All right, so this is day two of our Doctrine of Creation course.
We are going to start today by talking about, well, the plan for today is to talk about the days of creation, different views of the days of creation, what do we make of this amazing text that we found.
But before we get into that, I'd like to start by talking a little bit about speech, communication generally.
If we think about in academic jargon, in speech act theory, they divide communication into three parts.
You have locution, illocution, and perlocution.
Okay?
Locution is the form of the communication.
The grammar, the syntax, the context, that kind of thing.
The illocution refers to the meaning that is meant to be conveyed by the communication.
And the perlocution refers to what the audience actually receives from the communication.
So before we get, actually, before we get started, do you have the time?
No.
No? You don't have the time?
No.
Does anybody have the time?
It's 9.
9.
10.
So when I ask, do you have the time, most of us are looking for our watch.
Right?
We're looking for, well, nowadays, we're looking for our phone to try to figure out what the
time is.
Because when I ask, do you have the time, most people are not going to answer yes or no.
No, you did actually answer no.
That's technically the correct answer.
Right?
If you take the actual form of the sentence and say, the correct answer to, do you have
the time, is either what?
Yes or no.
Right?
If you take the literal meaning.
But when I ask, do you have the time, you understand that what I'm asking really is, can
you give me, can you tell me what time it is?
Right?
Does that make sense?
So in this sense, the locution of the sentence is, do you have the time?
Right?
Or do you know the time?
The illocution is, can you tell me what time it is?
Right?
And the perlocution is hopefully, oh, I will get the time for you.
Right?
Responding to the meaning of what is meant to be conveyed.
And then this can change, using the exact same phrase, I can change the illocution.
Right?
Like, do you know what time it is?
Oh, do you know what time it is?
You know, oh, check your watch.
And like, do you know what time it is?
Right?
Again, the correct answer from your kids is not, oh, no.
No, I don't know what time.
You know?
No, the correct answer is, I'm sorry.
I'm up too late.
I need to go to bed.
Right?
Or, do you know what time it is?
And it's, you're like, yes, it's time for football.
Right?
And so, what's important about the speech act theory here is that the illocution, the meaning
that is meant to be conveyed, is in part based on the locution, the form of the sentence,
but also surrounding context.
Right?
Other elements of embedded meaning that we pick up when we're doing communication.
So, why am I talking about this?
This is actually really important because of biblical inerrancy.
Right?
We as Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God.
And it's therefore inerrant, meaning it's without error.
All the truth claims it affirms are true.
That's what the doctrine means.
Right?
And so, when we apply our principles of communication that I just talked about, that means that the
illocution, the meaning that is meant to be conveyed by the text, is always true.
Okay?
And so, when we, the goal then of our hermeneutics and exegesis then is to take our perlocution,
the way that we're receiving the text, the way we understand it, and aligning it with the
illocution, the way, the meaning that's meant to be conveyed by the text.
But, as anybody who's spent any time in the church knows, there's about 10 perlocutions,
per locution, that is out there.
Okay?
For every text, there seems to be a good number of ways that the audience has received it.
And so, this is definitely true.
So, what, what, I guess my question is, why?
Right?
Why?
I mean, if the, if the locution is there, we're all reading the same text, you know, maybe
in different translations, right?
But, we're all reading the same locution.
Why do we get different perlocutions?
Yeah?
Perspective.
Yeah.
Maybe there's, yeah, maybe there's different perspectives.
Maybe there's different philosophical presuppositions that we're bringing to the text that help
explain why one person gets one perlocution and another person gets another.
Okay?
Ultimately, we're all trying to do the same thing, which is get the correct meaning from
the text.
So, I submit to you that when it comes to reading Genesis 1, especially the days of creation,
the biggest philosophical underpinning background that we're bringing to the text that is going
to color the way we understand it is what I call one of the major tensions in biblical interpretation.
And, that major tension is how do we balance general and special revelation?
So, generally, when we talk about revelation, meaning God's self-expression, we, a lot, historically,
we've broken that up into two major groups.
Okay?
Sometimes, it's described as two books.
We have the book of nature, also called general revelation.
It's called general revelation because the general public has access to it.
Everybody, in principle, has access to the book of nature, that revelation of God.
And, it's properly understood as revelation of God, right?
Because God creating ex nihilo could have created in multiple different ways.
Right?
And, so, the creation that we have is actually a self-revelation of God.
He has created it this way for a reason or has actually communicated himself in the creation.
So, that's general revelation.
The other one, not the book of nature, but the book of scripture.
The book of scripture.
We know this one.
Special revelation.
It's called special revelation because it has a smaller scope.
Not everyone in the whole history of the world has received special revelation.
We know from redemption history there was a small, you know, relatively small group of people
who were directly communicated to by God.
And, this is what we treasure as the Bible.
So, when it comes to understanding nature, understanding the world, how do we balance general revelation,
that communication of God that we get from nature, and special revelation?
