Following the prior young-earth history narrative, I had the following exchange with a good friend from my Church -- while I'm digging up information on the "light" issue, you might find it interesting....
=======================================
Bear in mind that I probably err on over-interpretation or over-analysis since it's in the fiber of my training and practice to critically read text and arguments and to assume nothing. That can be both a help and a hindrance. At some point, everything's got to mean "something." What's cool to me is how big and diverse the bible is -- it always strikes me interesting that you can exhaust the study of almost any other book in a couple of years of even academic review, while the Bible is a lifetime study on all but the most cursory level, and that taking a form of interpretation of even a single set of verses can completely change the way you read the rest of the bible. I guess we're in a continual and iterative search of a unifying theory of biblical interpretation.
By the way, I'm still not sure whether I take an old earth or a young earth position, but from what I can see so far, I can still believe in either view and it not affect my theology on essential points. I'm not content with my lack of a solid position thus far -- I'll keep trying to pin it down. But, meanwhile, I actually think I AM trying to avoid letting my particular world-view affect my biblical interpretation. That's not the same thing as saying I should prevent my "view of the world" (i.e., of nature) from affecting it. I think that observation of the human condition and the natural world are a reasonable and essential consideration for any hermeneutic. (Romans 1:20 supports this -- "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD THROUGH what has been made....") (see, also, discussion of practical hermeneutics at
http://www.equip.org/free/DI501-1.pdf and
http://www.equip.org/free/DI501-2.pdf).
What I see creeping into a lot of biblical interpretation, though, is either (1) folks being content with ignorance and a simplistic view of God and the bible, which can lead to wrong doctrine and often misses the larger point trying to be made by Scripture leading to a thin veneer of a Faith; (2) claims of objectivity and adherence to strict literal interpretation when they are practicing neither; or (3) trying to support a weak doctrinal position on completely out-of-context scripture (this happens A LOT!!!). As for (2), consider the roots of the young earth view (in another email I sent you). The modern proponents were strictly antievolutionists reacting to Darwinian evolution. That was their world-view, which absolutely guided their interpretation. While I happen to agree with that world-view, they (and many now) somehow feel a need to have a biblical interpretation that "PRECLUDES" evolutionary hypotheses. While I, too, will not accept the evolutionary hypothesis for creation, I have no need to require a biblical interpretation of day that would, itself, "preclude" that view. Evolution can still be wrong even if this text isn't what precludes it. Even if an old-earth interpretation of "yom" in this context still leaves room for evolution, the rest of the creation account does not, and I am happy to draw my line in the sand at the point where it may precludes my God from having specially created all the "kinds" of animals and humanity in the order prescribed in Genesis.
So far, Hugh Ross has not revealed any scientific hypothesis for an old earth that would require acceptance of evolution. In fact, he is ABSOLUTELY against even ANY macro-evolution at the speciation level (I'm not sure I'd even go that far). The early young-earthers felt a need for a young earth interpretation to prevent any wiggle room for evolution because they believed that such an interpretation was REQUIRED to counter evolution. In fact, though, the more we are learning (though much of that knowledge is obviously still conjecture or hypotheses), the more we understand that even an old earth of millions or even billions of years old can't explain away what we see in nature as the divine hand of a divine and purposeful creator. It's interesting that it's the young earth global flood apparently, ironically (and admittedly by Ken Ham), which requires rapid inter-species macro evolution to repopulate the earth with the wide variety of speciation after the flood (species distinguished from the "kinds" on the ark). (thankfully, and to their credit, AIG/Kent Ham have finally distanced themselves from Kent Hovind, who seems quite the nut job -- they've recanted and cautioned young-earthers to avoid some of the arguments Hovind was promoting as pure bunk).
By the way, why should our presuppositions from natural observation take a "backseat" to those presuppositions from our "knowledge" of lexical and grammatical usage, particularly of an ancient language (let alone English translations)? They're BOTH pre-suppositions. Both are important, and I think, equal considerations, and BOTH can be wrong and should be referred to with care. "WE" created our language and culture to a great degree (though not universally), while "GOD" created the universe and world around us. Why would it be ok for scripture to be inconsistent with "our understanding" of nature, yet not with "our understanding" of Hebrew? Sometimes, I think, the Bible does point out errors in our natural observations (like evolutionary speciation), and that's ok with me -- I'm willing to wait for science to catch up. The point is, though, if we permit an old-age view of "yom" on scientific observation, it seems that science is actually beginning to catch up to the bible. I simply think we should be patient and let it, and not be afraid to take a biblical interpretation of particular texts which would allow for a wrong world-view.
It's interesting to me that both groups are trying to do the same but opposite things. Hugh Ross and his ilk are trying to organize and explain scientific observations into his biblical view of Genesis, while the young-earth group have formulated their interpretation of Genesis to make sure it fits with their world-view. I frankly think it more appropriate to manipulate the science to fit an orthodox biblical interpretation than to promote a historically recent interpretation of the bible to fit their presuppositions of scientific discoveries.
