The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). (Of course, some are pushing it to something more on the order of 16 billion, but who's counting?) How is this determined? Well, they'll tell you it's a bit difficult. There are rocks that have been dated to somewhere around 4 billion years. The dating method if these rocks is radiometric dating. (The rocks don't carry ID with birth dates attached unfortunately.) One method of dating is derived by measuring three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and Pb-208 or Pb-204) and plotting the Pb-206/Pb-204 against the Pb-207/Pb-204. This method, as do most, assumes one core component: The solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios. This approach also requires the dominant perception known as uniformitarianism -- the idea that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. In other words, essentially things in the physical world have always been as they are now. Things decay at the same rate. Light travels at the same speed. Gravity maintains the same pull. Hopefully you get the idea.
So who cares how old the Earth really is? The time required for Evolution to take place is on the order of billions of years. These kinds of things don't happen overnight, you know. To obtain something from nothing, order from chaos, rational from random ... that takes a lot of time. So it must be that the Earth is much older than those stupid Bible-believing Christians think it is. And the debate is on. As a matter of fact many non-believers and a growing number of believers see Genesis as the Achilles heel of Christianity. It doesn't mesh with what we know from science. It ought to. You see, science knows; the Bible just guesses. How can we verify it if it doesn't match up with what science knows?
I'm not here to enter the debate. I'm not going to offer any of the standard arguments "Young-Earthers" offer arguments about what's wrong with Evolution and the "Old-Earth" view. They have their perspectives and their reasons. That's fine. Let them debate them. Me? I'm wondering what exactly I'm supposed to do with my Bible once we move Genesis from fact to fiction. Oh, I know, "Old-Earther" Christians would never use the word "fiction" for their view of Genesis. They prefer other terms. "Poetry." "Metaphor." That kind of thing. One very good paper on the topic suggests that the whole Genesis 1 and 2 thing is about Divine Fiats. The days are simply statements of God, not time periods. The attempt to make them literal or even figurative days isn't the point. They are Fiat Days (Fiat meaning "authoritative decree"), unknown time periods in which God said "Let there be ..." and there was. And to be honest, the author, Hill Roberts, does a decent job of answering his critics while keeping important things in mind (like the importance of Scripture and such). Still, I'm wondering what to do with my Bible if Genesis doesn't mean what Genesis says.
You see, the authors of the Psalms were speaking poetically. All of us know the term, "poetic license." That means that the reader doesn't take it at literal face value. So Psalms is fine. Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are short allegorical stories intended to convey a point. That means that the reader doesn't assume more about these stories than the point they are trying to make. But Genesis isn't written as parable or poetry. It isn't offered as metaphor or myth. It is offered from a historical perspective. Throughout the Bible it is treated as if it was a historical account. And much of our basic theology comes originally from Genesis. The author of Genesis assumes a literal Adam, the first man, who had a wife named Eve. These are assumed to be literal people because they do human things instead of merely illustrating human traits. They name animals. They talk to God. They ... know each other and have children with specific names. And they commit not only sin in general, but the very first sin that Paul says brought death into the world. Try to make that "metaphor". It can't be done. It's not that general mankind sinned; Adam sinned. Adam is paralleled with Christ. If "Adam" refers to a metaphorical "man" who wasn't actual but just a type, what do we infer about "Christ" who is this "man's" parallel? Is "Christ" simply a metaphor as well?
The problem spreads. If Genesis 1 and 2 are not actual, historical narratives, then why would we assume Genesis 3 is? Well-meaning evangelical Old-earthers like Hugh Ross do. Why? Where is the dividing line? When does the metaphor stop and the historical account begin? How do we know? If Adam isn't literal, what about Noah? No, of course Noah isn't. That whole "Great Flood" story is certainly a metaphor. No such actual event took place. So not Noah? What about Abraham? If not Adam or Noah, why would Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be considered actual people? But a real person named Abraham is no small player in the narrative of the Bible. In fact, our salvation is based on his literal offspring. What do we do with that?