Now, it might be easy just to say, well, look, special revelation, God's active speech in the Bible,
boom, clear.
We just rely on that only.
However, if we pay attention closely to what scripture says,
scripture says for us to go out and see God in nature.
That God has revealed himself in nature.
And so, if we take special revelation seriously, we also have to take general revelation seriously.
That's the rub.
So, now we're all sort of in this position of trying to balance what we learn from nature
and what we learn from scripture, especially as it involves understanding the natural world.
So, I've sort of put together a rough spectrum of what I believe are sort of different buckets
that we can put different people who have weighed general and special revelation differently.
Okay?
This first bucket, I'll, I call, and then, okay, so for the record, I'm going to use a lot of names here.
I'm going to be naming a lot of things.
Wherever possible, I have used names that the people who support that view use.
Okay?
I'm not trying to label people.
Some of these names, you might think, sound derogatory.
But, for the people who use the term for themselves, they do not mean it derogatorily, right?
So, just as reference, try to, try to, like, let's try to remove all of our preconceived notions of this language
just so we can come to understand this topic.
Again, not trying to, to color anybody's, anybody's reading.
Okay?
Except for the first one here.
I call them, the first one and the last one.
You'll see.
I'm equally harsh.
So, the first one I call science skeptics.
And the science skeptic is someone who takes special revelation here, and it's super weighty,
and general revelation is really not doing anything.
Okay?
And this view, basically, is saying they don't believe science or studying nature at all is capable of giving reliable information about the world.
Okay?
And so, they, they would say that special revelation is really the only way we can get any knowledge.
Now, this is actually, isn't a very common view.
Okay?
So, but there are people out there who, who would support this, say that we really can't trust anything we see other than what we read in Scripture.
And the reason I don't think this is, I'm going to say I don't think this is a tenable view for us to hold as Christians,
and for the reasons I said before.
It's kind of a, it could be a circular problem.
Because if you say, special revelation is my only authority, that's the only thing I trust, I can't trust anything I see with my eyes,
then you're going to have to deal with those passages of Scripture that tell you that you must look out on creation and learn things.
That we're expected to know things about God from creation.
Right?
I just think, I always think of Genesis 1.
I mean, Genesis 1, Romans 1.
Right?
God's eternal attributes, namely His divine power, is clearly seen through nature.
Right?
So we are expected to be able to learn things about God from nature, and special revelation says so.
So I don't think science skeptics, or this posture of being super flippant about anything in nature, is something that really we can hold.
But this is a view, I want to highlight, this is a view, this is a way of balancing it.
Basically not balancing it all.
General revelation is not even on the scale.
Another view we can look at I call concordists, or they call themselves concordists.
Concordists take special revelation and general revelation, and they weigh it sort of like this.
Where special revelation is the driver's seat, but general revelation is bringing something to the table in terms of what we can learn about the world.
Okay?
Basically, if you imagine, the Bible sets the table.
The Bible is saying, this is what we see in nature.
And then the concordists would then look at the world and say, I need to take this information I'm getting from the world and fit it in to this table that's set by Scripture.
So they would emphasize special revelation, but they also have a high view of general revelation.
And in general, these Christians that believe that the Bible is intending to communicate scientific information at some level,
and therefore it's our job to fit what we learn from nature into this biblical framework.
Okay.
Concordists.
Boom.
Right smack dab in the middle, we have what I call the harmonists.
Again, not all of these terms are my terms.
But a harmonist, and a harmonist would say they believe that science and Scripture interpretation done correctly will produce a coherent worldview.
Saying stuff like, all truth is God's truth.
Right?
Anything we learn correctly from nature and anything we learn correctly from Scripture are going to harmonize.
Right?
This is why we call them harmonists.
So they, in this view, they don't really privilege special or general revelation when it comes to looking out at nature.
Now, I want to be clear, every Orthodox Christian believes that special revelation is the highest authority.
But we're talking specifically about how we understand the natural world.
Right?
And in understanding the natural world, a harmonist would say, we take the observational data that we have, and we take the scriptural data that we have, and we take them on their own terms.
And then, if there's any apparent conflict there, we try to smooth those over.
Either by re-appropriate, re-understanding our interpretation of science, or re-interpreting Scripture, whichever one is more appropriate given the apparent conflict.
That's the harmonists.
Next, as you might imagine, the scale tips this way.
We call these accommodationists.
Accommodationists say that Scripture interpretation done correctly will fit into the scientific consensus in detail.
So this is sort of the flip side of the concordance, where accommodationists would say, scientific knowledge is really setting the table.
It's really setting the parameters.
And when we correctly understand Scripture, it should fit in to what we see in the scientific data.
Okay?
They'll often de-emphasize the scientific information expressed in Scripture, and focus more on sort of the spiritual and moral import of the Bible.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
And then now we're going to do the last group, which is general revelation way down here, super way down, and special revelations up there, not really doing much of anything.
