Does it really matter?
Thanks for the Creation feedback. Does it really matter whether it was 6 days or otherwise as long as we recognize it was God who created then it doesn't matter how?
Well I actually think it does. If I have been duped about a 6 day creation then what else isn't true?
1 The O.T assumes the history of this account.
2. Jesus accepted the reliability of this history.
3. Paul's whole understanding of salvation is based on the historicity of a literal Adam and the Fall.
4. The creation is mentioned 165 times in the N.T.
It is truth anchored to events which actually happened. I just think that many Christians have been conned into accepting something which is unproven and they haven't understood the implications for their faith.
posted by Paul Reid at 12:25 PM
4 Comments:
Paul, I dont think the authority of scripture is shaken by the creation debate.
I am not an evolutionist. I belive in a creation but I am unsure if God created the world in six days or did he do it some other way.
I used to adhere to a literal six-day creation account but after reading the bible numerous times with this issue in mind this is what I found.
1. Gen 1 speaks of a literal six day creation account and the creator is specifically identified as Elohim (God)
2. Gen 2:2 onwards the creator is specifically identified as Yahweh (LORD) and the creation account there does not follow the same sequence of events. So what was created first plants or animals?
3. THere were no eye witnesses.
and by the way creation accounts are not just found in the bible. Almost all neareastern ancient religious texts have their own creation accounts with their gods creating the world.
I believe when moses was inspired to compile the Old testament, He took what were known ideas and put them together. Perhaps the ancients werent like us 'evangelicals' and were ok to have more than one point of view regarding creation, fall, etc.
So as a Xian which creation account in the Bible should I believe? Gen 1 account of six day creation? or Gen 2 account of non-time-specific creation account?
Thats why I think the authority of scripture is not based on any one or more views on creation.
9:47 AM
Interesting post Paul.
I can't help but wonder whether the creation stories were meant as literalistic accounts of what happened, or if they were stories with meanings.
In our culture, we tend to value things that are objectively true or false, but I have a more loose interpretation of truth - to tell the truth, I'm more interested in meaning, nuance and interpretation and how that impacts on people and communities than in facts and figures.
I'd rather value the narrative and consider its meanings to different people groups and times, than try to make something into fact which was never meant to be fact in the first place. My personal opinion is that it devalues the Genesis stories to insist they are true in a literal sense. Valuing them to me, means embracing the story, its potential meanings, its metaphors, its messages.
Would your faith really unravel if 6 day creation didn't happen? I wonder if we have rather different approaches to faith - to be, the realisation that I am wrong, while at times can be uncomfortable, can be inspiring and creative, pushing me to further learning and exploration.
The Popperian approach to science asks scientists to falsify (not prove) their hypotheses - learning that we are wrong is part of our journey to discover truth. In science, finding our hypotheses to be false, means a new approach, a new development...it means progress.
I find the same to be true in my own faith/spirituality. Beliefs I once held strongly, no longer seem so important and some now appear to me to be downright wrong...but for me, this is a journey, a process of discovery, rather than an arrival at some absolute truth.
I am enjoying the discussion on your blog and its great to find out what other people are thinking.
CA
8:44 PM
Well I actually think it does.
I think there is a joy in the discovery of ‘how God created?’ Indeed much of Science is devoted to that actual concept. So, it matters a great deal how God created the Universe and all that is in it. We are mixing three vast areas in these questions, the areas of the creation of the Universe, the creation of the Earth, and the creation of Man. Each one is fascinating in and off itself.
If I have been duped about a 6 day creation then what else isn't true?
Paul, I assume you mean 6 periods, with each period lasting 24 earth hours? I am pretty sure Genesis doesn’t say that? This seems to be the same sort of assumption that equates the fruit in the Garden of Eden with an ‘apple, and the ‘three’ wise men bringing gifts to a baby Jesus.
Genesis 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
So what period of time was the first day? Day & night didn’t commence until day four, so was the earth rotating days one to three? The ‘greater light by day’ – the Sun, didn’t come to day four. So are our assumptions that each period represents 24 hours the issue, rather than being ‘duped’ in some way?
