|
The homepage for CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1 includes an introduction of Concordism and Accommodation in Creationism. This page is a deeper examination of these ideas.
The topic-sections in this page are:
• A Summary of Common Interpretations (quoted from the homepage for Genesis 1)
• Biblical Concordism (Theological, Historical, and Scientific) (the introduction)
• Scientific Concordism in Creation Chronologies (Young Earth and Day-Age)
• Accommodation (to Ancient Near-East Cosmology) plus Additional Resources
• Creation Views of the American Scientific Affiliation
A
Summary of Common Interpretations
Chronology
Does Genesis 1 describe history in chronological
sequence? In a day-age view, each yom (a
Hebrew word with several meanings, although it usually is translated as "day" in
Genesis 1) is a long time period of unspecified length. In a young-earth
interpretation, each yom is a 24-hour
day, and the entire creation process occurred in six consecutive
24-hour days. Or
creation might have occurred in nonconsecutive 24-hour
days with long periods between each day. Or the days might be analogical days. Or
maybe God described, in days
of proclamation, what would occur during the process
of creation. In a gap view there was an
initial creation (in Genesis 1:1) followed by a catastrophe (in 1:2) and
a re-creation on the earth
(beginning in 1:3).
Or is the intended meaning historical but non-chronological? In
a framework view,
the six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged
topically, and probably not chronologically.* The two
problems in
Genesis 1:2 — the
earth was "formless and empty" — are
solved in Days 1-3 (by separations that produce form) and
Days 4-6 (by filling each form). And if you compare the separations and fillings in
each pair of days (1-and-4, 2-and-5, 3-and-6)
you will
find parallels between these related aspects of creation. {* claims
about chronology vary: a person who thinks "there is a
framework" can claim "the history is also chronological"
or "it's not chronological" or anything in-between}
Concepts
What is the purpose of the concepts used in Genesis to describe our world? Everyone agrees that Genesis 1 teaches theology. But does it also
teach science? In Genesis 1 do we see the scientific what-and-when details
of creation, as if the process had been videorecorded? When we ask "what does Genesis 1 teach us about science?" this is part of a more general set of questions asking "what does the Bible teach (and not teach) about science, history, and theology?" and "are these teachings correct?"
Some scholars say "no, Genesis does not teach science" because they think the descriptions
in Genesis 1 were written specifically for the original
readers,
in
their
cultural context, by using the "scientific concepts" of familiar
theories
about physical
reality (in
their ancient
near-eastern cosmology) for the purpose of more effectively
challenging false theories about spiritual reality (in
the polytheistic "nature
religions" of surrounding cultures).
Theology
ALL
interpretations acknowledge
the clear statements of essential creation-theology in Genesis 1: Everything
in nature was created by God, and is subordinate to God. There
are no polytheistic "nature
gods" so we should worship only the one true God who created everything. God's
creation is good but is not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God
declared His creation to be "very good" so
we can reject the idea that physical things (created by God) are intrinsically
bad; our
problem is sin, not physicality. And humans are special because
God created us in His own image.
If there is some independence between the three areas (theology, history, science), conclusions for them can differ. For example, a proponent of accommodationist Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology can say "yes" to theological concordism (because theological claims are made, and they seem to match reality) but "no" to scientific concordism (because no scientific claims are made), and for historical concordism can say "no" for Genesis 1-11 but "yes" for Genesis 12 onward through the New Testament. A rigid young-earth creationist says "yes" for all three concordisms, and claims they are linked together so either all succeed or all fail.
But an atheist can say "no, these concordisms are interdependent, not independent," and there is a failed concordism because "yes, Genesis 1 does make young-earth science claims" but "no, these scientific claims don't match the physical reality we observe in nature." Then this perceived failure is used by atheists as part of their efforts to challenge the overall credibility of the Bible, and thus to challenge its theological concordism.
* A principle of thinking about 3 areas of concordism (theological, historical, scientific) comes from Denis Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution.
• Concordism by Randy Isaac, describes maximal scientific concordism (as in Young-Earth or Day-Age views) and minimal scientific concordism (as in Ancient Near East Cosmology) but does not argue for any of these views; instead, he explains "the difference between concordism and integration of science and faith. The former seeks to equate the interpretation of Biblical passages with scientific observations. The latter seeks to understand the meaning and purpose of nature and science through the eyes of faith on the basis of the revelation of our incarnate, crucified, resurrected Savior." (3 k) (this is the final page in a 6-part series about Integrating Science and Faith)
How can we wisely use the Two
Books of God?