I call these biblical skeptics.
They don't believe that Scripture is capable of providing reliable information about the world at all.
Basically, the Bible is only there to convey moral truths, and shouldn't really be relied on to convey anything what we would call scientific information at all.
Okay?
That general revelation, science, observation, whatever, those are really the only reliable ways to get information.
That's about the natural world.
Okay?
And equally, I don't think this is something that we can hold as Orthodox Christians.
Okay?
I don't really think the Bible will accept this parameter of saying, yes, I'm only here to give you moral truths.
It sounds a lot like I'm giving you history sometimes.
It sounds a lot like I'm trying to tell you something that actually happened.
But, you know, don't worry about that.
Like, no, no, no.
I don't think Scripture is going to, and I think we should accept Scripture being demoted into that level.
Okay?
I think we should allow Scripture to speak on the areas that it speaks on.
Right?
And so, equally, I think a biblical skeptic, a scientific skeptic, these two poles are things we want to avoid.
So we're all, I think most of us as Orthodox Christians find ourselves somewhere in between.
Somewhere in between.
And you can take any of these different categories that I've made, and you can find a spectrum within the spectrum.
And so it all gets very complicated.
But you can imagine, as a accommodationist or a concordist come to the text of Genesis 1,
they may be expecting to see different things.
They may be asking different questions of the text, and therefore getting different answers.
Does that make sense?
So I think this is the philosophical background that all of us are bringing to our reading of Genesis.
And I think this is mostly the biggest driver of the different perlocutions that we bring to the same text.
Okay?
All right.
With that being said, why don't we actually go to the text?
Anybody have their Bible open?
We're just going to read all of Genesis 1 to 2-3.
Who feels confident enough to read a large portion of Scripture?
Richard, you want to go?
Go for it.
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.
And God said, let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.
And it was so.
God called the vault sky.
And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day.
And God said, let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.
And it was so.
God called the dry ground land, and the gathered waters he called seas.
And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, let the land produce vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees,
on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.
And it was so.
The land produced vegetation, plants bearing seed according to their kinds,
and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night,
and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times and days and years,
and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.
And it was so.
And God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day,
and the lesser light to govern the night.
He also made the stars.
God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on earth,
to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day.
And God said, let the water team with living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.
So God created the great creatures of the sea,
and every living thing with which the water teems,
and that moves about in it according to their kinds.
And every winged bird according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good.
God blessed them and said,
be fruitful and increase in number,
and fill the water in the seas,
and let the birds increase on the earth.
And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day.
And God said,
let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds,
the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
and the wild animals,
each according to its kind.
And it was so.
God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.
Then God said,
let us make mankind in our image,
in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea,
and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock,
and all the wild animals,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
So God created mankind in his own image.
In the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them,
be fruitful and increase in number.
Fill the earth and subdue it.
Rule over the fish in the sea,
and the birds in the sky,
and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
Then God said,
I give you every seed-bearing plant
on the face of the whole earth,
and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food.
And to all the beasts of the earth,
and all the birds in the sky,
and all the creatures that move along the ground,
everything that has the breath of life in it,
I give every green plant for food.
And it was so.
God saw all that he had made,
and it was very good.
And there was evening,
and there was morning,
the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed
in all their vast array.
By the seventh day,
God had finished the work he had been doing.
So on the seventh day,
he rested from all his work.
Then God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy.
Because on it,
he rested from all the work of creating
that he had done.
All right.
Wow.
There's something special about reading Scripture
when it's snowing outside.
I don't know.
Isn't that just beautiful?
It never gets old.
But let's step back.
Let's zoom out a little bit
and get kind of a bird's eye view
of this whole creation account that we have.
As you can see,
there's sort of a pattern,
a lot of Christians over time
have seen sort of a pattern
in the creation days.
You have two sets of three.
You have a set of forming,
forming spaces,
and then you have a set of filling,
the filling of those spaces.
So you can imagine,
day one,
we have the creation of light and dark,
and in day four,
we have the creation of the luminaries.
Those things that are going to be shining
in the light and the dark.
We're creating,
we're shining, basically,
with the light and the dark.
Day two,
we have the separation of the water from the sky.
Day five,
we have the creation of sea creatures
and flying creatures.
Right?
Day three,
we have the creation of the land,
and then a special creation event
of vegetation on the land.
Day six,
we have the creation of the land animals,
and a special creation event
of human beings.
Each one of these six days
ends with the same phrase,
and there was evening,
and there was morning,
X day.
Technically,
there is no definite article.
Right?
So we say the first day,
but it's technically like first day.
Day one.
Day two.
A lot of,
a lot,
some people make a big deal out of that.
I'm,
take it for what you will.
But,
day seven
does not have that phrase.
Day seven is a special day.
Day seven is where God rests
from all his creation.
