question that these tectonic plates/ continents were joined in a previous epoch. But plate tectonics shift over long periods of time, and we have no evidence that these two southern continents trucked across the planet in a single, global push, even if we make an allowance for a massive, universal flood.
2) The Grand Canyon, Zion Canyon (and others): These canyons are made up of layers and layers of different kinds of sedimentary rock called sandstone. Unlike igneous rock, sandstone is not formed from magma; it is formed from other rocks being broken down into grains of sand, settling on the bottom of a sea floor, being subsumed by other layers of sediment (and sometimes igneous rock too), being subjected to colossal amounts of weight and pressure (which glues it together) and then being geologically uplifted by plate tectonics and their related earth-shifts. The time it takes for a single layer of sandstone to be formed is almost unfathomable. When we consider that the Grand Canyon is made up of 23 layers of sandstone and other rocks we can begin to see the vast amounts of time involved. Even if we buy that the canyon itself was formed in a single flood-draining event (which is stretch at best) this cannot make any accounting for the periods of time it took to form and up-lift the sandstone foundations in the first place.
3) The Speed of Light. This is believed to be somewhat constant at 186,282.3 miles per SECOND. Knowing that, the farther we look out into space with our telescopes, the farther back in time we are looking. By the time it takes light to reach our eyes from extremely distant objects, billions of years have already elapsed in some cases. This is well documented and no self-respecting astronomer seems to disagree with this. This involves lots and LOTS of math (which is why astronomy is so popular in undergrad). Because others have already explained this elsewhere, I won't reinvent it here. If you are still interested, I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
The above examples are what finally caused me to throw out the 6, literal, 24 hour days that some have taught that Genesis means. Once I was able to grasp the concepts however, I was able to see scripture with new eyes and conclude that it was still totally true, but not in the same way I had been instructed by some well-meaning fellow Christians.
I am hesitant to say that I’ve got it a ll figured out, and I must concede the possibility that I have made at least one egregious mistake in coming to my present conclusions. Nevertheless, I have found the case for a young earth to be wanting from both a textual and scientific perspective, and thus I am inclined to give preference to the proposal that ties all of the information and sources together best, namely, that we live on a very old planet in a very old universe. Either way, in light of the universe’s complexity and astonishing beauty, I remain enamored and awestruck by our creator and desire to worship him even more. The time he took to do it is relatively inconsequential.
Thank you for reading me across these multiple posts. blessings, -Corbin
Corbin, The first thing I want to say is thanks for allowing me an oppurtunity to respond. I will attempt to be brief and I acknowledge that my thoughts I'm about to share are my vague recollections of past conversations and study from a class I probably got a C in...so here goes. 1st. I still believe the literal reading is easier, if God created the Sun on the 4th day, but seed bearing plants on the 3rd day, it would seem logical to have either switched the order or that it wouldn't matter, b/c the next day the sun would be created to sustain those plants. 2nd thought...I believe that those Old Testament guys lived as long as the Bible says they did, Gen. 6:3 says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." This verse comes during the flood passages and I believe that if you trace out the earlier list geneology's that Methuselah (969 Years) actually died during the flood. I find it interesting that after the flood the lifetime of men is slowly whittled down to about 120 years. What would the point to say those early humans lived for so long but then all of a sudden after the flood no one seems to think that it is possible to live that long. Something much more significant must have happened to our atmosphere and planet during the flood than maybe we realize(water vapor canapoy theory comes to mind, of course I don't believe scientist can prove that as much as I think it is an interesting theory that happens to make plausible my opinions :) ) 3rd point. God created Adam, as a man, with the appearance of age. He didn't create a fetus, baby, infant or even young child, he created a man. With the same logic, I would argue that God created the earth and universe with the appearance of Age, stars in the sky, big tall trees on the earth capable of feeding Adam and Eve...So when we use our "science" to meausure the universe using light and stars, there is a fundemantal assumption being made, and that is that they were slowly formed over billions of years and weren't just instantly created out of nothing. Science only can test what it sees, not what happened long ago, which is a problem for both Young Earth Scientist and evolutionary ones. 4th point...I'm not sure how far I would take this point, I'll let you decide if it has any weight, but when God said if you eat the fruit you will die, from a Christian perspective, death I think was both physical and spiritual, God never said you would die instantly, but man for all intents and purposes could have lived forever, if we would have never sinned. Of course the spiritual death seems obvious enough, separation from God's presence. One problem I have with evolution hangs on this idea, if death didn't enter the world until Adam sinned, then the concept of over millions of years, species slowly dying and mutating to other species doesn't really work for me. But I'm getting slighly off focus. I'll wrap it up with the idea that these are just the way I like to look at it. But open. -Brian S.
Thank you for the reply. It is always nice to reconnect by having some authentic dialogue. I appreciate your perspective. I can see why you think that a 24-hour period offers an easier reading. I still disagree with you, but to your credit, many MANY Christians have agreed with you, especially in the pre-modern and modern evangelical eras.
