Peter has written regarding his concordism,
<< the primary reason for our divergent views are not just some philological
details (for the Hebrew, I primarily depend on Armin), but derive from our
very different points of departure - philosophically and possibly even
theologically. ...The different conclusions we reach are basically a
consequence of different starting points.>>
This is correct. The situation is similar to the "flood geologists" and
consensual geologists. One is beginning from the Bible and saying, How can I
find data in the natural world that will support my interpretation of the
Flood; and the other is simply asking, What do the rocks tell us? What do
they really say?
Like consensual geologists I begin with the question, What is the meaning of
the biblical text? Since it was written for a particular people at a
particular time, What did the words mean at that time to them--to the human
author and to the readers for whom he wrote? These are the same questions
which must be asked of any historical document. If one goes to Shakespeare,
one must use the meanings of the words which existed in the time of
Shakespeare, and one must interpret them within the context of their times as
well as within their literary context. In short, I look for the
historical-grammatical meaning of the biblical text, which the
arch-conservative OT theologian Walter Kaiser says is the only hermeneutical
approach which can preserve the authority of Scripture. He sees that once you
leave the historical-grammatical meaning of the Bible, human imagination and
emotion can find all sorts of things in the Bible that are not really from
God.
Concordists, on the other hand, have a different starting point. They begin
with the belief that the inspiration of Scripture demands that God cannot
accommodate his revelation to the science of the times because the science of
the times was erroneous; and God's inspired word cannot contain any errors of
fact. You and Armin make this starting point clear in the first paragraph of
your PSCF paper: "The Bible claims to be inspired by God. He designed it for
all cultures, but letting it be contaminated with gross errors would
compromise it. .."
Although one can appreciate the underlying desire to uphold a "high view" of
Scripture, the fact is that this belief has become an extra-biblical
authority which takes precedence over the Word of God. As a result, what the
Word of God says is not ultimate. An a priori theory as to what the Bible can
and cannot say is ultimate. For the concordist, the doctrine of the absolute
inerrancy of Scripture is as unfalsifiable as the global flood is for the
"flood geologist." Not even the Word of God can falsify it. The Bible simply
cannot say something that is not in accord with scientific truth. As you and
Armin put it, "Conflicts with scientific evidence _must_ send theologians and
scientists back to their studies, until a consensus is reached."
The problem with concordism is that OT scholars have reached a consensus: The
Bible is saying that the sun, moon and stars were not functioning anywhere
until after the earth and the sea were made. Further, it is only in very rare
cases that they find any concordist interpretations to be valid. But, for the
concordist, the Bible cannot be allowed to say that the sun, moon and stars
did not exist until after the earth and seas because this does not agree with
modern science; and since the ultimate authority of concordism is the a
priori belief that science and Scripture must agree, they disregard the
consensual interpretation of Gen 1. You say,
<<You and the authors you cite start from a situation which may have been
prevalent throughout much of church history, and even until quite
recently for theologians and some other scholars not involved in the
natural sciences. In that situation, the apparent contradiction read
from Genesis 1 as implying "light before the sun" seemed to leave but
one choice, namely to discard from this text all aspects of historical
narrative, while retaining the obvious theological message.>>
This gives us a rationale for a new interpretation: science has discovered
things the Church did not know and which many OT scholars supposedly did not
know. However, when it comes to the salient fact that daylight comes from the
sun, this has certainly been known since the founding of the Church. So with
regard to the interpretation of the fourth day in Gen 1, the advance of
science is irrelevant. OT scholars do not reject the concordist
interpretation because they do not know the facts of natural science, but
because having light created before the sun fits the historical and biblical
context of Gen 1. How does it fit?
Some OT scholars emphasize that the first three days of Genesis 1 involve the
making of realms which the second three days fill with objects appropriate to
those realms. There is a logical correspondence between day 1 and day 4, day
2 and day 5, day 3 and day 6. This literary structure is internal, not
imposed upon the text; and, it supplies a contextual basis for having the sun
created after the creation of light.
