ASA list:
Jim has argued for the "amazing" harmony between the order of Genesis
1 and what modern science claims. Below I cite some quotes from
various critics of this claim, some from the literary view (or
framework view) and some from young-earth creationists in their
critique of day-age views.
I understand that those who hold to the day-age view have attempted
to answer these various objections--Jim will, I suspect, respond by
telling us that he and others have answered them already in previous
posts. Some of us do not find these answers compelling and thus, in
good conscience for the sake of our understanding of the truth, must
reject the concordist harmonizing of Genesis 1 in favor of some kind
of literary view. (As I've indicated before, I espouse the so-called
"framework hypothesis".) Others do find the answers given to these
criticisms satisfying and they, in good conscience for the sake of
their understanding of the truth, advocate the day-age view.
As I've indicated in the past, this is a point of legitimate
disagreement among Christians who seek to honor God in their
understanding on this question. It is clear that one is wrong (or
both are wrong). At times Jim has made it sound like an open and shut
case and he bemoans the fragmentation among the Christian community
on this point. I hope that the following will help him, and perhaps
others, to see why some of us don't see it as an open and shut case.
As I've suggested before, why one person finds a particular viewpoint
persuasive and someone else doesn't is a fascinating question. I
suspect that there are a host of religious, psychological, and
sociological factors that come into play. I guess that's why there
are Arminians and Calvinists; baptists and paedobaptist;
premillennialists, postmillennialists, and amillennialist;
charismatics and cessasionists; etc. (name your
theological/eccesiastical issue). I'm resigned to tolerating such
differences among Christians (although I may not tolerate them in my
particular church or denomination).
Here are the quotes:
BLOCHER
From Henri Blocher *In the Beginning* (1984) pp. 45-46. [Blocher is
an advocate of the Literary View (a category missing from Jim's list
of possible views, although I suppose it could be what he is calling
"theologist view". I would recommend Blocher's book--he is a
conservative scholar that rejects a literal view of Genesis 1 on the
basis of arguments from scripture itself and not on the basis of any
desire to force a view that is compatible with modern science.]
After arguing that day-age interpreters have already equivocated on
the meaning of the word day he writes:
"Next, the agreement with the scientific view is not as easy and
complete as at first appears. If we may pass over the problem of the
unequal duration of the day-eras, there are noticeable differences in
the order of the details. In the Bible, trees (Day 3) precede marine
organisms (Day 5), and birds (Day 5) precede insects (Day 6);
scientists think the opposite." (Here Blocher cites Morris in
*Scientific Creationism* pp. 227f.--I will quote this later.)
"But the biggest disagreement stares you straight in the face: the
creation of the sun and stars on the fourth day, after the earth and
its vegetation, even after the trees. On this reef the concordist
boat is wrecked. The usual explanation, that at that particular epoch
God dispersed a thick covering of cloud and *revealed* the luminaries
for the first time, looks like an admission of failure. Once again,
in order to get out of a difficulty, people would like to change the
meaning of a word which is simple and well known. The geocentric
viewpoint of the narrative gives no authority to turn 'make' into
'reveal'. Genesis has a perfectly good word for 'appear' when it
needs to use it (1:9). We join many writers in rejecting the proposed
'solution'. Quite apart from the gratuitous nature of the 'cloud'
hypothesis, the theory of day-eras does violence to the text with
regard to the fourth day."
MORRIS
From Henry Morris *Scientific Creationism* (1974) pp. 227-228
[Morris is young-earth creationist; I do not endorse his reading of
scripture or his science. Also I do not necessarily endorse each of
the "contradictions" listed below, but I think that they do make a
strong argument against the Day-Age view.]
"2. Contradictions between Genesis and the Geological Ages. Even if
it were possible to understand "day" in Genesis as referring to
something like a geological age (and it is not hermeneutically
possible, as just seen), it still would not help any in regard to the
concordist motivation. The vague general concordance between the
order of creation in Genesis and the order of evolutionary
development in geology (and as noted earlier such a vague concordance
is to be expected in the nature of the case and thus proves nothing)
becomes a veritable morass of contradictions when we descend to an
examination of details.
"At least 25 such contradictions exist. Note just a few of them.
UNIFORMITARIANISM BIBLE
Matter existed in the beginning Matter created by
God in the beginning
Sun and stars before the earth Earth before the sun and stars
Land before the oceans Oceans before the land
Sun, earth's first light Light before the sun
Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere Atmosphere between two hydrospheres
Marine organisms, first forms of life Land plants, first life
forms created
Fishes before fruit trees Fruit trees before fishes
Insects before birds Birds before
insects ("creeping things")
Sun before land plants Land vegetation
before the sun
Reptiles before birds Birds before
reptiles ("creeping things")
Woman before man (by genetics) Man before woman (by creation)
Rain before main Man before rain
"Creative" processes still continuing Creation completed
Struggle and death necessary Man, the cause of
struggle and death
antecedents of man
"The above very sketchy tabulation shows conclusively that it is
impossible to speak convincingly of a concordance between the
geological ages and Genesis. Apart from the question of evolution or
creation, the Genesis record is stubbornly intransigent and will not
accommodate the standard system of geological ages. A decision must
be made for one or the other--one cannot logically accept both."
