> Jim Clark wrote:
> Similarity of conviction is one criterion, but not sufficient to
> equate the two sides as fundamentalist (unless one wishes to
> diminish the impact of the scientific perspective). I am quite
> definite that the earth rotates around the sun, that biological
> characteristics (many with psychological implications) are
> transmitted by genes from one generation to the next, that
> e=mc^2, that people who are similar to one another are more
> likely to become friends, and so on almost endlessly. Some
> fundamentalists on the religion side are equally certain that the
> world was created in 7 days (although there is some waffling on
> the length of a day)
Waffling may not be the correct word, but there does appear to be some
latitude among biblical literalists. That may surprise some of us, but it does
seem that a fair number of biblical literalist scholars often do not provide
simplistic answers to complex questions (e.g., Was the world really created
in 7 days?).
As one example, Erickson notes that that bible says the world was created
in six days (God rested on day seven) days. So, taking this literally means
that a creationist could date the world as being about 6000 years old. This
conclusion was accepted as true until modern geology, and the scientific
consensus that the earth is actually several billion years old, perhaps 5-6, or
even more.
Surprisingly there is no attempt by the writer to attack science. He points
out that very often science demonstrates something very apparent, and
suggests that the literalist can broaden his/her interpretation in a way that
does not deny the possibility that the bible is inerrant.
There are at least five different theories offered as attempts to reconcile the
creationist and the scientist:
1) The "gap" theory holds that there was an original, quite complete creation
of the earth perhaps billions of years ago (Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth."). Then a catastrophe occurred -- and
the creation became empty and unformed (Genesis 1:2 "The earth was
formless and void..."). Then God re-created the earth a few thousand years
ago, populating it with all the species (Genesis 1:3-1:27). The apparent age
of the earth and fossil records showing development over long periods of time
are to be attributed to the first creation.
2) The "flood" theory views the earth as only a few thousand years old. At
the time of Noah, the earth was covered by a tremendous flood; therefore
these extreme geological circumstances accomplished in a short period
what geologists believe would ordinarily require three billion years to
accomplish.
3) The "ideal-time" theory says that God created the world in a six-day
period a relatively short time ago, but that he made it appear as if it were
billions of years old. For example, Adam did not begin his life as a newborn
baby -- at any point in his life he must have had an apparent (or "ideal") age
many years old than his actual age. The ideal-time theory extends this
example to the rest of God's creation.
4) The "age-day" theory is based upon the fact that the Hebrew word for
"day" usually meant a 24-hour period, but by no means was it limited to that
meaning. It can also mean epochs or long periods of time, and this is how it
should be understood in this context.
5) The "pictorial-day" (or literary framework) theory regards the creation as
more a matter of logical structuring than of chronological order. Either God's
revelation to Moses (believed to be the author of Genesis) came in a series
of six pictures, or Moses arranged the material in a logical grouping which
took the form of six periods.
The author summarizes by suggesting that the most tenable theory is the
"age-day" theory. He states that there are too many exegeticl difficulties
attached to the gap theory, and the flood theory involves too great a strain on
geological evidence. The ideal-time theory is ingenious and in many ways
irrefutable scientifically and exegetically, but presents the theological
problem that it makes God look deceptive (and if God is supposed to be
truthful, this is contrary to the bible writers claim that God is not God's
nature). The pictorial theory resolves the problem of chronological
sequence, but has difficulties with God resting on the seventh day
(suggesting there IS some sort of chronological sequence).
The author contends that the age-day theory is the option that best fits
biblical wording and geological evidence. Yet, he also points out that a)
there is no way to be dogmatic about this, and b) the age of the universe is a
topic that needs additional scientific and biblical analysis.
How about that?
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"No one wants advice -- only corroboration"
-John Steinbeck
************************************************************************