When we're thinking about the two books, in scripture and
nature, here is the most important principle: We cannot compare the Bible with science,
we can only compare
a Bible-based theology (a fallible
human
interpretation of scripture)
with
a nature-based science (another
fallible human interpretation) while trying to search for truth.
General questions about relationships between theology and science (are they in conflict? independent? mutually supportive?) are
examined in THE
TWO BOOKS OF GOD - SCRIPTURE & NATURE.
Specific questions asking "is there science in Genesis?" are in this page.
Most advocates of scientific concordism, both young-earth and old-earth, think the 3 types of concordism are interconnected, not independent. Either all are correct, or (due to their interdependence) we have reasons to doubt the others. If, as claimed by advocates of accommodation, the Bible is wrong in some of its historical or scientific claims (which we often can test using empirical evidence) this provides a logical reason to reject its theological claims (which are difficult, or impossible, to test empirically). Avoiding this problem would increase the theological credibility of the Bible, so God would be motivated to make the Bible accurate in everything it says about history, science, and theology. God is omniscient, so He knew the true history & science; and God is omnipotent, so He could make the biblical authors write it correctly. God had motivation, knowledge, and power; therefore, scientific concordism.
Young-Earth
Chronology
If each yom is a solar day, so the entire creation occurred in 144 hours, one apparent problem is the existence
of three 24-hour days before the sun is created in Day 4. But is this
an actual problem? A
young-earth view proposes many miracles during the first 6 days, and to eliminate this apparent problem the only extra miracle
that's needed is a rotating earth and a non-solar source of light for 3 days. This
potential problem is discussed, by
critics who question and by advocates who defend, in some of the pages about young-earth interpretations cited in the homepage for Genesis 1.
Most old-earth creationists think the
major "time problem" for a young-earth view is its failure to find satisfactory
arguments (*)
against the long history of nature, lasting billions of years,
that is the conclusion of modern
geology and astronomy; the old-earth conclusion of modern science is
based on strong evidence in a wide variety of areas,
as described in AGE
OF THE EARTH & UNIVERSE — SCIENCE. / * young-earth
explanations for the history of nature
challenge conventional
geology (claiming it should be replaced by young-earth flood geology which proposes that most of the earth's geology and fossil
record were formed in a global flood described in Genesis 6-9) and deny
the Big Bang, but these two fields of knowledge are the foundation, in
modern science, for successfully explaining what we observe
on earth and in our universe as a whole.
Day-Age
Chronology
In a day-age view, each "yom" is an "age" so
creation occurred over a long period of time. Day-Age science is criticized in two main ways, with
questions about energy and chronology:
energy: How could earth's ecosystems, which depend on energy from the sun, operate for a long time (in
days 1-3) before the sun was created in day 4? In response, Day-Age proponents usually
claim that the sun/moon/stars were created in Genesis 1:1 as part of "the
heavens and the earth," then in Day 4 they became visible to
an observer on the earth's surface (due to a change in atmospheric conditions) so they could "serve
as signs to mark seasons and days and years." Is this a satisfactory
explanation?
chronology: Does the sequence-timing in Genesis 1, as interpreted in any of the Day-Age views, match the
sequence-timing
of
what
we
observe in the history of nature? To some extent this depends
on definitions of what happened during each day, and whether (in a particular
variation of the day-age view) the
days
overlap. Are
any of the Day-Age explanations satisfactory? You
can examine the pro-and-con arguments, and evaluate
them for yourself.
