Filed in:
Both Feet Firmly on the Ground (Cosmology)
Hey Caleb, thanks. I appreciate your mind, and your writing. I thought about all those kinds of questions for years.
Hey Caleb, thanks. I appreciate your mind, and your writing. I thought about all those kinds of questions for years.
So YES. I have recently affirmed publicly now that I am indeed a 6 day creationist. This is a recent development and I want to explain why I felt constrained to making this move. The posting of this thought began in THIS [Click Here] post, and continues in the current post as installment 4:
This is whole issue of 6 day and global flood and real Jonah, and Primeval realism is just a question about the Bible. How does the New Testament treat the Old Testament?
I believe that we find over and over that the biblical texts require us to believe that certain things be taken at face value, which doesn’t mean without symbolism, without deep significances etcetera, but still that they happened in a way that the words of the Bible faithfully recount to us.
According to the New Testament:
There was a Noah. Eight people were saved from the flood in Noah’s Ark. God turned Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes. There was a Jonah; he was in a fish for three days. Nineveh did actually repent, and many people and animals were saved. Abel’s blood accuses the Scribes and Pharisees. Adam brought death upon all men. And male and female are Adamic categories “from the beginning,” not from sometime later. And the blood line to Jesus goes back through Enosh son of Seth son of Adam son of God.
These things are told to us “not following cleverly devised myths” since “we have something more sure, the prophetic word”…”knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
According to the New Testament, the Israelites crossed the reed sea, they ate manna and quail and drank from a spiritual rock that followed them in the wilderness. Some of them did and were destroyed by serpents.
Did these things really happen?
“These things happened to them…”
Why?
“…as an example…”
Should we really believe this?
“…they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”
So YES. I have recently affirmed publicly now that I am indeed a 6 day creationist. This is a recent development and I want to explain why I felt constrained to making this move. The posting of this thought began in THIS [Click Here] post, and continues in the current post as installment 3:
What Kind of Literature is Genesis?
As I am an Old Testament teacher, I spend a lot of time teaching Genesis every year. Mind you, I have always dearly loved the Bible and the God who wrote it. I haven’t been a godless secularist waiting to destroy Jesus. I have been an evangelistic, child rearing, wife honoring, church serving Christian living under the incredible burden of a nagging scientism and a hermeneutic of doubt.
Back to Genesis, I read and memorize bits of Gen 1 every year. We memorize Gen 1.1-5, and 1.26-28 (*the first day of creation and *the cultural mandate).
For years I have assumed that Gen 1-11 (Primeval History) was allegorical and that Gen 12-50 was historical. Please notice:
I have never doubted the existence and necessity of miracles, but I felt at that time that
A Seamless Garment
In truth, there are NO markers in the text indicating a transition from mythic to historical material. In fact, it looks to me a lot like these are all definitely intended to be read in unity.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
What’s in a Name?
Another reason that I had a hard time with Gen 1-11 was that I thought that the narratives seemed overly contrived. The names especially couldn’t be real.
Adam is humanity, Eve is Life, Noah is heard.
What was I thinking?! It goes on just like that after Gen 12 begins.
Abraham means Father of Multitudes, Sarah means princess, Isaac is his mother’s laughter, Jacob grabs at his brother’s heel, but Israel wrestles with God.
The only options, based on THESE criteria, are to accept Genesis 1-11, or doubt ALL of Genesis.
I don’t doubt all of Genesis, so I now accept Gen 1-11 as my master, and to my master I will submit.
I remember someplace that Abram believed the LORD. Me too.
So YES. I have recently affirmed publicly now that I am indeed a 6 day creationist. This is a recent development and I want to explain why I felt constrained to making this move. The posting of this thought began in THIS [Click Here] post, and continues in the current post as installment 2:
I think I find that for many people who have always been young earth/6-day people, it is very hard to see how someone could be old earth and a consistent Christian. But I will try to explain the struggle that I had in my head over the last 10 years.
Allegory? Parable?
Again, I have always had an absolute commitment to the Bible, but I also felt like the old earth, and process of evolution were basically demonstrable, and scientifically hard to get around. I thought Gen 1-11 was figurative, or parabolic. True, yet non-historical, in the way that a parable has a true lesson, but not a factual history.
I also assumed that humanity “became” humanity at some point in an evolutionary process. So I was able to affirm that at some point we became sinful and human, but it wasn’t necessarily in a pristine garden.
Sounds Like Myth
I also thought that Gen 1-3 was too stylistically symbolic to be real. I thought that with names like:
Adam – “Humanity”
and Eve – “Life”
and a talking snake and a magic fruit…. come on!
