It looks like the theme park owners may be swallowing camels….
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

Sorry, I just realized I didn’t finish the point of the second analogy with geocentrism. The point was that, prior to scientific evidence pointing to heliocentrism, they all believed Scripture was saying one thing. And when first confronted with the evidence, and conclusions from the evidence, that contradicted their interpretation, they rejected it outright. They clung to their traditional interpretation and condemned those who proposed the heliocentric theory as attacking Scripture. As it turned out, the only thing being attacked was one interpretation, but it took a LONG time to accept that. As it turned out, the entire Church CHANGED its way of reading those Scriptures, based entirely on new scientific evidence. And this was the right thing to do in that circumstance.

Now, this does not mean, as you rightly point out Michael, that we react knee-jerk style to accept every oddball scientific theory to avoid making that same mistake. But we should use that fiasco to learn that it definitely IS acceptable exegesis to allow evidence from the natural world to inform and complete our picture of what God is really telling us in Scripture in order to avoid error.

BTW, here are two really good links that discuss the point of view of the Christian who has a very high view of Scripture AND accepts an old earth and evolution without seeing a conflict:

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

and

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Michael, to be clear, I was referring to geocentrism, not the concept of a flat earth. There are two analogies to be drawn there. First is with the exegesis itself, the other is with the degree to which we allow the evidence from Nature to inform our exegesis in general.

On the first point, basically everyone read Scripture geocentrically prior to Galileo because everyone WAS a geocentric, they did believe the sun and stars revolved around the earth, which was at the center of the universe. But they also argued this FROM Scripture. They pointed to the Creation stories, where earth was created first and everything else around it. They pointed to Joshua: the SUN stood still, not the earth, etc. They also pointed to the theological implications (what would it mean if the earth was just one planet among billions, revolving around a sun which was one among billions!, etc). They believed they had solid Scriptural and theological reasons for rejecting heliocentrism. Luther and Calvin were particularly dramatic on this point.

The other point of the analogy is the degree we should be willing to allow science to inform our reading of Scripture. For me, it is always a sliding scale, not a slippery slope necessarily. I start with one true and solid anchor: Everything Scripture says is TRUE, there is no error in the text. This has nothing to do with literalness or factual or scientific accuracy. If a text was not intended to provide scientific information or literal history, then there is no error if it does not do so.

So, I look at the text and use my best exegesis to determine what God is trying to tell me. I look at the historical setting, the literary style, the theology involved, etc. From these I will come to a conclusion with a humble DEGREE of certainty about what the message is. Then, if there SEEMS to be a contradiction between that and what the evidence from Creation itself seems to be saying (ie, science), then I have to consider the degree of certainty I have over my particular interpretation of Scripture v. the degree of evidence is coming from Nature itself.

The problem I see is that the Creationist is starting with the assumption that their interpretation is true without doubt. They talk as if by defending their literal reading, they are defending Scripture in absolute terms, when what they are really doing is just defending their interpretation. I think this bias effects even the most learned scholars, Ed. I have read most of them, and even when I agree with many of their talking points (like the term “day” referring to a literal 24 hours), I think their conclusions do not always follow, and I suspect that their reasoning is drawn toward their desired conclusion (as is true of most human endeavors).

As for the sliding scale of literalism for non-literalism, the solution can only be that we take each text on its own, without any preconception of what it should be. We have to step out of our cultural biases and seek to determine what people at the time would have thought, how they would have read it. We do not read Song of Solomon, Revelation and Luke with the same expectations of literary style.

The problem, ultimately, is that Genesis 1 -11 tells about the past. We in the modern world (and this goes back hundreds, even a couple thousand years), tend to value stories about the past to the degree they provide accurate facts. To the extent it does not, it is in error, it is false, it is untrustworthy. So, when we see Genesis, and we see stories about the past, we apply this mindset and say that if it is not providing literal historical narrative, then it is not true and correct. And since the Bible must be true and correct . . . etc.

In ancient times, however, they did not tell stories about the past in order to pass on a list of factual details in a strict narrative. They told STORIES about the past which conveyed the ultimate truths about what happened. Which, ultimately is most important. There is a reason why they call Herodotus the “Father of History”. No one was even TRYING to write that type of history before him (and even he did not try all that hard, some would argue!).