Explanations of Day-Age Chronology:
A proposal that "the sun was not created on Day 4, instead this
is when it became
visible to an observer on the earth's surface" is
in some of the other pages (cited in the homepage for interpreting Genesis) asking "How long is a yom?" and also in these pages
that
focus
on chronology:
• Day-Age
Interpretation and Science by Richard Deem (11 k)
• Testable
Creation Model (re: chronology & evolution) by Hugh Ross (7 k),
plus Creation
Timeline (chart & table)
• Genesis
One by Robert Newman, is a detailed examination (especially in pages 62-70a) of the concepts and chronologies
in Genesis 1:1 through Day 4 (24 k for these pages, which focus on creation chronology)
• Interpreting
Genesis 1 by Greg Neyman (23 k)
• A Summary
of Chronology and Details
of Day-Age Chronology by
Peter Stoner (69 k + 20k) in A New Look at an Old
Earth — (from 1st edition which is free online; 2nd edition is
for sale)
Criticisms of Day-Age Chronology:
• Star Formation
and Genesis 1 by James Stambaugh (young-earth) claims the sun, moon,
and stars were CREATED on Day 4, not just made visible (11 k
+ more)
•
Terry Mortenson (young earth) says The
Order of Events Matters and he doesn't think there is a match between
Genesis 1 and day-age views (7 k); Greg Moore (day-responds
in detail (51 k)
about the timing of physical and biological creations, and more.
• From a different
perspective but with the same goal (to find truth), another criticism of
day-age chronology is by Paul Seely (old-earth, proposing ancient near-east cosmology), The
First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context. (39 k)
This section builds on the foundation of Biblical Concordism - Theological, Historical, and Scientific.
As explained in the summary
of views, maybe
God, working through the author(s) of Genesis, used familiar theories about physical
reality (in ancient
near-east science) in order to more effectively challenge false
theories about spiritual reality (in polytheistic
nature
religions) and teach correct theology.
This overview-summary continues below, following these quotations (and whole pages) that also summarize the basic concepts of
Ancient Near East Cosmology (ANE), but more throughly than in this links-page, explaining what it
is and
how
it may have influenced
the
concepts we see in Genesis and in other parts of the Bible:
• Introduction
to Ancient Near-East Cosmology by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma, who explain how the Bible could use ANE Cosmology to clearly proclaim, for people
in the time it was written, "the
powerful theological message of God's sovereignty over all natural and spiritual
forces." (3 k) {note: This page is a web-supplement for the authors' book about Origins where they explain all major views, including concordism (as in young-earth and day-age chronologies of creation) and non-concordism (as in Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology).}
• The Ancient Science of the Bible and Three Interpretive Options (26 k) by David Vinson, is an overview of concordism and accommodation. In the first paper, Vinson describes [and comments on] "three ways that the ancient science can be handled: We can submit to it [but "very few contemporaries work this through consistently"], or try to integrate it with modern science ["this 'mix and match' approach is a very popular today among both 'young earth' and 'old earth' creationists"], or respect it as an effective communicative tool for an ancient audience ["this seems to me, and many others, the more sensible approach of the three"]."
• Comparing
Biblical and Scientific Maps of Origins by Conrad Hyers, who says (agreeing
with John Calvin) that "biblical references to nature
were not scientific statements, which then might be said to be in conflict
with scientific data, observations, and theories." Genesis
1 "is considerably different from... the natural
sciences. It has a theological agenda, aimed at affirming a monotheistic
reading of the cosmos and rejecting the prevailing polytheistic reading.
... [The descriptions of nature in] Genesis 1 are nonscientific [rather
than unscientific]; they offer a different kind of map of the universe
and our place within it. ... That does not mean that one mapping of the cosmos is right and another wrong, unless it can be demonstrated that both approaches to origins are mapping for the same things,... [but they are not the same, because] the biblical accounts of creation in Genesis are different ways of mapping origins than those to which we who have been schooled in science are accustomed." (27 k)
• Principles of Ancient Near-East Cosmology in two articles, Genesis 1 –11: Background, Context, and Theology by Steve Martin, and Interpreting the Genesis Creation Accounts in the Light of Modern ANE History by Gordon Glover. Martin thinks that, when we're trying to understand Genesis 1-11, "it is helpful to understand the background of the biblical author, the culture of day, and the context in which the message of scripture would have been received. ... Though the [theological] truth in Genesis is contained in a vessel that is foreign to a modern, science-oriented culture, it is a truth that modern man desperately needs to hear. Let’s make sure the world hears this message, and not the one that is garbled, tainted, and damaged by a dogmatic insistence and focus on specific scientific claims." Glover concludes with a question: "If the purpose of the Hebrew creation story was not to provide Israel (or us) with accurate scientific knowledge about the cosmos, why then do so many Christians reject any version of natural history that fails to conform to the Hebrew account?"
Accommodation (to ancient near-east science) and Concordism (young-earth or day-age) and Worldviews
Does Genesis teach science? In contrast with creationists who are concordists, the creationists who propose Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology say "no" because they think that God accommodated the
original readers of Genesis by using (instead of changing) their incorrect scientific views
of
nature
and its history.
