Hmm cool, I’ll have a read when I have more time to.

So Dannii,
based on your non-biblical hypothesis that if a scientist went back and studied the bread and wine, we have ‘proof’ (based on your guesswork) that God uses ‘apparent age’ all the time, and we can therefore indulge unbiblical concepts that God is just playing one massive practical joke on modern science? Yeah, nice one for the character of God. I’m actually quite offended at this silly suggestion. Wouldn’t sceptics just counter that God actually made us 5 seconds ago with complete life histories and memories? What other ‘Matrix-like’ fakes has God pulled?

The alternative Dickson offers is much more tenable.

If we knew the ancient worldview, the opening lines of Genesis would conjure up a mixture of “Australians’ all let us rejoice” and “Once upon a time”. We’d KNOW the text was about something important, but we’d also know what genre of literature it fell into… immediately! The ‘apparent age’ argument is just plain embarrassing.

How is it a practical joke??

I’ll quote from the book just linked to:

In fact, Adam or other, later human beings would make a mistake about
age only if they assumed that the apparent age was real. And this assumption
is not necessary, as Adam’s initial response to Eve shows. The assumption
comes in only if we first deny the possibility of mature creation. And this
denial presumes more than we know. We were not around when God created
the plants and animals. So how do we know whether he created them mature
or not? We do not know. In fact, if the 24-hour-day reading of Genesis 1 is
correct, God has undertaken in Genesis to inform us that the earth is actu­
ally young. Only those who reject that teaching get deceived about the actual
age.

Now I don’t think it requires a 24 hour day reading. But the only way that it could be a practical joke is if you either don’t believe God acted supernaturally to create the universe, or if you don’t believe that Genesis has anything to say about what, how and when God created the universe.

Oh, and digging at John Dickson’s character is called an Ad Hominem, and doesn’t disprove his arguments. You’ve contributed a bizarre hypothesis without biblical evidence that calls into question God’s character. It makes me shudder. The alternative Dickson offers is much more tenable.

I don’t actually disagree with Dickson’s ideas on Genesis, well not entirely. His book 666 was anti-intellectual and seemed to me to be largely ignorant of beliefs other than his own.

If we knew the ancient worldview, the opening lines of Genesis would conjure up a mixture of “Australians’ all let us rejoice” and “Once upon a time”. We’d KNOW the text was about something important, but we’d also know what genre of literature it fell into… immediately! The ‘apparent age’ argument is just plain embarrassing.

I think it’s embarrassing that so many people think Genesis has little or nothing to say about the nature of God’s creative acts.

Dave Lankshear - 02 July 2008 10:21 PM

Because one can fly up into space and so easily prove that the earth is a globe, the creationists — gotta luv em — have all these amazing papers that argue blue in the face that the bible doesn’t say the earth is flat. They’ll argue for YEC, but not floodgates in heaven or a flat earth.

The OT refers to the “Land” (not ‘earth’) of Israel as a four-cornered flat area because it is symbolically the altar. Revelation pictures Israel covered in blood to its four corners for this very reason.

The world is referred to as having pillars, foundations and windows because it symbolically is God’s house.

The ark had three levels. The Lord divided three times to make His world, so it had three levels that required filling: sky, land and sea. God’s instructions for the ark included a window and a door, which match the “the windows of heaven” and “fountains of the deep.” The ark was a temporary model of the world, a sanitation-sealed miniature that was a door from the old world to the new one. In this way it prefigured the Tabernacle, the Temple, and the body of Christ. In Matthew 7, Christ’s parable of the wise man and the foolish man depicts one house saved (the ark) and another house destroyed by a flood (the old physical Temple). The entire Old Creation was judged or rescued in the ark/temple of Christ.

The Tabernacle was an architectural model of the world, a stairway to heaven laid out horizontally on the ground, with the altar as the Land of Israel (raised out of the Gentile Sea) and the Ark as God’s throne. The priesthood ministered in the holy place, the firmament.

Christ became this ‘world in a box.’ As with the Ark/Tabernacle/Temple/Christ, it begins with the physical and moves to the symbolic.

Regarding the floodgates of heaven (or windows in genesis), the language is used very deliberately for the following terrifying reason: it sets a pattern for later events.

“The purifying waters of the flood came from both above and below.