It has no parallel
in the forming
or in the filling.
It's its own thing.
It's the capstone,
and there is no evening,
and there is no morning.
Everything is very good.
Good,
good,
very good.
Very good.
That's the,
that's the data.
So,
there it is.
That's the low,
that's the locution,
everybody.
We all have the same thing.
We're all working off
of the same thing,
and we are,
hopefully,
we're all working
and striving together
to get at
the correct illocution.
What are we supposed to be receiving
in this text?
Okay?
But,
there are quite a few
different per locutions,
and you can imagine
if we take our philosophical
predispositions in mind,
those different ways
of weighing general
and special revelation,
you can imagine
we come to this text
with different questions.
So,
if we imagine
we have a very heavy
view of special revelation
in terms of what it's supposed
to explain about nature,
we might be asking questions
of like,
how did God create?
In what manner?
What was the mechanism
by which God created things?
And,
expecting to receive
that information in the text.
Whereas,
maybe if you go
the other direction,
weighing general revelation
more,
and special revelation
at a different level,
you might be saying,
okay,
what is it that the Bible
is trying to convey
in its own context
to us?
Were the original audience
asking those kinds
of questions?
Were they asking questions
of like,
how exactly
did God create?
So,
what are the different views?
Well,
luckily for us,
there's only like 17.
17.
No,
I'm joking.
There's not 17.
By my count,
there is
only 12.
So,
we're going to go
through these.
You know,
I have taught this class
before,
a few years back,
and I had,
basically I had an overview
of all the modern views
of Genesis 1.
and I spread them out
and I was very,
still,
I'm going to present
those today too.
So,
I haven't given up
on those.
But I've been really
interested in church history
and I've been wanting to,
so I wanted to go through
the ones I had made before
and I wanted to slot in
different examples
of church fathers
who held the different views.
And,
as it turns out,
I failed
spectacularly
because,
as is often the case,
the patristic views
are very different
than the ones we have today.
They're harder
to categorize
in the way,
in the common
understandings we have
in today.
So,
I decided to make
a whole new section
starting just with
what I call
the patristic views
of early Genesis.
And they generally
fall into three
different categories.
The first one
is
the world weak
hypothesis.
World weak.
So,
what this view
holds is that
the creation account
is actually
a prophecy,
a forward-looking
prophecy
of six
eras
of human history.
Six,
each one of the days
is a thousand years.
The understanding here
is that
with the Lord,
a thousand years
is like a day
and a day
is like a thousand years.
And the patristics
are like,
well,
good.
It says here,
day,
therefore a thousand years.
Right?
Equals.
And so,
they said,
oh,
there's six thousand years
of human history
being prophesied
in this early
interpretation.
With the seventh day
representing the
eschatological
millennium
of Jesus.
Of Jesus'
reign on earth
as we see in Revelation.
The millennium,
the millennial reign.
And then some fathers
actually talking about
the future eighth day,
which is the
recreation of the
heavens and the earth.
Right?
As far as I know,
there is
no one today
who holds this view.
Okay?
But this was actually
a really,
really common
popular view
in the early church.
People like,
yeah.
Richard?
This view is
a lot more popular
than you might suspect.
Even today.
All right.
I'm willing to be wrong
about this.
You can easily go to
YouTube or the internet
in general
and you can find
this view
espoused by
living,
breathing human beings.
Wow.
Well,
there you go.
I mean,
look,
I was actually going
to point out
that as often
as strange
as this view sounds,
this has actually
had a long shelf life.
church fathers
like Irenaeus,
Hippolytus,
Cyprian,
John of Damascus,
and Bede
all held
some version
of this view.
And through people
like John of Damascus
and Bede,
this continued on
through the Middle Ages
where even people
like Anselm
and Thomas of Aquinas,
they would
reference people
holding this view.
Okay?
So,
one patristic view
is the world
weak hypothesis.
Another view,
which is a little bit
more
maybe familiar
to some of us,
is what I will call
Alexandrian allegory.
Alexandrian allegory
is the view
of a lot of
church fathers
in North Africa
who believed that
based on what they
understood about
the natural world
and based on
interesting facts,
interesting facets
of the Genesis
narrative itself,
believed that
actually
God created
instantaneously.
Everything.
All at once.
Boom.
Okay?
There was no time,
there was no sequence
in reality
in the actual
act of creation
and that the
creation narrative
we get here
is either an allegory
talking about
moral and spiritual
truths
or the different
natures of the
created world
or it's
an accommodation
to human
understanding
being where
it's really hard
for us to understand
God creating
everything in an instant.
So,
for instance,
church fathers
like Clement
and Origen
and Athanasius
all held
something like
this instantaneous
creation
with an allegorical
understanding of
Genesis 1.
Famously,
Augustine
held this view
to a certain extent
and he believed
that actually
the days of creation
were not days of
God creating
the physical world
were actually
were days
were moments
by which
the angelic
host
were being
exposed
to
what was
about to
happen
in creation.