Another view, similar in some ways to concordism and in other ways to accommodation, is a worldview approach claiming that the original biblical text "accurately records historical events [in human history and the history of nature] if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors." When we interpret the Bible we should try to understand how the biblical text was affected by the authors' worldviews, because God "allowed
them to write down his revelation
according to their own literary style and
from their own cultural and worldview
perspective." (quotes about the worldview approach are from Carol Hill)
Is modern science taught in the Bible? Those who say "no" can appeal to the Confession of Faith (Belgic Confession) of the Christian Reformed Church, which states that God teaches us, "by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own," and they claim that a knowledge of correct science is not needed for divine glory or personal salvation. Or they cite the words of Cardinal Baronius, made famous by Galileo: "The Holy Spirit intended to teach us [in the Bible] how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go." * They claim that we should keep our focus on the Bible's main theme, its essential theology, and we should not link this timeless theology with the incidental ancient science that also is in the Bible.
* Does a particular passage of scripture teach us "how the heavens go" or (when we look at Genesis 1) the chronology of creation? If we view scripture as having two levels of authorship, by humans and by God, we can ask whether the original human writer of Genesis 1 thought the description was chronological, and whether God intended it to describe the actual chronology of creation, and the answers for these two questions might be different.
Those proposing accommodationist views claim that concordist views try to force an agreement between
the histories of nature described in scripture and in science — with solar day creationists (young earth) first using Bible interpretation to get a history of nature and then adjusting
science
to make it fit, while day-age creationists (old earth) first use science to get
the history of nature and then adjust biblical interpretation to make it fit — instead
of letting scripture and nature "be what they are" without adjustment,
when they are interpreted in theology and science, respectively. Proponents
of
concordist views disagree.
But theologically conservative proponents of both concordist and non-concordist views agree
that the Bible is inerrant when it teaches about theology in matters of faith
and conduct. They agree about theological concordism, but they disagree about scientific concordism when we ask "what does the Bible teach (or not teach) about
nature
and
its
history?"
As with other parts of the Bible, Genesis 1 was written
FOR us
but
was
not
written
TO
us; it was written to its original readers. Each book in the
Bible
was
written
by a human author, but (because God
knows
more than the human author) God could inspire the human author to understand scientific ideas that were not known in the author's ancient culture, or to include
ideas that were not understood by the author but would
be useful for later readers, long after the original readers. This
is possible, but was it done by God in Genesis 1? Theologically conservative Christian scholars disagree, as you'll see in these pages:
• Genesis
according to Evolution by Terry Mortenson, says "If
evolution over millions of years [*] was the way God created, He could
easily
have said so in simple words" that would have been understood initially by the first readers of Genesis, and also later by us. * Mortenson, along
with many
other young-earth creationists, defines ‘evolution’ as
any old-earth history, with or without miracles, so he is arguing against both
progressive creation and evolutionary creation. (5 k + 1k)
• John Walton thinks "We should not expect the Bible to answer the questions that arise from our own time and culture. Genesis was written to Israelites and addressed human origins in light of the questions they would have had. We should not try to make modern science out of the information that we are given, but should try to understand the affirmations that the text is making in its own context." (quoted from The Creation of Humankind in the Ancient Near East) Theology & Creation in Genesis 1 is a "sampler" of ideas from John Walton, who proposes that in Genesis 1 the focus is on creation of Functions, not Things.
• Is Genesis 1-11 Historical? Many Evolutionary Creationists say Yes by Steve Martin, who observes that "there is much diversity in how Evolutionary Creationists interpret the Genesis creation accounts. Certainly the acceptance of the science of biological evolution does not necessitate a non-historical interpretation of Genesis."
• Scholars Explore Non-Concordism (45 k) contains excerpts about ancient near-east cosmology from the writings of 8 biblical scholars, selected and organized by David Vinson.
Ideas from ASA Members:
• What are the Creation Views of ASA?
• Randy Isaac and Deborah & Loren Haarsma describe different views about concordism and accomodation.
