Whitcomb, John Clement, Terry Mortenson, and Thane H. Ury. Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Green Forest, Ark: Master Books, 2008. $16.99.
In my continuing study on this topic, I picked up this book, on a whim, from my seminary's bookstore. It has turned out to be a very good pick! The book is a collection of 14 articles dealing with the general theme implied by the title. These articles fall under four main headings: the history of the interpretation of Genesis, proper interpretation of Genesis, the Bible's use of Genesis, and special related issues. I'll address each below.
First, the book, through five of its articles, shows convincingly that at no time prior to the 19th century (1800 years worth of Christian interpretation) was Genesis chapters 1-11 ever considered anything other than historical fact. The authors survey the Church Fathers through to the Protestant Reformers, with a consistent young earth view dominating. The only stand-out from the general theme is among the Alexandrian school of the Church Fathers, who used allegory to interpret many scriptures. They interpreted the days as symbolic of ages of the earth, but not what evolutionists need...they felt that each represented one millennium, since the earth was only supposed to last 6000 years before the return of Christ and the beginning of His thousand-year earthly reign. Note that these men still took the earth to be young and accepted the Genesis genealogies as history. Also, note that their frequent allegorizing was heavily criticized in their own day and rejected later. The book completes this historical overview by showing the critical moments when geological theories of deep time began to be accepted among churchmen in the 19th century, leading to a decay of interpretation of Genesis.
Second, in an attempt to show the correct way to interpret Genesis, the authors addressed the genre of Genesis 1-11 and showed powerfully how the framework hypothesis, gap theories, and other attempts to embed deep time into Genesis all fall short. The overall conclusion here is that interpreting Genesis in any other way than history does great violence to the text itself, its natural reading and the way it was obviously understood for thousands of years. (NB: If the ancient Israelites and Church Fathers read this in a way that is different from the way modern scholars do because of modern science, then divine inspiration is destroyed, since they not only did not but could not have understood it aright as it was given. The Bible would have been gibberish for millions of people until the right minds unlocked its true meaning.)
Third, the authors of two articles show that Jesus and the apostles clearly treated Genesis as historical, basing much of their theology and practical teaching upon the root events in the history of man.
Lastly, three special issues were addressed, one of which I've already posted some about previously. They are: the authority of nature as a revelatory agent, the geological implications of Noah's flood, and the problem of evil and death. Each of these is handled well and with much background work having been done.
Overall, this book is a weighty one. The scholars who wrote the articles did their homework! Many questions of the sincerely interested would be answered here. However, as the afterword points out, few will be convinced by even the best arguments, since what is at stake here is spiritual and not merely knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very good review! It sounds like these articles would be useful knowledge to have. Can you explain more about your last sentence? Because it seems that science should be objective, devoid of spiritual issues. If science confirms a flood, it should be unquestionable.
The answer is to recognize that their is a difference between the empirical and philosophical sides of science. So, yes, the empirical facts are objective. However, how scientists interpret those facts, based upon their philosophical presuppositions, is very subjective. A good example is the Grand Canyon. Empirically, it can be observed that their are many rock strata, layer on top of layer. Uniformitarian scientists will look at that and, based upon their presupposition that change occurs only over long ages of time, propose that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years, inch by inch. However, a young earth creationists, believing in a global, catastrophic flood roughly 4000 years ago, can see that the massive flood waters that covered North American during the flood could easily have carved such a canyon (along with many other topographical features in the USA) in days rather than years when it receded.
Additionally, back at its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, evolutionary and uniformitarian science has a strong bias against God. The originators and many of the leading lights today have stated goals to abolish religion entirely through their work. This makes even science a spiritual realm. But, then again, what area of life isn't?
Nice review. I would add in response to Lydia's question about the flood that we have to be careful what we mean by "confirm." Evidence confirms a historical event by being consistent with the event, or by being expected if we suppose the event happened. But evidence can only prove an event happened if there is no other possible explanation. Scientific disagreement about the age of the earth and the Flood is largely over which explanations are possible (or best) for the rocks and fossils. (In fact, creationists can disagree about whether particular geologic formations are due to the Flood waters, or glacier movement after the flood, or tectonic movements associated with the flood.) It is certainly true that spirituality--beliefs, desires and even experiences--affects what we are able to think is possible.
My own obstacles to understanding how things came into being using Genesis are these:
- I'm not sure any English translations mean the same literally as the original text. If the word "yom" could mean something other than "24 hours", for example, or the word "let" was translated from a word that was closer to "allowed" than "created", then I think there would be problems associated with using an English language version to find the literal meaning and understand it as it really happened.
- I'm not sure the Bible was meant to be a scientific text (or Historical text for that matter). I tend to think it was meant as a guidebook explaining a relationship with God- which I think it does rather well, rather than helping me understand physics, geology, etc. If it was meant to be a scientific text- I would submit that it doesn't do a very good job of explaining things in detail so that there is no misunderstanding or chance for disagreement on what it meant.
- I am uncomfortable with "limiting" God to a literal interpretaion of a book- even if we were able to guarantee the words were the original words and meanings. I tend to think that God is very mysterious and powerful- so much so that my human understanding limits my ability to see how scripture could be right- and an "old earth" or the theory of evolution could also be right. I'm not saying they are- I'm just saying that I feel uncomfortable stating "God has to be such and such"- when I know that my understanding of Him is very limited. A humble attitude would seem to me to be one that would leave open the possibility that I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't read much about in the Bible about God thinking humans are able to grasp Him easily- but I do find many lines attributed to Jesus telling the religious scholars of the day that they don't understand God and misinterpret the scriptures.
- Martin
To Anonymous/Martin:
1. "Let" in "let there be" is an auxiliary verb connected with the imperative "be" (equivalent to the Latin jussive subjunctive "fiat"). I.e. it expresses a command, not permission ("allow"). I don't think there is any question about the accuracy of English translations on this point.
2. There is an important difference between taking the Bible as a historical text and taking it as a scientific text. Reporting events as they were or would be experienced by real people is not the same as proposing theories about abstract causality. Creationists use Scriptural history as data for their fallible theories. They don't suppose that it presents theories.
3. To admit you don't know what you are talking about is great so long as you are willing to learn. But it can also be a cloak for rejection and rebellion. (1 Tim 3:7-8) The humble thing to do is to ask sincere questions. When Jesus castigated the scholars, it was because they had the wrong interpretation (e.g. on divorce or the resurrection) and did not care to recognize his divine authoirty, not because they tried to "limit God" to the meaning of what all agreed were his own words. Arguing for a definite meaning of a text is not limiting the author, rather it is letting him limit us.
Martin,
With regard to the Hebrew language and translations, the fact that any given word can have more than one meaning (even quite different meanings) does not automatically mean that the translator/interpreter is unable to come to the true, intended meaning of the word. If this were so, no translation of any work would ultimately be possible. Rather, the context of the word clues one in to the proper meaning, and the context of Genesis 1-11 is strictly that of history writing and nothing else.
As to science or history in the Bible. I agree, clearly the Bible is not a science textbook. However, to argue that it is not a history book is extremely flawed. The relationship that God has worked to establish between Himself and His wayward children is rooted to history: the history of our sin problem, the history of Israel, and the history of Christ and His church. The Bible, no matter what book you consider, is immanently historical. The fact that the history has been written with a theological/salvific point doesn't change its historicity. One only needs to look at modern history writing to see that history, as a discipline, does not cease to be valid because it is concerned with something less than complete knowledge of all that has gone on at any one time.
Finally, I agree with Tim that accepting the text's own inherent meaning (historical, in this case) is to conform oneself to God not the other way around.
Post a Comment