On Day 2 of Creation, God took waters from the earth and put them, as a veil or barrier, between heaven and earth. This became the crystal sea before His throne. This firmament “chamber” was represented in the Tabernacle by the Laver between the Ark (heaven) and the Altar (earth). The Laver was for cleansing before presentation to God. Surviving the flood corresponded to passing through the Laver and drawing near to the Lord’s throne. So we have water from above that symbolises the resurrection of the saints.

But what about the waters from below, when God opened the fountains of the deep? In later history, the floods that rushed in to destroy are Gentile armies. The wild ocean full of terrifying Sea beasts would overflow the Land whenever the woman’s offspring committed spiritual adultery with the serpent. So, water from below symbolises the destruction of the wicked. In the Tabernacle, those who drew near did so over the blood of a sacrifice on the Altar.

The outer court of the Temple was as far as the Gentiles could approach. In Noah’s flood we have the purifying Laver pouring down, plus the Gentile armies flooding up over the boundary; the Altar between the Laver and the court (the Land) was washed clean. Seth’s compromised offspring (the priesthood) was vomited out and washed away. Their abominations brought desolation to the old “Temple,” but the miniature ark/Temple was high and dry.”

In twin “resurrection and destruction” we have the Atonement pattern laid down for the rest of Scripture. There’s not one word out of place in the Bible. We ridicule it at our own peril.

With respect,
Mike

Michael
You misunderstand
We are not mocking God. In fact we are claiming that reliance on a literal interpretation of Genesis is making a mockery of God. Especially when one is faced with insurmountable evidence that this did not happen. If I was to be faced with a choice of non-belief or belief in a 6 day wonder God as the only means by which I could be a Christian, I would sadly have to conclude that there is no ultimate truth in the Christian message and in Christ.
I have yet to be convinced that there is any science in the YECS claims. I don’t see even good theology nor a good explanation of the evidence. What should I do?

This is a situation the more enthusiastic insisters of YECS place people in. Unsurprisingly people reject Christ.

Now I don’t think it requires a 24 hour day reading. But the only way that it could be a practical joke is if you either don’t believe God acted supernaturally to create the universe, or if you don’t believe that Genesis has anything to say about what, how and when God created the universe.

Bingo!

I have yet to be convinced that there is any science in the YECS claims. I don’t see even good theology nor a good explanation of the evidence. What should I do?

Nor should you, because the past is outside the reach of real science (at least real science as defined by the scientific method). Hopefully you don’t see anything philosophically or theologically inconsistent.

Bingo!

Well then. There’s little point you paying attention to this conversation then, as it’s one for people who believe that Genesis actually has something to say about the genesis of the universe.

Hi Owen

I understand totally. It was mocking the Scriptures I referred to - that either they were a fairy tale and this was always understood, or we are now too smart for the fairy tale.

Given the history of science, I doubt there’s anyone who would state that they believe there is no chance at all that the old earth belief is wrong. A great example was the ‘discovery’ that junk DNA isn’t actually junk at all, we just didn’t know what it was for. Ten years’ research and theorising down the toilet. Yet if the YECs disputed this a few years ago they were ridiculed.

There is data to support OE and also very good data against it - sometimes found in the same place! (Such as finding radiocarbon in diamonds when there should be none). Both sides explain the disagreeing data away. I have seen enough ‘con’ evidence to be confidently YEC. Doesn’t mean I can explain everything. I know the YECs have a cosmology that explains distant starlight, and it’s basically identical to the old universe view with one variant: the universe has a centre of gravity. It’s just as good as anything the other guys have come up with.

I don’t believe the Bible’s chronology from Creation to Christ is part of the ‘fairy tale’. It is there for a reason. The ancients weren’t stupid. And the Bible has an uncanny habit of being proven correct.

That’s the choice we are faced with. Pull out the bottom Creation card and the Redemption house falls down, like it or not. I respect those who find the old earth evidence convincing. It’s the theological hurdles they seem able to jump effortlessly that worry me.

Now I don’t think it requires a 24 hour day reading.

That’s a loooooooooooong evening and a looooooooooooooooong morning that were the first day.

It was a normal week, God’s working week. Made in His image, the next week was Adam’s working week, and God came to assess his work on the Lord’s day, day 14, Passover. That works for me. Noah waited in the ark 7 days before the flood. Samuel judged Saul after he failed to wait 7 days. We work ‘unsupervised’ every week and the Lord assesses us at church on the 7th day.

I do believe it was a normal 24 hour-ish day. But I don’t think apparent age requires you to believe in 24 hour days.

Bingo!