You see, the problems start to snowball, and eventually we're stuck with a metaphorical book. Now, there are those who might be reading this and shouting "Amen!" right now because that's exactly the conclusion they've reached, but not me. I want to know what good a Bible is if it cannot be used to actually determine anything. If it's metaphor -- and each of us decides what that metaphor means -- it is certainly not authoritative. And Christianity grinds to a halt. It's just another "religion" now, the kind that tries to make good people out of bad people and whines, "Can't we all just get along?"
I think that perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong direction. I would challenge anyone to read Genesis 1 and 2 without a need to correlate it to "science" as the current god and understand it to mean "metaphor", "poetry", or anything except 6 24-hour days of creation. Agree or disagree with the claim, I think it is pretty clear that any normal reading of the passage begs us to come to that conclusion. If we cannot apply normal rules of reading to this passage, what makes us think we can apply rules of reading to any other? Or let me ask this another way. It has essentially been the Jewish and Christian perspective for thousands of years that Genesis is a literal account of Creation. It is only in the last 200 years or so that anyone has begged to differ, and that from non-believers. So do we conclude that normal reading no longer counts? Do we conclude that God has withheld His understanding of this passage until modern science comes around some 2000 years after Christ to finally explain to us what He meant? Or is it possible that the fundamental beliefs that lead science to conclude that the Bible isn't true might be false? Is it possible that the fundamental positions of science that lead to these conclusions regarding the age of the Earth themselves are a position of faith, not scientific fact? To whom are we going to hand the authority?
12 comments:
“To obtain something from nothing, order from chaos, rational from random ... that takes a lot of time.”
What’s the name of that song by Meatloaf, “Two out of three ain’t bad”? I’ll go along with “order from chaos and rational from random”; however, there is no sustaining the idea of obtaining something from nothing. It cannot be supported in any rational thought process.
I’m not familiar with Hill Roberts writings and the link provided did not work; however, I am of the opinion that Divine Fiats are sufficient to establish a reasonable explanation as to the vast amounts of time required that explain the Creation periods without having to discount or trivialize the historical authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Time is a concept that may well be the least understood when dealing with terms which touch on things eternal.
There is a passage in the New Testament where the unbelieving Jews confronted Jesus, scoffed at him and mocked him (John 8: 53) “Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which s dead?” Jesus answered them in John 8:56-58, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
There are many who claim to be Christians who are incapable of accepting that Christ is the God of the Old Testament, that He is alive, that the resurrection is a reality, that mortality is only a part of our eternal nature and that we too will continue on forever. This requires a different assessment of that singularly disturbing element we call Time. Perhaps, and this is from the Book of Stern, time has no meaning except in mortality. Time is a means of permitting limited human cognizance of things beyond our grasp; but that is a subject which could easily lead far beyond the purpose of the scriptures. The scriptures serve to testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ and anything else is window dressing.
Hi Stan,
I liked the way you presented this. The Bible definitely has authority, after all Jesus quoted it often. However we have to consider the following;
We know that some of the Bible is specific and clearly historical while some is allegorical. The question is how can we be 100% sure which is which? On top of this, there are a plethora of Bible teachings, particularly by Jesus, that multiple applications.
You said it yourself that science is the God of today, and we know that might change. Science is not immutable. However science presents us with some convincing proofs of an older universe, but not nearly as old as it would have to be for evolution to be true. The chances of life evolving by accident in a mere 14 billion years is impossible. I believe Occam's razor would tell us in this case that it would take an eternity for life to come about by accident.
Science is constantly changing because we are constantly changing. I would also say that our interpretation of Scripture and our obedience to it have also had its ups and downs. The reasonable thing to do is to keep our focus on those fundamental points on which a saving faith rests.
I commented on my website that 2000 years of interpretation might not have the weight that it would appear to have because the Psalm says "to God a thousand years are like a day".
