on 18th August, Loren Haardsma wrote:
"There are a variety of ways to interpret the language of Genesis
1 ... However, all of these views gloss over an important (IMO)
difficulty -- the flat-earth cosmology of author".
And:
"... God allowed his revealed truth to be couched in the
cosmological imagery of the author's culture, without first
correcting that imagery".
It seems to me that further discussion of these comments is
warranted - if accepted, they have far-reaching implications for
our general approach to the exegesis of the Bible, and
particularly Genesis 1.
The traditional Reformed approach to this issue has taken its
lead from Calvin - who presented the case for the Scriptures
using the language of appearance in his Commentary on Genesis.
This was also the original "defence" of the Copernican model of
the Cosmos. I made the following comment on this on July 7th
1995:
"I venture to suggest also that Copernicanism was of great
importance in the development of biblical hermeneutics: people
recognised that the Bible used the language of appearance (rather
than using technical terminology). This was beginning to be
taught at the Reformation (eg by Calvin - even though he was a
geocentrist) - but Copernicanism provided a very clear example
of the principle".
However, Loren Haardsma wrote:
"Calling it "language of appearances" is, I think, too easy of
an out".
I want to know why!! Thanks to Glenn for showing us that such
language is still part of our culture. However, more needs to
be said.
It is not satisfactory to say that the various authors of
Genesis, Job, etc., "clearly had a flat-earth, 'sky sandwich'
cosmology in mind". This is only possible to say if we impute
a world-view which distinguishes what we can see and ultimate
reality. In our scientific culture, we have grown accustomed to
the idea that appearance and reality are two DIFFERENT things.
We treat the appearance as something superficial and say that it
is necessary to get beneath the surface and find out what's
really going on! If someone then refers to the Bible using the
language of appearance, we tend to think that the motive is to
justify erroneous or primitive ideas in the Bible. The problem
is that our cultural norms are inhibiting understanding. It is
important to recognise that the culture of the Bible is a-
scientific or non-scientific. Within this culture, the
appearance is not to be regarded as something which conceals
reality. On the contrary, THE APPEARANCE IS THE REALITY. So,
for example, it is entirely legitimate for a person to describe
the sun as rising in the east and setting in the west - this is
reality!
Loren also makes this comment:
"But this leads immediately to another question: "Why didn't God
relate a spherical-earth account of creation in Genesis 1?"
Although a heliocentric view may not have been available around
the time of the completion of Genesis, a spherical-earth view
almost certainly was".
In my view, the Bible does not speak of either geocentrism nor
heliocentrism. Such conceptual models of the cosmos are alien
to the Hebrew culture (which is non-scientific and therefore
timeless). This culture does not need to be "corrected" -
although it can be a spring-board for science.
Loren's last comment was:
"So it seems unlikely to me that the passage's essential revealed
truth has much, if anything, to do with the actual "formative
history" of creation".
This conclusion cannot be drawn if the language of appearance
argument is accepted. Historical events are matters of
"appearance" and are expected to be understood as real in the
minds of readers. I would suggest that this is fully consistent
with the Old and New Testament use of the Book of Genesis.
[Coming back from a short break, I found so much mail from the
Reflector that it is a problem how to handle it! I am conscious that
Loren has provided a thoughtful response to my contribution to the
"Literature reform" series, and it will need time to think through
what he has said. In the meantime, this issue has come up - and it
is a subject to which I have already given some thought.]
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***