Well then. There’s little point you paying attention to this conversation then, as it’s one for people who believe that Genesis actually has something to say about the genesis of the universe.

Yes, you’re absolutely correct Dannii, there is no point my watching this list to find out the what, how, and when of Genesis when it actually explains the why, for whom and for what purpose. If I want to find out the what, how and when, then I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to read ‘God’s other book’, namely nature. A good science textbook will discuss the mere mechanics. But the BIG questions such as why and with what relationships and purpose… they are answered by Genesis.

You have an illogical conclusion because you’ve treated your own presupposition as evidence confirming your hypothesis. EG: You think Genesis spells out mechanics, therefore God must have made the universe with ‘apparent age’ because that’s what science teaches us. You have not demonstrated that the author of Genesis is even interested in your concerns.

You’ve basically argued that your presupposition that Genesis 1 is about what, how, and when, God made the world, and therefore we KNOW that he made it with ‘apparent age’ The reality appears far different…

This opening chapter has so many uses of the number 7 as to remind one of the apocalyptic language of Revelation… with all those 7 angels protecting 7 churches using 7 judgements and curses and bowls and winds and .... 7 7 7 7 7!

As John Dickson writes:

It is well known that in Hebrew thought the number seven symbolises ‘wholeness’ as a characteristic of God’s perfection. A well-known example is the seven-candle lamp stand, or Menorah, which has long been a symbol of the Jewish faith and is the emblem of the modern State of Israel.

Menorah: emblem of the State of Israel

In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following:
a) The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused;
b) The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing;
c) The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times;
d) The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.
e) ‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.
f) The refrain ‘and it was so,’ which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times;
g) The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times;
h) It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.

The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means. What we find in Genesis 1 is not exactly poetry of the type we find in the biblical book of Psalms but nor is it recognizable as simple prose. It is a rhythmic, symbolically-charged inventory of divine commands.

Yes, you’re absolutely correct Dannii, there is no point my watching this list to find out the what, how, and when of Genesis when it actually explains the why, for whom and for what purpose. If I want to find out the what, how and when, then I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to read ‘God’s other book’, namely nature. A good science textbook will discuss the mere mechanics. But the BIG questions such as why and with what relationships and purpose… they are answered by Genesis.

I too read Genesis to find out the why, for whom and for what purpose, and I think they’re the main purpose of Genesis. But I reject your proposition that Genesis has absolutely nothing to say about the what, how and when. It’s a secondary point and it may be hard to interpret, but it’s there. If Genesis says nothing about the what of creation, how will we know what the why of creation is referring to?

You have an illogical conclusion because you’ve treated your own presupposition as evidence confirming your hypothesis. EG: You think Genesis spells out mechanics, therefore God must have made the universe with ‘apparent age’ because that’s what science teaches us. You have not demonstrated that the author of Genesis is even interested in your concerns.

I don’t know if I’d say it spells out the mechanics, but I would say that it’s concerned with the reality of the event of creation. It may not say a lot, but it says more than nothing about the what, how and when of creation. As to evidence in the text, how about 2:4 for starters. “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” It’s an account, not an exegesis and not an interpretation.

This opening chapter has so many uses of the number 7 as to remind one of the apocalyptic language of Revelation… with all those 7 angels protecting 7 churches using 7 judgements and curses and bowls and winds and .... 7 7 7 7 7!

Surely it should be the other way round… Revelation reminding us of Genesus?? Genesis was written at least two thousand years before, I think it stands alone and doesn’t need Revelation to be interpreted.

John Dickson shows some fascinating aspects of the text there. It’s definitely a highly stylised text. But leaving alone any other uses of 7 in scripture (which were surely written later,) what does the repeated use of the number 7 actually inform us about the reasons, recipients and purposes of Genesis?

Heaps! Especially when we realise that the Enuma Elish was written on 7 tablets, in 7 stages of creation that are pretty much in the same order as Genesis, that the EE was written maybe 200 years before Genesis, and that there was even a day of rest and celebration on the 7th day in the EE.

If Genesis says nothing about the what of creation, how will we know what the why of creation is referring to?

Imagine I substituted the word Genesis with Revelation.

If Revelation says nothing about the what of the end times, how will we know what the why of the end times is referring to?

Does Revelation have to be literal to have meaning?

Dave L.,

Why do you think the Enuma Elish was written 200 years before Genesis was written?

It may have been more, but basically deduction from wikipedia. What do your sources tell you?