Right?
Have anybody
ever read
the Silmarillion?
Anybody ever
read the Silmarillion?
Well,
okay,
two people.
So,
it's hard to get
through,
but if you
started the Silmarillion
you probably
read this part
because it's
literally the
first two pages.
in the Silmarillion
you have
this is the
deep cut
of J.R.
Tolkien
his creation
myth
of his
Middle Earth.
And Iluvatar
is singing
this is the
God
this is the
one God
of the
Middle Earth
he's singing
a song
and his
different
angelic hosts
are harmonizing
with him
and Melkor
the devil
character
he's doing
disharmony
and Iluvatar
keeps on
bringing his
disharmony
back into
harmony
and Melkor
is like
ah man
you know
and then
boom
it's done
and what
Iluvatar
does
is he
shows
the angels
like
what you
just
sang
is the
story
of this
world
is the
story
of this
world
and he's
showing
them
human
history
or
the
history
of
Middle
Earth
right
and I
think
this is
Tolkien
hearkening
back to
this view
of Augustine
that in
creation
God
is
sorry
I should
say
then Iluvatar
just goes
boom
there it is
the world
is created
right
and then
those
angelic hosts
can enter
the creation
it gets
very confusing
after that
but I
think this
is hearkening
back to
that
where
God
is
presaging
what is
about to
occur
to the
angelic
host
and then
the actual
act of
creation
is
instantaneous
so that's
Alexandrian
allegory
we have
another view
called
Cappadocian
literalism
this is
closer to
what we
are familiar
with today
these
fathers
centered around
Antioch
took a more
straightforward
reading of
the text
they said
that
basically
it is
what it
is
these
are
24
hour
days
right
however
this is
different
than
modern
views
of
24
hour
day
because
they
believed
that
this
creation
as we
receive
it
now
is
the
creation
that
God
made
in
those
24
hour
days
so
including
predation
including
animal
death
all of
these
things
are
facets
of
God's
good
creation
which
distinguishes
it
from
modern
creation
views
of
24
hour
days
and
they
also
engage
in a lot
of
allegory
in those
first
chapters
too
so
they
wouldn't
have
taken
everything
as straight
journalistic
history
but it
was closer
to
some of
the more
common
views
today
so
those
are
the
patristic
views
now
actually
as
time
went
on
in the
west
there
was
an
attempt
to
merge
these
two
views
together
you had
the idea
of
instantaneous
creation
followed
by
a
sequence
of
forming
that
kind
of
emerged
and if
you
think
about
it
we
all
sort
of
hold
something
like
this
view
today
right
we
all
believe
that
at
some
point
God
created
everything
and
we
all
believe
in
some
sort
of
sequence
of
forming
of
the
natural
world
whether
we
believe
that
the
sequence
of
forming
is
24
hour
literal
days
solar
days
of
the
forming
and
special
creation
of
every
single
thing
or
we
believe
in
some
sort
of
development
we
all
sort
of
in
the
west
believe
in
this
kind
of
sequence
instantaneous
sequence
!
proponents
of
this
Cappadocian
view
would be
Basil
of
Caesarea
famously
he has
this book
called
the
Hexamarin
which is
an interpretation
of the
six days
of creation
Gregory
of Nyssa
and Gregory
of
Nazianzus
okay
that's
the
patristic
views
let's
jump
into
the
modern
views
we
have
young
earth
creationism
I'm
sure
a lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
this
is
basically
taking
Genesis
as
a
face
value
literal
journalistic
history
of
what's
going
on
and
it's
meant
to
be
understood
as
24
hour
solar
days
that
creation
is
occurring
I'm
sure
a lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
this
view
they
also
believe
a
facet
of
young
creationism
is
they
believe
that
science
done
correctly
will
reveal
that
the
earth
and
the
universe
are
actually
6,000
to
10,000
years
old
right
and
they
get
that
number
6,000
to
10,000
by
taking
the
Genesis
narrative
right
Adam
was born
in the
sixth
day
and
then
we
have
a
genealogy
of
Adam
later
in
Genesis
a
genealogy
of
Adam's
descendants
how long
they lived
etc
and
actually
a man
named
Usher
I'm forgetting
his first
name
James
Usher
that's
right
he
was the
first
one
in
church
history
to
really
line
all of
these
genealogies
up
I think
this was
in the
16th
century
line
all
these
genealogies
up
and
count
out
the
time
and
he
got
to
a
number
like
6,000
to
10,000
depending
on
how you
interpret
the
genealogies
so that's
young earth
creationism
there's another
little basket
of views
that I like
to call
ancient
science
interpretations
okay
what hold
these views
together
is that
they all
share a
common belief
that the
Genesis
account
is intending
to convey
not just
what God
did
but how
he created
and that
understanding
it correctly
these
understanding
the Genesis
narrative
correctly
it will
fit
with
modern
science
okay
so one
of these
views
is
the
appearance
of age
view
where it's
basically
the same
as young
earth
creationism
except
they don't
believe
that science
done correctly
will show
that the
earth is
young
they believe
that the
earth was
created in
24 hour
solar days
but it was
created mature
