On Thu, 14 May 1998 17:22:22 -0700, Teena Della wrote:
TD>Hello!
>
>I've been reading your list for a couple weeks and would like to say
>hello and let you know a bit about where I'm coming from.
Welcome to the Reflector!
TD>I am a high school geology teacher and a Christian. At first those two
>seem to me to be opposites. It is an area I struggle with. I love
>teaching geology but at church I hesitate to express my views and
>uncertainities. At school, of course, I must not teach creation if I
>want to keep my job!
Which is itself significant. I regard this as a form of persecution.
TD> For my own peace of mind though I'd like to settle
>two questions: 1. Is the seven days of creation seven literal days or
>billions of years.
Personally I think the best interpretation is as a literary framework of
God's work of creation likened to a human working week. The best
exposition of this I have seen is in Blocher:
"The literary interpretation
The fourth interpretation, which has also been called 'historico-
artistic', or the framework theory, is not, as is too often
imagined, an innovation of the modern age. Augustine, who thought
that everything had been created 'at once' (cf. Ecclus. 18:1),
constructed a brilliant and startling interpretation of the days in
De Genesi ad litteram. In his view, their temporal character is not
physical but ideal; they are a 'sextuple confrontation of the angelic
nature with the order of creation'. In the Middle Ages,
Gersonides (1288-1344) considered that the days 'indicate the prior
order between beings in logical and natural terms, but not in chronological
terms'. Rightly or wrongly, Ceuppens attributes this view to
Thomas Aquinas. Nearer our own day the great Dominican scholar,
M. J. Lagrange, writes without hesitation: 'the author's intention
is crystal clear...his procedure is one of logic: it is a literary
form'. For several decades quite a number of theologians in the
evangelical churches have been advocating the same opinion. The
pioneer, around 1930, was probably A. Noordtzij of the University of
Utrecht, and since World War II the main proponents have been N.
H. Ridderbos of Amsterdam, B. Ramm of California, M. G. Kline of New
England, D. F. Payne of Britain and J. A. Thompson of Australia.
There is no questioning their competence or, generally speaking,
their respect for Scripture.
The literary interpretation takes the form of the week attributed to
the work of creation to be an artistic arrangement, a modest example
of anthropomorphism that is not to be taken literally. The author's
intention is not to supply us with a chronology of origins. It is
possible that the logical order he has chosen coincides broadly with
the actual sequence of the facts of cosmogony; but that does not
interest him. He wishes to bring out certain themes and provide a
theology of the sabbath. The text is composed as the author
meditates on the finished work so that we may understand how the
creation is related to God and what is its significance for mankind
This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the
commentators. It recognizes ordinary days but takes them in the
context of one large figurative whole; the differences in order
between the two 'tablets' no longer cause difficulties neither does
the delay in the creation of the stars, nor does the confrontation
with the scientific vision of the most distant past. So great is the
advantage, and for some the relief, that it could constitute a
temptation. We must not espouse the theory on the grounds of its
convenience but only if the text leads us in that direction.
To put it plainly, both the genre and the style of the Genesis
prologue, as our introductory chapter saw them, provide strong
grounds for presuming in favour of the literary interpretation We
discerned a composite literary genre, skilfully composed."
(Blocher H., "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis",
InterVarsity Press: Leicester, 1984, pp49-50)
TD>Can we trust radiometric dating?
I believe so. But unless we adopt a young-Earth interpretation of
Genesis 1-11, we have no reason not too.
TD>2. The evolution/creation argument is another dilemma for me.
>I believe God did create us but "how?" is my question.
That's *our* "question" too! :-)
TD>I'm hoping that I can learn from
>you and that my questions won't be redundant! (If so, please just
>respond to my email address instead of to the whole list! Thanks!) Does
>anyone have any comments that might shed some light on these two
>questions?
I think it is important to discuss these issues in public, so I am replying
to you via the "whole list".
TD>I must say though, that I also believe that both of these dilemmas are
>academic. The important fact, that is indisputable in my mind, is that
>Christ died for us so that we could be spared from the tortures of Hell
>and have the free gift of Heaven. I can just imagine God laughing and
>shaking his head at us for all our other little misinterpretations! (I
>hope so anyway!)
I used to think this too. But unfortuanately between us and "heaven"
is our life here on Earth. And it is some of these "little misinterpretations"
that may make all the difference between "Hell" and "Heaven", if not
for us, but for others who are influenced by us.
TD>I look forward to reading and participating in the discussions to come!
I hope we can be of some help, even if it is as a bad example to avoid! :-)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------