Avoiding strict, blind, literal understanding (compared to a historical"grammatical-historic" method) isn't so important in this particular scripture we're talking about, but it has profound impact on other aspects of scripture. For example, what does "For God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son, so that WHOSOEVER believed...." mean? How you view "whosoever" has divided churches and caused people to be burned at the stake and worse. What about the similarly blind literal interpretation of the following:
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times SOME WILL FALL AWAY from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
or
Truly I say to you, THIS GENERATION will not pass away until all these things take place.
or
What did "COMING ON THE CLOUDS" mean to the Jews?
or
Apart from me you can do NOTHING.
or
Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
I'm ok with modern literal understanding of some of these, but not others. Taking just the last one, the greeks and romans thought (based on the literal text) the Christians were promoting cannibalism, which led many to reject out of hand any claims of Truth within the Bible. That's a shame! (and could be the happening with the creation account with non-believers stumbling based on what they clearly see in nature). We don't change the bible for them, but if there's a reasonable (and orthodox) interpretation that doesn't offend other scripture on an item that's not essential to our faith, and which we can concede may be correct, then we will allow them in the tent and gain more for Christ. Other literal interpretations have led to a hermeneutical overlay that affects how you read the entirety of the rest of scripture (consider Calvinism aka Augustinianism vs. Arminianism or preterism vs. futurism or dispensational vs. covenant theology). All of these have split churches and been a barrier to salvation at one point or another -- some worth it, and others not.
See my specific responses to some of your comments below..........
"That is not what God said in Genesis 1 and my God is big enough to create old stuff out of nothing." Everything else in the creation story was created mature. To say that the universe must be billions of years old because of some red shifting theory, or some radiometric dating method doesn't fly with me because that makes God smaller than the universe. Could God have done it that way? Sure, but that is not what He said in one of the most plainly written pieces of text in scripture.
How does an old earth make God smaller -- he is timeless and outside of the space-time continuum and cause and effect, so how does a 1,000,000 year first day, for example, minimize God -- a painter might take joy in a 3 inch square of his canvas -- this isn't a debate over creation vs. evolution, it's just over the meaning of the word yom and whether the rainbow was a later creation (after the Lord rested from creation, by the way) or an existing creation that the Lord used for a sign of his covenant (he used existing things for every other sign for his covenants in the bible).
If such scriptures are proven out to be a description of phenonema that could not be understood at the time, wouldn't that be an awesome! witness to the divine inspiration of the bible? Why not try and reconcile the bible to what we observe in nature (not to say the conclusions to date in the observations are correct, but why not try)? (like Joshua's missing day, which still hasn't been proven, but will be one day -- wouldn't that be cool?!?).
Also, it's obviously not that plainly a written piece of text or there wouldn't be such a debate on its meaning.
When God "separated the light from the darkness," He called "the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." That is plainly read as a definition of a day. Nowhere else does He change the definition. Could it mean something else? Of course, but the question is "Does it?" I don't think it does because if it does then it was pointless to include in the first place. If we need to make adjustments to fit somebody's worldview then I guess we can but I refuse to do that. All the arguments about a non existent sun and moon at this point, are simply a way make this fit their worldview not a way to understand what the scripture says. It's a loophole. A billion years is a blink of an eye to God. Okay I'll buy that. But then why include this sentence unless His goal was to confuse us.
Good question -- so, why is it so much more miraculous that he created all this out of nothing in 7 24 hour days than even 7 billion years -- it's awesome! nonetheless. To your logic, why would God even say yom? These "adjustments," as you say, have been quite recent in history, and only in knee-jerk reaction to Darwin. We have to ask why. When the logic falls apart, why not revert to the orthodox view that happens to be consistent with both the rest of scripture and also natural observations. It was fear of a flawed natural observation that led to young-earth hypotheses -- why not abandon them now that we know enough?
I will tell you that as soon as somebody proves to me that the Bible is false with observational science then it's eat drink and be merry time. I don't doubt there are some reasonable arguments that the days of creation "could" have been more than 24 hour days. What I can't get from anybody is an answer to "Why would God do that?" I think that Kay Arthur's way of studying the Bible is a good one. The basic premise being that you interpret the Scripture literally unless you have a good reason to do otherwise. If you assume that every piece of Scripture is open to interpretation and that it is okay that Christians have differing viewpoints on all of it, then, God sent us his Word to keep us confused. It's a big joke. If He didn't make at least some of it very plain then why would He send it to us in the first place. I'm not trying to say that all of the Bible is understood and that we should all agree on everything. What I am trying to say is that the opposite is not true either. There are parts of Scripture that are plain to read and I have to believe that God did that on purpose. He didn't send us His Word so that we would bicker over it forever. There are parts that are deeper than others, there are parts that are more plainly interpreted than others, and I think that is part of the fascination of Scripture, nobody no matter how long they study can grasp every concept in the entire book. But there are concepts that children can understand.