SIEMENS
Here is a paragraph from David Siemens critique of Dick Fischer's
argument for a day-age interpretation giving some conflicts between
the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order proposed by modern
science. [Original Fischer article:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Fischer.html; Siemens
critique: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF9-90Siemens.html;
Fischer's response:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF9-90Fischer.html; Armstrong
article on Buckland:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Armstrong.html ]
"There is a further problem with this interpretation, popular though
it be. In the same issue of the journal, John R. Armstrong noted
Buckland's 1837 objection that the "order of appearance in the strata
did not match the order in Genesis 1" (p. 36). This difficulty cannot
be met by explaining how there could be days before the appearance of
the sun (p. 17). What is needed is an explanation of how there can be
seed-bearing herbs and trees (polycots, Permian, 250 million years
before the present; dicots, Jurassic, 200 m.y.b.p.-dates are rounded
off very roughly) and grasses (monocots, Cretaceous, 100 m.y.b.p.)
before fishes (Cambrian, 550 m.y.b.p., or Ordovician, 450 m.y.b.p.);
and birds (Jurassic, 150 m.y.b.p.) before "creeping things"
(amphibia, Devonian, 400 m.y.b.p.; reptiles, Carboniferous, 325
m.y.b.p.). Adding the insects (Carboniferous, 300 m.y.b.p) as "flying
things" (p. 15) and creepers (cf. Leviticus 11:20-46, where words
from two roots are intermingled-Strong's 7430f, 8317f; Genesis
1:24-26, 30, uses the former) does not help sort things out. Can the
Author of Scripture be that confused, not knowing what the Source of
terrestrial life did?"
KLINE
Finally, here is Meredith Kline's argument against the concordist
proposal that the sun, moon, and stars weren't created on the fourth
day, but merely came into sight or began to function as luminaries to
counter the somewhat obvious conclusion of "light before the sun"
objection to the concordist scheme. The is from "Space and Time in
the Genesis Cosmogeny" (PSCF (1986)) on the web at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html. This is a long
and difficult read, but with patience and some work it will yield to
even the stubbornist of intellects.
(beginning of Kline quote)
__________
Lower Register Time
Twin Record. Earthly time is articulated in the astronomical
phenomena that measure off and structure its flow. It is the
astral-solar-lunar relationships of the earth that define the units,
the years and the days, in which man experiences (lower register)
time. They produce the sequence of light and darkness that marks the
days. They arrange the signs in the sky that announce the seasonal
round of the years. Time is named, its meaning is expressed, in this
system of calibration. The establishing of this regulatory order by
which lower register time is defined and in which it has its being is
recorded in the creation account. Twice in fact: once at the
beginning of the first triad of days (Gen. 1:3-5) and a second time
at the beginning of the second triad (Gen. 1:14-19).
Temporal Recapitulation. The non-sequential nature of the creation
narrative, and thus the non-literal nature of the creation "week, is
evident from the recording of the institution of lower register time
in both the first and fourth day-sections. This point must be
developed here because of its importance as an independent argument
against the solar-day and day-age views and because the exegesis
involved is preparatory to other arguments below.
The forming and stationing of the sun, moon, and stars are attributed
to day four. Their functions with respect to the earth are also
stated here, first in the fiat section (Gen. 1:14, 15) and again (in
reverse order) in the fulfillment section (Gen. 1:16-18). They are to
give light on the earth and to rule by bounding light/day and
darkness/night, as well as by demarcating the passage of years and
succession of seasons. These effects which are said to result from
the production and positioning of the luminaries on day four are the
same effects that are already attributed to the creative activity of
day one (Gen. 1:3-5). There too daylight is produced on the earth and
the cycle of light/day and darkness/night is established. In terms of
chronology, day four thus brings us back to where we were in day one,
and in fact takes us behind the effects described there to the astral
apparatus that accounts for them. The literary sequence is then not
the same as the temporal sequence of events.
To avoid this consequence, alternative interpretations of day four
have been sought. According to one proposal, the luminaries (though
unmentioned previously) were in existence before the point in time
dealt with in day four and were indeed present at day one as the
source of light spoken of there.25 Day four describes simply their
coming into sight, not their creation. Any such view is falsified by
the language of the text, which is plainly that of actual production:
"Let there be and God made and God set (lit., gave). The attempt26 to
override this language cannot be passed off as just another instance
of phenomenological description. The proposed evasive tactic involves
a very different notion -- not just the general denominating of
objects according to their everyday observed appearance at any and
all times, but the relating of a specific event at a particular
juncture in the creation process as though witnessed by an observer
of the course of events, someone who at the moment reached on day
four is supposed to catch sight of the luminaries, hitherto somehow
hidden, perhaps by clouds. Disclaimers notwithstanding, this proposal
is guilty of foisting an unwarranted meaning on the language
affirming God's making and positioning of the luminaries. In the
accounts of the other days, everybody rightly recognizes that the
same language of divine fiat and creative fulfillment signifies the
bringing into existence of something new, not just a visual detecting
of something that was there all the while. There is no more excuse
for reducing divine acts of production into human acts of perception
in day four than there would be elsewhere.
