All righty.
Well, it is that time again.
So why don't I open us up in prayer?
Father God, thank you for this day.
Thank you for allowing us this time to come together
and to think about you and learn about you, Lord.
I ask that this class would be edifying
and that it would glorify you
and that we would come away better able
to love each other in unity.
We love you, Lord, in Jesus' name. Amen.
Okay, so as I'm one to do,
let's start with preamble.
Okay, so the preamble today
is that I have tried my best
to find easy and accessible ways
to break these different views
of interpreting Genesis up.
And I'm trying to use language that makes sense
and I'm attempting to use language
that the adherents of this particular view use themselves.
So, but unfortunately, it's not usually that easy.
So I have had to make up some terms.
But I've tried my best to stay to real terms when possible.
And secondly, I will say that some of these terms
are often used pejoratively,
but that's not my intention in this class.
My intention is clarity.
So try to divest any of these terms
that may have connotations to you.
Just sort of ignore those.
That's not the point.
The point is to understand each other.
So let's get going.
So the first thing,
I'm going to do a little crash course
in the basics of hermeneutics.
And I'm going to use,
to start off with,
just some of the insights
that have come from studying communication
in a field called speech act theory.
So in speech act theory,
they try to understand communication
by dividing it into three different types,
three different parts.
So the three components of communication
are one, the locution,
two, the illocution,
and three, the perlocution.
Okay.
Lots of acutions there,
but really,
these are just ways,
fancy academic ways,
of saying the locution
is the form of the speech,
the grammar,
the syntax,
that kind of thing.
The illocution is the meaning
that you're trying to get across,
and the perlocution is actually
the understanding of the audience.
Okay.
So these are the three parts of speech.
But you know what?
Actually, before I get going too far,
do you have the time?
903.
Isn't that interesting?
I asked you guys,
do you have the time?
And nobody said yes or no.
Everybody is looking in their pockets
trying to find their watch, right?
Because they know
that I'm not actually asking you,
do you have the time?
Like, are you aware
of what the time is, right?
Because according to the locution,
the correct answer to that question is
yes or no, right?
You could not know what the time is.
So the correct answer is either yes or no.
But because of the context
and because of the way I'm speaking it,
we all know what I'm really asking.
I'm really asking,
can you tell me the time?
Right?
But nobody asks somebody,
well, I guess some people ask people,
do you know the time?
Right?
Or can you tell me the time?
And so this is just an illustration
of how sometimes the locution,
the form of the sentence,
doesn't equal the illocution,
what I'm trying to convey to you.
Right?
And it's not just in this situation.
I could change the tone of my voice
and use the exact same words
and have a totally different effect.
So I first ask,
do you have the time?
And you're looking for your watch
and you want to tell me what time it is.
If I'm talking to my daughter,
I say,
do you know the time?
Suddenly she's thinking,
oh my goodness,
I didn't know it's bedtime.
I need to be going to sleep now, right?
Or do you know what time it is?
Right?
Now it's like,
oh, what's going on?
Oh, it's the football game.
Let's go sit down
and watch the football game.
Right?
In none of these situations
is the meaning of my communication
the actual grammatical form
of the communication.
Okay?
And this is important.
Right?
Because of biblical inerrancy.
Right?
As Christians,
we affirm that the Bible
is the word of God
and is therefore inerrant,
meaning all of its truth
claims are affirmed
and it is without error
in any of these truth claims.
Right?
But,
not all interpretations
of the Bible
are inerrant.
Right?
And so our goal,
if we're looking for,
so using some of our new terms,
if we want to understand
what we're talking about inerrancy,
is that the illocution
of the Bible
is inerrant.
The meaning of the Bible
is always inerrant.
It's true in all of its forms.
However,
sometimes the Bible
is using idiom.
Sometimes it's using
poetic language.
Sometimes it's using
analogical language.
Sometimes it's using
scientific language.
Right?
And so it's our job
as the audience
to match our perlocution
with the illocution
of the Bible.
Right?
That's what we're trying
to do in interpretation.
Right?
That's our job
in hermeneutics.
However,
there are a lot
of different
philosophical
predispositions
and views
that determine
a lot of times
how we are
understanding the text.
How it's hitting us.
Okay?
And this is especially
relevant
to
our discussion
here today
about different
interpretations
of Genesis 1
and how that relates
to whether
intelligent design
or theistic evolution
is a possible view.
Right?
Because today
our goal
is to understand
the question
why are we even
talking about this?
Right?
Why are we even
having a discussion
about intelligent design
and theistic evolution?
Right?
Because
Genesis 1
is so clear.
But I'm going to
talk about today
how different Christians
understand Genesis 1
and how that either
does not allow room
for an evolutionary
mechanism
or allows room
for.
Right?
And we'll talk
more about that
later.
But let me first
talk about
sort of how
I'm going to be
framing our discussion
today.
Okay?
Last week
I talked about
how the scientific
method developed.
Right?
And part of that
was Christians
understanding that
God is a will.
God is a person
who has a will
and can do
anything he wants
in creation.
And so
because he's not
constrained
he has the ability
to do things
other than
you might think.
So we can't just
reason by first
principles
what must be
true of nature.
We have to
actually investigate
nature to understand
what it is that
God did.
So God is often
described as having
written two different
books.
We have one,
the book of nature,
which is called
general revelation.
and this is
what we can learn
about God
just from observing
nature by
introspection,
by reason,
by philosophy,
these kinds of
things.
Right?
This is the kind
of revelation
that's generally
applied to everyone
in the whole world
across time.
Right?
Everyone is in
connection to
the book of nature,
to general revelation.
He also wrote,
most famously,
the book of scripture.
scripture.
Right?
Special revelation.
This is what we can
learn about God
from his own
self-revelation
in his word.
Right?
And so,
we know
that we have
these two kinds
of books,
but there are
a variety
of different ways
to balance
the book of nature
and the book
of scripture.
What I'm going to
call general
and special revelation
for the rest
of the class,
just because
the book of
is kind of long.
So,
we're going to
talk about
general and special.
Special being
scripture,
general being
nature.
So,
we as Christians
hold scripture
to be our
highest authority.
Right?
Scripture is
breathed out
from God.
It is self-revelation.