• Cosmogony
and/or Science in Genesis 1 by Robert Newman, a day-age
creationist (old earth) who proposes a Day-Age interpretation with intermittent overlapping days,
responds to articles by Conrad Hyers by saying that "the
major problem I have with Hyers' approach is not so much his claim that the
Genesis account is rebutting pagan cosmogonies ([since this claim] may have real merit)
as with his rejection of the possibility that the account might also be doing
anything else, such as providing scientific, historical or chronological
information. ... The Bible claims God as its coauthor. We should
not therefore limit its statements to only what an ancient human could have
known." (5 k)
• In 2007 the journal of ASA ran a series about
concordism and accommodation, in a paper-with-reponses by Paul Seely and Hugh
Ross. In these papers much
of the discussion is about the science (regarding data that is and isn't available,...) of human origins and Noah's flood, but if you want to focus on
theological principles, especially regarding Genesis 1, you can read: most
of the first page (until "Ross and Adam") and final section ("A
Biblical Approach to Science and Scripture" on pgs 42-44) of Concordism
and a Biblical Alternative by Paul Seely; the introduction (pg 46)
and ending (from "Charge #9 onward) of Additional
Explanations on Concordism by Hugh Ross; the intro (pg 51) and ending
(from #9 onward) in Reading
Modern Science into Scripture by Paul Seely. (34 k, 18 k, 15 k)
• Carol Hill responded to the Seely-Ross papers, and A Third Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accommodation: The Worldview Approach explains her view — "The theological position of the worldview
approach is that God has interacted
with humans throughout real history, allowing
them to write down his revelation
according to their own literary style and
from their own cultural and worldview
perspective. That is, it considers that the
pre-scientific knowledge base of the biblical
authors is a prime factor to be considered
when literally interpreting the Bible. This
theological position does not deny the giving
of divine inspiration or revelation to the
biblical authors, nor does it exclude God’s
divine intervention into human history, ... [but] when God speaks and acts,
he does so within the human drama as it is
being played out at a certain time and place,
with all the cultural trappings that go with it. These 'cultural trappings,' or worldview,
get incorporated into the text alongside
God’s revelation. ... To faithfully interpret Genesis is to be faithful to what it really means as it was originally written, not to what people living in a later time assume or desire it to be." — and applies this view for interpretations of Genesis 1, Adam, Noah's Flood, and Patriarchal Ages. To understand this approach, you should read her paper, not just the summary-quotes above. (23 k) Her article led to a response-paper by Paul Seely — who explains why the accommodation he proposes is not "the accommodation of myth," and clarifies his view on the inerrant teaching in Genesis 1-11 where "the theology came by revelation, and the divine character of its source is seen in the fact that although the biblical writer accepts and employs the second millennial worldview for history and science, he rejects and opposes its theology" — and
a letter by Carol Hill. (23 k, 16 k, 3 k).
• Terry Gray sets a context for the debate within ASA by asking Is Inerrancy the Defining Feature of Evangelicalism? because evangelicals often use limited inerrancy to distinguish their own position from neo-evangelicalism, and explains why we should not be surprised when this happens. (7 k + comments)
• Seely
on the Waters by
James Jordan (not in ASA) is a gentle criticism of accommodation, because "Genesis
1 could readily have been read by ancient people in terms of their cosmology... but it
can also be read by us in terms or our more developed and sophisticated cosmology. God
has written it in such a way that it is valid for all times and seasons of
human
experience and understanding, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see." (11
k)
• Lessons
from the Heavens: On Scripture, Science and Inerrancy by Denis Lamoureux,
who analyzes the biblical texts, suggests that we "reconsider
the popular assumption that statements in the Bible align with the facts
of nature" asks "should
our scientific views determine the orthodoxy of our fait." He affirms
biblical inerrancy — "my central hermeneutical
assumption emphasizes a thoroughly committed and unapologetic submission to
the Word of God" — but
claims we should define inerrancy the
way it's defined in the Bible: he agrees with the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy when they "deny
that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent
with itself," and he thinks "scientific
concordism is an alien preunderstanding and not an inerrant feature of Scripture." His
main ideas about inerrancy-and-science are in two sections: Modern Evangelical
View of Inerrancy, and Biblical Inerrancy
without
Scientific
Concordism, in pages 9-12. Here are two of these ideas: we should "separate, and not conflate, the incidental ancient science and the inerrant message of faith"; one aspect of accepting a "separation" is understanding that God's incidental use of incorrect science (as judged by modern standards) is not a "lie" because a lie requires an intention to deceive, and God never intended us to think He was teaching correct science in these passages, which were written with the goal of effectively communicating theology ("the inerrant message of faith") to people in ancient cultures. (37 k
+ 20k)
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES for Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology
MORE EXPLANATIONS of Ancient Near-East Cosmology
Criticisms from Young-Earth Creationists
A Debate — Firmament or Expanse?