Another contextual basis for creating light before the sun, is that it is
widely perceived by OT scholars that the fourth day is a polemic against the
worshippers of the sun, moon and the stars. No stronger statement could be
made against those who thought of the sun as a god than to say that the true
God made daylight without the existence of the sun even being necessary.
Others, including some conservatives, think the order of events in Gen 1 is
essentially following that of Enuma Elish, i.e. the tradition of the day in
that part of the world. In both accounts the formation of the heavenly bodies
immediately follows the splitting of the primeval water and the creation of
the firmament (Day 2) and of the earth (Day 3). Although E.E. does not
specifically mention the creation of light before the creation of the
firmament, it is evident that light exists and the words "day" and "night" in
a 24-hours sense are used before there is a sun (I:39). Since Gen 1 and E.E.
are the only creation stories in the world which speak of a dividing of the
primeval waters and since the order of events is so similar, it is evident
that there is a relationship between them. So, it fits the historical context
to have light before the making of the sun.
The creation of light before the sun thus fits the literary structure of Gen
1, the polemical intent of the author, and the historical background of Gen 1.
Because these contextual reasons can explain why light is made before the
sun, OT scholars do not see any reason for denying the prima facie meaning of
the biblical text. Indeed denying the most probable meanings of the words
used in the text in order to make it agree with scientific fact seems not
only uncalled for but a betrayal of the text, a removing of it from its own
time and insisting that it speak against its will. They are unwilling to give
up the consensual interpretation of the fourth day because it fits so well
into the biblical and historical context. This consensual interpretation,
however, does not agree with the starting point of the concordists (the a
priori doctrine that Scripture must not say anything that is not
scientifically true), so concordists reject it. You write off the consensus
of OT scholars as just human "scholarly authorities." You say,
<<A fourth claim is to protest, as you are doing, that the "historic
interpretation of the Church" and "the consensus of modern Old Testament
scholars" goes against a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1. To natural
scientists, an appeal to authority doesn't count much, particularly in
the absence of up-to-date interaction with opposing views (as is clearly
the case in what you and your authorities claim). But even from the
Bible itself we may glean an attitude quite different from appeals to
human authority.
"It is quite legitimate to reconsider, in view of new findings, a
long-standing traditional interpretation of biblical texts. The Bible
itself presents some striking examples of such reinterpretations. Job's
friends were mistaken in their orthodoxy. Even Job himself had to
'retract and repent in dust and ashes.' The Pharisees, very serious
Bible students, separated the prophecies about the suffering Servant of
God from the Messiah. They were wrong, as could be seen in Jesus Christ.
Even his own disciples had to be led to a fresh view of Bible passages
they 'knew' very well, when they found his tomb empty, and when he
'explained to them in all the Scriptures what referred to himself. (1)'
Therefore, we consider it quite legitimate to propose - tentatively, as
we did - a new interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:7, and we certainly have
the right to expect to be taken seriously, without being bludgeoned with
"Church tradition" and "scholarly authorities" who have never considered
our proposition, but at most a few quite different or obviously more
limited ones (there is not just a single "day-age" interpretation).... We
are certainly ready for open discussion, but we haven't yet heard of any
convincing theological, linguistic, or other argument invalidating our
proposition.>>
I cannot see where your proposition is significantly different from that of
other concordists. Most importantly, like all other day-age concordism, your
proposition is invalidated because the Bible says the sun, moon and stars
were not functioning until the fourth day---_after_ the creation of the earth
and the seas. This fact alone falsifies all concordism. My article mentions
other changes which concordists make to the Bible and which you also make
[www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html]. You may have some
new wrinkles, but they are secondary. There is no need to investigate all of
your arguments as to how the windows or roof of your house could be different
because your misinterpretation of the fourth day leaves you with no sound
foundation upon which to build a house. OT scholars and especially the ones
I cited are well aware of concordist interpretations. They do not answer them
for the same reason that geologists expounding the record of the rocks do not
take time to answer "flood geology." It is obvious at least to those who have
been trained in the relevant disciplines that the "new interpretations" are
simply the fruit of an a priori theory.
