Yes Keith it is confusing.  Why do these differences arise?

If you ask people, including prominent theologians, why they think it necessary to see Genesis 1-11 as symbolic in some way, rather than actual history, they will say “because of scientific knowledge”.

What this really means is “how some scientists interpret the available data” (i.e. the stars, the rocks, the fossils, and living things today), to indicate millions of years and evolution.

But other equally qualified scientists can interpret the same data in a way which supports the historical record in Genesis 1-11 in its apparent account of a six day perfect creation about 6000 years ago, radically changed by the curse, then a worldwide flood.

There is no difference in the data.  The difference is in the interpretation. and the interpretation depends on the presuppositions of the interpreter.

So if the millions of years interpretation comes from outside the Bible, why allow that to govern how we interpret the Bible? 

I think many Christians and theologians are swayed by the sheer majority of the millions of years believers. “How can they all be wrong?” Few study the science closely enough from both sides of the question to be able to make a really independant assessment for themselves.

It takes time and effort to penetrate the fog of conflicting ideas.  But it is really not safe or fair to take a strong position unless you understand both sides fully. 

Cheers

Frank

There is no difference in the data.  The difference is in the interpretation. and the interpretation depends on the presuppositions of the interpreter.

Except that the Creationist system for interpreting the data is piecemeal. It is largely composed of interpretations that are effectively challenges. Like “AThose hobbits could be suffering from a congenital illness.”
and “God made all the light happen everwhere at the same time.”
and “The layering of fossils is due to the Flood.”
But as yet no one has really put their various counter claims together and done the maths. The pre Flood world is, I suspect if you put all their various claims together, an impossible scenario. Light would move faster than it does now, making the expenditure of energy really dodgy. The Flood would have changed water temps and salinity levels in such a way as to wipe out most marine life, the cosmos would be weirder than it is now. Either light went faster, or God made a miracle and made all the stars appear at once everywhere, even ones that never existed cos they died before the universe began, or the dimensional structure of the universe is twisted in some kind of way reflecting the twists and turns of creation science, oh and the animals were all sent back to where they were. Koalas to Oz and axolotyls to Mexico… or the rate of evolution (micro-evolution- let’s not forget that furfy distinction created by creation science) was so massive that you could have watched the process from your back door.
Frank- when it is all put together , all the various hypotheses (remember YECS has NO theories- that is, scientifically supported hypotheses, of any recognition) do they all support the contention of a young earth/ universe?
I say “No!”
The YECS approach is to get one fact and interpret it singly without reference to any other field of science or even facts within the field. YECS is singly careful not to discuss, in its own writings, counter examples UNLESS some sort of explanation is available.

The difference may well be in the interpretation, but I say, the quality of the interpretation is one worth considering.
And

But other equally qualified scientists can interpret the same data in a way which supports the historical record in Genesis 1-11 ...

That is a throw away line Frank. “Equally qualified”? I doubt there are any YECS scientists who were anywhere near Gould’s level or quality or qualification. There is a small percentage of scientists that are YECSers. It appears that when they do speak on the YECS topic they tend to speak outside their fields of expertise so their qualifications become far less relevant when they do. eg; a chemist speaking on geological subjects is hardly qualified, she may be a scientist, but not able to speak with anything like the same capcity as when addressing chemistry subjects.

I say, look into YECS. Look at the way assumptions and guesses become facts. Look at the way they blur meaning. eg; their misuse of the word “theory”, especially in their popular literature. Just look at the way the YECS literature addresses its subjects and ask youself “Does this read like science or does it read like someone is trying hard to convince me of their assumptions?” There is no comfort with lines like “This fact presents a serious challenge to our hypothesis. Based on this evidence we are unable to support our claim ....” It is always “This fact presents a serious challenge to their hypothesis. Based on this evidence they are unable to support their claim ....”
That my friends isn’t science, it is propoganda!

First of all, Hi Keith and welcome!