It is the clearest
form of communication
between us
and God.
But that being said,
scripture itself
points to the
trustworthiness
of the book
of nature,
especially when
it comes to
the world.
Right?
It says in Romans
that God's attributes
are clearly seen
in his works
in nature.
Right?
And that the heavens
declare the glory
of God
in the Psalms.
So,
we are expected
as individuals,
in fact,
in Romans,
we are held
responsible
for the truths
that we can gain
about God
from nature.
Right?
So,
scripture itself,
which is our
highest authority,
has a high view
of what we can
understand from
the book of nature.
Right?
So,
how do we balance
them?
Right?
Because what if
what we learn
in the book of nature
from our understanding
conflicts from
what we learn
in the book of
scripture?
Right?
So,
that is
the first
tension
in creationism.
Okay?
So,
I'm going to go
through
six different
views,
which I am
going to describe
in a spectrum.
Six different
views,
philosophical
views,
about how
we balance
general
and special
revelation.
Okay?
Because this
is going to be
a major part
of how we
approach
Genesis 1.
Right?
It's going to be
a major part
of how we
are dialoguing
with our
fellow Christians
who may have
different views.
Okay?
And rarely,
this is actually
what we're talking
about.
Usually,
we're talking
about,
we think we're
talking about
something else,
but in actual
fact,
a lot of times
we actually are
talking about
this.
So,
the first view
is what I'm
calling,
and this is my
own term,
science skeptics.
Okay?
Now,
science skeptics,
again,
I'm not using,
I'm not trying
to have
pejorative
understandings
here,
but just
try to
wipe away
any connotation
that you're
feeling.
But a
science skeptics
believe that
special revelation
is really
the only
authority.
Right?
Special revelation
is the only
authority,
they are not
really that
sanguine about
what we can
actually learn
from science.
Okay?
This is not
a very common
position,
but it's
characterized
just by
flippancy
about what
science can
do.
Right?
They don't
particularly
think that
it's a
reliable method
of understanding
information,
especially when
it comes to
understanding
the origins
of the world
and the way
that it works.
So if I
was to
imagine
a scale
in which
we are
balancing
general and
special revelation,
a science skeptic
may be on
this end of
the spectrum.
Right?
So special
revelation is
the scales
all the way
down,
and really
general revelation
is not really
doing much
in terms of
their interpretation
of the world
or how they
balance things.
Okay?
So this
is
again
not a very
common
position,
mainly because
in our
everyday life
we're sort
of living
with the
fruits of
a lot of
the endeavors
of scientists,
you know,
our cell
phones,
our
automobiles,
etc.
And so a lot
of times it's
sort of hard
to be in
this position
cognitively,
but it is a
position I want
us to be aware
of.
The next
position is
far more
common.
I'm calling
this concordists,
and so what
concordists believe,
and I'm not,
so this is an
actual term,
I'm not making
this up,
so I'll try
to make that
clear as we
go along.
But concordists,
they emphasize
special revelation
in understanding
how nature
came to be,
but they also
have a high
view of what
we can learn
from general
revelation.
information.
So another
way of
understanding
this is that
in general,
these Christians
believe that
the Bible is
intending to
communicate
scientific
information at
a certain
level.
And again,
within the
concordist group
there's going to
be disagreement
about to what
level.
But in general,
the reason I can
fit these together
is that they
try in general
to fit information
that we get
from science
into a
biblical framework,
their biblical
framework.
So they say,
okay,
the Bible is
communicating
scientific
information,
and I have
the scientific
information over
here,
so therefore
they must
be the same.
And so they
are trying
to fit
their view
of science
into their
biblical
interpretation.
And so,
you know,
mostly special
revelation,
but general
revelation
actually has
some weight
in this group.
Okay?
So there's a
little bit more
of a balance.
This third
group I'm
calling
harmonists,
and I didn't
make that up,
but it's not
very common.
So a
harmonist
approach
is they
try not
to privilege
special or
general revelation
when they're
explaining nature.
Basically,
they think
that the
goal is to
understand these
different
areas of
information on
their own
terms,
right?
And then
when there
is conflict
apparent,
they try to
smooth it out.
They try to
harmonize those
conflicts as
they appear.
But they,
in general,
don't try to
use special
revelation in
applying it to
general,
and they don't
use general
revelation to
apply it to
special.
They say that
these are two
groups that
are talking
to each
other,
but they
have their
own ways
of communicating.
And so
you would
imagine that
this group
would be
special revelation,
general revelation,
sort of in
parity when it
comes to
understanding
nature,
again.
Because remember,
I don't want to
confuse anybody
with these scales.
As Christians,
special revelation
is the highest
authority,
right?
But when it
comes to
understanding the
way nature
works and
how it
came to
be,
there was
going to
be a
balance.
So again,
just to make
that clear.
Then we have
accommodationists.
This is in the
term I came up
with, and it's
not actually
entirely pejorative.
So people who
hold this view
call themselves
accommodationists,
and this view,
you can imagine
them as sort of
the reverse image
of a concordance.
they privilege
general revelation
when it comes to
understanding nature.
They have a high
view of special
revelation,
and what can be
learned about
nature there.
And so what is
characteristic of
this group is
usually they try
to de-emphasize
the scientific
implications of
scripture,
and try to focus
more of their
effort on
understanding the
sort of the
spiritual or
moral import,
or theological
import of
scripture.
And so you
would say here
when it comes
to nature,
they're weighting
general revelation
a little more
strongly than
special revelation.
Right?
And finally,
the last group,
because there are
five groups,
not six.
The sixth group
is just secret,
it's just for me.
The last group
I'm calling
biblical skeptics.
Okay?
I came up with
this term.
I don't think
anybody would
call themselves
a biblical skeptic.
But in terms
of this
discussion,
they would
hold that
really general
revelation is
the only real
authority when
it comes to
understanding nature.
And that the
Bible is not
meant to convey
scientific information
at all.
And it's really
there for moral
information,
theological
information,
and is not
a reliable
scientific
witness,
as it were.
And so,
this group
we would
see here,
general
revelation
is just
kind of
all the
way down.
So,
with these
five
broad
philosophical
views in
mind about
how we
balance
general and
special revelation,
right?
Let us
go
to
scripture
itself.