Here is a quick example that even modern readers accept. We know that God is Spirit. He does not have a human body inherently, although he can take that form if he likes, of course. Now, we read that God “breathed” the spirit of life into Adam. Most exegetes would not assume that God took some type of human form, took a deep breath with physical lungs and then breathed literal air into the body of Adam. No, we accept that this is a image of something . . . else. Something bigger and deeper than our human minds could understand possibly. We know that SOMETHING happened, wherein God breathed the “spirit of life” (meaning to be debated) into “Adam” (Mankind?, again meaning to be debated), but we don’t assume we know that that EXACT action (process?) was. The language is powerful, and it is evocative and it gets the message across very dramatically. We GET the TRUTH about what happened, probably more so than if we got a literal blow-by-blow of what actually happened in detail (assuming we could even understand it).

I read much of early Genesis the same way, and as someone with a college degree in ancient history, I believe that is how the ancient Israelites would have read it as well.

Now, this does not mean I read Luke the same way. That was written possibly a thousand or more years later, by someone who had a VERY different mind, more akin to our own than the writers of Genesis 1 and 2. My analysis of Genesis 1 to 11 has nothing at all to do with my reading of the Resurrection story for the same reason. Both are true, but they are different literary styles.

Slippery slope. When you are standing at the top of the slope and you know that the truth may not be at the top, but is somewhere before you get to the bottom (which is error as well, you know), do you just stay where you are, and hope that it is pretty close? No, you get shoes with a good grip, you get grappling hooks and stout rope, and you head down the slope carefully in search of the truth. Always humble, always willing to consider. The anchor of that rope, however, is ALWAYS:

Scripture is true and is not in error. Now, let’s see what that might mean . . .

Is it possible that god allows mankind to gain knowledge by his unveiling of our blindness to all the wondrous truths that he has kept hidden from us since eternity past?
And now Mankind is on the verge of unlocking some of the most intriguing, profound questions ever posed.
How do we know anything thing at all? God allows what he allows to our understanding.
We often forget that the bible is a story about mankind, his beginning and his end. We know nothing else besides the saving grave we need to persevere.
I often wonder if the earth has been a giant laboratory of God’s.
Really it makes no difference about IDer’s or young earthers point of view and what is in the text is not enough to determine either way.
But God is ancient of days and so is the earth; he left clues did he not?
Keep digging , there are to many mysteries coming up from the ground to assume a young earth view IMO, I might be a Clarence Larkin Adherent and I do not necessarily agree with everything he agrees with, but, I do think he’s right about the age of earth! Sounds go anyway, check this place out and conclude young earth
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

It’s hard to imagine anything else but old,
P.S. real pics from hubble and spiziter telescopes

Michael & All: I want to make it clear that I am NOT saying that Old Earthers or IDers are heretically denying the authority of Scripture. I know that these men and women (scientists and scholars) are sincere Christians who hold to the authority of the Word of God. However, it is possible to believe in the authority of Scripture and practically undermine it.

I can preach from the pulpit that the Bible is the sole authority to govern our lives. I can tell the church that the Bible is to be supreme over every area of my life. I can sincerely believe this. But if I continually give in to a particular sin (as we all do), I am fighting against the authority of Scripture. Practically speaking, I am undermining the authority of Scripture. I have not denied it, because I still give mental assent to this proposition. However, I am undermining its authority over my life. And this is a struggle we all face.

When we transfer this to the world of doctrine, we can purposefully deny the authority of Scripture…or we can unintentionally undermine it. I believe the Old Earth position fits in the latter category. I am concerned that well meaning theologians are undermining one of the key principles of the Reformation: that of the supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Michael: I agree with your comments about Psalm 19, with some caution. I would just point out that the second half of the psalm speaks of the superiority of special revelation over general revelation. And nature, while a valid tool, must always maintain a ministerial, rather than a magisterial role in regards to Scripture.

Thanks against for fostering a stimulating discussion!

Stephen

Vance, I appreciate your insights into this matter. But I would offer you a caution similar to that which I offered Veritas83. Competent exegetes have differed on the interpretation of Genesis 1, and not all who land on a literal 6-day view can be charged with a “cursory” reading of the text. For example, Allen P. Ross, an Old Testament scholar who has forgotten more about Hebrew exegesis than I’ll ever know, reveals his belief in a literal 6-day creation in his excellent tome, Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Baker, 1988).