Now to Frank whose input on the YEC side of things has generally been most gracious and even-handed:

Frank Savage - 05 August 2008 11:38 AM

The bottom line is if you believe God meant us to understand Genesis 1 to 11 as actual history . . .
In the end, the conclusions you reach will depend on the assumptions you start with, about God, his power, his word, and his intention to communicate simply and accurately to us.

That’s neither fair nor accurate Frank.  Many biblical commentators regard Genesis 1 to 11 as “actual history” but do not agree with your interpretation of it.  What you are talking about is not “actual history” but rather the view that Genesis 1 to 11 is a prosaic, chronological account, and that every verse from 1:1 to 11:32 is that particular kind of historical account.

But others hold it to be a thoroughly historical account, but expressed through a particular genre that is more akin to poetry than prose.  Many of those who reach such conclusions have just as exalted a view of “God, his power, his word, and his intention to communicate simply and accurately to us” as YECs, but have a different view (and, I would suggest, a broader view) of literature and legitimate modes of communication than most YECs.

As you know, I lean towards the old earth view, but don’t feel that my my faith stands or falls with it.  But I don’t much like it being implied that if I do hold to such a view that it’s because I have an inferior view of God or his word.

In Christ,

Bob

I appreciate what you’re saying Bob.  But would you mind if we attempt to put it to the test?

There are certain psalms (e.g. 105, 106, 136) which recount key portions of earlier Biblical history which are given to us in prosaic form in greater detail elsewhere.  Now, I think it was always important that the Bible should present to us the original prose accounts before the poetical summaries, which do seem to assume that the worshippers know the history beforehand, and are more profitable when they do.

So if Gen. 1-11 is akin to poetry (albeit lacking the canonical characteristics of authentic Hebrew poetry), it does seem rather surprising that the Bible nowhere contains anything like a more detailed prosaic account to which it corresponds - let alone that such an account couldn’t come before the quasi-poetical recounting because that comes at the very start of the Bible!

But to me the most serious problem with the view you’ve outlined (as presented by many worthies, no doubt) is this.  If we start by reading any of the psalms I’ve referenced above, and then turn to the histories from which they’re drawn, nothing in those histories stands out as in any kind of serious conflict with the impressions we’ve naturally gained from first reading the respective psalms.  The fact that the psalms describe those matters of fact in a pleasing, sing-song rhetorical style, makes no difference to this crucial identity and perspicuous correspondence between them and their matching histories.

Now:  if we take Gen. 1-11 and imagine ourselves reading it right through by itself, without having first read any of the modern ‘scientific’ theories of which the opening Biblical chapters are allegedly the divinely-inspired simplification in another literary genre, would not our natural impressions of it include such as the following?

- When first formed, the earth was covered with water.
- The earth was formed before the sun, moon and stars.
- God carried out the entire creative process in stages spanning six calendrical days.
- Man and all land animals were originally vegetarian.
- The original ‘Tigris’ and ‘Euphrates’ rivers had two other distributaries which today’s rivers bearing those names do not.
- Adam’s sin and fall rendered mankind mortal, womankind subject to pain in childbirth, and adversely affected both animal and plant kingdoms.
- People before Noah’s Flood lived typically for close to a millennium.
- That Flood covered all land, thus cutting off any possible high ground escape for people and land animals.
- The Babel incident saw the fragmentation of a single original language into many, and the consequent dispersion of many ethnic groups from that location, from which all modern ethnicities and their languages are derived.

And so then, if we now turn to the typical secular account of origins of earth, life, man etc., is there a single one of the above points for which we could say (as with the case of the psalms), “Yes, that’s what Gen. 1-11 is talking about - the identification’s easy!”?

That, Bob (and Owen), is the heart of the problem, particularly for Protestants whose bedrock epistemological belief is the perspicuity of the Bible.  (This may explain why recent popes have ‘dissed’ creationism while it has grown remarkably among Protestants.)

And I haven’t even said anything yet about the fact that most of the points listed above receive independent confirmation from the New Testament.