In your post, you brought up several different points (120 years, Adam's age, sin and death, spiritual death etc.). I would like to discuss all of these, but if I did so all at once it would make it difficult for us to discuss each idea without being overwhelmed by the sheer size of it all. One step at a time works well for me.
I probably have missed something important, but your first thought has me a bit confused because you suggest that perhaps the order of creation was switched between days 3 and 4. If that is the case, then you have made a argument for a non-literal reading of these early chapters (which is what I have been saying all along). :)
You also assert that a 24 hour understanding accounts for the possible time delay between plants on “day” 3 and the light to sustain them from the Sun on “day” 4. IF these were literal 24-hour days, then I must concede that your explanation works. However, the whole question here hangs on why you believe that these “days” were 24-hour periods to begin with. Despite the text saying that light (but not the Sun) was allegedly created on “day” 1 (and surely this must make us wonder if this light would have been enough to sustain any plant life that God created), the real problem goes back to my original question of how we measure a “day” if not by the Sun and the earth’s rotation in relation to it. God calls that first light “day” but we still have no idea what the measure of a “day” is in this context other than to say it is marked by “evening and morning” while simultaneously having absolutely no connection whatsoever to the way WE measure “evening and morning” or a “day.” Maybe an even better question for me to ask is why you are committed to the interpretation that those first three “days” (prior to the Sun’s creation) are measured by a 24-hour period in the first place. If we have no way to measure the length of those first 3 days, then why do we think we can make the remaining ones as definitive 24-hour periods?
There you go again, misunderstanding my UNclear point...As far as the 3rd and 4th day issue at hand I was simply trying to point out what I find an example of the 24-hour issue coming into play...I will admit that God creating light on day one would for all intents and purposes probably been able to support those plants, since God is sustaining everything in the whole universe anyway. I don't believe Moses(if we can agree that for conversation sake that he was the author) had in mind our 21st century issues with the text and I'm sure the original audience might have been much more concerned with other issues the text reveals. But I just can't imagine him writing and thinking, man the universe and earth is billions of years old and then God created the sun on day 4 and my reality of a 24-hour day begins. Also the repetition of evening and morning "might" have meant to bring into play "our work week" and eventual Sabbath rest on the 7th 24-hour day. There is no obvious reason to assume the first 3 days or so were "eons" of time and then God creates the sun and it switches to 24 hours. While I will grant the possibility for this, I still hold that the easier reading is to hold to the 24 hour time, if God knew what he was going to create before he started, why would he take millions of years and then do the last 3 days in 24-hours. Also, my lack of any knowledge what-so-ever in Hebrew here is a problem I'm sure. But you brought up the word "yom" which can mean 24- hours, or eons of time...I have read that every time a number is placed in front of the word "day" outside of Genesis it always means 24-hour period ( assume they get this idea from context). I suppose if you wanted to research every single time the word "day" is used and compare, I say go ahead. You asked why do I hold to the first three "days" since there is no way to measure them, I would ask in what way is the text unclear??? Also, under what assumption are you making the last three days more clear??? I'm sure an Old earth creationist or eveolutionary time table can explain those days away from a 24-hour "day" also. In fact, I think that is another point. You have to explain away the (in my opinion) the obvious reading. Of course, I'm sure the other issues surrounding this discussing will bring out even more of mine and your presuppositions. I hope I addressed your questions while also moving the conversation forward a lil bit. On a personal note, I find this whole conversation quite stimulating and ironic b/c I an not even "dogmatic" about this issue anymore, I'm honestly typing out my thoughts to expand my own thinking and learn from you. I just hope I can give you as much to think about as you are giving me. I also, appreciate your graciousness towards my spelling and flow of thought, part of the reason I dropped out of seminary was my horrible paper writing abiility, lol Can't wait for your response. B Smith
Thanks for the additional comments, but I think that I am the guilty one for not being as clear as I had intended. To clarify, I meant that since we have no common reference point to measure any of the first 3 “days,” it is a mistake to try to define the period of hours (or millennia) for ANY of the 7 periods discussed with too fine a point. Might we consider the possibility that we are still in “day” seven and that God is still resting from creating new corners and species in the universe “out of nothing”?
The Point of Creation Narratives As for the alleged author’s intentions, I think you are exactly correct: he/they had their own purposes in mind and not those of the Western world in the 21st century. This is where the big picture comes into play. What was that author trying to communicate in Genesis about our present existence and the one who brought it forth? I’ll take a shot at it.
1) God’s nature is to give, create and love. 2) Everything that you and I depend upon is a result of God’s giving, creating and loving nature. 3) We are designed for a (good) relationship with our creator. 4) Therefore go, live in that relationship.