Paul Seely and his Critics
MORE EXPLANATIONS of Ancient Near-East Cosmology (to supplement the resources above)
• Evolutionary
Creation by Denis Lamoureux, who thinks "the primary purpose of Genesis 1-11 [which is "a separate and unique literary unit"] is to offer a Divine theology concerning the Creator and His creation with special regard to men and women. ... [it] features an ancient science of the structure, operation and origin of the universe and life. ... distinguishing between the Message of Faith [the "Divine theology"] and the incidental ancient vessel [including "an ancient science"] is critical in understanding the Biblical creation accounts." In this page he first outlines a theology that "fully
embraces the foundational beliefs of the conservative Christian faith" and
is consistent with
an evolutionary history. The second half of the page, which examines Genesis 1-11, begins by acknowledging
that "the
greatest [perceived] problem with evolutionary creation is that it contradicts
the
traditional literal
interpretation
of the opening chapters of the Bible," but then he explains
why — with a credible interpretation that uses what we know about ancient
near-eastern
cultures, and allows conservative theology — this perceived problem
is not an actual problem. (36 k) / Beyond the "Evolution vs. Creation" Debate (audio with graphics) is similar but covers a wider range of ideas, showing how "the simple either/or approach to origins inhibits everyone from making informed choices."
• Making
Sense of Genesis 1 by Rikki Watts, describes how ancient mid-eastern
cultures viewed the world, and explains why the interpretation he recommends "not
only makes good sense of the text within its cultural horizons, but puts
the emphasis back where it belongs." (51 k)
• Climbing Out of a Swamp: The Evangelical Struggle to Understand the Creation Texts by Clark Pinnock, who says "The lesson to be learned here is the principle of allowing the Bible to say what it wants to say and not impose our imperialistic agendas onto it; our exegesis ought to let the text speak and the chips fall where they may" which "leads to the conclusion that the logic of Genesis 1 is primarily theological rather than historical or scientific. It is the evidence of the text rather than the desire to avoid modern criticism from science which ought to move evangelicals away from misreading the creation account as a scientifically informative tract and burdening themselves with enormous and unnecessary difficulties." (17 k + 6k)
• Bruce
Waltke — Theology in Genesis explains some of his views, but Waltke has invested most of his time writing books (not
web-pages) so there isn't much available on the web.
• Cosmogony
and/or Science in Genesis 1 by Robert Newman, is described above in the main resources for DEBATES-about-ANE. Newman was responding to articles in the journal of ASA by Conrad Hyers
— Misinterpreting
the Creation Texts (39 k) and especially The
Narrative Form of Genesis
1 (Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No) (42 k); these two papers by Hyers are from 1984, and I suggest that you first read his more recent paper (2000), but you can also read his earlier papers, Misinterpreting... and The Narrative Form....
Criticisms by Young-Earth Creationists:
• Genesis
1-11: Is it history or parable? by Russell Grigg, asks "what is
the biblical evidence to show that these first 11 chapters are actually a record
of authentic historical facts?" and concludes that "Genesis was meant to be taken
in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record
of what actually happened." (10 k)
• Problems in Methods of Interpretation: Genesis 1-11 (Part
1 & Part
2) by Noel Weeks, is an overview of young-earth proposals for interpreting
Genesis as literal history. (17 k,
15 k)
• Genesis
1-11: Myth or History? by David Engelsma, is a rigidly strong defense
of inerrancy extending to statements about history, including a young-earth
history of nature. The title-question is answered in the first paragraph: "There
may be no question about the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Merely to
allow for the possibility that Genesis 1-11 is mythical is unbelief. ...
Tolerance of doubt concerning the truthfulness of God's Word [as in the serpent's
question in Genesis 3:1] is revolt against Him and apostasy from Him." He
thinks "it is shameful that the topic is necessary in the sphere of
Reformed churches," and he concludes that "The
child of God must have history in Genesis 1-11. Christianity must have history
there, history that is clearly and reliably set down by divine inspiration." (30 k)
A Central Question — Firmament or Expanse?