Hi Dan
You make some good points with regard to the interpretation of Scripture which I’ll reflect upon.  But my objection to Frank’s post (which I don’t think you’ve responded to) was not to do with the substantive issue, but with the assertions that:
1) Those who disagree with him do not regard Genesis 1-11 as actual history; and that
2) They have a lesser view of God.
I would still maintain that such assertions are inaccurate and unhelpful.
Bob

G’day again Bob.  I agree re. (2) that Frank’s choice of words was infelicitous; everyone agrees that God can do anything!

As for (1), that’s just the point I was trying to probe.  That is, I was attempting to cross-examine the soundness of your summary rebuttal to Frank’s claim.  Anyone’s welcome to join in and cross-examine my post in turn ;)

One point I might have added that ties in well with the start of that post, is that if anything it’s Psalm 104 that constitutes a poetical/liturgical description of creation (and in fact, it’s more about providence than origins).  That being so, can there be any doubt about the identity of the earlier prosaic account with which it should be paired?

Unlike the psalm (e.g. vv. 24, 33-35), Gen. 1 contains absolutely nothing explicitly doxological; no optative/imperative mood of verbs by the author, nor indeed (as we’re often reminded) any mention of that name of God which ought to be the focus of worship by his covenant people.

As you might have guessed if you’ve heard it too, I’ve just been listening to Dr Packer’s recent lecture on creation (no. 15 in the series I think) in the latter stages of which he expounds this doxological concept of Gen. 1.  (If you haven’t heard it yet, I recommend it!) Although I thought I’d more or less know what he’d say before I started listening to it, he does make several interesting and noteworthy points.

Perhaps this one deserves a thread of its own ;) However when someone asked him about the formation of Eve, I was a little surprised to find Dr Packer expressing agnosticism about how God made her; preferring to speak of the theology of woman as companion to man, citing Augustine etc.

Anyway, he thinks the basic historical teaching of Gen. 1 can be reduced to saying, “God made everything you see around you.” That strikes me as kenotic, and reminded me of the following stinging quote from his old sparring partner (bête noire?), the late Prof James Barr of Oxford, who refers to a statement from the New Bible Dictionary:

“Gen 1 has an artificial literary structure and is not concerned to provide a picture of chronological sequence but only to assert the fact that God made everything.” Only that God made everything! How are the mighty fallen! and how ridiculous a mouse has the mountain of fundamentalist interpretation brought forth! What radical ‘liberal’ or wild ‘modernist’ did not believe ‘only’ that God
had made everything?

Oh dear.

Hello Bob and Owen

Thanks for your responses.  Bob I am sorry you did not like my statements. I believe you are totally sincere in your respect for God and his word. I believed the same as you for 20 years or so.

Likewise Owen you are very sincere in your beliefs.  I think the three of us would cover the spectrum of differences in understanding of Genesis 1-11.

My statements were not intended to insult anyone, and should have stated more clearly that differences relate more to exactly what it was that God intended “to communicate simply and accurately to us.”

We all agree that God created. The questions are when, how long it took, what form and order, what changed at the fall, and what happened at the flood. 

These are matters of historical fact. Only one answer out of the three of us is right (unless we are all wrong!) If one of us is right, the other two may need to apologize in heaven when Jesus tells us what actually happened.

But I think we all agree God intended to communicate what he thinks we need to know.  To state any one point of view runs the risk of offending others.  And surely whichever is the wrong understanding must be dishonouring to God, and distort somewhat the revelation he intended.

The aim is to discuss the issues, and not attack the persons who hold a different point of view to oneself.

Peace and love, with truth

Frank

Thanks Frank.  Just by the by I don’t think you’d find much difference between our views of the Fall.
Bob

Hi Bob

A perfect creation in six days about six thousand years ago means that before the fall there was not the suffering, conflict, death and decay we see in the fossil evidence of a one year flood, and today, in all of creation. Man’s physical body as well as spiritual state originally was not subject to death. There must have been a different ecology.

A long age view I think means that the fossil record over millions of years shows that suffering, conflict, death and decay preceded Adam’s sin. Does that not mean that the effect of the fall and curse must only relate to man’s spiritual life, and must not have affected his physical body, or the rest of creation? 

Quite a difference I would think.