These are the broad strokes the narrative intended to communicate, and I think we would do well to focus on the fact that this story does not change IN THE LEAST, if we play with the length of time that each “day” represents, from 24 hours to 24 billion years. That’s what takes the pressure off of conversations like this one: nobody’s salvation is at stake regardless of which interpretive framework is adopted. I may argue that something else is at stake, but that will have to come later.
Days, Ordinal Numbers & Inductive Reasoning In your last post you mentioned the classical argument that states whenever the Hebrew text has a ordinal reference in front of the word “yom” it is meant to be taken literally. There are two problems with this explanation, the first of which that it seems to be little more than a requisite assumption imposed to get around the knottiness of problems like I mentioned with God’s warning to Adam about the forbidden fruit and his death in the “day” that he eats it. There is no definitive reason that I know of to assert that one use of “yom” means 24 hours whereas another means something different just because “first, second or third” did or didn’t come before it. I believe that this is the kind of “theological” reasoning we get when we start with a preconceived idea (like a young earth) and then bend the evidence to fit. Conversely, I believe that the “days” of Genesis 1 & 2 represent undefined but lengthy epochs of time because such an interpretation makes the most sense of ALL the evidence.
Secondly, even if we were to allow that every OTHER time an ordinal use of “yom” meant a literal 24-hour period, there is no reason to say that it HAD to function in a similar way in Genesis 1. This is an example of inductive reasoning, which only deals with probability, not proof. It would be like me saying that since my previous Hondas were great cars, then ALL Hondas EVERYWHERE are great cars. It seems logical (and I really do think that most Hondas are good vehicles) but there are certainly exceptions as well. All it would take to burst my bubble is to see one lemon Honda. And so it goes with “day” in Genesis. Given the copious amounts of astronomical, geological and biological data, I again maintain that a somewhat nebulous definition for “day” in Genesis makes for the best reading and certainly calls into question the authority that an “ordinal number” can impose on “yom.”
Creation Genre: Furthermore, the genre of the creation narratives (there are two in Genesis) lend themselves to Hebraic prose and/or classification as allegory or parable. We can discuss the linguistic features and rhythm of the Hebrew if necessary, but I think it may suffice to note that just because a parable or metaphor is not literally true, this does not mean that it is a fairy-tale or completely UNtrue. For the record, I believe that Genesis is true, but in a way that is slightly different from what you have expressed above.
Take the parable of the Good Samaritan for example. Imagine an original hearer of this story asking Jesus for the name of the Good Samaritan. What would Jesus say? Consider the following dialogue between that dude and Jesus:
Dude: “Did this really happen?” Jesus: “This is a story meant to make an important point.” Dude: “You mean it’s not true?!” Jesus: “Of course it’s true, we are called to inconvenience ourselves to help people regardless of any differences between us.” The Dude: “Ok, whatever. What was the name of the injured man and how long did it take before the Good Samaritan found him?” Jesus: “My son, consider this, If you were drowning, would you care who it was that threw a rope to save you?” The Dude: “It sounds like you’re weaseling out of my questions because the story’s not real! Give me my answers or I won’t believe anything else you say!” Jesus: (smacks forehead)
The point of a parable is to communicate powerful truths in a way that the recipients can grasp. There’s no need to get too focused on the details or we may miss the big picture. This is why I generally loathe the website “Answers in Genesis.” That kind of approach to the Bible forces it (and its original authors) to “answer” questions that they never intended to address at all.
To put it another way, consider the mayfly. These things only live a matter of hours in the summer, but roll with me here and imagine that you could communicate with one. Let’s say that you had something important to tell it about its situation in the world, but given its abysmally short life, you chose to speak in terms it could relate to. How effective would your discussion be if you used terms like “months, seasons or years” when “seconds, hours or days” would do just as well? Considering the sheer number of generations of mayflies that one single month would consume, using something like “a decade” would just confuse things unnecessarily and the mayfly might miss the big picture altogether.
I’ve heard some Christians ask why God would use billions of years instead of a day and then follow it up with “Are you saying that God couldn’t do it in 6 days?!?!” (Gasp!). Just so we are clear, I am not saying that God could not have done it all in a set of 24 hour periods, but this argument is exceptionally poor. For a truly infinite being, whether or not something takes 3 seconds or 3 trillion years is totally irrelevant. Is he in a hurry? OUR abysmally short lives prevent US from grasping a billion years, much less a trillion, but it doesn’t matter. God does what he does without consulting us or asking our opinions. I have no idea why he’d choose 6 days instead of 6 millionths of a second or 6 gagillion years.
Back to Genesis and mayflies, what point would there be for God to go into all the details and time scales involved for biological and geological evolution when using the term “yom” would do just as well? Remember the big picture I sketched above. The creation narratives are designed to tell us about our relationship with God, but not to function as a detailed history of life, the universe and everything.
