This book is not about the age of the earth. We are aware that many sincere Christians hold a \u201cyoung earth\u201d position (the earth is perhaps ten thousand years old), and many others hold an \u201cold earth\u201d position (the earth is 4.5 billion years old). This book does not take a position on that issue, nor do we discuss it at any point in the book.[1]<\/p>\n
Furthermore, we did not think it wise to frame the discussion of this book in terms of whether the Bible\u2019s teachings about creation should be interpreted \u201cliterally.\u201d That is because, in biblical studies, the phrase \u201cliteral interpretation\u201d is often a slippery expression that can mean a variety of different things to different people.[2] For example, some interpreters take it to refer to a mistaken kind of wooden literalism <\/em>that would rule out metaphors and other kinds of figurative speech, but that kind of literalism is inappropriate to the wide diversity of literature found in the Bible.<\/p>\n In addition, any argument about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 would run the risk of suggesting that we think each \u201cday\u201d in Genesis 1 must be a literal <\/em>twenty-four-hour day. But we are aware of careful interpreters who argue that a \u201cliteral\u201d interpretation of the Hebrew word for \u201cday\u201d still allows the \u201cdays\u201d in Genesis 1 to be long periods of time, millions of years each. Yet other interpreters argue that the days could be normal (twenty-four-hour) days but with millions of years separating each creative day. Others understand the six creation days in Genesis to be a literary \u201cframework\u201d that portrays \u201cdays of forming\u201d and \u201cdays of filling.\u201d Still others view the six days of creation in terms of an analogy with the work-week of a Hebrew laborer.[3] This book is not concerned with deciding which of these understandings of Genesis 1 is correct, or which ones are properly \u201cliteral.\u201d<\/p>\n Instead, the question is whether Genesis 1\u20133 should be understood as a historical narrative <\/em>in the sense of reporting events that the author wants readers to believe actually happened<\/em>.[4] In later chapters, my argument, and the additional arguments of John Currid and Guy Waters, will be that Genesis 1\u20133 should not be understood as primarily figurative or allegorical literature, but should rather be understood as historical narrative, though it is historical narrative with certain unique characteristics. (See chapters 27, 28, and 29.)<\/p>\n Finally, this book is not about whether people who support theistic evolution are genuine Christians or are sincere in their beliefs. We do not claim in this book that anyone has carelessly or lightly questioned the truthfulness of Genesis 1\u20133. On the contrary, the supporters of theistic evolution with whom we interact give clear indications of being genuine, deeply committed Christians. Their writings show a sincere desire to understand the Bible in such a way that it does not contradict the findings of modern science regarding the origin of living creatures.<\/p>\n But we are concerned that they believe that the theory of evolution is so firmly established that they must accept it as true and must use it as their guiding framework for the interpretation of Genesis 1\u20133.<\/p>\n For example, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins write,<\/p>\n The evidence for macroevolution that has emerged in the past few years is now overwhelming. Virtually all geneticists consider that the evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the Earth goes around the sun.[5]<\/p>\n Our goal in this book is to say to our friends who support theistic evolution, and to many others who have not made up their minds about this issue,<\/p>\n 1. that recent scientific evidence presents such significant challenges to key tenets of evolutionary theory that no biblical interpreter should think that an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis is \u201cscientifically necessary\u201d;<\/p>\n 2. that theistic evolution depends on a strictly materialistic definition of science that is philosophically problematic; and<\/p>\n 3. that the Bible repeatedly presents as actual historical events many specific aspects of the origin of human beings and other living creatures that cannot be reconciled with theistic evolution, and that a denial of those historical specifics seriously undermines several crucial Christian doctrines.<\/p>\n Content taken from Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique<\/em> edited by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, \u00a92017. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Il 60187, www.crossway.org.<\/p>\n [1] However, the science chapters that argue against a Darwinian explanation of the fossil record operate within the commonly assumed chronological framework of hundreds of millions of years for the earth\u2019s geological strata. We recognize that Christians who hold a young earth view would assume a different chronological framework.<\/p>\n [2] See the discussion of various senses of \u201cliteral\u201d interpretation in Vern Poythress, Under- standing Dispensationalists <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 78\u201396. Poythress concludes, \u201cWhat is literal interpretation? It is a confusing term, capable of being used to beg many of the questions at stake in the interpretation of the Bible. We had best not use the phrase\u201d (96). See also his helpful discussion of the terms \u201cliteral\u201d and \u201c figurative\u201d in \u201cCorrelations with Providence in Genesis 2,\u201d Westminster Theological Journal <\/em>(WTJ<\/em>) 78, no. 1 (Spring 2016): 44\u201348; also his insightful article, \u201cDealing with the Genre of Genesis and Its Opening Chapters,\u201d WTJ <\/em>78, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 217\u2013230.<\/p>\n [3] See John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 39\u201366, for a clear and perceptive explanation of these various understandings of the days of creation. Lennox favors the view (which I find quite plausible) that Genesis 1 speaks of \u201ca sequence of six creation <\/em>days; that is, days of normal length (with evenings and mornings as the text says) in which God acted to create something new, but days that might well have been separated by long periods of time\u201d (54, emphasis original). He also favors the view that the original creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1\u20132 may have occurred long before the first \u201ccreation day\u201d in Genesis 1:3\u20135, which would allow for a very old earth and universe (53).<\/p>\n [4] In arguing for the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, C. John Collins rightly says, \u201cIn ordinary English a story is \u2018historical\u2019 if the author wants his audience to believe the events really happened\u201d (C. John Collins, \u201cA Historical Adam: Old-Earth Creation View,\u201d in Four Views on the Historical Adam<\/em>, ed. Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013], 147). Collins has a helpful discussion of what is meant by \u201chistory\u201d on pages 146\u2013148.<\/p>\n Craig Blomberg says, \u201ca historical narrative recounts that which actually happened; it is the opposite of fiction\u201d (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels <\/em>[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987], xviii, n2).<\/p>\n See also the discussion by V. Phillips Long, The Art of Biblical History <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 58\u201387. Long prefers the term \u201chistoriography\u201d (that is, the verbal report of events in the past) for what I am calling \u201chistorical narrative,\u201d but he recognizes that authors can de ne \u201chistory\u201d and \u201chistorical narrative\u201d in different ways. His conclusion is helpful: \u201cWe conclude then that historiography involves a creative, though constrained, attempt to depict and interpret significant events or sequences of events from the past\u201d (87).<\/p>\n [5] Karl Giberson and Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith <\/em>(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 49.<\/p>\n This book is not about the age of the earth. We are aware that many sincere Christians hold a \u201cyoung earth\u201d position (the earth is perhaps ten thousand years old), and many others hold an \u201cold earth\u201d position (the earth is 4.5 billion years old). This book does not take a position on that issue, … Continue reading “What This Book Is Not About”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}