But my mind has changed, and I now welcome these literary frills as BOTH highly symbolic AND historical.
But how did it all go down?
The Beginning of the Breakdown
One day in my New Testament class, I was reading the speech Paul gave at the Aereopagus, and one of the verses struck me like a brick. I actually gasped for air when I read it, quietly, but there was really was a breath – Acts 17.26:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth…
Paul is preaching to the Gentiles at Mars Hill (the Ἄρειον Πάγον). One of the things always pointed out about this situations is the difference in how he preaches to the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews have a whole canon of knowledge behind their hearing of sermons. The Greeks likely know nothing of the Old Testament so they have to be told anything that it’s necessary to know. They are also repenting from outside the Law, and not from under it.
The outline of Paul’s sermon:
The passage doesn’t use the word “one” over and over, but it isn’t absent in idea, and it DOES use the word “one” in verse 26.
The simple version is that there is ONE God and ONE Man, and we are RELATED. The one God is both OUR JUDGE (by fact of creation), and NOT AN IDOL (by correlation to us). The fact that the Judge is near us and the judgment is upon us both are proven by the Resurrection of ONE MAN.
The “one man” thing seems to be pretty important – even theologically necessary.
Calm down! I know about Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15. I will deal with them later. At that point, I had worked around these monster passages, but Acts 17.26 was the “little leaven” to leaven the whole lump.
Now, we have to talk about the Greek.
ἐξ ἑνὸς – is the Greek behind “one man” from v.26
That phrase can mean “one man.” In fact, it should do so if there is no other reason to translate it other wise. And there isn’t any other factor to change it. So the substantival masculine adjective “one” (henos) becomes the noun “one man.”
However the word (anthropos) is not used here, but it is not use for Jesus either – he is an (aner): “a male”. Some later texts insert the word “blood.” Regardless, the point of the verse is a single source for all humanity, which is used as a proof that we are all unified in responsibility to the one creator. So no way around the single source of humanity.
You could say that even with evolution and a large source of humanity we are still responsible to God, but you can’t say it without implying that Paul was either wrong or lying.
The Beginning of the End of the End of the Beginning
This verse not only began my downfall into sweet, sweet, comfortable confidence by making me think “Paul thinks Adamic origin is important,” but it also made me formulate a litmus question:
“How does the rest of the bible treat Gen 1-11 and Jonah or any other questioned literature.”
That, my friends, is how we will proceed.
Until recently, it had been my longstanding view that the earth is really old, and that Gen 1-11 must be figurative.
I have changed my mind.
[That is: I now believe those sections are intended as historical. I am adding this line, because a friend was unclear about my position. Updated at 6 pm, Nov 19.]
Before this change, I didn’t distrust scripture; I was just convinced that unscientific sounding parts couldn’t possibly mean what they sounded like. I think this is because I had regrettably been convinced of a mainly materialist view of the universe. I DID in fact believe in a spiritual side of the world, but it was OUT THERE in heaven. My re-formed view sees a physical and a spiritual together DOWN HERE in the life we have.
It’s hard to describe how my two views were held side by side, but still divorced. Unfortunately this was a very increasingly painful way to live. I was always having to fight the battles of the conflicting views in my head, or to ignore the fact that I did have a conflict, and that it hurt.
I want to begin a series here to highlight biblical reasons to require our submission to the text in a more radical way than I had given it credit for in the past.
A friend of mine, Nathan, on one occasion, challenged my view that the book of Jonah was a-historical.
Now please be aware, if you have always been a 6-day person, you may not be aware how pervasive the view is amongst otherwise orthodox Christians that Gen 1-11 is mythic, and that Jonah is inspired fiction. I never believed the bible was false, but I did believe that Gen 1-11 was teaching through allegory; however, I didn’t have a sophisticated view of how to fit together that Gen 11 was fictive, and Gen 12 was historical.
Back to Nathan’s challenge – he just said that he didn’t see any reason that it couldn’t be historical.
The question is: On whom is the burden of proof that texts are parable and not historical?
Jesus does speak in parable, but he says he is doing so when he does so. Gen 1 says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light!’ and THERE WAS LIGHT.’ And God saw that the light was good.” So did he?
I want to write this over a string of posts, so let me outline some questions to deal with:
I don’t know in what order I will get to these things, but if you have been wondering about these things, keep checking back here in the near future, and I will make more suggestions, and explain more why I think we HAVE to affirm the historicity of all of Genesis, at the same time of affirming its poetry, symbolism and yes, even numerology.