One focus for debate is the meaning of "raqia" in
Genesis 1:6-8 and elsewhere — Does raqia mean a solid dome or open sky?
•
Here is the
text of Genesis 1:6-8 in 5 translations, using 4 different words for raqia (1 k)
• The
Firmament and the Water Above by Paul Seely, who says "the historical
evidence...shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid
and not a merely
atmospheric expanse. ... it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us
the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky. Consequently,
the reference to the solid firmament ‘lies outside
the scope of the writer's teachings’ and the verse is still infallibly
true." (34 k + 9k footnotes)
• Many papers in the main resources for ANE discuss raqia, including one by James Jordan responding to Seely. (11
k)
• Is
the raqiya (‘firmament’) a solid dome? by James
Patrick Holding, a harsh critic who thinks "the
enemies of Christ have acquired an ally... who has also claimed
that the Bible makes scientific errors; in giving ammunition
to sceptics and others who want to destroy the Bible... in some ways
Seely is
more dangerous to Christians than atheists" and, re: the text in Genesis, "the
description of the raqiya is so
equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky
into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place" so
we can "justifiably understand Genesis to be
in harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the heavens." (32 k) / Holding
also disputes a claim, made by Seely and others, that in the Bible the
earth is a flat disc. (18 k)
• And in a Bible Forums discussion-thread
you'll see a wide range of views about the
historicity of Genesis 1.
Paul Seely and his Critics
Paul Seely, a proponent of Ancient Near-East Cosmology, has been involved in many written debates with critics. If you search this page for "seely" you'll find:
• the preceding subsection — about "Firmament or Expanse?" as the meaning of raqia — has a paper by Seely, gentle criticism by James Jordan, and harsh criticism by James Holding.
• The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context by Seely, among the Criticisms of Day-Age Chronology.
• a series about accommodation and concordism in the journal of ASA, with papers by Paul Seely, Hugh Ross, and Carol Hill.
Also,
• In 2000, Seely wrote Genesis
Revisited or Revised? criticizing a defense of concordism by Armin Held
& Peter Ruest, who wrote a counter-response. (10 k)
• ASA's journal hosted another major exchange in 2003-2004 about concordism: Following an article by Carol Hill (The
Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?) in September 2002, and letters (by
young-earther Art Hill, with response by Carol Hill), in June 2003 an "accommodation
vs concordism" debate was begun by Paul
Seely (Beyond the Hills of Concordism and Creation Science) and continued
by Carol
Hill & Thomas
Godfrey & John
McIntyre & P.G.
Nelson & Paul
Seely & Peter
Rüst & Thomas
Godfrey
More generally, outside ASA, Seely is a common focus for harsh
criticism by young-earth creationists:
• An
Attack on Scripture and Christianity by John Robbins, who claims that
Seely has "antichristian notions that the Bible contains
errors," and thinks
that "obviously Seely has no grasp of what science
is or does, as well as no grasp of what Scripture is or does." (4
k)
• Above, re: the meaning of raqia, the harsh criticism ("the
enemies of Christ have acquired an ally") by James Patrick Holding.
• Ice
Cores vs The Flood is a response (written by Michael Oard) to a scientific
claim by Paul Seely that was published in the journal of ASA, but it begins
with an editorial note (by Answers in Genesis) attacking the character
of both Seely and ASA: "Seely is an ostensibly
evangelical
theologian whose main hobby for decades seems to have been to argue that
the Bible contains scientific errors, and is thus much beloved by anti-Christians — see
[three links to pages by AiG] — ... The ASA has been for decades the leading
American organization promoting theistic evolutionary compromise."
Creation Views of the American Scientific Affiliation
• Does the paragraph above accurately describe ASA? Although the American Scientific Affiliation does promote open education with accurate representations of all Christian views of origins, including young-earth creation and evolutionary creation, when Answers in Genesis claims that we are "promoting theistic evolutionary compromise" this is an oversimplistic exaggeration. For example, our journal (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith) has published both pro-concordist and pro-accommodation papers, and our members hold a wide range of views. If you want to understand our beliefs and actions, read The Creation Views of ASA.
to see a variety of ideas from other authors,
CREATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1
HUMAN EVOLUTION? — SCIENCE & THEOLOGY (genetics & Genesis, Adam & Eve)