Thanks

Frank

And the perfect creation view of God is that he made everything perfect, without using death and suffering.

The long age view is of a God who used death and suffering as part of his method of creating. This doesn’t seem to fit what the rest of the Bible says about God, or what heaven will be like - perfect in every way, a new creation with no suffering or death.

Cheers

Frank

Hi Frank
I didn’t say not at all different :-).  I was thinking more with regard to the fact that I consider Adam and Eve to be real individuals whose sin has affected the whole of humanity since.  Also, I’m not sure that a long age view necessitates human suffering before the Fall.
Bob

Thanks for the clarification Bob.

Food for more thought!

Frank

Hi Keith, and welcome!

However for me as a veterinarian I cannot but see that creation itself speaks of death being there by design. Why is it that some animals are obligate carnivores?  Did God really create a lion with it’s dentition seemingly designed to rip, tear, kill etc but yet to eat vegetation?  Were not all the carnivores - land, sea or air - designed as killing machines of other animals??

The first thing to remember is that the fall has changed pretty much the entire universe, so we cannot be certain at all how things were before the fall. But I’d like to make two more deeper points:
1. Physiology is generally a pretty poor indication of behaviour. As Dan said, there are the occasional vegetarian lions, as there are vegetarion Piranha-like species. I’ve read that based the great panda’s physiology would suggest they are carnivores, but instead their claws and teeth are used to eat bamboo. I believe the likely cause of carnivorous animals is the huge loss in plant biodiversity after the fall - animals that could no longer find sufficient nutrients in plantlife would resort to eating other animals.
2. Job 38-41 seems to be suggesting that God is glorified in terrifying animals, so it’s more complicated than it seems.

What of the microscopic world where the whole of the cycle of life (if you will) revolves around death, decay, renewal - one dying, another living off the decaying bodies of of fellow microbes.  Does a ruminant survive if it were not for the death of the microbes within the rumen?

In an ancient Hebrew understanding these microbes would not be alive, and so not under the fall. We must not make the mistake of equating our modern definitions of life with the Bible’s (and indeed there are grey areas even today.) The Bible equates life with blood, so trees, shrubs, microbes and insects were all not alive. Look up all the passages about locusts… they’re not called alive once.

Now as to the extent of the flood - I have no problem with the view that the flood could be purely local, but seemingly to the inhabited world of that time covering all the earth. (There are other aspects to the flood story which I’m sure have been debated ad nauseum but I will need to do a search on this site, which are probably of more concern to me.)

I agree that the flood was local to the inhabited world of the time, because I believe the whole world to have been inhabited! If the flood did not wipe out the entire human race except for the 8 in the ark then it completely loses it’s theological significance.

Hi Owen. I’m afraid that you’re once again showing your ignorance of real Creationist theories.

oh and the animals were all sent back to where they were. Koalas to Oz and axolotyls to Mexico…

The Psalms describe the flood as a massive year long techtonic event (another reason why it would have to be global, the changes that occured wouldn’t leave any part intact.) The purpose of the flood was to destroy humanity and civilisations. The current continents are not the ones which existed before, so the animals didn’t go back anywhere, they explored and found new homes. The total destruction of the world before is another reason why we don’t find any lots of archeological remains of past civilisations completely unrelated to any of today’s.

Bob said:

I didn’t say not at all different :-).  I was thinking more with regard to the fact that I consider Adam and Eve to be real individuals whose sin has affected the whole of humanity since.  Also, I’m not sure that a long age view necessitates human suffering before the Fall.

Romans seems fairly clear to me in saying that Adam brought sin and death into the whole world, and not just humanity. Some have argued that it only says he brought death to humans, but I don’t think the text supports that. You also then must make a billion years of suffering and dieing animals “very good"… I’d rather not do that.

However as the evolutionary paleontology says that the first humans came from pre-humans by the cycle of death you’re still facing problems of being able to conform to mainstream science. If the reason to believe in long ages is to conform to mainstream science you’ll be unable to ever do so whilst still having an orthodox theology of sin. I’d rather not attempt to only ever partially conform to something… and start from the ground up with another worldview instead.