Let's talk
about
what it is
that we
learn about
creation,
about
origins in
Genesis 1,
2,
and 3.
And this is
just going to
be a very
quick overview.
I did an
even quicker
overview,
like a year
ago,
actually,
when we did
the overviews
of each of
these books.
So,
I don't know
which one is
going to be
quicker,
but this is
going to be
pretty quick.
So,
let's talk
about the
biblical data
that we have
in front of
us.
Okay?
So,
we have
Genesis 1.
In the
beginning,
God created
the heavens
and the
earth,
and the
earth was
without form
and void,
and there
was darkness
over the
surface of
the waters.
That's off
surface of the
deep.
Okay.
I've read it a
bunch of times,
so I kind of
remember.
And God
said,
let there be
light,
and separated
the light from
the darkness,
and that is
evening and
morning,
the first day.
one day.
Or,
depending on
how you
translate it,
one day.
Some people
put a lot of
emphasis on the
fact that there
is no definite
article on the
first five days.
I don't know.
Anyways,
the first day
sounds better.
And so,
on day one
in Genesis,
we see the
separation of
light versus
dark.
And so,
I'm filling
in this
table to
sort of
illustrate how
the six days
of creation
mirror each
other.
Right?
Because we
have the
first three
days,
which are
often described
as forming
days,
where God
is creating
the space
for these
different kingdoms,
these different
domains,
as you were.
Separating light
from dark.
On day two,
he's separating
the waters from
the sky,
so he's
creating waters,
he's creating
the air.
And then
day three,
he's separating
water from
the land.
And on the
land,
there is a
special creation
on day three,
the creation
of vegetation
on the land.
Okay?
So you can
imagine,
in this forming
column,
we have the
creation of
spaces,
the creation
of domains.
And then,
on the
filling days,
day four
through six,
we're going
to be filling
these different
domains with
their inhabitants.
Right?
So on day four,
we have the
creation of
the luminaries.
So we have
the sun,
the moon,
the stars.
These are
the inhabitants
of the light
and dark.
Right?
They are the
inhabitants of
day and night.
Moving forward,
on day five,
we have the
creation of
the fish
and the birds.
And the fish
and the birds,
they live in
the waters
and in the sky.
Right?
These are
the spaces
that God
has created
for these
creatures
on day two.
And on day six,
we have the
creation of
land creatures
in general,
animals and
bugs and
anything that
crawls and
creeps on the
land.
And a special
creation on
day six of
human beings
as separate
from the
animals.
And this
is the
pinnacle
of the
creation week.
Okay?
The entire
creation week
is building
up to
human beings.
Right?
And there's
a beautiful
part where
we get into
strictly poetic
language.
It says,
God created
them in his
image.
In the image
of God,
he created
them.
Male and
female,
he created
them.
Right?
So it's a
triple emphasis
on the creation
of human beings
in the creation
week as the
pinnacle of
his creation.
And in fact,
if you look at
the description
of the
luminaries,
why did God
create the
luminaries?
God created
the sun and
the moon to
watch over the
day and the
night and for
signs and for
seasons.
Right?
And who's
watching for
signs and
seasons?
That's us.
So we're
showing here
in the
creation account
the creation
of a world
meant for
human beings.
It's an
anthropomorphic
creation.
No.
Anthropocentric?
That's the
word.
Anthropocentric
creation.
We're the big
deal here.
In the
creation, God
is the big
deal and the
one doing it,
obviously.
And on day
seven, God
rests.
There's no
morning and
evening with
the implication
that God's
rest continues
on.
And so this is
God's Sabbath
and in the
same way that
God rests on
the seventh
day, we, and
delights in
his creation,
saying that it's
very good, we
as human beings
later in
Exodus and
in Deuteronomy,
we are expected
to rest on the
Sabbath day, on
the seventh day,
keep it holy to
glorify God in
his creation and
to worship
him.
Right?
So this is
sort of
showing us,
giving us a
pattern of
why it is
that on the
seventh day
that we rest
and glorify God
because on the
seventh day, God
rested.
Right?
That's the
direct implication
of Moses in
Exodus when he
is giving
Israelites the
law.
So this is
the major
biblical data
when it comes
to use a
weird term.
I'm a
scientist.
Sometimes I
use data
when I
shouldn't.
But anyways,
the biblical
information, the
biblical witness
in Genesis 1,
this is the
big, where
most of the
controversy lies
in terms of
interpreting
Genesis and
applying it to
the science and
faith discussion.
But I don't
think we should
give Genesis 2
and 3 short
shrift because
these are also
incredibly important
for understanding
how we parse
out these
different views.
So in
Genesis 2,
we zoom in
to discuss
the creation
of man.
Adam is made
specially by God
in his image.
He's given
dominion over
the animals.
He's tasked
with multiplying,
subduing the
earth.
We're given the
creation mandate.
And Eve is
presented to
Adam.
The first
marriage is
recorded.
God's plan for
creation is on
track to being
completed.
Now he has his
vice regents here
on earth to
subdue and to
participate in
God subduing and
ruling over the
earth.
But we're all
aware of what
happens in Genesis
3.
In Genesis 3,
the narrative
continues with the
great cataclysm that
we call the
fall.
The serpent
deceives Adam
and Eve to
disobey God
by eating from
the tree of the
knowledge of good
and evil, the
one tree that God
said do not eat
from.
And don't we know
as parents how
that is, right?
The one place you
tell them not to
go.
That's the place
they want to be.
Anyways, one of
these days I'll tell
them not to eat
broccoli and we'll
see if that works.
So this
disobedience results
in their death.
Not immediately,
but eventually.
Their death, they
are individually
cursed, the serpent,
the man, and the
woman.
And now the
relationship between
God and man has
been ruptured.
And there is
condemnation.
Although, we have
a promise of
redemption already
in the, pretty
much in the
middle of the
curses, right?
They have just
disobeyed God.
You know, they
have marred his
beautiful creation.
He's cursing them,
but in the middle
of the cursing is a
parenthetical, by
the way, I'll take
care of this, right?
So, this is our
biblical information.
If you guys remember
back to the
biblical theology
courses that we
were just going
through, the
creation, fall, and
the beginning of
redemption history is
a major theme in
all of these
different strands
that fly out from
Genesis throughout
the Bible.