“Obvious Meanings” You are welcome to think that the definition of “day” as a 24 hour period is the “obvious reading,” but I feel obligated to suggest that it is only “obvious” to you because that is how humans measure a day in the context of the Sun. As I said in my original post, the first 3 “days” were totally unhinged from any of our own measurements for a day because the Sun allegedly hadn’t been created yet. Given that sequencing issue (among others), I find no reason to assume that the story was meant to be taken literally at all, much less that it intended to offer an exhaustive definition of a “day” in creation. Can you see how forcing a 24-hour definition might possibly be taking the story a bit too literally and goes beyond what is required by the text, especially if the whole point of the story is to function as an allegory?
God Created Physics Finally, because none of our solar system’s planets would have coalesced or begun their orbits without the Sun’s gravitational pull in the first place, I take this to be another notch against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. It just doesn’t make any sense to force it to be a book about astronomy or the physical universe. We’re not even talking about the “appearance of age” that you mentioned before; we’re talking about the most fundamental laws of physics that God established in his universe (gravity, strong and weak nuclear bonds etc.). No star “Sol” means no planets and therefore no water for the Spirit of God to “hover over” either. This doesn’t mean that Genesis is false, but it does mean that we shouldn’t force it to explain what it never intended to address.
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
In one of our culture’s many battles, the issue of our world’s age is a topic of great passion... and anger. Usually this is rolled into a battle over “creationism” and evolution. In fact, the latter topic often takes center stage and the former is relegated to footnote status by our secular culture. Whatever the case may be, I think that both fights are completely misplaced and unfortunate diversions from the people, ideas and things that matter most, namely, the power and unique potency of Jesus of Nazareth to heal our lives our nation and our world. Unfortunately, this was not a conclusion that I came to with the assistance of some well intentioned church people, pastors and Sunday School teachers. Rather, it was a conclusion that I arrived at after not a few crises of faith as I wrestled with what humans said that the Bible said, and what a different set of humans said about science and its explanatory power about the physical world we find ourselves in.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that I know what some readers are thinking at this point: “Corbin’s foray’s into education and science programs led him to encounter teachers and teachings that were atheistic and anti-Christian (not just anti-god or gods). I do enjoy science, especially biology and astronomy, but this alleged indoctrination was not the case at all. In fact, I suspect that many of my public school teachers and college professors were Christians, even if ones who had been handed their hat by “the system” regarding their ability to be forthright about their beliefs in front of students. No, what created those early crises of faith for me was the church’s positions against what was being taught in some of my educational experiences. Front and center: The age of the earth and evolution.
For example, in a book given to me by a well meaning Christian friend, the Christian author railed on evolution “because it cannot be proven.” He asked, "Do we believe the Bible, or have we placed our trust in the foolish speculations of men based on the scientifically unprovable assumptions of so-called science?"
This is an unfortunate and false dichotomy (either/or proposition) perpetrated by far too many Jesus followers. It causes people to pick a side and never considers the possibility that the answer might be a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.” Even if we do not buy evolution as it is usually conceived, we can have BOTH a very old universe AND God's Word without any watering down of faith for either category. That fossils do not match any currently living organisms is fairly convincing evidence that organisms DO change over time. But as I have learned, this need not be a crisis creating issue for the Christian believer. In fact, if we teach our children the biblically unsupported idea that organisms never change over time or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I suggest that we are setting them up to fail when they hit the classroom. If this is the track we take, it is inevitable that they will be forced to choose either Christ or science, and the statistics prove that this does not usually go well for the church. This should not be. No matter how well intentioned they are, Christian adults should not force their kids to choose EITHER science OR Jesus. We should set up our kids to succeed, and more often than not, this means that they can generally hold science and Christ together. All truth, after all, is God's truth.
But I digress, in a recent foray into the Christian blogosphere, the topic of the earth’s age resurfaced. In an interview featuring my friend, Jeremy Bacon, he said that he believed that a 24 hour designation offered the “easier reading” of the pertinent chapters in Genesis. This has also been the recently professed position of our mutual friend, Brian. I however, remain skeptical of a literal, 6-day creation event that measures a “day” by a 24 hour period. Like my friends, this is not because I disbelieve the biblical text, but because I am committed to it and esteem it so highly. But in this essay, I assume that the real question we should be asking is not “Why shouldn’t we believe in a young earth?” but rather “Why SHOULD we?” Without starting with science and philosophy to make a case against a young earth or for an old earth, I start here with the biblical text itself. Thus far, I have found no compelling reason to think that the “days” of Genesis must be interpreted as literal, 24-hour periods. I think that science is more than a proper place to start, but because of so many well-intentioned Christians’ skepticism against the hard sciences, scripture is also a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I have to ask why a 24 hour interpretation of “day” is the “easiest reading.” This seems to be an awfully subjective adjective to me. Who says it is best and what criterion are they using to measure it? For my part, I contend that the “easiest” or “best” reading is to define the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) to mean an unspecified period of time in these early chapters of Genesis. But this isn’t for some nefarious ulterior liberal agenda; it is an interpretive framework used to understand the text, and in this case, I presume that “best” indicates that which is most consistent or makes the best sense of all the data. And to be fair, I have a lot of respect for Jeremy and Brian, but I disagree with them on this issue.
