Listen to Phil’s first solo podcast – a monologue on the origins of the universe. Phil explains his lifelong interest in the interpretation Genesis 1 and creation.
Listen to the episode | Download to the episode | Find this episode on iTunes
Listen to Phil’s first solo podcast – a monologue on the origins of the universe. Phil explains his lifelong interest in the interpretation Genesis 1 and creation.
Listen to the episode | Download to the episode | Find this episode on iTunes
This is last week’s audio.
Hey Phil, your monologue on Genesis was fascinating and, as we’ve come to expect from you, gracious and thought-provoking. Keep it coming!
The parallels between God’s creation in Genesis and Solomon’s building of the temple were particularly fascinating, and I hadn’t looked at it from this perspective before. It put me in mind, though, of Hebrews 4 where the author links the ‘rest’, into which he swore the rebellious Israelites in the desert would never enter, with his rest that began on the seventh day in Genesis 2:2. I remember a sermon from many years ago which pointed out that, unlike the other days of the creation week which each end with the words “and the evening and the morning were the n‘th day”, there is no such phrase at the end of the seventh day and so God is still doing now what he started doing then.
The rest of discussion of John Walton’s book (which I haven’t read, but now want to…) was similarly fascinating; it will be great to hear him on your show. Just based on what I’ve heard so far, though, I think it’s not quite fair to suggest that Genesis does not address the question of the material origin of the universe because ancient readers would have been uninterested in it. I expect it wouldn’t occur to an ancient reader that there’d be any reason to expect the material origin and functional origin of the universe to be different things. Surely it only occurs to us that there may be such a distinction because we’ve had scientists telling us for the last 200 years or so that the material origin lays much further back in time than Genesis allows for, and therefore creating such a distinction gives us a way of dealing with this.
This is where I need to put on my scientist’s hat (I’m a PhD theoretical physicist who came to a Young-Earth Creationist position in my 20s) and say that I think that we are far, far too hung up on the notion of the universe being old. What I think needs to be talked more about is the fact that the idea of a very ancient universe derives from certain assumptions (one in particular – the ‘principle of uniformitarianism’) that are fatally undermined the moment that you admit any sort of creative intelligence into your picture of the universe. In other words, if there is the merest hint of a possibility that the universe is not entirely atheistic, then the basis for the principle of the uniformitarianism goes out of the window and it becomes not one iota less scientific to think the universe is 6,000 years old than to think it’s 14 billion years old. Combining this perspective with what we actually observe in the universe today opens up some fascinating vistas, and to anyone with an interest in physics I’d recommend the works of Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett as being particuarly worthwhile reading.
I agree with the above comment. The only reason we feel uncomfortable about the universe being only 6,000 years old is because we’ve had people telling us that it’s not for so long. Why? So that it can exist without God. There is no other reason. It has nothing to do with science and is a philosophy that goes back to paganism.
My father also came to the same position as eos pengwern when he was in college. He studied Geology and is a Land Man for ExxonMobil.
Love this podcast. I am going to have to listen to it again. Also, more uke, please!
There’s an interesting discussion called “Big Bang fun” back a ways in Phil’s blog. It dealt fairly extensively with this issue, as we were debating it back when WITB 1 came out. I am an unabashed Young Earth creationist, and have no question in my mind that science falls squarely on the side of creationism. What’s been amazing to me is to hit Genesis 1:11-19 and realize that as much information as has been presented, I’d never looked at this in a timeline. If evolution can be “meshed” with the Bible’s presentation of creation, this set of verses puts a roadblock in it. Why? Because Scripture says trees & all growing things (everything that grows from seeds) were created on Day Three. According to Scripture, the sun, moon & stars were not created or put in place by God until Day Four. God made light on Day One- but no sun until Day Four. For anyone who understands photosynthesis (which is about everybody past fourth grade), plants can’t grow without sunlight. If these “days” were hundreds, thousands or millions of years, those plants would be dead. Period.
This presents a problem for theistic evolutionists: Claiming these “days” of creation were just “really, really long” periods of time loses plausibility when you hit Day Four. Any scientist (whatever camp they’re in) will question your sanity if you tell them that plants and trees on Earth grew for hundreds/thousands/millions of years without sunlight. The more patient ones will remind you that plants cannot grow without sunlight- from our sun, not from stars or moonlight. Plants can survive for a day or two without sunlight, but not for years/millenia/eons/epochs. Evolutionists would tell you that the sun is required for plant growth- its absence makes long-term development of any plant material impossible.
Bottom line: If you accept the created order of when God made things, but still want to blend evolutionism and creationism, you run into rather a brick wall on Day Four. From a Biblical accuracy standpoint, if you accept the order of Creation as the Bible sets it out in the 7 Days description, you are faced with an Either-Or situation: Either the Bible’s creation order is right, or evolution is right. This isn’t a “blendable” issue- because it’s a scientific and logical contradiction.