Good link arguing a (maybe) 6 x 24 hr period is below, covering the argument well.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_df_r01
1 The O.T. assumes the history of this account.
I believe that much of the revelation in the O.T. reflects the understanding of the men and women to whom God revealed His truth. I had the privilege of meeting Neil Armstrong, and when he talked about standing on the moon and watching the earth rotate in the ‘sky’ just hanging there like a blue ball in space, it reminded me of Job 26:6-8 (NIV) ‘he suspends the earth over nothing’. If Neil Armstrong had written Job 26:6-8 I’m sure he would have explained it in modern terms, expressing the wonder of gravity, Keplers laws and rotational mechanics. Does modern language and understanding make the wonder any less, God any less amazing, and our worship in any way diminished. Indeed I would argue that an increased understanding heightens our sense of worship with a God who put these wonders in place.
Indeed the origin of the theory of Intelligent Design comes from our understanding of the intricacies of the universe. The theory goes that certain universal constants, e.g. the speed of light, the value of Planks constant, etc. are so finely tuned to support life on earth that the chances of these constants being such, seems to point to a designer. If any constant varies by less than a very, very small percent then life on earth would not have developed. The argument goes that therefore, because there is life, there was someone who made the Universe in such a way as life could ‘have a home’? However, these constants speak to the ‘Big Bang’ theory, the formation of Suns, Black Holes and Planets etc. etc. The wonder of the universe heightens our sense of worship with a God who made it.
2. Jesus accepted the reliability of this history.
This is an interesting supposition. Jesus was completely and utterly Man, and completely and utterly God. His nature is, and remains cloaked in mystery. It’s one of the things I love about Him, that no-one would have made this stuff up – He is beyond our understanding. So was Jesus knowledge that of a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi, or that of Creator God, Lord of Heaven and Earth, for whom all things were made, and in whom all things have their being?
3. Paul's whole understanding of salvation is based on the historicity of a literal Adam and the Fall.
Evolution – too big to enter into at this point.
4. The creation is mentioned 165 times in the N.T.
How it all started is a scientific mystery. For a Big Bang – where did the energy come from, and where did the matter come from? This is a serious area for understanding. The concept that the Universe cycles through Big Bang and Big Gnab is now being disputed through the recent understanding of an accelerating matter – Dark Energy. Also, if Space–Time is partially a function of Gravity (which it is), then what is the Universe expanding into?
It is truth anchored to events which actually happened. I just think that many Christians have been conned into accepting something which is unproven and they haven't understood the implications for their faith.
It seems that the argument for atheism has been reversed here. Let me re-arrange the statement above. “I just think that many Christians non-believers have been conned into accepting something which is unproven and they haven't understood the implications of this faith’, that is those coming from Non-Christian to Christian. Christianity has never been ‘proven’. Indeed, I love the way that the greatest opportunity to show the world the resurrection happened without any witnesses. Mary saw the risen Jesus later – but there were no witnesses to the actual event. Hundreds saw the risen Jesus, but it seems He did not appear to his enemies. I believe God deliberately chose to conceal the actual resurrection.
I believe that the fear of many Christians of scientific discovery goes something like this…
Because the ‘Big Bang’ is accepted scientific theory, this means that there wasn’t a biblical type creation, therefore the bible is wrong, there is no God, and our faith is in vain . . .
Or
Because ‘Evolution’ is accepted scientific theory, this means that there wasn’t a biblical type ‘Adam & Eve’, therefore the bible is wrong, there is no God, and our faith is in vain . . .
Arguments for a six day creation, while a great deal of fun, should not stop us engaging with the science to point out the wonders of our Universe to those seeking our creator God. Romans 1v20 “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In fact from the lowest neutrino, to the setting Sun, to Black Holes, to the Expanding Universe – all speak with the greatest conviction towards a God who orders, and creates, and is wonderful.
Fear not. Like Einstein said, scientific discovery is thinking Gods thoughts after Him.
8:17 PM
DSE (and Paul and anyone else reading), you might be interested in these guys:
http://www.cis.org.uk/index.shtml
I went to one of their conferences a few years ago - excellent stuff. Good to see scientists with integrity in their science and in their faith.
CA
9:21 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home