I think you might be putting too much faith in orthodoxy here. Remember the Pharisees had 2000 years of so-called interpretation as well. But their problem was that at the core of their orthodoxy was a confusion of priorities that blinded them when the time came for them to face the Messiah. They were caught "majoring in the minors", so to speak.
I think in Genesis 1 and 2 we are being given an accurate image of what up until the last 200 years was nearly impossible to comprehend. Whether it is literal or an image we are given to show God's sovereignty cannot be fully known. Add to that that it is not essential to our faith to be interpreted literally.
So we are left with parts of the Bible that are clearly historical and parts that are clearly allegorical and yet there are other parts that are not as clear. I think the resolution is in the duty that is placed on the believer to study the whole body of Scripture repeatedly. After all studying the Word was meant to be a way of life.
As for Adam and Eve I believe that story is grounded in actual events. One fascinating thing about the Bible is that much of it consists of parables using real people and real events in history as its backdrop. This helps us to see how God pulls the strings not only then but now as well.
Sorry for the book. :-)
Jim,
"However science presents us with some convincing proofs of an older universe."
What proofs? I'm not attempting to be argumentative. The only "proofs" I've found were the age of rocks (a process founded on a questionable premise) and light from stars (based on another presupposition that I question). Can you offer, for my education, some of the "convincing proofs"?
"We know that some of the Bible is specific and clearly historical while some is allegorical."
Agreed. Of course. The question is how do we know the difference? One cannot read, for instance, the first two chapters of Genesis and conclude (initially, at least) that it is allegorical. The presentation is that of an historical narrative. And even if one did conclude at second glance that it was allegory, it would seem that the third chapter of Genesis is written in the same vein, so if the first two are allegorical, why isn't the third? How does one determine "This is literal and that is allegorical" when it appears to be so arbitrary? That's my problem.
And I don't mind a book in the comments at all.
T.F.,
"I’ll go along with “order from chaos and rational from random”; however, there is no sustaining the idea of obtaining something from nothing."
The "something from nothing" argument is the only thing science has to offer. You and I agree that it doesn't work. However, they also suggest "order from chaos" even though the Laws of Thermodynamics suggests that's impossible as well. To obtain order from chaos, I would suggest, requires external intelligence, not a great deal of time as they suggest. And if one could manage, over billions of years, to derive order from chaos ... how long would it remain orderly in a random universe? Problems, problems.
You're right. We need to remind Christians about eternity and Christ.
Oh, T.F., thanks for the link problem heads up. I fixed it.
Hi Stan,
When I was talking of convincing proofs of an older earth I was thinking of fossilized bone, something that would take more than 6,000 years to occur.
You asked a good question in your original post, who do we give our authority to? I don't give the auhtority of interpretation to Dr. Ham of Answers in Genesis. That doesn't mean that he should be ignored, mind you, just regarded as fallible like the rest of us.
I've described the Bible as an interactive language game that God has given us to draw us in. It is the only book whose reading can never be completely finished.
Look at the Reformation, 1500 years after Christ that exposed where the Catholic Church had missed what had been essentially clear in the gospel. The Catholics had claimed to have the ultimate interpretation while hiding the Book from the masses. I worry that fundamentalists are taking us down that same road today.
I'm not an advocate of Dr. Ham. I think that a lot of damage has been done in the name of defending the faith by well-meaning, misguided folks who are trying to defend Genesis. I'm with you there, Jim. Nor would I make this, as too many do, "If you don't believe in a 6-24-hr Creation you're not saved" approach. Nonsense. I don't see that listed anywhere in Paul's dissertations on the Gospel.
