Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
Indeed you are correct. To me it seems very simple if we dont try to impose modern scientific ideas and cosmologies onto scripture and assume it is not talking about science.The desperate need for the plain reading to be scientific particularly seems incongruent when one takes a view that scripture should be read plainly as it reads and that it is inerrant.Sean’s expanding universe rotating around the throne of God and Isaiah image of a tent really being about an expanding universe seems rather astrological to me.
Please be careful about reading things into what I say that are not intended. I have never advocated strict Biblical inerrancy. Also, I have never heard of any evidence for a rotating universe, and when I don’t know about something, it is best to remain silent. Nor have I ever claimed that Isaiah’s comments about the tent refer to an expanding universe. I will agree with you that the Bible is not a science book; however, there is an interface between scripture and science, and this was always recognized right up until certain Enlightenment thinkers proposed putting science and Christianity into separate airtight compartments. This is the origin of fideism. It is completely alien to the New Testament and was unknown until the 18th century. Read the New Testament and notice the repeated appeals to prophecy and the facts of history to affirm Jesus’ resurrection. The apostles repeatedly appealed to powerful evidence, and Paul told King Agrippa that the Christ Event did not occur in a corner. How could you possibly think the apostles were fideists?
With that said, my comment about making something simple seem complex was not directed at any interpretation of scripture. It was directed at your comments about inhabited worlds existing in other universes to try to explain away Ellen White’s clear statements indicating that she believed in an old universe. Ellen White knew nothing about other universes, and it is quite obvious what she meant.
The writer of Genesis is talking about the creation of the earth, the firmament and the things in the firmament. Beyond this was the higher heavens where God dwells. There is absolutely no conception of God creating a universe.This is the YEC (properly understood as young earthnot young universe,perhaps we could for Seans benefit extend the acronym to YEC-YEC)that Genesis is talking about. YEC-YUC really is the bastard progeny brought forth by creation scientists that derives from trying to meld the plain reading of scripture with modern cosmologies.Cosmologies that claims that the distinction between everything within the raquia the firmament of our planet and what lay beyond up to the seventh heaven did not exist.
The human author of Genesis did not write a scientific treatise. Nor did he have a vast vocabulary at his disposal. The English language has about a million words, whereas Hebrew only has about 30,000 words. This means that certain Hebrew words are very fluid – that is, they have more than one meaning and can fit very different contexts. Whatever is above the head is the raqia, which you have rendered “firmament,” but which is better rendered “expanse” – because is derived from the verb “raqa” – “to spread out.” This verb was sometimes used for beating out a sheet of metal, and the ancients may well have thought of the sky as something firm, but that meaning is not implicit in the word itself.
Let me ask you something. If you were God, and you wanted to communicate with both ancient people and modern people about your actions in creating the world, how would you do it, assuming that people in different times have held very different cosmologies? The creation account is not myth, but after reading it carefully in Hebrew, I am struck by the fluidity of the words that are used. And I see this as a genuine mark of inspiration. I really think that God did inspire this account and that He wanted fluid words to be used so that it could be understood by both ancients and moderns. Indeed, one could hold to a flat earth cosmology with a solid dome sky and make good sense of Gen 1. The language can be interpreted from that perspective. But the language is so fluid that it can also be interpreted from the modern perspective.