This isn't a literal vs. figurative issue -- it's a definition problem each of which is a literal interpretation. No Christian I know would subscribe to the figurative or allegory view of Eden and the Creation account (though many of our church fathers did such as Origen and Augustine). I believe in a fixed, specific meaning of yom -- not some allegorical, unreal, day-type thing (except maybe with day 1, where light and dark weren't yet separated to define evening and morning the way "we" understand it -- that one is troubling). People like Kay Arthur claim to be literal whenever it's convenient, but will quickly point out that some "literal" interpretation is an example of a figure of speech (that's figurative language, if you ask me). I don't automatically take a literal interpretation. Some verses are intended through their context and style to be taken figuratively and others literally. The whole of scripture is my test, but God is also quite logical and if something defies logic and understanding, maybe it's the wrong interpretation (I say -- sometime -- recognizing that sometimes the only way a scripture can be read consistent with remaining scripture is to accept what APPEARS to be contrary to observation -- yes, observation and logic can get you to bad places, but can't be ignored and where it doesn't contradict scripture, should be followed in my book). Sometimes, that becomes iterative and will require a lifetime of reflection and re-thinking. This is even more true when you aren't trying to decide between figurative vs. literal meaning, but instead just what that meaning is.
We can have textual based arguments, scientific arguments, theological arguments but what it comes down to for me is God's character. There is nothing about any of the descriptions of God that make me believe that his Word was given to us to be vague. Frankly I'd have a real philosophical problem with a God like that. Some of it is very difficult to understand. Some of it we may never understand, but not all of it. There are things that It plainly says and I think that we do ourselves a disservice to think otherwise.
What's vague about it??? -- it's not vague, there's just a difference of opinion on what the word means -- the Bible is replete with examples of this. Besides, it is also God's character to be oblique at times when he doesn't want us to focus on the facts, but instead grasp a greater meaning -- consider even Christ's consistent use of parables and mysteries. Can you imagine the frustration of Christ (ok, He probably wasn't frustrated, but I would have been) at the way the apostles kept trying to take everything He said literally? They just didn't get it, and what makes us think we are any different when we might "SOMETIMES" try and over-literalize what the bible says.
If not then at what point does it end. There are people that can argue Jesus off of the cross. That is why I think we have to draw a line in the sand at some point. Perhaps the length of the Creation week is not the place. At the moment I believe that it is but I'll try to be open about it.
If we water down what we believe to be true then we will eventually become like the Catholics. That is how we wound up with Mary worship, Holy water etc. These were attempts to make the pagans comfortable with Christianity. My model of origins has worked so far with all of the data that I have seen in the world around me. I don't feel a need to adjust my model to fit somebody else's worldview so that they are comfortable. My worldview doesn't even make me comfortable. Truth is seldom comfortable, but it is truth nontheless, and if we deny that then we soon wind up being "lukewarm" and our witness dies. I'm not trying to say that we should cram the 144 hour creation event down every throat at the revival meeting, or that anybody that believes otherwise could not be a Christian but I do believe it to be the Truth and hopefully I can convince others of that "In Truth and Love." I also hope that if I am wrong, others can convince me in the same manner.
Most of the people that I have talked to that subscribe to the "Gap Theory" or the "Day Age Theory" are trying to make the Scriptures mesh with something outside of the Scriptures. I take the other view. What does the Bible say? Now use that to interpret the data that we find. If that interpretation doesn't work THEN we go back and decide whether or not our original interpretation of Scripture is wrong. I don't feel compelled to do that with the 1st chapter of Genesis because the 144 hour creation model seems to fit all of the data that I have seen.
Well, the point doesn't end here (at least for me) -- The fact that some people use logic to argue Christ off the cross doesn't mean that logic and observation are not part of a proper overlay for scripture, especially scripture with multiple possible and reasonable interpretations. If old `earth is inconsistent with some other portion of the bible, then that portion has to be re-thought or the interpretation abandoned. I agree that EVERYTHING has to be tested by remaining scripture. In fact, that's where I draw the line. If I draw it anywhere else, I run the risk of bad doctrine that can affect interpretation of other scripture. This isn't relativism! I am "ok" with not feeling comfortable about aspects of the bible that my interpretation takes me that I believe are true (like eternal security, soteriology, or eschatology), especially when they're inconsistent with prevailing belief. Is Kay? My beliefs may change with study and prayer, but that doesn't make them relativistic.
By the way, did you know that most young earth adherents have admitted that to repopulate the earth after the ark in a global flood would require macro evolution and rapid speciation (denying the fixity of the species upon creation) -- even Hugh Ross doesn't believe in ANY macro evolution and believes that God fixed all the species that would ever exist at the end of the sixth day. As you can tell, there's nothing lukewarm about my beliefs -- though they may change over time, they're not relativistic.