Some advocates of the controverted approach to day four acknowledge
more forthrightly its distinctiveness and develop more fully its
peculiar feature of the seer figure.27 An attempt is made to explain
the precise sequence of the entire creation narrative by the
exigencies of the visual experience of the hypothesized human
spectator, as he is conducted through all the successive scenes.
Besides the basic objection that it is belied by the language of
origination used for the day four event, this form of the observer
hypothesis is beset with a special problem of its own. Its suggested
guided-tour perspective is a feature of apocalyptic visions, and
there the presence of the seer figure is plainly mentioned. He is the
one who narrates the visions unfolding before him. No such figure is
introduced in the creation account; the alleged human spectator is a
fiction imposed on the text contrary to its non-visionary genre.
Recognizing that the actual making of the luminaries is related in
day four, but still trying to avoid the conclusion that the narrative
order is thematic rather than sequential, some would subordinate the
statement about the making of the luminaries (vv. 16, 17a) to the
statement about their purpose or functions (vv. 17b, 18a), alleging
that the only distinctive new development of day four is that these
functions then become operational. But the primary declaration that
the luminaries were made cannot be eliminated as a day four event in
that way " no more so than the statement in the day two account that
God made the firmament may be reduced to the idea that a previously
existing firmament began to perform its stated purpose of dividing
between the waters above and below (Gen. 1:6, 7). Moreover, this
minimalist view of day four would share the fatal flaw of all views
that eliminate the forming of the luminaries from the happenings of
day four: it would leave day four with no new contribution, for all
the functions mentioned there are already said to be operative in day
one.28
Also entailed in the minimalist interpretation of day four is the
pluperfect rendering of the verbs expressing the making of the
luminaries in the fulfillment section (vv. 16, 17), introduced by
"and it was so (v. 15b). If adopted, the pluperfect could not be
restricted to these verbs. For consistently in Genesis 1, what
immediately follows the fiat and the "and it was so formula that
answers to the fiat is a detailing of what God proceeded to bring
into being in execution of the fiat. In day four then the verbs of
fulfillment in verses 16, 17 cannot be pluperfect with respect to the
fiat of verses 14, 15a. Temporally they follow the fiat, which means
the fiat would have to be put in the same pluperfect tense as its
subsequent fulfillment, yielding the translation "And God had said.
That is, day four as a whole would have to be cast in the pluperfect,
and that with reference to the time of the events in the preceding
days. Ironically, such a translation would make explicit the
non-chronological sequence of the narrative, the very thing the
pluperfect proposal was trying to avoid.29
Understandably dissatisfied with the contrived nature of these
attempts to avoid acknowledging that the act of making the luminaries
was a day four event, other opponents of the non-sequential view of
the creation narrative have been driven to seek a solution in a
reinterpretation of day one. They would account for the presence of
light and the cycle of day and night in day one by positing for this
point in time some light source other than the one whose origin they
admit is assigned to day four and which (according to their
commitment to the temporally sequential order of the narrative) did
not, therefore, exist until three days (or ages) after day one.
Some speculate about a supernatural light source, a manifestation of
divine glory in space. But that distorts the eschatological design of
creation history, according to which the advent of God's Glory as the
source of illumination that does away with the need for the sun
awaits the Consummation. 30 Indeed, the assumption of such a
supernatural mode of ongoing providence during the creation week is
contradicted by the assumptions that inform Gen. 2:5ff. 31
No more satisfactory is the suggestion that the hypothetical lighting
system was some natural arrangement. That would raise questions about
the wisdom of the divine procedure. Why would God create such a vast
cosmic order only to discard it three days (or ages) later? Why
create a replacement cosmos to perform the very same functions
already being performed perfectly well by the original system?32 Like
the gap theory of Gen. 1:2, this scenario, with
its mid-course cosmic upheaval and starting over, would introduce a
jarring, discordant note into the simple, stately symphony of the
cosmic house-building " planned, performed, and perfected by the all
wise master builder.
Any such approach that disconnects the luminaries of day four from
the light of day one, denying the cause-effect relationship of the
two, violates the overall thematic scheme of the creation narrative.
As we have seen, the successive members of the first triad of days
correspond to the successive days of the second triad, the
relationship of each matching pair being that of creation kingdom
(theme of the first triad) to creature king (theme of the second
triad). The correspondence is especially close in the day one-day
four pair. It is clearly the light phenomena (kingdom) of day one
over which the luminaries (kings) of day four rule, producing and
regulating it. Temporal recapitulation most certainly occurs at day
four and hence there is no escaping the conclusion that the narrative
sequence is not intended to be the chronological sequence.
____________________________
(end of Kline quote)
TG
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 28 2002 - 01:00:33 EDT