I think it is a very serious problem that amateurs, whether in geology or
biblical studies, suppose for religious reasons that they know how to
interpret the data better than the professionals, even when their proffered
interpretations are so obviously based on very little, often even lacking any
objective foundation whatsoever. The great majority of OT scholars disavow
the concordist interpretation. What you and other concordists are implicitly
saying is that you understand the biblical text better than the best-trained
OT scholars. Surely you must have some awareness of the improbability of your
having a better interpretation.
It is a part of the mentality of the YECs to believe they have such a
superior spiritual foundation that they have every right to reject the
consensual interpretations of the natural world by authorities in geology,
anthropology, archaeology, etc. Now, you (and the other concordists) are
telling me, you and Armin hold such a superior view of the Bible, a "strong
view of inspiration," that the authorities in Hebrew and the OT who
understand Gen 1 to be saying the sun, moon and stars were not created until
the fourth day should be set aside.
As for the Scriptures you cite to show that human authorities should not be
taken too seriously, all of your examples involve people who had accepted a
human tradition contrary to God's revelation. But, that is the very point at
issue here. If your interpretations of Gen 1 are as far from the meaning of
Scripture as I and I think most OT scholars think they are, it is you who are
the one who has accepted a human tradition which is contrary to the
revelation of God and needs to be be corrected.
In addition to disavowing your commitment to an authority higher than
Scripture (the doctrine of a scientifically inerrant Bible), I disavow your
polarization of choices into YEC, myth, or being saved from these poles by
concordism. The accommodation of Scripture to the science of the times is not
the same thing as the incorporation of myth. The solidity of the sky is a
naive scientific view of the sky, as is the literal moving of the sun, etc.
It is inaccurate and biased to call these early scientific views myths. The
pre-Socratics and Aristotle are known for having rejected myth as a means of
explaining the natural world, but they still thought the sky was solid and
that the sun literally moved.
It is a purely human tradition that God's inspiration of Scripture could not
allow an accommodation to the naive and mistaken science of the day. The fact
that you call this human tradition a "solid view of inspiration" does not
save it from being based on an extra-biblical foundation. Your PSCF article
cites 2Tim 3:16 and 1 Peter 1:21 as supporting it, but the context of 2Tim
3:16 is clearly about the authority of Scripture for faith and morals only.
There is not even a hint that scientific inerrancy is included. Nor does 1
Peter 1:21 (or any of the other popular proof-texts) teach or even logically
imply that Scripture is scientifically inerrant. There is nothing solid about
this view of Scripture. It is not taught in Scripture. It rests upon an
extra-biblical philosophically idealistic view of God. It is purely a priori.
As has recently been discussed in another thread, it is quite evident, as
Jesus disclosed, that some of the moral standards in the OT are
sub-Christian---contrary to God's character as holiness and righteousness.
Are Christians then bound to believe that although in Scripture God has
conceded matters of morals to the sinfulness of men, he cannot concede
matters of science to their innocent ignorance?
On the basis of Jesus' teaching that some things in the OT have been
accommodated to the hardness of men's hearts, I accept that matters of
science can also be accommodated, and all the more so since I see numerous
instances of science being accommodated all the way through the Bible. I
agree with the conservative Baptist theologian Augustus Strong that
"Inspiration might leave the Scripture writers in possession of the
scientific ideas of their time, while yet they were empowered correctly to
declare both ethical and religious truth." [Strong, Augustus H., Systematic
Theology, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Judson Press, c. 1907), 226] I agree with the
conservative Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge that the solidity of the
firmament in Genesis 1 is an accommodation to the science of the times.
[Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952),
569-70]. My view of inspiration is truly biblical and hence really solid.
The Christian option to YECism and rank liberalism is not another imaginary
world, it is the acceptance of the real Bible and the teaching of that Bible
that not Scripture, but God himself, is the final resting place of biblical
faith. And, that since God himself is our final hope, trust, and object of
worship that we can and ought to seek and support the light and the truth
wherever it is found
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 22 2002 - 00:46:22 EDT