Just to be clear, my ultimate concern is not necessarily with folks espousing one view or the other—even with vigor. From a purely exegetical standpoint, both young-earth and old-earth views are defensible. My concern is with our caricatures of those who hold views on this matter that conflict with our own. It simply won’t do to say that those who reject a literal 6-day creation reject the authority of Scripture. Neither is it fair to say that those who hold to a literal 6-day view are simplistic in their reading of the text.

Let’s put forth our views with passion. Let’s bring our best arguments to the table. But let’s, as Michael’s original post suggested, refrain from judging the motives and/or competency of everyone on the other side. Neither side can be painted with a broad brush. And both sides can craft a decent exegetical portrait of our origins.

Vance, points well taken. You may be correct.

Here is a couple of things that may cause some problems to what you have said.

I don’t know if comparing the flat earth scenario to the old earth scenario in anything other than general conceptual language. Yes, thinking there was a flat earth was taking the Bible too literal, but that had to do with mistakenly taking anthropomorphic language for literal scientific statements. The issue with Genesis is not dealing with anthropomorphic language. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone on either side argue such. The issue has to do with either 1) accommodating language, or 2) symbolic language.

Granted, God could have used either on in the first 11 chapters of Genesis and the Bible still be authoritative and inspired. The issue that many exegetes would have with this option is not whether or not it is available, but whether or not it should be applied in this case due to discoveries in science. As I said before, this may be the case. If so, then we do have a rather odd occurrence where we don’t really know where to draw the line with the Genesis narrative. If we are going to say that the first 11 chapters are symbolic or accommodating, then why stop there? I am not saying that this is an absolute slippery slope, but it is confusing, you must admit. The type of literature in Gen 1-11 is really no different than that contained in the rest of the book (and much of Exodus for that matter). If we interpret the first 11 this way, why stop there?

I guess that is my question. We must recognise that the “literary argument,” while helpful, is not as clear as some like to make it out to be. In fact, it could be that we are using an accommodating hermeneutic ourselves, fearing not to repeat the black eye of the past with regards to the Galileo incident. This will not do either.

The rhetoric in this issue causes much imbalance and an awful lot of overstatement on both sides. Let’s all just approach this with much humility. I don’t think anyone is threatening to put someone in jail for teaching a old earth! The fact is we really just don’t know with much certianty the answers to these questions. Like you said, we do know the what and who, but not the how.

Keep in mind that a cursory reading of Scripture also seems indicate a geocentric universe. That was the “traditional” reading of Scripture until we allowed science to inform our interpretation. That took a while to accept, and both Catholics and Protestants dug in their heels and INSISTED that to accept heliocentrism was, in so many words, to deny the truth of Scripture (Luther and Calvin included).

We are going through the same growing pains now. We have dramatic and overwhelming evidence from God’s Creation itself that He did NOT create the earth over six literal days less than 10,000 years ago. We have dramatic and overwhelming evidence from God’s Creation that God used some sort of evolutionary process over billions of years for the development of life. To my reading, this only contradicts one, particularly narrow, geocentric-like, view of Scripture. It does not conflict with my reading at all.

In fact, for me it is not even a matter of science even informing my reading, since I would read (and DID read) Genesis 1-11 as something other than strict literal historical narrative BEFORE reaching any conclusions about the science.

My question is always why is there a presumption of literalism? Why is there even a preference for it among the wide varieties of literary styles of writing about the past? When we know that the Ancient Israelites would NOT have read it that way, why in the world should we?

Ironically, the “traditional” reading of Scripture in that way is a product of the scientific modernism that has also attempted to deny the supernatural and God in particular.

Remember, it is not secular science dictating how we should read Scripture. It is looking at ALL that God has given us as clues regarding the past and making decisions based on ALL the evidence as a whole. God gave us a revelation in Scripture that can be read a variety of different ways. God gave us the evidence of His Creation itself. We must view them together to make the best choice when we are seeking to determine the HOW and WHEN of God’s creation process (to the extent we need to do this at all).

There are still geocentrics out there today who believe that it is the young earth creationists who have compromised, and allowed modern scientific notions to influence their reading of Scripture by accepting heliocentrism.

I believe that in another 100 years, if the Lord tarries, we will be looking back on this controversy much the way we look back on the geocentrism controversy. There will still be some hardcore hold-outs who insist on a young earth and deny that God used evolution, but they will be as rare as modern-day geocentrics.

Chad, you always agree with me. When have you strayed off the path of truth? I can’t remember.

oops…that was http://www.reasons.org
sorry