These different
strands that are
connected and
ultimately find
their consummation
and conclusion
and climax,
let's say,
in Jesus.
Sorry, I was just
thinking that.
I just did three
C words and it
wasn't even on
purpose.
So, it's
important.
This is important.
And this is why
there is a
significant amount
of controversy over
the interpretation of
these passages,
because it's not
just how did God
create the world.
It is the sort of
the bedrock
assumptions and
set up for really
the entire biblical
worldview.
Right?
So, just remember
that when we're
having these
discussions with
each other, and
we're disagreeing
with each other on
these different
views, a lot of
the heat comes
from our innate
view, our innate
desire to protect
the witness of
Scripture.
Right?
Because that's
what we're told to
do in the Bible,
to protect the
witness of Scripture
and to preserve
the witness
handed down by
this.
I don't know.
I'm trying to
quote a verse, and
it's not working.
Yeah, there you
go.
That's what I'm
going for.
The faith once
for all.
Yeah, exactly.
Delivered to the
saints.
Okay.
So, this is our
biblical data.
This is what
everybody's reading.
Okay?
These, I'm about
to go through a
variety of
different interpretations
of Genesis 1,
with the implications
for 2 and 3, but
usually a lot of
the discussion is on
Genesis 1.
And so, we all
don't have different
Bibles, right?
We're all reading the
same Bible.
And so, it's
important to take
into consideration
that we're all
looking at the same
stuff.
And the question is,
how do we
understand it?
What is Genesis
attempting to
convey to us?
So, let me start
with probably one
of the more
famous and
well-known
views, which is
young earth
creation
interpretations.
I'm going to
abbreviate that
Y-E-C.
I'm not entirely
sure why, because
I think this is
the only time I
use it.
But the young
earth creation
view basically
takes the face
value understanding
of Genesis as
we read it.
You know, as
modern people, we
read Genesis 1,
and there's an
initial understanding
of what we see in
our mind when we
read it, and that
is generally what
the young earth
creation view
attempts to put
forward is what
you read is what
you get, basically.
They take a face
value understanding.
They believe that
the creation account
is straight history
and is meant to
be understood that
way.
And further, usually
they believe that
science done
correctly will prove
that the earth and
universe is in fact
young as is
described in
scripture.
Now, of course,
you may be thinking,
oh, Genesis 1
doesn't give us an
age of the earth.
But if you take
Genesis 1 as
straight history,
and then you add
up all the
genealogical years
going through Genesis
all the way up to
Abraham, you get an
age range, right?
So 6,000 to 10,000
depending on how you
add it up.
So this is, they
are believing, this
is the witness of
scripture, and
therefore the earth
and universe must in
fact be young, and
that science
incorrectly will show
that it's young.
This is the young
earth view.
Oh, man, it's
snowing.
That's beautiful.
The second group, I'm
going to put these
into four different
groups, and these
groupings are largely
my creation, although
I am cribbing off of a
variety of different
sources.
But this next group I'm
calling the ancient
science interpretations.
And what these groups
have in common, I
thought that was
thunder, I was like.
So, yeah, exactly.
Oh, thank you.
Wouldn't that be nice?
I would love that.
All right.
So I've grouped these
under this heading of
ancient science because
they share in common the
belief that the Genesis
account is intending to
convey what God did and
how God created the
world, and that
understanding it
correctly, it will fit
with the sort of the
modern scientific view
of the world.
So the first group
in this group
is the appearance
of age idea.
And so basically what
the appearance of age
interpretation says is
that the young
earth understanding
of the Bible is
correct, except
that the world
does appear old.
but it is merely
appearing old
because it was
created mature.
Right?
And so you can see
that there is, you
may be thinking, what's
the difference between
that and young
earth creationism?
What young earth
creationists would
believe that science
done correctly will
show that the earth
is young and the
universe is young.
A person who takes
the appearance of age
approach would say,
I am taking the
witness of scripture
at face value, and I
recognize that science
seems to indicate that
the earth is old, and
the way I reconcile
that is by positing
that the earth is
merely appears old.
Similar, and they
use this example,
similarly, God created
Adam as a full adult
human being.
Right?
You know, do they have
a belly button?
You know, who knows?
Right?
But the idea is, Adam
was created adult, and
so we can imagine a
scenario in which the
universe is created, in
a sense, adult.
Right?
And fully grown, and
that, when we do
science, it sort of
appears as if it's old,
but really it's not.
That's one view.
The next view in the
ancient science
interpretations is the
gap theory.
So basically, the gap
theory says that
Genesis 1 to 2,
sorry, Genesis 1, 1
to 2, describes sort
of the initial creation
event, and when it
says that the earth
was formless and void,
that the correct way
to understand that is
to say the earth
became formless and
void, and so the
idea is that God
initially created the
whole world, the whole
universe.
This is where we get
all of the age that
we see implicated in
science, but then due
to the fall of Satan,
this world that God
created initially falls
into dissonance,
disrepair, it becomes
formless and void, and
there's extinction
events on earth, etc.
And then in Genesis 1,
3, and continuing in
the Genesis account, we
find the straight
history of how God
recreated the world.
He created the world,
he re-separated things,
he created the light
and the dark, and the
sun, and all these
things, and that the
earth is in fact, or
the universe is in
fact very old, but
Genesis is describing
the straight history.
Does that make sense
to everybody?
I will mention that the
gap theory sounds really
good to our ears, but
most biblical scholars,
the reason that it's not
very popular is most
biblical scholars don't
find the grammatical
connection in verses 1 to 2
to 3 as being legitimate,
so saying that it became
formless and void.
A lot of scholars will say
it doesn't actually say
that grammatically.
The better way to
understand it is the way
that we translate it, but
this is a view, it
actually was very popular
like 150 years ago.
But there are still people
who would affirm this, and
they have their own
arguments.
The last of the ancient
science interpretations that
I'm putting forward, I just
want to make it clear that
this is not exhaustive.
I'm only showing you a,
what I hope to be a
representative sample of a
lot of the interpretations
of Genesis, but there's
like a whole bunch, way,
way more than this.
Actually, not that much
more.
Let me like double.
