The creationism vs. evolution debate gets people heated. What cracks me up is some of the leaps of logic that are made during these debates from those who are attempting to prove creationism from the Bible. You might have heard some of these statements:
“If you deny 24 hour creation, you also deny the resurrection of Christ.”
“You are reading your Bible based on science, instead of understanding science based on the Bible.”
“Everywhere the term yom (Hebrew: “day”) is used in the Bible, it is referring to a 24 period of time.”
And on and on it goes. Just for the record, all three of those statements are completely devoid of anything resembling a fact.
Just for fun:
I don’t believe that the “days” of Genesis 1 were literal, 24 hour days. One simple reason is that the sun, by which we measure our 24 hour days, was not even in existence until the fourth day. Yet, I hold fast to the resurrection of Christ. It is, in all seriousness, the foundation of my faith. When I struggle with doubt, I go to the resurrection. Without it, as St. Paul once said, my faith is in vain.
Moving to the second quote: my knowledge of science is spent as soon as I mention that the chemical makeup of water is H2-O and that when I take Tylenol my headache goes away. That’s all I got. I don’t read the creation narratives based on my extensive knowledge of Darwinism and evolutionary theory. Rather, I base my reading of the creation narratives on the creation narratives themselves read in their original, pre-Darwinian, ancient Near Eastern context.
As for the last quote: see Genesis 2.4.
What got me thinking about this issue was reading a short article by John MacArthur explaining his ideas about the “framework theory.” The article is naive at best and completely reprehensible at worst (I lean towards the latter). Within this article there are several instances of poorly reasoned statements, completely unwarranted leaps of logic, and simply shocking statements that had me wondering what in the world MacArthur was talking about.
First, let us be reminded that the “framework theory” is one that is held by fellow Christians. It is not a theory held by atheists or agnostics that are trying to destroy our faith. Rather, it is an understanding that faithful Christians believe. Yet, by reading MacArthur, you would think that Richard Dawkins, Satan, and Bin Laden all got together in Amsterdam, legally smoked some ganja, destroyed the sanctity of marriage and then and thought this nonsense up. Rather, the theory was created by Christian Old Testament scholars who were reading Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern context and wanted to take the Bible seriously. So let’s not revert to demonization, ok?
Second, this little gem from MacArthur’s pen falls into the “shocking” category:
Thus, according to this theory, the sequence of creation may essentially be disregarded, as if some literary form in the passage nullified its literal meaning.
Actually, the sequence of creation the essential point of the framework view. It is not to be disregarded, but to be understood. Framework advocates understand the sequence to be pointing to God’s creating and organizing of the work, thus reversing the tohu wawohu (Hebrew: “desolate and uninhabited” or the more familiar “formless and void”). But that is not the shocking part.
MacArthur says, “as if some literary form in the passage nullified its literal meaning.” YES! It does. MacArthur himself would agree with this statement. For instance, when Jesus says that he is the door or that he is the vine, is he saying that he literally has hinges or that he literally has grapes growing from his body? No; the literary context makes it clear that Christ is speaking metaphorically. So MacArthur actually does agree that the literary form of a passage does determine whether or not we take it literally. Yet here he is saying that it doesn’t. What is guiding this statement for MacArthur? Glad you asked; let’s turn to that now.
Third, MacArthur writes:
The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They are permitting scientific hypotheses–mere human opinions that have no divine authority whatsoever–to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted.
MacArthur would have a hard time proving this (notice the lack of footnotes). Those who hold to the framework hypothesis are not scientists who are reading Genesis 1-2 through their Devil-tinted Darwinian sunglasses. Rather, they are reading Genesis 1-2 closely within the context of other ancient Near Eastern literature. To put it another way, they are reading Genesis 1-2 in the way in which it should be read.
The charge that proponents of this view are letting science guide their interpretation is sadly ironic in MacArthur’s case. It has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with reading Scripture in its historical context. The irony is that MacArthur is the one who is “making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture.” He is doing this by reading Genesis 1-2 in an attempt to disprove modern scientific theory. In essence, he is letting science determine how he reads Scripture by going to the text of Genesis 1-2 with a predetermined goal to disprove Darwin and then disallowing the Biblical text to actually say what it is attempting to say. MacArthur ends up reading modern scientific debates back onto an ancient text and and attempts to twist the text to prove his point…which he already held before he went to the text. He ends up letting science determine his reading of Scripture and then attacks those who, he says, are doing the very same thing.
Pot: Kettle, you are looking mighty black today.