So, why do I understand “yom” to be an unspecified period of time? It has to do with A) how humans have come to measure a “day” and B) how “yom” is used with the narrative regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the second chapter of Genesis.
First, it is generally accepted that we measure a “day” by the earth’s rotation in relation to the Sun (the star we call Sol). The Bible also goes through a poetic phraseology that ends each creative moment with the saying: “And there was evening and there was morning, the X day.” So far so good, and to be honest, this would indeed seem to reflect a literal 24 hour period. At least at first glance.
So where’s the hang up? My problem with this understanding is that a 24 hour designation seems entirely too mired in the physical mechanics of our solar system, the gravitational center of which is the Sun. I don’t contest any of this or intend to imply that Moses had to have a working knowledge of astronomy to pen this narrative (if it was indeed Moses). No, the problem comes with the progression of the “days” of creation if they are taken literally, for according to Genesis, the Sun was not created until “day” number 4. As such, what sense does it make to measure the first 3 “days” and “evening and morning” by the earth’s rotation in relation to a local star that does not yet exist? If we take the passage literally, the first light came not from the Sun, but from some other undisclosed source of light. And if that is the case, then by what measure can we gauge a regular “day” by? It simply cannot be the usual 24 hour revolution as we measure it by the usual earth-spin in relation to Sol. I don’t know any way around this. Of course we can still assume that those first 3 “days” were 24 hour periods, but that is little more than just that: an assumption.
Secondly, there is Adam and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam to steer clear of the Tree of Knowledge because, "...in the DAY that you eat of it you shall die." The NIV conspicuously changes "day" to "when,” but the original Hebrew word here is "yom" or "day." Either way, the text goes on to say that Adam lived for 930 years, at least 800 years of which were AFTER the alleged fruit eating. The only 3 possible conclusions I can come up with to make sense of this is that 1) God lied to Adam about death in the “day” of the eating, 2) the whole thing is a myth and God isn’t real at all, OR 3) God is real and told the truth but simply doesn't always mean for “yom" to mean a literal 24 hour period. For me, I am far more comfortable and convinced that the third option is the “best” one.
ReplyDeleteTaken together, the creation of the Sun in “day 4” and God’s warning to Adam in Genesis 2:17 casts sufficient doubt upon the practice of presuming that these “days” are literal, 24-hour periods. Furthermore, once we Christians are open to the interpretive possibility that a “day” in Genesis can actually refer to an unspecified epoch of time, we can allow ourselves to be better informed (or at least less suspicious) of scientific studies. I am trying to be brief, but below I outline the 3 main reasons that I adhere to an old earth creation model from a scientific perspective. Again, I would like to remind readers that it is the Bible AND science that have led me to my conclusions.
First off, I admit that Radiometric dating can prove to be inaccurate on a shortened time line. Indeed, it can be off by a few hundred thousand years, but in the scope of geologic time, that is really an inconsequential drop in the bucket. Furthermore, radiometric dating (the measuring of entropy concerning radioactive isotopes) is also only one of several tools that are employed to gauge the age of the earth. Others are perhaps even better.
ReplyDelete1) Continental Drift: The same kinds of fossils have been found in the central, eastern tip of South America that paleontologists have found in the central, western corner of Africa. There is no question that these tectonic plates/ continents were joined in a previous epoch. But plate tectonics shift over long periods of time, and we have no evidence that these two southern continents trucked across the planet in a single, global push, even if we make an allowance for a massive, universal flood.
2) The Grand Canyon, Zion Canyon (and others): These canyons are made up of layers and layers of different kinds of sedimentary rock called sandstone. Unlike igneous rock, sandstone is not formed from magma; it is formed from other rocks being broken down into grains of sand, settling on the bottom of a sea floor, being subsumed by other layers of sediment (and sometimes igneous rock too), being subjected to colossal amounts of weight and pressure (which glues it together) and then being geologically uplifted by plate tectonics and their related earth-shifts. The time it takes for a single layer of sandstone to be formed is almost unfathomable. When we consider that the Grand Canyon is made up of 23 layers of sandstone and other rocks we can begin to see the vast amounts of time involved. Even if we buy that the canyon itself was formed in a single flood-draining event (which is stretch at best) this cannot make any accounting for the periods of time it took to form and up-lift the sandstone foundations in the first place.