But I feel like this is,
this covers the ground.
A lot of them are sort of
the nuances, they're very
close to each other.
So the third one is we have
the day-age theory, and this
takes the Genesis account to
be describing how God
created, but takes the less
common understanding of the
word day, when we're talking
about one day, a second day,
a third day, evening,
morning, etc.
They take the word day to
indicate a long period of
time.
Now, in the Bible, there are
usages of the word day in
the, that's used in Genesis
1 to describe a long period
of time, like the day of the
Lord, right?
These are usages of the word
day that indicate a long
period of time, or just an
indeterminate amount of time,
right?
And so a day-age theorist
would say that Genesis 1 is
straight history, but we're
meant to understand the day
described in these different
days as a long period of time
and age, right?
Which is how we get this view.
But they, this allows them to
take sort of a mostly literal
approach to understanding
Genesis, but allows for the
universe to be very old,
right?
So you can see that these three
different views, they are
taking some of the information
that we get from general
revelation, and they are saying
that the Bible is attempting to
convey this information in the
text, right?
Which is why I call it ancient
science, right?
The Bible is telling us something
scientific.
This third group, creation poem
interpretation.
So I grouped these two together
because they both posit that the
Genesis is using figures of
speech and literary conventions to
convey God's activity in creation.
And so these views usually allow for a
variety of different hows of how God
created, but they all are indicating
that the Genesis passage is telling
us what God did in creation.
Okay?
Does that make sense?
So the first view I'm going to talk
about is the analogical day theory.
In this view, God is using analogical
language to compare himself, his activity
in creation to a craftsman and his work
week, right?
So he's using the language of just like
a craftsman in his work week does
this, God as the ultimate craftsman
makes the entire world and the last day
rested.
So it's using analogical language in the
sense that it's describing what God
actually did.
He did create the light and the dark and
the sun and the moon and et cetera,
but it's using figures of speech to
describe it.
And so in that sense, we're not wedded to
the specific hows of God is, of how God
is doing these different things.
In fact, we're not necessarily saying that
the creation week is using chronological
time and maybe taking things out of order
to make a theological point, but it's still
saying what God actually did.
This other group is the framework view
crowd.
This framework view relies heavily on what I
described in Genesis 1, which is that
symmetry in the creation account, in the
forming and the filling and the Sabbath.
This is basically what everybody acknowledges
is going on in the Bible.
And so they say, well, based on that,
Genesis 1 is using a literary framework
to describe God's creation.
It's not really trying to tell us anything
about how God did any of this stuff.
It's not trying to tell us chronology or
what came after what.
It's just saying it's using a literary
framework.
There's really no better way to say it.
That's why they call it the framework view.
And so Genesis is outlining the structures
of creation and what is going on, God's
creation of the different domains and the
people who live in the domains, but it's not
really telling us how he's creating these in
detail.
Okay.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
And finally, this last group I'm calling the
religion only interpretations.
And basically this group I'm putting together
because they don't believe that Genesis is
meant to describe what or how creation happened,
but really the who and the why, right?
So these interpretations are describing who God
is and why God is creating the world.
And it's using different, and we'll see,
different ways of understanding what Genesis
is conveying in the what, but in no case is the
what meant to be taken as history.
So the first view here is the proclamation day view.
So in this view, God in his throne room is
proclaiming his acts of creation sort of in a
transcendent state.
He's in his throne room.
He is proclaiming what he is doing in creation to
the angels in heaven.
And it really has no correspondence to actual
history.
It's just saying that God is saying, I'm going to
create the sun.
I'm going to create light and dark, et cetera.
And then on earth, as it is actually carried out,
it's going to look completely different.
So we're meant to understand that in Genesis,
we're reading a description of God in his throne room
describing what he's going to do.
That's the proclamation day view.
The kingdom temple view.
So this view says that God in Genesis 1 is
indicating a literal week in history in which God
is inaugurating his creation.
Right?
So God created however it is that he created,
but in a week in the real world, God is saying,
I am inaugurating the light versus the dark.
I am inaugurating this as my kingdom or temple,
depending on how you understand these verses.
Right?
So I'm inaugurating this part of creation to be this
function in my temple, in my kingdom.
Again, it's not meant to actually convey anything
about the natural world.
It's not telling you how God did anything.
He's just saying that this is what God did and this
is why, or this is who God is and why it's there
and why it's describing this way is to help us
in worshiping him.
And finally, believe it or not, this is the last one,
the alternative cosmology view.
Okay?
So this view says that Moses is actually borrowing
the word picture and narratives of the surrounding
cultures, you know, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan.
And by borrowing from these different sources,
he is attempting to contrast the God of the Bible
from the false gods.
Right?
And so see how they're similar, but look how they're different.
That's the idea.
Right?
And so he's trying to present to Israel
how their God is different from the gods
in the surrounding cultures,
but is not really challenging the ancient world picture
that they had in their mind, you know,
of the world on columns, on a flat place
with the mountains holding up the sky,
all these different ideas that we have
that the ancient people had about
what the physical world was really like.
So he's saying he's not challenging that.
He's using that word picture as a way
to emphasize the true God
versus the false gods around them.
Okay.
So that was a lot.
But how are we going to compare
all these different views?
Right?
How, what makes us compelled
by one view versus another?
So what I'm going to do here
is I'm going to go through the general categories.
I'm not going to go through every single one again,
but the general categories,
and I'm going to see how those earlier groups
that we talked to, those philosophical groups,
how they are usually,
how they cash out
in these different views of creation
and what makes them open
to these different views.
Right?
So in general,
the young earth creationist interpretations
are held by
either the science skeptics
who say, really,
we're not really meant to understand
anything from science,
or we can't really.
And concordists, right?
Believe that the,
that the biblical account
is attempting to give us scientific information
and we should,
we'll be learning about that
and we should be applying science
to understand the Bible in that way.
Right?
These ancient science interpretations,
these are going to be held
primarily by concordists.
They believe that the Bible
is attempting to convey
scientific information
and that we as Christians
are meant to use
the information from general revelation
and special revelation
and make them concord.
In the creation poem interpretation,
you're going to find a wide variety
of different people
who find this convincing,
from concordists
all the way to accommodationists
with harmonists
sort of in the middle
as they always are.