Kettle: Why don’t you take the 4×4 out of your eye before you start throwing around accusations.
Jesus: Hey, that’s my line!
I know some very intelligent people who believe in 144 hour creationism who both take other view seriously enough to actually understand them and who hold their viewpoint for solid, Biblical reasons. So I am not going after the 144 hour view. What I am going after is MacArthur’s lack of understanding of the actual issues and his continued tendency to attribute beliefs to a certain viewpoint that no one who holds that viewpoint actually believes.
It is one thing to hold a viewpoint about creation and to be passionate about your beliefs. It is quite another thing to claim that people who hold other views do so because they are not being Biblically faithful and are attempting to sneak in a godless system or worldview through the backdoor.
1 March 2008 at 4.46 pm
1 March 2008 at 4.48 pm
This is the link I was trying to show you before.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EbvnNRmfoAQ
1 March 2008 at 4.53 pm
jeannie: I watched the video, but was unsure how it related to the content of the post. Could you help me out and explain it?
1 March 2008 at 4.57 pm
Hey Art: I have discovered several fun things this week:
1. It is not just fundamentalist who get ticked of when you talk about origins but the evolutionist too.
2. That while I am an old school 7 day creationist it is not the foundation of my faith…and I can still love and have fellowship with the theologically bankrupt such as yourself…Just kidding, what I have learned is that this is a secondary issue, as to the means, as long as God is the cause.
3. That science is not the only form of evidence in the world.
So anyhoo good post.
PS: Here is one thing that I have never understood about those who do not believe in traditional creationism…what then does one do with Adam and original sin? I myself would be much more apt to accept some forms of gradual evolution but feel like we need a literal Adam. I also would reject the concept of the origin of man on purely scientific grounds…so that has alway intrigued me.
Peace!
D
1 March 2008 at 5.04 pm
well written. I really struggle with how to deal with fundamentalist folks like Johnny Mac. I’m all for rational discussion. I’m absolutely fine with someone completely disagreeing with me. I, however, don’t know what to do with these folks who become disciples of Jesus and then buy into Macarthur’s BS that everyone is trying to destroy them.
Seriously, how many times have we heard that terrorists hate our freedom or that homosexuals want to undermine the sanctity or marriage? Planned Parenthood wants pregnant women to have abortions. It seems like the conservatives are being led and controlled by fear, and how can someone have community with the person they believe is their mortal enemy? Not to mention, how can we somehow convince their leaders to stop hurting the church without somehow hurting the church ourselves?
ideas?
1 March 2008 at 5.12 pm
D: I agree that evolutionists get razzed during the debate as well. Case in point: our dear friend Richard Dawkins.
Concerning Adam and original sin: I definitely believe there was a literal Adam and definitely believe in original sin. Although Genesis 2-3 are definitely theologically shaped and theologically packed (much like other historiography in Scripture), I am more prone to take Genesis 2.4ff as more historically based than Genesis 1-2.3 for the mere fact that Genesis is structured around the 10 toledot found within its literary structure. The first is found in Genesis 2.4: “These are the generations (Hebrew: toledot) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” The fact that Genesis 1-2.3 precedes this literary structure which organizes Genesis seems to point to understanding the first creation narrative in a different way (i.e. a much more theologically and apologetically shaped narrative, as opposed to a completely historical narrative).
That’s one textually based way I can hold to both a “longer than 144 hour” creation story of Genesis 1-2.3, while still believing in the historicity of Adam and original sin.
Earl: I wish I had the answer for you. Because of issues that are surrounding my seminary at the moment, I have often been praying for a high level of charity on all sides when discussing theological issues. Not that we have to completely agree with each other, but that we can still sit at the Lord’s table, as Christian brothers and sisters, and continue building the Church while united with Christ and each other by the Spirit. My only answer, at this point, is prayer.
1 March 2008 at 5.22 pm
Thanks Art! That really helps me make sense of it. I think that would actually be an easier argument to sustain scientifically as well. Because no matter what Dawkin’s says human evolution can not be found in the fossil record.
The thing with MacArthur is that that I think he believes his crap…I personally have not listened to a thing he has said since he 1. attacked Driscoll and 2. claimed that good Calvinist are all premil. (and then went on to demonstrate that he had no idea what amil. people believe.)
Earl: Good point but I think your examples are 1 for 3: Terrorist do hate our freedom, if you doubt this I would gladly connect you with some missionary friend working in Lebanon. 2. Have you ever talked to a hardcore Planned Parenthood person? I don’t think it is a stretch to say that they beleive that a teen girl who keeps the baby is making a mistake…and is not being loyal to their movement.