3) The Speed of Light. This is believed to be somewhat constant at 186,282.3 miles per SECOND. Knowing that, the farther we look out into space with our telescopes, the farther back in time we are looking. By the time it takes light to reach our eyes from extremely distant objects, billions of years have already elapsed in some cases. This is well documented and no self-respecting astronomer seems to disagree with this. This involves lots and LOTS of math (which is why astronomy is so popular in undergrad). Because others have already explained this elsewhere, I won't reinvent it here. If you are still interested, I recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
The above examples are what finally caused me to throw out the 6, literal, 24 hour days that some have taught that Genesis means. Once I was able to grasp the concepts however, I was able to see scripture with new eyes and conclude that it was still totally true, but not in the same way I had been instructed by some well-meaning fellow Christians.
I am hesitant to say that I’ve got it a ll figured out, and I must concede the possibility that I have made at least one egregious mistake in coming to my present conclusions. Nevertheless, I have found the case for a young earth to be wanting from both a textual and scientific perspective, and thus I am inclined to give preference to the proposal that ties all of the information and sources together best, namely, that we live on a very old planet in a very old universe. Either way, in light of the universe’s complexity and astonishing beauty, I remain enamored and awestruck by our creator and desire to worship him even more. The time he took to do it is relatively inconsequential.
Thank you for reading me across these multiple posts.
blessings,
-Corbin
Corbin,
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I want to say is thanks for allowing me an oppurtunity to respond. I will attempt to be brief and I acknowledge that my thoughts I'm about to share are my vague recollections of past conversations and study from a class I probably got a C in...so here goes.
1st. I still believe the literal reading is easier, if God created the Sun on the 4th day, but seed bearing plants on the 3rd day, it would seem logical to have either switched the order or that it wouldn't matter, b/c the next day the sun would be created to sustain those plants.
2nd thought...I believe that those Old Testament guys lived as long as the Bible says they did, Gen. 6:3 says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." This verse comes during the flood passages and I believe that if you trace out the earlier list geneology's that Methuselah (969 Years) actually died during the flood. I find it interesting that after the flood the lifetime of men is slowly whittled down to about 120 years. What would the point to say those early humans lived for so long but then all of a sudden after the flood no one seems to think that it is possible to live that long. Something much more significant must have happened to our atmosphere and planet during the flood than maybe we realize(water vapor canapoy theory comes to mind, of course I don't believe scientist can prove that as much as I think it is an interesting theory that happens to make plausible my opinions :) )
3rd point. God created Adam, as a man, with the appearance of age. He didn't create a fetus, baby, infant or even young child, he created a man. With the same logic, I would argue that God created the earth and universe with the appearance of Age, stars in the sky, big tall trees on the earth capable of feeding Adam and Eve...So when we use our "science" to meausure the universe using light and stars, there is a fundemantal assumption being made, and that is that they were slowly formed over billions of years and weren't just instantly created out of nothing. Science only can test what it sees, not what happened long ago, which is a problem for both Young Earth Scientist and evolutionary ones.
4th point...I'm not sure how far I would take this point, I'll let you decide if it has any weight, but when God said if you eat the fruit you will die, from a Christian perspective, death I think was both physical and spiritual, God never said you would die instantly, but man for all intents and purposes could have lived forever, if we would have never sinned. Of course the spiritual death seems obvious enough, separation from God's presence.
One problem I have with evolution hangs on this idea, if death didn't enter the world until Adam sinned, then the concept of over millions of years, species slowly dying and mutating to other species doesn't really work for me. But I'm getting slighly off focus. I'll wrap it up with the idea that these are just the way I like to look at it. But open.
-Brian S.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the reply. It is always nice to reconnect by having some authentic dialogue. I appreciate your perspective. I can see why you think that a 24-hour period offers an easier reading. I still disagree with you, but to your credit, many MANY Christians have agreed with you, especially in the pre-modern and modern evangelical eras.
In your post, you brought up several different points (120 years, Adam's age, sin and death, spiritual death etc.). I would like to discuss all of these, but if I did so all at once it would make it difficult for us to discuss each idea without being overwhelmed by the sheer size of it all. One step at a time works well for me.
I probably have missed something important, but your first thought has me a bit confused because you suggest that perhaps the order of creation was switched between days 3 and 4. If that is the case, then you have made a argument for a non-literal reading of these early chapters (which is what I have been saying all along). :)
You also assert that a 24 hour understanding accounts for the possible time delay between plants on “day” 3 and the light to sustain them from the Sun on “day” 4. IF these were literal 24-hour days, then I must concede that your explanation works. However, the whole question here hangs on why you believe that these “days” were 24-hour periods to begin with. Despite the text saying that light (but not the Sun) was allegedly created on “day” 1 (and surely this must make us wonder if this light would have been enough to sustain any plant life that God created), the real problem goes back to my original question of how we measure a “day” if not by the Sun and the earth’s rotation in relation to it. God calls that first light “day” but we still have no idea what the measure of a “day” is in this context other than to say it is marked by “evening and morning” while simultaneously having absolutely no connection whatsoever to the way WE measure “evening and morning” or a “day.” Maybe an even better question for me to ask is why you are committed to the interpretation that those first three “days” (prior to the Sun’s creation) are measured by a 24-hour period in the first place. If we have no way to measure the length of those first 3 days, then why do we think we can make the remaining ones as definitive 24-hour periods?