And so,
in this view,
they,
they may believe
that the Bible
is attempting to convey
poetic information,
a concordist might,
but believe that it's still
conveying scientific information
at a certain point.
Or you may be
an accommodationist
who says that,
you know,
it's not really meant
to give us any information
about the world
as it really is,
but it's using figures of speech.
Right?
And then finally,
in the religion-only interpretation
you're going to find
pretty much those groups
that,
that weigh general revelation
much higher
in the harmonist
to biblical skeptics view.
And I will say that
when we're looking at
these different
ways of understanding,
this philosophical,
these philosophical views
of understanding
nature and creation,
I try not to put my own views
in the class.
I'm trying to help us
understand it,
but I will say
as an editor
that I think
that the science skeptics view
and the biblical skeptics view
are not well acquainted
with the Bible,
basically.
I think that those views
are difficult to hold
when taking the Bible seriously
or taking science seriously.
If you take the Bible seriously,
you should be taking science
at least a little seriously,
like we talked earlier, right?
So I think these are
difficult to hold,
but there are people
who hold them,
so this is helping,
trying to help us
to understand.
So let's go through.
You're talking to one
of your fellow Christians,
and you hear them
talking about
the kingdom temple view
of their interpretation
of Genesis 1,
and maybe they're
somewhere on this spectrum,
right?
In their views
of how you balance
these things.
and you are
over here,
right?
Your visceral reaction
to discussing with them
is that you believe
that they are compromising
the authority of Scripture
in their interpretations
of the Bible
because they're weighing
general revelation more,
right?
So you're saying,
look,
special revelation,
it's getting lighter,
right?
It feels like
they are accommodating,
they are compromising
their view,
and I think that
may contribute
to that feeling
of,
oh no,
I need,
we are meant
to protect
the witness of Scripture,
and I feel like
you're copping out,
essentially,
on this,
right?
And it goes
the other direction,
right?
If you're over here,
and you hear
a group over here
talking,
you may be thinking,
wow,
do you not care
what the Bible says
about what we can learn
from nature?
Do you think that
really there's nothing
that we can learn?
So there's almost
a friction there
about almost
like an anti-intellectualism.
You're like,
oh man,
they don't really,
they don't really get it,
you know,
they're not thinking
very clearly,
et cetera,
right?
But oftentimes,
these are in the background,
right?
In our mind,
and we're really dealing
with the interpretations,
right?
We're talking about
Genesis 1,
we're talking about
the best way
to translate it,
et cetera,
when in reality,
a lot of the heat,
a lot of the rancor
is coming from this.
I don't believe
that you are taking
the Bible seriously,
or I don't believe
that you're taking
the nature seriously,
right?
And that is what's
causing the discussion.
So what I would suggest
when we're having
these discussions
is bring it up,
right?
Bring up these,
you don't have to
use this language,
but bring it up
and say,
this is what I believe
about how we are
meant to understand
nature in special
revelation,
you know?
Think about these
different views.
Think about,
I'm sure as you're
sitting here,
you're listening to me
talk and you're saying,
ah, wow,
I identify more
with this group
than with another group,
right?
Maybe this is the
first time you've
ever thought about it.
But it's important
for us to think
about it because
this other group
is going to have
a different view
and as Orthodox
Christians,
as many people
who hold these
views are,
you're not going
to have a productive
dialogue if we're,
we are questioning
each other's motives,
right?
So that's my goal
in this entire class
is how can I bring
the information
from these debates
to us in a way
that can help us
to maintain unity
in the body,
okay?
And so you may be
asking yourself,
what on earth
does this have to do
with the telenovels
design of theistic
evolution,
right?
I thought this is
what this class
is about.
Well, you'll find
that it is actually
central,
okay?
Because if you,
if you,
your view of
Scripture
as an Orthodox
Christian,
when we believe
that Scripture
is our highest
authority,
our interpretation
of Scripture
provides the boundary
line of what is
possible,
what is possibly
true,
right?
It creates a window
in which certain
things can be true
and other things
have to be false,
right?
This is just how,
just how it works.
And so,
if you take
a,
either a young
earth creationist
or maybe an,
a ancient science
interpretation
of the Bible,
oftentimes,
this interpretation
of the Bible
essentially makes
any kind of
evolutionary mechanism
untenable,
right?
It's un,
it's unimaginable.
The Bible is,
the witness of the
Bible is this,
and therefore,
any kind of
evolution
is not going to be
allowed
for Christians.
And you often hear
Christians talking
this way,
who hold these
kinds of views,
right?
the Bible clearly
says that evolution
is impossible,
or et cetera.
And they may be
right,
right?
But that's,
that's them talking
from their
philosophical position
based on their
interpretation and
what is possible
and what is not
possible.
You know,
flipping the,
flipping the coin
here,
if you have
a creation poem
or religion-only
interpretation of the
Bible,
that really,
logically,
at least,
leaves open the
possibility of some
sort of evolutionary
mechanism,
right?
Because the Bible
isn't saying it's
not happening,
right?
So it could have
been happening,
right?
We're just saying
that in these
different interpretations,
we're just saying
Genesis isn't telling
us one way or the
other whether some
sort of evolutionary
mechanism or not
happened,
right?
So you can imagine
somebody who is a
theistic evolutionist
who holds one of
these interpretations
and they have a
sort of a different
window of what is
allowable,
right?
And so these are
going to be,
these are going to be
the first barrier in
any conversation
between Christians
on intelligent
design or
theistic evolution,
what is allowable,
right?
And so having a
discussion of what
I believe is
allowable based on
Genesis is a
helpful discussion,
right?
And doing it
without,
you know,
attacking each
other and being,
you know,
generally mean.
Not to say you
can't be vigorous,
you know?
Me and my
brothers,
I have eight,
I have,
no,
I don't have
eight brothers,
I have six
brothers.
Not a huge
difference,
right?
But,
you know,
we disagree,
we argue back
and forth,
you know,
sometimes vehemently,
no blows are
thrown,
but we can argue
rigorously without
declaring anathema
on each other.
That's the goal,
right?
So,
that is today's
class.
How do you
balance general
and special
revelation?
What does that
allow?
What interpretations
of Genesis do
these different
philosophical views
tend to support?