Here's the problem with the comparison with the Reformation. The Reformers didn't start anything new. They didn't find new information. They didn't discover new things in the Bible. They simply pointed to what was already there, already taught, already believed -- that the Church of their day had moved away from. It was a re-forming, not a new thing. On the other hand, we have things like Dispensationalism that seems to appear out of nowhere and is all the rage because, apparently, the Holy Spirit just couldn't figure out how to get it across until the 19th century. We have a new understanding of the passages on wives submitting to husbands and women as leaders in churches that didn't occur until the Feminist Movement in the 20th century because, for some reason, the Holy Spirit was unable to get that across for 19 centuries. And we have apparently plain, biblical language speaking of an apparently historical event we call "Creation" that, well, isn't so plain and isn't so clear anymore because the Holy Spirit was waiting desperately for the discoveries of the 20th century so He could correct our faulty understanding of that passage.
Me? I'm not getting it. Nor am I getting where science has proved their case. On fossils, for instance, look at the data surrounding the processes that have followed the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Things are happening there that science was sure took an extended period of time. So much for those presuppositions.
I'm not against correcting a view when required to. The church at the time of Galileo was wrong. But try to prove their case in Scripture. It's not very easy. We can be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence from science yet that proves this one. It appears to me to be more a matter of faith than science.
Nor would I make this, as too many do, "If you don't believe in a 6-24-hr Creation you're not saved" approach. Nonsense. I don't see that listed anywhere in Paul's dissertations on the Gospel.
That's my point in a nutshell, Stan. Below is a quote from AIG. Now I have just reread Gen. 1 and 2 for the umpteenth time and I still don't see where it explicitly says that animals did not die prior to Adam and Eve's sin. There is no mention of death until the animal skins that God gives them to cover themselves. But this silence on the subject is no reason to go ballistic on other believers as the writer does below.
They allow for death before sin, thereby undermining the gospel message, and attacking the character of God (who—in Dr. Ross’s view—made death, disease and suffering and called it “very good”).
Comments from AIG site.
The part in bold sounds oddly similar to complaints that I've heard from agnostics and atheists.
Regards.
Obviously I disagree with the AIG comments. I'm simply disagreeing here with the other side that says, in essence, "If you don't make Genesis 1 and 2 coincide with science, you're wrong. In fact, you're likely an idiot." I think both sides can err greatly. (Thus I wasn't offering a "Young-Earth" argument; I was simply saying that I believe the Bible, that I don't feel the need to change right now, and if I do I'll be waiting for someone to clarify what is "allegory" and what is actual because I will have likely lost all reference when I drop Genesis from the historical category.
As for AIG, The Young-Earth crowd likes to make it mandatory that death (in any form whatsoever) was brought on by the Fall. I think that is not necessary. I think that it must be a given that trees lost their leaves (which would make for a dead leaf) and bugs likely had their life cycles without any reference to the Fall. I think that death to humans, and particularly spiritual death, was in mind when it says that death came through Adam.
I, of course, have no problem attributing death, disease, and suffering to God ... since He does it Himself. But, hey, that's just me.
Exactly, Old-Earth and Young-Earth extremism is unwise.
Blessings.
Jim,
You say that it would take more than 6000 years for fossilization to happen. That is based on the belief that an animal dies and is slowly (very very slowly) buried under layers and layers of sediment. But think about that. If a dead animal is left to the elements long enough for natural burial, it would decompose long before it was even half buried. This is where catastrophism comes in. A sudden and rapid burial is required for fossils, not long buildups of sedimentation. For something to get buried under water, it must first sink to the bottom. But what to dead bodies do in water? They float, where micro-organisms and other carrion eaters feed on the remains. Again, no fossil.
What I fault in the Scientific Creation crowd is not their extremism (extremism in the defense of [truth] is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of [truth] is no virtue! Goldwater, modified) but that they bow down to the god of this age.
We know that creation is true because God says it is. We know the earth was recently created because we have the relevant genealogies. We know it was in six days, we know what order it was, we know that animals reproduce 'after their kind' all because that is what God, in His inerrant Word, tells us.
(See my post:http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2006/08/philosophical-creationism.html)
Post a Comment