D
1 March 2008 at 6.03 pm
Your views on Genesis 1:1-2:4 are identical to my own. That must mean you are correct, congrats!
1 March 2008 at 6.56 pm
Hello.
I find your perspective very interesting and well thought out. I do understand your frustration with the obstinate among us. The problem is that their conception of God is very small and mired in the Old Testament-people who insist on the literality of Genesis are not so much Christians as Jehovahists. Within the Gospels are contained everything a Christian needs. There is nothing within them that indicates that it is necessary or even a good idea to use Genesis as a biology textbook.
In Genesis, God gave humanity the task of naming the animals; if you think about what Darwin actually achieved you will realize that he made the single greatest contribution to that effort any person has ever made. He has been branded the greatest God killer in history for it. It’s quite ironic, actually.
Science presents no threat to faith. After I learned there was no Santa Claus I did not renounce Christmas but rather appreciated it much more deeply. I saw that the holiday didn’t happen because of supernatural beings and magic but because people made it happen. I saw that people made it happen across continents and many centuries. I saw that if I wanted there to be a Christmas, I would have to help make it happen too. When I hear people tell me that if the Bible is not completely true then none of it can be true I think that they are faithless. Should it be proven to me (and I don’t see how it could) that the Disciples faked the Ressurection I would still regard Jesus as divine and His teaching the standard of wisdom.
Thank you for your thought-provoking post.
-Winston Delgado
1 March 2008 at 9.22 pm
Art,
I noticed that, while you prefer to interpret Genesis 1 (at the very least) from an ANE perspective, you don’t believe that the 7 days of creation were 24-hour days. If you really dig into ANE literature, you might end up reversing your stance.
Genesis is a “temple text” that parallels to a great degree other ANE cultures’ temple dedication texts. An interesting thing some of them have in common is a 7-day dedication period. The first three days of the dedication describe the establishment of function, or the “structure” or “fabric” of the cosmic temple itself. In the case of Genesis, it would be the establishment of the functions of time (Day 1), weather (Day 2), and vegetation (Day 3), all of which were intimately related to each other and extremely important to societies both then and now.
The second three days of the dedication process describe the establishment of functionaries to “work” (cf. Gen 2:15) the temple complex. The seventh day was considered a day of “rest,” connoting “stability” and “equilibrium.” All is functional, all is good.
Thus, these days were, in the 7-day dedication ceremony, literal 24-hour days! But they weren’t days during which material structures were created. Rather, the objects’ functions or purposes were declared or established over the course of 7 days.
I am, by no means, a YEC or OEC, yet I still believe the days of Genesis 1 to refer to literal, 24-hour days! How you like them apples?
I just finished Part 3 of my mini-series on understanding Genesis 1 based on the ANE perspective (courtesy of Wheaton’s Dr. John H. Walton) on my blog. Here’s the link to the third part of the series, from which you can also access Parts 1 & 2.
http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-waltons-greatest-hits-part-3.html
1 March 2008 at 9.47 pm
Art,
A number of years ago, a man who was starting a “Creation ministry” threatened to leave our Church if we would not put a 24 hour, young earth creation position in our documents. I tried to find a nice way to say, “Don’t let the door hit you were the good Lord split you” (as a matter of creation
. Actually, I was a little more pastoral about it and invited him to show me one time in Church history when one’s theory on the way creation took place was used as a test of Christian orthodoxy or condition for Christian fellowship. He couldn’t think of any so I told him I don’t plan to be the one to get it started. Yes, they left the Church and had some unpleasant things to say about me.
Many of these folks seem more interested in fostering intramural conflicts in the body of Christ than truly helping unbelievers come to know God as Creator, Lawgiver and Redeemer. After more than 20 years of ministry in a university town, I’ve found it more effective to argue the case for intelligent Design.
Of course, only God can open blind eyes and give the gift of faith to enable people to believe in him as Creator and Redeemer. Yet we are given responsible to reason, explain, defend, declare… (words used in Acts)to help others come to the knowledge of truth. I’ve written a few articles on ID for the local Sunday News, see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/category/intelligent-design/
To the point, I am not a “young earther” myself. I hold to a view explained by Barnhouse in his book “The Invisible War”. It aligns with the “old” gap theory and requires a little sanctified speculation about the relationship of the fall of Satan to creation.
Have you read, “Redeeming Science” by Poythress? I have it, just haven’t had time yet to get to it. For some interesting reading, get, “The Right Darwin?” by Carson Holloway.