And how that can
help us in our
discussions with
each other.
So,
next class,
I'm going to be
actually comparing
intelligent design and
theistic evolution
on the merits,
hopefully.
and then talking
about the second
tension in
creationism,
which is really
the philosophical
position that is
going to decide
between,
well,
actually,
I shouldn't say
that.
It's going to be
the philosophical
position that
predisposes you
to find one more
compelling than the
other.
Although,
that may be a
little more
simplistic.
We'll talk about
it next week.
But with that,
anybody have any
questions?
Questions?
It indicates
last week's
recording,
because I had
the mic,
was the best
we ever got.
So,
appreciate your
patience with
this process.
As a scientist,
I wonder,
how do you
evaluate this
current science?
And,
because the
science today is
different than the
science 50 years
ago,
different than the
science 100 years
ago,
whereas God's
word is
infallible,
will always be
correct,
but not to say
that their
intention,
but how do you
have a healthy
skepticism of,
as a scientist,
and evaluating
the evidence
and what
general revelation
has to teach
us.
So,
how do I
have a healthy
skepticism?
Very easily.
By being a
scientist.
If you,
if you,
I don't know
how many,
if there are
any scientists
in the crowd
here,
but once you
get into
science,
you start to
see,
like,
oh,
wow,
okay,
so people are
wrong a lot,
all the time.
And people
are,
are not,
you know,
we try to
imagine science
as sort of
this ivory
tower sort
of deal
where,
you know,
you have
old,
wizened men
discussing
with each
other in
clear,
you know,
calming tones,
but in
reality,
you know,
human beings
are the same
everywhere,
right?
So you may
have a,
a advanced
degree in
some sort
of,
in some
scientific
endeavor,
but you're
going to have
your own
predispositions,
your own
biases,
your own
reasons for
wanting this
specific
interpretation
of data
to be true,
right?
I don't,
I can't tell
how many
times I've,
I've listened
to a talk
from somebody
who is
arguing for
some sort
of interpretation
of the
evidence,
and is
primarily weighing
whether it's
true or not
on whether he
discovered it
or not,
right?
So,
and next
week,
I'm going
to start
off similarly
to how I
started off
today about
understanding
hermeneutics
and what
are we
looking for,
right?
There is a
meaning to
scripture as
Christians that
we believe is
100% true.
Our job is
to align our
understanding of
scripture to
that meaning,
right?
And that is our
goal as Christians
in the same way
in the sciences,
okay?
A lot of,
and this is
causing a lot
of confusion
for non-scientists,
and I don't
think it's
because of
their ignorance,
I think it's
because a lot
of scientists
are bad
communicators
or want to
inflate their
own sense of
value,
but I digress
in the sense
that there is
a reasonable
way that we
can look at
the evidence
and withhold
judgment
about
necessarily
what the
interpretation
of that
evidence is,
right?
It's not like
science is
different than
other fields
in which the
correct answer
just presents
itself,
you know,
you're looking
in a microscope
and it says,
this is the
right way to
understand this,
right?
It doesn't
happen that
way.
We see
evidence,
we collect
evidence using
specific devices
that are meant
to collect
specific kinds
of evidence,
and then using
that,
trying to
pool it,
we get
what we
think is an
interpretation
that makes
sense of
everything.
That's the
idea.
And yes,
you're right,
over the history
of science,
there have
been wild,
wildly wrong
interpretations of
the evidence,
but what I
will say is
there has
rarely ever
been a
situation in
which the
evidence
itself has
been wrong.
Okay?
So that's the
distinction I want
to make.
Interpretation
versus evidence.
Right?
Okay.
I just want
to point out
that the same
question could be
asked of the
Bible.
Our
interpretations
of the Bible
have,
you know,
to put it
politely,
say,
matured over
the years.
You know,
so I,
you know,
I grew up
in,
you know,
the creation,
you know,
seven-day.
Right,
yeah.
Right,
and then as
I've matured
and,
you know,
heard the
different evidence,
largely because
I've been parts
of,
you know,
different,
you know,
faith communities.
Right.
Been able to
go,
well,
you know,
it's plausible,
you know,
and see
merit for
all the
views.
Yeah.
Yeah,
I think it's,
sorry,
go ahead.
Yeah,
so I'm just
saying,
like,
you know,
you can ask,
you know,
somebody who
was,
like,
all on the
science end
of things
could ask
a Christian
the same
question,
is my main
point,
is that on
both sides
of the aisle
on this
issue,
we need to
be open
to maybe
we're wrong.
Yeah,
and I think
that's a good
point.
What I was
trying to get
across in the
beginning of
this class
is the
difference
between the
biblical
information that
we have,
that we all
share,
and our
different
interpretations
of the text,
how we
understand them.
Right?
There is a
difference.
Now,
I will say
that scripture
does have a
leg up on
science,
because scripture
is verbal
communication,
and verbal
communication
is,
I would
say,
lends itself
to
perspicuity.
Am I saying
that right?
Yes.
So I can't
even say it,
I'll explain
what it means.
Basically,
it lends
itself to
understanding,
ease of
understanding.
Right?
It's easier,
so I mean,
we all experience
this,
right?
It's easier
for us to be
taught something
than for us
to go out
and learn
it for
ourselves.
That's the
whole reason
we have
teachers,
right?
And so if
we think
of the
Bible as
a teacher,
then just
in the sense
that it is
verbal
communication,
it has a
leg up in
terms of
ease of
understanding,
right?
But you're
right in
the sense
that we
as the
audience still
have a job
of interpreting,
right?
As is true
in any kind
of communication.
I would say
science has
one leg
away in
terms of
the effort
that's required
to understand
what's going
on.
But no
matter how
it is,
you're never
going to have
the correct
understanding
of something
just plopped
into your
head,
right?
Outside of
the work
of the
Holy Spirit,
right?
And that's
part of what
we believe
as Reformed
Christians
is that
the
perspicuity
of Scripture
is a
result of
the Holy
Spirit
working in
our hearts
to understand
what's going
on.
And that
generally
applies to
the big
major themes
of the
Bible,
redemption,
the nature
of Jesus,
etc.
That's not
to say
that you're
not a
holy
Christian
if you have
difficulty
understanding
passages.