much like
we believe
Adam was
created fully
formed
the earth
and the
universe
were created
fully formed
so it has
the appearance
of age
but not
actually
a long
period of
time
so they
would believe
if you go
out
scientifically
and look
at rocks
they're going
to look
really old
but in fact
they actually
are not
that old
okay
so that
is closer
to young
earth
creationism
where they're
saying we
can explain
the appearance
of age
here based
on this
understanding
of science
but they
would say
now with
that in
mind you
can actually
see that
it's really
young
yeah
age
yeah
so the
appearance
of age
and young
earth
creationism
kind of
there's a
little bit
of melding
in between
there
where they
can go
back and
forth
another one
of these
ancient
science
interpretations
is the
gap theory
so this
believes
that the
days of
creation
are 24
hours
solar days
but
between
Genesis 1
1 and 2
and Genesis
1 3
we have
a long
we have
eons of
history
that occur
right
God created
the universe
and then
actually was
the fall
of Satan
and the
angels
that brought
the earth
into formlessness
and voidness
thereby God
recreating the
world in
six 24
hour solar
days in the
way that we
experience it
now and so
any earlier
age of
you know
any dinosaurs
or anything
like that
that we
find is
evidence of
this earlier
eons of
history
or even
age of the
universe
of the
earth
this is all
contained in
that gap
so this was
actually a pretty
popular view
in the early
20th century
it's kind of
gone out of
favor because
a lot of
there's a lot
of grammatical
arguments against
it
that there
really isn't
a gap
understood
in the
text
but that
was a very
common view
and there
are people
who still
defend it
today
and then
the last
of our
ancient science
interpretations
is the
day age
theory
so
the
Genesis
account is
describing how
God created
but they
understand the
word day
not to mean
24 hour
solar day
but to mean
day in the
more generic
term like
in the day
of the Lord
right
in the day
of the Lord
is not 24 hour
period right
it's just this
period of time
and they would
say okay
we can understand
the word day
to mean a period
of time
and so each
one of the
creation days
is a long
age
but
the account
of what goes
on in that
age is basically
how it's described
so that is
sort of a
very common
view of
old earth
creationism
okay
alright
those are the
ancient science
interpretations
those ones are
trying to take
the biblical text
on how
the
take the
biblical text
and learn how
creation happened
and there's
different ways of
fitting that with
modern science
we now have
creation poem
interpretations
these
say
that what
brings these
together is that
there are
they would believe
that there are
figures of speech
literary conventions
in the text
and that
the text is not
trying to explain
to us how
God created
as much as
what God did
when he created
and why
okay
so views like
this
views
under this category
would be
stuff like
the analogical
day theory
this view says
that the Bible
is actually using
analogical language
to describe God's
creative activity
as if he was a
craftsman in his
regular work week
right
the crowd
you know
God the craftsman
wakes up
day one he works
evening and morning
day two he works
evening and morning
and then day seven
is his sabbath rest
right
so just kind of like
the
the regular work week
of a person
so it's using an
analogy
so the days
in this situation
would be 24 hour
solar days
but they're
not meant to be
taken literally
they're meant to be
taken as an
analogy of
God's activity
the framework
view
is another one
of these
creation poem
interpretations
they see that
forming and
filling pattern
that we see in
Genesis 1
and then we say
oh
this framework
then
is indicating
to us
there's a
disc chronology
here
we're not
supposed to be
meant to be
taking these
days
sequence literally
and so
that gives
them a lot
of play
in how
God created
they're saying
this is telling
us what
but the
sequence isn't
meant to be
taken as a
history
it's meant to
be taken as
a poem
or a
literary convention
that's supposed
to be conveying
what God
did but
not exactly
how he did
it
finally
we have our
religion only
interpretations
these views
they're connected
by the belief
that the
Genesis narrative
is not meant
to be understood
what God's
creating
or
what God
did in
creation
or even
how
not how
not even
what
but just
who
created
and why
so you're
not really
meant to
take any
knowledge about
the natural
world from
this first
chapter
you're meant
to learn
about God
and so
they'll point
to
for instance
in the
proclamation
day view
they'll say
that this
is God's
proclamation
of his
creative
act
in the
throne
room
this is
him
describing
how
you know
a view
of creation
but in reality
it happened
in a completely
different way
right
sort of
God saying
this
sort of like
Augustine's view
in a way
this is what
is going to
happen
and then
creation happens
but not in
that way
okay
yeah
kind of like