The uncle from Millersville
Steve Cornell
1 March 2008 at 9.48 pm
Mike: Genesis is a “temple text” that parallels to a great degree other ANE cultures’ temple dedication texts.
I have heard this argument before and, as of this point in my learning, it is entirely unconvincing. One of the reasons is that it makes connections with the “priestly” language in Genesis 2.4ff…yet that creation narrative is altogether different than the first creation narrative. Both narratives have different authors, different functions, and different goals. It’s not exegetically valid to use language found in the second creation narrative to build an argument on how to read the first creation narrative.
Secondly, the first creation narrative more closely parallels other ANE creation accounts, not temple texts. I truly appreciate Walton’s work (I reviewed his latest work very favorably), but he does not demonstrate conclusively that the first creation narrative should be read in light of later temple texts of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The connections he makes are interesting, but not convincing. ANE creation accounts are the proper parallel of Genesis 1-2.3.
Thirdly, the Mesopotamian and Egyptian temple texts show man attempting to put into order the chaos produced by the creation of the world (which was usually the result of two gods fighting), they do not explain cosmogony. The biblical creation narratives explain cosmogony. There is little similar between them once you move beyond a superficial level.
So, in summary, I have heard the arguments relating to temple texts and remain unconvinced. Walton’s view is interesting, but is an extreme minority in ancient Near Eastern scholarship. Almost any Assyriologist, Egyptologist, or Northwest Semitic scholar you talk to (Christian, Jewish or otherwise) will relate first biblical creation narrative to other creation (not temple) narratives of the culture they study. It just parallels them much, much too closely to deny.
And even if Walton’s temple text theory was viable, there is little reason for seeing this as evidence to believe in a 144 hour creation period. It would simply mean that Israel borrowed a liturgical structure from another culture, not that Israel was meaning to convey a scientifically measurable time period.
1 March 2008 at 9.58 pm
Uncle Steve: Wise words. I wish I was able to keep up more with the scientific evidence being produced by the ID crowd. I, like yourself, find that conversation to be a more welcomed topic by many as opposed to the topic of the existence of God (although the former conversation usually leads to the latter).
I have not read Poythress’ latest. I wish I was able to read more during the semester! I do have that on my summer reading list (which is filling up fast!). When you read it you should do a review on your blog. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Also, whenever I see your profile picture, I always have to look twice and wonder if you became the Bishop of Millersville, because it looks like you are wearing a clerical collar with some kind of liturgical stole!
1 March 2008 at 10.34 pm
there is little reason for seeing this as evidence to believe in a 144 hour creation period. It would simply mean that Israel borrowed a liturgical structure from another culture, not that Israel was meaning to convey a scientifically measurable time period.
Art,
We may be talking past each other. Even though I believe the 7 days of Genesis 1 were literal, successive 24-hour days, I don’t believe they describe the creation of material structure. They were 7 days of dedication of the functions and functionaries of God’s “cosmic temple” during which order was brought from chaos, etc.
As for ANE creation texts, I believe that Genesis 1-3 (and possibly other chapters) were heavily influeneced by these other texts, which is why they appear to address more than just creation, incoporate temple text imagery, and (in the case of Genesis 2-3) allude back to the Genesis 1 story.
Anyhoo, thanks for a great post!
1 March 2008 at 10.41 pm
Mike: As for ANE creation texts, I believe that Genesis 1-3 (and possibly other chapters) were heavily influeneced by these other texts, which is why they appear to address more than just creation, incoporate temple text imagery, and (in the case of Genesis 2-3) allude back to the Genesis 1 story.
I like this conversation.
To which texts are you referring? Other temple texts? If so, which specific texts are you referring to? I’d like to read them more carefully to attempt to understand your point. I have all the usual collections of ANE writings (Pritchard, Sasson, Arnold, Hallo and Younger, etc.). Let me know.
1 March 2008 at 10.55 pm
I found it rather amusing that MacArthur characterizes those who hold to this hypothesis as “liberal theologians.” We have a prof here at GCTS who takes this viewpoint, and he’s infuriatingly conservative on almost any other point of biblical interpretation, right down to his insistence that if you discount complete Mosaic authorship of the Torah you are calling God a liar, because, after all, Jesus refers to the “Law of Moses.”
1 March 2008 at 11.02 pm
Wow. Does he make room for Moses’ death account? Or does he say that it was ‘prophecy’ (i.e. God telling Moses under inspiration that he was going to die, and then Moses wrote it…and then died)?