Everybody
does,
right?
There are
passages that
are difficult
for anybody
to
understand
no matter
where you
are on
the creation
spectrum,
right?
But yeah,
that's something
we have to
be aware
of.
I think
especially
in some
circles in
the church,
there is
an over
reliance
or an
over
estimation
of the
clearness
of Scripture,
right?
And that's
something we
have to guard
against.
Where would
you put
a non-overlapping
magisteria
sort of
view
on your
little
spectrum?
So that
would be,
I would
say,
that would
probably
fit best
in the
religion-only
interpretations
of the
Bible.
Basically
saying that
the Bible
and science
are
completely
different
epistemic
endeavors,
right?
Totally
different ways
of knowing,
and therefore
because they're
totally different
ways of knowing,
they never
overlap,
right?
There is no
possible way
that Scripture
could ever be
contradicted by
science,
and vice
versa,
right?
They're
completely
separate.
I think
that that
is not a
high enough
view of
Scripture,
and I think
the reason
for that
is because
Scripture
itself
puts forward
itself as
history.
So by
using the
non-overlapping
magisteria,
you wouldn't
be able to
say that,
oh,
Jesus really
existed in
real life,
in history,
right?
Because the
study of
history is
its own
little thing,
and we
can't really
use the
study of
history to
apply itself
to Scripture.
And maybe
they would
say,
no,
history is
just as
bad as
Scripture
in terms of
understanding,
and we're
talking about
hard science
here,
right?
But I
think that
that is
the problem.
Where do
you place
history?
Because
Scripture is
undeniably
history,
in some
places at
least,
right?
You know,
there's
discussion
whether
Job is
a real
person that
lived in
the real
world,
or is
it a
poem
describing
whatever,
right?
So there
are places
in Scripture
where we
argue,
like,
oh,
is this
meant to
be
history,
or is
this
meant to
be
a
parable?
But there
are parts
that are
definitely
history,
or meant
to be
history.
And so
depending on
where you
put history
in your
magisteria,
that's going
to make
major problems
for Christians,
right?
And usually
I've found
that the
non-overlapping
magisterium is
put forward
by scientists
generally,
who just
don't want
to deal
with
Christians.
That's been
my thought,
like,
oh,
yeah,
but really
they're just
totally separate,
so we don't
have to argue
about it.
It's like,
okay,
well,
I don't
think that
does Scripture
justice.
Hey,
Luke,
thanks so
much.
I had a
question about
your further
reading section
in your handout,
and I've only,
I mean,
some of these
authors I've
read a little
bit from,
I don't know
if I've read,
I think I've
read one or
two of the
resources,
but something
that struck
me,
at least in
my not,
you know,
perhaps not
representative
sampling,
was that they
didn't seem
to do what
you're recommending
we do.
Like,
they didn't seem
like they were
really dealing
with the deeper
issues,
they were just
kind of stating
their view,
sometimes making
really good
observations,
but then I also
felt like there
were a lot of
weaknesses in
their views,
that they weren't
really attending
to or acknowledging.
Anyway,
I was wondering
if you could
give a little
overview of
these further
reading resources
or potential
ones that
might do,
maybe do what
you're doing,
or maybe none
of them do.
Yeah,
yeah,
no,
I'm not that
good.
I didn't print
out the further
reading for myself.
Somebody hand me
that to me?
Yeah.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Okay,
so closest thing
I would say on
the further reading
list for an
overview is the
John Lennox
book,
Seven Days
That Divide
the World.
This is John
C. Lennox,
he's a famous
Irish apologist
slash evangelist.
He's a really
smart guy.
Also,
he sounds really
cool when he
talks.
Yeah,
he's Oxford
trained.
He spoke here.
Did he really?
Of course,
I wasn't here.
Anyways,
so John C.
Lennox,
his Seven Days
That Divide
the World,
that's an overview
book.
He talks about
the different
views.
And I think
he does touch
a little bit
on the
philosophical
issues of
why we
would believe
one versus
the other.
Okay?
These different
resources I have
here are
specific arguments
for one
particular view.
And so,
like I was
talking about
earlier when
we're having
discussions with
Christians,
oftentimes we
have our own
view and we're
arguing for that
view with
these philosophical
issues not really
in view.
view.
And so,
you're going to
find that
in these
different books.
I have found
myself that the
books by C.
John Collins,
who takes the
analogical day view,
he does interact
more with other
views and explain
why sometimes people
come to one
conclusion versus
the other.
But it's not the
primary part of
his book.
The primary part of
his book is,
this is why I'm
right.
Or this is the
correct way of
understanding it.
And I think
there's a place for
that.
I think,
obviously,
there has to be a
place for that.
We have to argue,
we have to come to
a conclusion and
argue for our view.
And that's true of
everything that I
think.
You should make up
your mind about
what you believe and
why you believe it.
So,
I don't want to
come across as
somebody who says
that,
you know,
really,
we're all right
and,
you know,
we should just
hug.
I think we all
have our own
views and we
have potentially
good reasons for
the way that we
think about things
and that the only
way we're going
to become,
you know,
better and more
mature Christians
is if we are
sharpening each
other iron style,
right?
But I can't
think of any
other big
overview books
other than
the seven days
that divide
the world.
My reading is
actually quite
limited.
No,
I mean,
I've read,
sorry,
I've read a lot
of books on
the different
views,
but I haven't
read that many
books about
the views about
the views.
Does that make
sense?
Yeah.
This is,
which is why I
thought it was
helpful to do
the class this
way,
right?
Because there's
so many resources
out there for
any particular
view,
but trying to
understand why
we come to the
conclusions we do
is,
yeah.
It sounds like
you have a job
to do then.
I think you've
got to write
this book.
I hope not.
Somebody who's a
writer should be
doing that.
I'm a,
I'm more of a
talker.
I talk better
than I write.
Yeah,
yeah.
Maybe I'll do
like a C.S.
Lewis style,
I'll do a bunch
of radio things
and then eventually
somebody will
transcribe it into
a book.
I hope not,
man.
Nobody should
ever listen to me
in anything I say.
Cool,
any other
questions?
All righty.
Well,
thank you guys so
much for coming.
I hope to see you
next week.
Thank you.