a decree
another one
is the
kingdom
temple
view
where it
says
this isn't
describing
God's
creation
at all
it's
describing
God's
naming
of the
creation
and their
purposes
and functions
right
I'm
separating
light
from
darkness
light
is going
to be
called
light
darkness
to be
called
dark
the
luminaries
are going
to be
meant
for
signs
and
seasons
animals
this is
your
role
fish
this is
your
role
you see
how
that
we
understand
in the
ancient
naming
is understood
as an
act of
authority
and so
here
in this
view
God
is
inaugurating
his
kingdom
his
temple
of
creation
by
naming
everything
and putting
everything
where it
should
be
okay
and then
finally
we have
the
alternative
cosmology
view
this
view
says
the
Moses
is actually
borrowing
elements
from
contemporary
ancient
near eastern
creation
accounts
to show
the
differences
of the
God of
the
Bible
and
why
God
created
so
instead
of
thinking
about
the
what
and the
how
of
God
creating
we're
supposed
to be
looking at
how
God
has no
equal
God
is not
in conflict
with anybody
God
is
God
is creating
humans
with dignity
everything
is good
those kinds
of things
right
okay
that was a
lot
right
that was a
lot
lot of
different
perlocutions
with the
same
locution
right
so
what do
we do
here
what
do
we
make
of
this
you
can
imagine
if you
come
to
the
view
you
come
to
the
text
with
a
more
of a
concordist
way of
thinking
about
what
the
scripture
is
meant
to be
conveying
you
would
expect
to
take
maybe
more
one
of
these
a
young
earth
creationist
or
maybe
an
ancient
science
interpretation
where
we're
trying
to
glean
from
the
text
what
it
is
God
actually
did
in
creation
right
his
method
his
mechanism
as
opposed
to
maybe
if
you
take
an
accommodationist
view
maybe
the
kingdom
temple
view
or the
alternative
cosmology
view
would make
more sense
to you
because
you
wouldn't
really
be
looking
for
Genesis
1
to
be
giving
you
that
how
and
what
information
does that
make sense
yeah
the
problem
is that
if you
take
any
of
those
views
you
just
mentioned
and you
try to
make it
dogma
I believe
what
Herman
Bobbing
said
the
days
of
creation
were
God's
working
days
I
wasn't
there
I
can
imagine
all
kinds
of
scenarios
or
this
or
that
was
happening
but
I
wasn't
there
yeah
and
it's
really
not
salvific
knowledge
it's
just
telling
me
that
God
is
the
creator
and
I'm
this
creature
and
it's
not
really
salvific
I
shouldn't
make
it
dogma
I
actually
was
going
to
mention
Herman
Bobbing
because
I
really
no
it's
great
Herman
Bobbing
I
think
came
to
a
really
wise
conclusion
which
is
to
say
we
read
the
text
these
are
working
days
what
does
that
mean
different
Christians
are
going
to
disagree
we
can
all
agree
on
that
God
is
the
creator
that
God
created
for
these
reasons
sort
of
sort
of
the
common
denominator
of all
these
different
views
is
God
being
creator
creation
being
good
it
being
made
without
conflict
etc
right
but
there
is
I
think
room
for
humility
and
charity
here
okay
really
really smart
people
over the
whole
history
of
the
Christian
tradition
have
disagreed
on this
okay
Thomas Aquinas
held a
sort of
similar view
to Herman
Bavinck
B.B. Warfield
was a gap
theorist
okay
there were a
lot of
old earth
creationists
in the
fundamentals book
at the start
of the
fundamentalist
movement
there are a
lot of
wise
and
virtuous
young earth
creationists
out there
so I
think
we want
to come
to this
with
charity
so like
for instance
I
take
my
philosophical
disposition
is I
tend to be
kind of a
harmonist
okay
I
and of
course
I make
the spectrum
and of
course
my view
is in
the middle
of the
spectrum
of course
right
but
yeah
I tend
to come
at this
in a
way
where I
say
okay
I'm
going to
look at
the world
general revelation
on its
terms
and I'm
going to
look at
special revelation
God's word
on its
terms
and I
want to
understand
what is it
that God
meant me to
understand
in this
text
what was it
that the
original audience
was meant to
get from this
right
and where I
find
tension
I try to
work that
out
okay
and so for
me
what
view of
the days
of creation
is compelling
I find
the
analogical
day
theory
to be
pretty
compelling
describing
God's
creative
act
what
God
did
but in
ways
in the
sense
of an
analogy
just like
a workman
went out
and created
this is
God's
work week
okay
and it's
going to
be different
than our
work week
but we
can understand
that God
is the
one who
created
yeah
before the
luminaries
and then
he created
the sun
on day
four
after the
plants
yeah
so
this is
not
so if
you might
if you look
back into
the church
into church
history
you might
be wondering
why did
Augustine
and Athanasius
and Origen
take this
allegorical
view
of
instantaneous
creation
and it's
these exact
questions
there's
nothing new
under the
sun
the ancient
church
also looked
at it
and said
man
light
is before
the sun
that doesn't
make any
sense
but why
would God
turn on
the light
and then
turn off
the light
on and
off
for evening
and morning
when there
isn't a
sun
when we
understand