You cannot have both- because of basic scientific (and demonstrable, I might add) principles. “Plants can’t grow without sunlight” means either the literal “24-hour-day” creation interpretation is the one you have to accept, or you have to toss out the Bible’s Genesis account entirely in order to make evolution a workable solution. Both theistic evolution and “Long-Day” creationism develop a fatal flaw in Genesis 1 between Day 3 and Day 4. I don’t see any theistic evolutionists or “Long-Day” theorists arguing with the Bible’s Genesis 1 account of the created order- because what they’re arguing at that point is that the Bible’s account is flat wrong. There’s really no “grey area” available here, which is why nobody argues the “days” order itself. The Bible isn’t confusing or fuzzy on the actual creation order, so those interested in blending evolution and creation don’t argue this as a speculative one. Unfortunately for them, this is one of those “the engine doesn’t run without this particular part” points.
Either the Bible got it wrong, or the blending of “millions of years” and the Bible doesn’t work. That’s a simple statement, but it is rather accurate. Food for thought.
First impressions:
Vischer’s tone at times reminds me of Robb Bell’s tone in his book Love Wins. (Bell’s condescending, cynical questions turned a lot of former Bell fans off, big time.)
Vischer also uses numerous strawman approaches to cast doubt on the sophistication of those of us who read Genesis 1 literally, such as his frequent mention of Ussher’s chronology and his simplistic treatment of God’s feathers in Psalm 91:4.
That having been said, I think he is overawed by the recent offerings of John Walton and C. John Collins. I wonder if Phil is familiar with the magisterial Coming to Grips with Genesis or the devastating critique of Hugh Ross’s hermeneutics (which borrows extensively from Walton and Collins), Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati. Especially after reading in Coming to Grips with Genesis the deeply researched articles “Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11” by Todd S. Beall and “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means this Text?” by Steven W. Boyd, there seems to be no reason to abandon the literal narrative genre approach to Genesis 1 and 2.
I appreciate Vischer’s admonitions that we are free to disagree about the reading of Genesis. However, this can be a tactic to diminish the importance of strong refutations of the views he apparently supports. I am not foaming at the mouth about this. I am familiar with this strategy to calm down those who believe clear lines can be drawn in a conflict. There are not multiple, discordant meanings to a passage of Scripture, and if one approach is clearly incorrect, well, that is something to be concerned about.
A person’s depth of learning, or expertise in one field, do not necessarily qualify him to be agreed with in all statements he makes. Walton and Collins and Wright each may be accomplished in their fields. This does not mean that they cannot be dead wrong about how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. Vischer seems to bow too low to the credentials of those who promote this exalted prose genre critique, without voicing the cogent refutations that exist to this approach.
One of the glaring oversights of many who embrace this genre criticism approach is Exodus 31:17-18. I have sought in vain for references to this passage in John Lennox’s Seven Days that Divide the World and John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One. If one purports to explain the Biblical testimony about the creation period, this is a grievous mistake. Why would God engrave the Ten Commandments with a lie?
I continue to maintain that both the substance and the style of these commentators is driven by a willingness to accommodate the teaching of the Bible to the current teachings of scientists who support evolution, and not driven by recent manuscript finds or hermeneutical breakthroughs of any other kind. The kind of hermeneutics used here, if applied to other sections of Scripture that speak of supernatural acts, would wreak havoc with the clear teachings of the Bible.
Here are a couple webpages that tackle this exalted prose genre issue:
http://creation.com/timothy-keller-response – God bless Keller, but he missed it here.
http://scriptureworkshop.com/hb/gen1_5ways.html – Beall nails the others with his observation that “Recent non-literal views are not motivated by new interpretive discoveries, but by an accommodation to current scientific theories. In another place Beall explains, “The reason for abandoning a literal understanding of Gen 1 and 2 is not new. Christians who are convinced that evolution is, to a large degree, correct, have needed to try to harmonize what they view as ‘science’ with their understanding of the Bible” (see Beall 2009). The other reason Beall thinks many evangelical scholars have “abandoned” a direct reading of Genesis 1 is a desire to be seen as “reputable” by mainstream scholarship (see Beall 2009).” This article surveys both Walton’s and Collins’ positions as well. Notably absent is any reference to Genesis 31:17-18.
I do apologize if I took a condescending tone – that was not my intent.
My goal of the podcast was simply to explain why groups like the Evangelical Council for Biblical Inerrancy (as well as Billy Graham, the Catholic Church and many others) have concluded that a faithful reading of the Bible does not require a young Earth conclusion. Obviously, you may disagree with that conclusion. You may decide that these groups and scholars are wrong – that is perfectly fine.
I don’t believe the Catholic Church, or Billy Graham or NT Wright or Tim Keller or the ECBI fail to take the Bible seriously. They just agree with scholars stretching back to Augustine that Gen 1-2 is a profoundly difficult passage of Scripture to interpret with certainty. My point is simply that when leading evangelical scholars can’t agree on an interpretation, it is best to hold our conclusions loosely.
As a biologist I find literal interpretation of genesis difficult. As an evangelical I tell non- christians that there are different views of genesis amongst Christians and the starting point is Jesus and accepting him. Once a christian we can all make up our mind what we believe. What is off-putting to anyone-believer or non-believer is the vehemency and the ease with which literalists will call fellow believers heretics. Even the article you posted implies this.2 tim 2:14.
Thank you for bringing this interpretation to the podcast, Phil. This was good to go back and listen to considering all the recent events around this topic.