Danii
Thanks for that. I had forgotten that particular theory. probably a good thing. That particular tectonic cataclysm would have the various continents breaking speed records either then or since. If the whole shift from single land mass to the scattering we have now happened in the past six thousand years or mostly during the Flood then the possibility of surviving life anywhere is down to the single celled forms. We had a minor shake up a few years ago and tens of thousands were killed. The movement was infinitessimal. The proposed one by YECS would have made sure no marine life, avian or terran would survive at all. Everything would have to be in a flimsy wooden box.
I simply cannot accept that one at all.
Justconsider the proposal. massive tectonic action ith continents tearig apart from one another an simultaenously smashing into others. Mountains being formed. Alll in under a year. The seas would have been a series of choices between tidal waves and whirlpools. Marine life would have collapsed. No fish, no dolphins, no octupii, no jellyfish.
Land life… all gone!
So, if that happened during the Flood then koalas (or some ancestor) would have to sorted themselves out in Oz travelling over barren landscapes - no food!
Most seeds- gone!
No plants, nothing.
And of course we have the “how?” forgetting the food problem. How did they travel? How did they get there, since the carnivours were the only ones with an available diet?
How did the axolotyls get to their little cave in Mexico?

How did the insects get about?

The world was covered in mud. So the mozzies would have thrived.
The whole concept is, to me, mind bogglingly impossible, unfeasible and non-sensical. Convincethis cynic that this has an ounce of science or history in it.

Thanks for that. I had forgotten that particular theory. probably a good thing. That particular tectonic cataclysm would have the various continents breaking speed records either then or since. If the whole shift from single land mass to the scattering we have now happened in the past six thousand years or mostly during the Flood then the possibility of surviving life anywhere is down to the single celled forms. We had a minor shake up a few years ago and tens of thousands were killed. The movement was infinitessimal. The proposed one by YECS would have made sure no marine life, avian or terran would survive at all. Everything would have to be in a flimsy wooden box.
I simply cannot accept that one at all.

I think this is one area where I’m going to agree with the creationist hydrologists rather than you (unless you’ve studied hydrology too?) It would indeed kill every land animal, but there are models where marine life can survive. The tectonic changes would not require every bit of water to move at the same speed, nor would they homogenise all the water. The creationist models might not be perfect, but I think they’re feasible.

Justconsider the proposal. massive tectonic action ith continents tearig apart from one another an simultaenously smashing into others. Mountains being formed. Alll in under a year. The seas would have been a series of choices between tidal waves and whirlpools. Marine life would have collapsed. No fish, no dolphins, no octupii, no jellyfish.
Land life… all gone!

I don’t think the marine life would all have been killed, but yes of course all the land life would be gone. That was God’s whole plan.

So, if that happened during the Flood then koalas (or some ancestor) would have to sorted themselves out in Oz travelling over barren landscapes - no food!
Most seeds- gone!
No plants, nothing.
And of course we have the “how?” forgetting the food problem. How did they travel? How did they get there, since the carnivours were the only ones with an available diet?
How did the axolotyls get to their little cave in Mexico?
How did the insects get about?

Genesis itself tells us that vegetation preceeded the animals by several weeks, probably months. With all the dead vegetation the ground would have been very fertile. By the time koalas reached Aussieland many years could have passed.
How did they travel? The same way animals spread and travel now - slowly over several generations. Though perhaps some did travel faster… monarch butterflies migrate across continents.

The world was covered in mud. So the mozzies would have thrived.
The whole concept is, to me, mind bogglingly impossible, unfeasible and non-sensical. Convincethis cynic that this has an ounce of science or history in it.

It seems to me that you have a simplistic caricatured picture of the flood in your mind, one that probably is impossible. What creationists propose is quite different.

And if the flood is not global you run against huge theological problems. Even a local flood that kills all humans is not enough, for when God makes his covenant with Noah he includes all the animals, promising to never send a flood to kill them all. To suggest that until 5000 years ago not only were all humans found in a single valley but all animals too is surely ridiculous.