Thanks, for engaging!
-CL
Corbin,
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, misunderstanding my UNclear point...As far as the 3rd and 4th day issue at hand I was simply trying to point out what I find an example of the 24-hour issue coming into play...I will admit that God creating light on day one would for all intents and purposes probably been able to support those plants, since God is sustaining everything in the whole universe anyway.
I don't believe Moses(if we can agree that for conversation sake that he was the author) had in mind our 21st century issues with the text and I'm sure the original audience might have been much more concerned with other issues the text reveals. But I just can't imagine him writing and thinking, man the universe and earth is billions of years old and then God created the sun on day 4 and my reality of a 24-hour day begins.
Also the repetition of evening and morning "might" have meant to bring into play "our work week" and eventual Sabbath rest on the 7th 24-hour day. There is no obvious reason to assume the first 3 days or so were "eons" of time and then God creates the sun and it switches to 24 hours.
While I will grant the possibility for this, I still hold that the easier reading is to hold to the 24 hour time, if God knew what he was going to create before he started, why would he take millions of years and then do the last 3 days in 24-hours.
Also, my lack of any knowledge what-so-ever in Hebrew here is a problem I'm sure. But you brought up the word "yom" which can mean 24- hours, or eons of time...I have read that every time a number is placed in front of the word "day" outside of Genesis it always means 24-hour period ( assume they get this idea from context). I suppose if you wanted to research every single time the word "day" is used and compare, I say go ahead.
You asked why do I hold to the first three "days" since there is no way to measure them, I would ask in what way is the text unclear??? Also, under what assumption are you making the last three days more clear??? I'm sure an Old earth creationist or eveolutionary time table can explain those days away from a 24-hour "day" also. In fact, I think that is another point. You have to explain away the (in my opinion) the obvious reading.
Of course, I'm sure the other issues surrounding this discussing will bring out even more of mine and your presuppositions.
I hope I addressed your questions while also moving the conversation forward a lil bit. On a personal note, I find this whole conversation quite stimulating and ironic b/c I an not even "dogmatic" about this issue anymore, I'm honestly typing out my thoughts to expand my own thinking and learn from you. I just hope I can give you as much to think about as you are giving me. I also, appreciate your graciousness towards my spelling and flow of thought, part of the reason I dropped out of seminary was my horrible paper writing abiility, lol
Can't wait for your response.
B Smith
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the additional comments, but I think that I am the guilty one for not being as clear as I had intended. To clarify, I meant that since we have no common reference point to measure any of the first 3 “days,” it is a mistake to try to define the period of hours (or millennia) for ANY of the 7 periods discussed with too fine a point. Might we consider the possibility that we are still in “day” seven and that God is still resting from creating new corners and species in the universe “out of nothing”?
The Point of Creation Narratives
As for the alleged author’s intentions, I think you are exactly correct: he/they had their own purposes in mind and not those of the Western world in the 21st century. This is where the big picture comes into play. What was that author trying to communicate in Genesis about our present existence and the one who brought it forth? I’ll take a shot at it.
1) God’s nature is to give, create and love.
2) Everything that you and I depend upon is a result of God’s giving, creating and loving nature.
3) We are designed for a (good) relationship with our creator.
4) Therefore go, live in that relationship.
These are the broad strokes the narrative intended to communicate, and I think we would do well to focus on the fact that this story does not change IN THE LEAST, if we play with the length of time that each “day” represents, from 24 hours to 24 billion years. That’s what takes the pressure off of conversations like this one: nobody’s salvation is at stake regardless of which interpretive framework is adopted. I may argue that something else is at stake, but that will have to come later.
Days, Ordinal Numbers & Inductive Reasoning
In your last post you mentioned the classical argument that states whenever the Hebrew text has a ordinal reference in front of the word “yom” it is meant to be taken literally. There are two problems with this explanation, the first of which that it seems to be little more than a requisite assumption imposed to get around the knottiness of problems like I mentioned with God’s warning to Adam about the forbidden fruit and his death in the “day” that he eats it. There is no definitive reason that I know of to assert that one use of “yom” means 24 hours whereas another means something different just because “first, second or third” did or didn’t come before it. I believe that this is the kind of “theological” reasoning we get when we start with a preconceived idea (like a young earth) and then bend the evidence to fit. Conversely, I believe that the “days” of Genesis 1 & 2 represent undefined but lengthy epochs of time because such an interpretation makes the most sense of ALL the evidence.