the morning
to be the
rising of
the sun
so you
see
they all
had the
exact same
questions
we have
and different
people are
going to be
able to
explain those
in different
ways
so I'm not
trying to say
there's only
one answer
but the
same issues
why does
day seven
not have
an evening
and a
morning
why is
day two
creation
event
starting
with there
was no
plant
in the
field
and human
beings
are being
created
but plants
were made
on day
three
and this
is day
six
so
for these
reasons
textual
reasons
different
people over
time have
taken different
views
but
ultimately
I'm not
here to
say
you should
take my
view
if you
want to
learn more
about my
view
you can
read
see
John
Collins
book
reading
Genesis
well
if you
want to
learn
about
day
age
you can
read
Hugh
Ross's
books
if you
want to
learn
about
the
patristic
views
you have
the early
Christian
readings
of
Genesis
1
there's
a lot
of great
books out
there
lost world
of
Genesis
1
by
John
Walton
that will
give you
the
kingdom
temple
view
and so
for
answers in
Genesis
if you
want to
learn about
young
creationism
there you
go
Meredith
Kline
there's a
lot of
great
research
out there
to learn
but I
hope we
can come
to this
with a
sense of
humility
understanding
that we're
in a
great
company
of people
who all
disagreed
with each
other
and are
just
trying to
do
justice
as they
see it
to the
creation
narrative
right
okay
yeah
any
questions
I'm
done
so
questions
question
time
justice
lay it
on me
I have a
couple
questions
I'm curious
when you
think about
kind of
the
epistemology
behind
what you
do in
science
and how
you
approach
scripture
looking at
the world
scientifically
we know
the scientific
model
has
certainty
attached to
it
right
yeah
when we
read
scripture
it seems
like there
is uncertainty
there too
I mean
you see
Jesus'
disciples
are uncertain
about a lot
of things
you know
Job
and other
prophets
but then
on the other
hand
you have
people like
Luke saying
you know
I'm
like you're
the theophilus
this is
so that
you can have
certainty
about the things
that you've
been taught
so I'm
wondering
how do you
think about
certainty
versus uncertainty
you look at
general revelation
through different
lens
than you
look at
scripture
or do you
find that
they're
more similar
than that
so I
tend to have
a very low
view
of
the
ability of
human beings
to gain
certainty
my
this has
been
driven to me
by being a
scientist
okay
we have this
popular view
of science
those are the
people who
know things
but for all
those of us
who are
scientifically
trained
we know
that basically
what we
learn is
how often
we're all
wrong about
everything
and how many
different ways
there is to
explain different
phenomenon
and so
a lot of
times we come
to things
with sort of
like you said
a particular
model in mind
sort of a
hypothetical model
hypothesis about
what is going
on and we
take the
information we get
and we test it
against it
and we try
to see if it
fits or doesn't
fit but a lot
of times it
doesn't fit
and it doesn't
mean we toss
out the model
sometimes it
doesn't fit
and we're just
like this is
strange
right
and I think
this is also
true of
scripture
I mean I
think when
it comes to
certainty
there are some
things that are
very clear and
certain in
scripture
right
the resurrection
of Jesus
like there's
no ambiguity
about that
right
the
historicity
of the
apostle Paul
like these
are things
that we're
not really
arguing about
but there
is in
prophecy
in a lot
of the ancient
narratives there
are things that
they just don't
give us all
the information
it's kind of
known that
the Hebraic
Bible gives
you sort of
just blow by
blow action
a lot of
times and
doesn't really
give you a lot
of detail
like what was
this person
thinking
am I meant
to understand
this as being
a good act
or a bad
act
right
is God
telling me
that this
is something
I should
model
or is this
something I
shouldn't
model
and a lot
of times
wisdom
is found
in we
as the
collective
church
and collective
interpreters
working through
these issues
together
with the aid
of history
and other
elements
biblical
understanding
biblical
languages
etc
we can work
on these
to gain
a better
grasp of
certainty
but I think
we need to
have an
open hand
on those
things
that
there is
widespread
disagreement
on
where we
all understand
this is
hard
we don't
really know
exactly how
to understand
this
and those
things
we need to
have a
closed fist
maybe that
sounds bad
but a
firm grasp
on those
things that
are clear
to everybody
those things
that are
nice in
orthodoxy
those things
that we can
describe in
creeds and
confessions
that are the
essentials of the
faith as
Raul would
say
that have
salvific
import
right
but for
these other
things I
think we
can take
a more
humility
humble
approach
alright that's
it guys
we gotta get
downstairs to
worship
I hope
that we
eventually get
the idea that
we can love
and worship
God from
these days
whatever they
mean
thanks guys
thanks so
much