Let’s consider a few of the Hebrew words from Gen 1: 1) “raqia” – this word refers to something that is spread out, and some of the ancient people may have thought of a metalic sky that was beaten out. However, that meaning is not implicit in the word; “raqia” simply means “expanse,” which is how a modern person would describe the sky and whatever is beyond it. 2) “eretz” – this word means “earth” or “land.” The ancients may have thought of the earth as a flat piece of land that was surrounded by water, but the word also serves for what we consider the earth to be today, and it is so used in modern Hebrew. 3) “asah” – this word has about 20 different meanings, and those meanings can only be determined by context. The ancients may have thought that the luminaries were “made” ex nihilo on the 4th day, but another meaning of “asah” – “established” fits very well into the context of Gen 1:14-19 and does no violence to Hebrew grammar. I submit that it is legitimate to translate “asah” either way in Gen 1:16, but “established” actually fits the context better, because the luminaries were established in their role as time keepers on the 4th day. That is the main point of the pericope! 4) “nathan” – this verb can mean “to set” or “place,” and the ancients may well have understood Gen 1:17 to mean that the luminaries were literally set in a solid dome sky on the 4th day. However, the more frequent meaning of “nathan” is “to give” or “present.” So it is just as legitimate to translate this verb in 1:17 to mean that God presented the luminaries in the expanse of the sky on the 4th day, which fits a modern cosmology.
No, Gen 1 is not a scientific document, but that does not mean that it is a myth. It is a sketch of how God created our world, given in simple language that is intelligible to both ancient and modern people, and those in between. Be aware that in New Testament times, almost everyone in the Roman Empire realized that the earth is a sphere, and they also had some concept of outer space as a series of crystaline shells in which the luminaries were embedded. But except for Aristarchus of Samos (who anticipated Copernicus), they still believed in geocentrism. God had to communicate with that society as well, and its cosmology was neither fully ancient or fully modern; it was somewhere in between. What a great task God faced, and He has used the frailty of human language to communicate His message about creation as effectively as possible to very different groups of people who have lived in different ages.
So rather than writing the creation account off as an ancient flat earth myth, I encourage you to take it to heart as a simple but true message from our loving heavenly Father about how He created our world and its living organisms.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Randolph Belsky: I am not necessarily convinced that “Yam Suph” refers to the Gulf of Suez (it could not have been the Gulf of Aqaba), but it was a significant body of water. It was certainly not a salt marsh! As the Designer of natural law, God could have suspended the laws of physics to cause the water to part and pile up into walls, but the wording of the account suggests to me that He probably accomplished this through an unusual use of wind. However, regardless of whether He used wind or suspended physical laws, this was a genuine miracle (a very striking event that strengthened faith).As far as the creation and establishment of the expanse (or atmosphere) on the 2nd day of creation week is concerned, this was direct action on the part of the Creator, and no natural law can account for it. God clearly transcended natural law in this case. He spoke, and it was accomplished!
I don’t know how much water fell from the sky during the flood. It was a significant amount, but probably quite secondary to what came from the fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11-12). I suspect that the flood was a very unusual natural event that God utilized to accomplish His purpose of cleansing the earth from evil and violence. If that was the case, perhaps it was initiated when a series of asteroid impacts caused runaway subduction of the sea floor and the consequent splitting of an antediluvian super continent. This theory is called “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” (CPT), and as a theory, it could certainly be wrong. But it does provide a possible scientific mechanism for understanding the entire flood scenario. However, the suggestion that the flood was a natural event that can be studied by science in no way minimizes God’s use of this event. God is the Lord of science, and He often uses nature to accomplish His purposes.
In conclusion, I believe that God’s intervention in the world/universe can transcend natural law, but it can also utilize natural law, and I suspect that both of these factors came into play in the instances you have mentioned.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
“After the knowledge, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork. It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintanceship with the mind of God therein expressed.” (James Prescott Joule)Paul, the physicist James Joule held the exact philosophy of science that I am proposing. Would you like to pose that same question to him: “Why should you be interested in any science? It seems a bit messy to worry about facts!” Unfortunately, he’s not here to defend himself because he died at the end of the 19th century!
Joule’s perspective was very common before methodological naturalism gained its stranglehold over science. For some strange reason, you are willing to tolerate his likes, but if a modern researcher expresses this same opinion, you want to kick him/her out of the scientific community and ask the rather insulting question, “Why should you be interested in any science?” I honestly don’t understand your mindset. It baffles me!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.
Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.