I have some very conservative professors who hold to the framework view and the “essential Mosaic” authorship view, which leaves room for scribal glosses as well as Moses’ death account.
I also found it “amusing” (if, by amusing, you mean infuriating) that MacArthur paints these people with the “liberal” brush. But based on a lot of MacArthur’s recent work (i.e. The Truth War), it seems that everyone except for the staff at Grace and the faculty at Master’s is considered a raving liberal. If that’s what it means to be a liberal, then count me in!
2 March 2008 at 5.38 pm
Okay, let’s see. God created thee ntire universe in six periods of twenty-four hours. How did He do i? No idea. I am not God and do not have infinite knowledge and understanding.
So, was their a time when there was NOTHING that went on to become SOMETHING. After a further peiod of time that SOMETHING that had been NOTHING, went BANG! Billions of yars later that had changed to us!
So, the question is, can everything come from nothing all on its own?
Now, maybe if you are a David Coperfield illusionist, you might be able to perform that unscientific trick.After all, we have seen him walk through the Great Wall of China and made a Lear Jet vanish. But they were illusions. What evolutionists want us to believe is unscientific events.
Science teaches that one cannot get something from nothing. There always had to be a ’something’ there to begin with. But God ’spoke’ and everything came into existence.
There is on question about it, the only logical explanation for the origin of universe is an historical creation by a Divine God.
Do I feel intellectually challenged by the unknown and unknowable aspects of the creation? No! This is where faith kicks in. Evolution requires considerably more faith and ’straw grasping’ than a special creation. After all, we Christians do not have the monopoly on faith. Many scientists go along with their world-view interpretation of the available evidence for origins, then when the evidence fails to support their belief, they take a leap of faith, telling the world that thought there is no proof, it st had to have happened their way.
Blesings
2 March 2008 at 5.49 pm
Pete: Thanks for your comments.
Just so we are clear, I am not arguing for atheistic evolution which proposes such theories as the Big Bang.
I believe that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is that God created it. So, we don’t have any disagreement there.
I am also not threatened by the unknown. One of my favorite quotes is from Dionysius who wrote, “”I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I cannot understand it.” So, we have no disagreement there.
My only disagreement in your comment is this: “God created thee ntire universe in six periods of twenty-four hours.” I honestly do not believe that is the natural conclusion (nor the purpose) of reading the creation narratives.
While I do applaud your faith in that you trust God despite your inability to comprehend everything he has done (cf. Deuteronomy 29.29), I think that exercising faith that God created the world in 144 hours is not necessary. I think it is not necessary because I am unconvinced that Scripture teaches it, but, rather, that it is being forced to say something which it never meant to say in the first place.
When Scripture clearly teaches something that I do not understand, such as the Trinity or the resurrection, I exercise faith. But when Scripture is not clear about something, I don’t want to create my own beliefs concerning its clarity and then exercise faith in that. What results, then, is my faith being placed in my theoretical interpretation instead of on Scripture.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh or rude. I honestly respect your beliefs and am not chiding you for holding them. I’m just trying to keep the conversation going.
3 March 2008 at 8.08 am
Why?
3 March 2008 at 8.18 am
Brad: Could you clarify your question? I’m not sure I’m understanding what you are asking “why?” to or who you are asking it to.
7 March 2008 at 1.15 am
Art,
To which texts are you referring? Other temple texts? If so, which specific texts are you referring to?
The creation/temple texts to which I’m referring primarily is the Babylonian Enuma Elish (where Marduk organizes the cosmos and then has a shrine constructed), the Egyptian “Memphis Creation Story,” Mesopotamian temple texts (check out Hurowitz’ I Have Built You an Exalted House), and Gudea’s Sumerian temple texts (where he constructs a temple for Ningirsu and his consort, Bau).
The Sumerian temple texts are interesting because the dedication ceremonies last seven days. Hurowitz also noticed that the temple construction is not architectural in nature. Genesis likewise describes the assignment of function vs. creation of structure.
The Enuma Elish has Marduk naming his shrine “Chamber That Shall Be Our Stopping Place.” Interesting.
Although I previously held to Mosaic editorship of Genesis, I’m beginning to wonder … Moses and the Hebrews would have been intimately familiar with the Egyptian texts, but not necessarily the Babylonian texts. Could post-exile editors have contributed to Genesis to create the form of the book that we now have before us? I really haven’t delved deep into that subject yet.
9 March 2008 at 8.54 am
[...] is a hot topic right [...]