Secondly, even if we were to allow that every OTHER time an ordinal use of “yom” meant a literal 24-hour period, there is no reason to say that it HAD to function in a similar way in Genesis 1. This is an example of inductive reasoning, which only deals with probability, not proof. It would be like me saying that since my previous Hondas were great cars, then ALL Hondas EVERYWHERE are great cars. It seems logical (and I really do think that most Hondas are good vehicles) but there are certainly exceptions as well. All it would take to burst my bubble is to see one lemon Honda. And so it goes with “day” in Genesis. Given the copious amounts of astronomical, geological and biological data, I again maintain that a somewhat nebulous definition for “day” in Genesis makes for the best reading and certainly calls into question the authority that an “ordinal number” can impose on “yom.”
(continued below)
Creation Genre:
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the genre of the creation narratives (there are two in Genesis) lend themselves to Hebraic prose and/or classification as allegory or parable. We can discuss the linguistic features and rhythm of the Hebrew if necessary, but I think it may suffice to note that just because a parable or metaphor is not literally true, this does not mean that it is a fairy-tale or completely UNtrue. For the record, I believe that Genesis is true, but in a way that is slightly different from what you have expressed above.
Take the parable of the Good Samaritan for example. Imagine an original hearer of this story asking Jesus for the name of the Good Samaritan. What would Jesus say? Consider the following dialogue between that dude and Jesus:
Dude: “Did this really happen?”
Jesus: “This is a story meant to make an important point.”
Dude: “You mean it’s not true?!”
Jesus: “Of course it’s true, we are called to inconvenience ourselves to help people regardless of any differences between us.”
The Dude: “Ok, whatever. What was the name of the injured man and how long did it take before the Good Samaritan found him?”
Jesus: “My son, consider this, If you were drowning, would you care who it was that threw a rope to save you?”
The Dude: “It sounds like you’re weaseling out of my questions because the story’s not real! Give me my answers or I won’t believe anything else you say!”
Jesus: (smacks forehead)
The point of a parable is to communicate powerful truths in a way that the recipients can grasp. There’s no need to get too focused on the details or we may miss the big picture. This is why I generally loathe the website “Answers in Genesis.” That kind of approach to the Bible forces it (and its original authors) to “answer” questions that they never intended to address at all.
To put it another way, consider the mayfly. These things only live a matter of hours in the summer, but roll with me here and imagine that you could communicate with one. Let’s say that you had something important to tell it about its situation in the world, but given its abysmally short life, you chose to speak in terms it could relate to. How effective would your discussion be if you used terms like “months, seasons or years” when “seconds, hours or days” would do just as well? Considering the sheer number of generations of mayflies that one single month would consume, using something like “a decade” would just confuse things unnecessarily and the mayfly might miss the big picture altogether.
I’ve heard some Christians ask why God would use billions of years instead of a day and then follow it up with “Are you saying that God couldn’t do it in 6 days?!?!” (Gasp!). Just so we are clear, I am not saying that God could not have done it all in a set of 24 hour periods, but this argument is exceptionally poor. For a truly infinite being, whether or not something takes 3 seconds or 3 trillion years is totally irrelevant. Is he in a hurry? OUR abysmally short lives prevent US from grasping a billion years, much less a trillion, but it doesn’t matter. God does what he does without consulting us or asking our opinions. I have no idea why he’d choose 6 days instead of 6 millionths of a second or 6 gagillion years.
Back to Genesis and mayflies, what point would there be for God to go into all the details and time scales involved for biological and geological evolution when using the term “yom” would do just as well? Remember the big picture I sketched above. The creation narratives are designed to tell us about our relationship with God, but not to function as a detailed history of life, the universe and everything.
(Continued below)
“Obvious Meanings”
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to think that the definition of “day” as a 24 hour period is the “obvious reading,” but I feel obligated to suggest that it is only “obvious” to you because that is how humans measure a day in the context of the Sun. As I said in my original post, the first 3 “days” were totally unhinged from any of our own measurements for a day because the Sun allegedly hadn’t been created yet. Given that sequencing issue (among others), I find no reason to assume that the story was meant to be taken literally at all, much less that it intended to offer an exhaustive definition of a “day” in creation. Can you see how forcing a 24-hour definition might possibly be taking the story a bit too literally and goes beyond what is required by the text, especially if the whole point of the story is to function as an allegory?
God Created Physics
Finally, because none of our solar system’s planets would have coalesced or begun their orbits without the Sun’s gravitational pull in the first place, I take this to be another notch against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. It just doesn’t make any sense to force it to be a book about astronomy or the physical universe. We’re not even talking about the “appearance of age” that you mentioned before; we’re talking about the most fundamental laws of physics that God established in his universe (gravity, strong and weak nuclear bonds etc.). No star “Sol” means no planets and therefore no water for the Spirit of God to “hover over” either. This doesn’t mean that Genesis is false, but it does mean that we shouldn’t force it to explain what it never intended to address.
Thanks for the conversation, Brian.
-Corbin
Brian?
ReplyDeleteWe've got a good thing going here.
Where you at?