Mar
7

Response to a Skeptic about Biblical Cosmology, part 1: Big Bang and Creation Day 4

Look what I found! Another apologetics-oriented exchange from several years ago (2005). It was in the comments of the blog over at Stand to Reason (aka STR, www.str.org). Unfortunately, it is one of those where I only preserved my response(s) and not the other person(s) initial comments. (So, technically, this is only half of the exchange.) But, it isn’t all that hard to figure out the gist of what he said. I think I did a decent job responding, and I hope you find it informative and instructive.

“I never thought my first posting to this blog would be so long, but I think a few things need to be cleared up, so here goes…

Actually, Paul, there is nothing wrong with Biblical cosmology. In fact, every week there are new scientific discoveries/experiments that strengthen what Scripture says. Take Big Bang cosmology, for example. There are many scientific evidences for a big bang creation event, and a few more are found and/or strengthened every year.

While there are many big bang theories, they all share three basic characteristics: 1) a transcendent cosmic beginning that occurred a finite time ago; 2) a continuous universal expansion; and 3) a cosmic cooling from an extremely hot initial state. ALL THREE are/were explicitly taught in the Bible, and the Bible is the only “holy book” of the world’s religions that DOES teach these three big bang fundamentals.

The problem has been, and sometimes still is, that people have certain presumptions (often based on modern and/or Western understanding) that they read into the Biblical text or they use improper hermeneutic when reading & interpreting it. And often people were/are ignorant of certain things about the relevant ancient cultures, their literary styles, etc.

For example, the 6-10K year age for the Earth (and often the universe) that is espoused by Young-Earth Creationists comes from three assumptions: 1) the genealogies of Gen. 5 & 11 are complete (or nearly so) and are to be used for the construction of a chronology; 2) the 6 days of creation described in Gen. 1 were of the 24-hr variety and consecutive; and 3) there was no significant period of time between Gen. 1:1 & 1:2 or between 1:2 & 1:3. But, the Bible nowhere states or implies the 6000 year date. Plus, there is much evidence from both Scripture and science that the preceding three assumptions are incorrect.

Another problem you said you had was that in Genesis “the sun and moon are delineated as being created after the Earth.” This is a common complaint of skeptics and scientifically-minded Christians alike. But, in order to get the REAL story, we need to step back and do two things. First, we need to recognize that the frame of reference of these and other passages is as an individual on or near the Earth’s surface. This means that certain things need to be read as “phenomenological” (we’ll get back to this in a couple minutes). Second, a closer look at the Hebrew words used in Gen. 1 reveals some interesting things.

When God created the cosmos — all matter, energy, space, & time — “in the beginning”, that included electromagnetic radiation, i.e., light. The verb used for “create” in Gen. 1:1 is “bara'”, which means “bring forth something that is radically new; produce through supernatural activity”. (God is always the subject of this verb.) OK, fine, so far. Skip forward about 9 billion years or so and verse 2 establishes the frame of reference as the surface of the primordial Earth.

Verse 3 has God starting Day 1 with “Let there be light.” The verb here is “haya”, which means “to exist; to be; to happen; or to come to pass”. Keeping in mind both our frame of reference and Earth’s initial conditions, we can imagine what likely happened on Day 1. Light penetrated Earth’s dense, dark atmosphere for the first time. God used things like gravitational accretion and the collision event that resulted in the Moon to clear away some of the debris that had previously kept light from coming through. The atmosphere effectively went from opaque to translucent. Though the Earth had been rotating all along, now was the first time that a “day” period could be distinguishable from “night.”

For millions of years, things like air temperature, pressure, humidity, volcanic activity and particulate matter in the atmosphere would have prevented any break in the perpetual overcast. Eventually, though, changes in these various environmental factors (and many others I won’t get into here) would have gradually transformed the atmosphere again — this time from translucent to transparent (at least part of the day).

Thus we come to Day 4 and verses 14-15, where God says, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and… to give light on the earth…”. In other words, the Sun, Moon, and stars became distinctly visible from Earth’s surface for the first time.

Here we get to the sticking point in verse 16: “God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.” But, when we recognize this as a parenthetical note, it’s not such a problem. The Hebrew verb translated “made” is “‘asa”, meaning “produce; manufacture; fabricate”. It appears here in the appropriate form for completed action. So, verse 16 does not say that the Sun, Moon, & stars were created on Day 4, only that they were “made” sometime prior to Day 4. Notice that the next couple of verses echo those for Day 1, suggesting that the Sun was already in place to fulfill its role on the first creation day. This is consistent with what astrophysics tells us about the Sun and stars forming long before the Earth did. The Moon, on the other hand, may have formed on Day 1.”

Couldn’t have said it better mys… er, actually, I did. Was any of that helpful? Did you learn anything new? Have you been challenged to re-consider some preconceptions you may have had about the Bible’s position on cosmological origins? How about that Day 4 stuff? That one is a tough pill to swallow for skeptics, especially when the YEC interpretation is the only Christian view they’ve heard of. But, as usual, a more careful examination of the Hebrew text provides a reasonable explanation without violating either scientific discovery or Scriptural orthodoxy.

Of course, I didn’t know all of that stuff. OK, I may have retained some of it. But, I got most of my information from the writings of Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe (aka RTB, www.reasons.org), which I’ll say more about in Part 2.

« Breakdowns in the States

Response to a Skeptic about Biblical Cosmology, part 2: Geocentrism and Bad Hermeneutic »

Like!

Tags: answering skeptics' claims, Bible and science, Biblical cosmology, careful look at Hebrew text, Christian apologetics, Creation Day 4, earth created before the Sun?, general revelation and special revelation, harmonizing the Two Books, OEC interpretation, proper hermeneutic, science/faith issues, the Big Bang, what the Bible says, when was the Sun created?, YEC vs. OEC

Posted in Religion Science Science & Religion
6 Comments Posted by sirrahc

Ross Fichter says:

March 8, 2014 at 11:15 am

HI Chris,
I know we have visited this topic in the past, but since you “reopened” the discussion, I guess I will throw my 2 cents into the ring again.

I see two very major flaws in your argument for OEC. 1) You are seeking to interpret the Bible with science, and not the other way around. 2) You espouse a proper hermeneutic as vital to understanding what Scripture teaches, and yet you veer from that in your argument.

The Bible MUST be the starting point of any discussion on orgins, since it is the only account by the Creator. Thus, when we look at the evidence of science, it must be interpreted through the lens of scripture. We cannot start with scientific “fact” and then force scripture to follow that model.

Now let me illustrate that point by using the proper hermeneutic. You stated that YEC is based on three faulty assumptions, one of which is that “day” refers to a 24-hour time period. The argument against that premise is that the word “day” does not always refer to 24 hours in Scripture. That point is true. Yet in applying good hermeneutic, let’s look at the context. First of all, the “morning and evening” reference implies that it was the 24-hour cycle of light and darkness based on the rotation of the earth. Second, God Himself refers to the days of Creation when giving the Commandment about keeping the Sabbath, instructing Israel to work 6 days in a week and rest on the seventh. The instruction was not open to interpreting “days” as “ages,” it was specifically 24-hour periods. Third, in interpreting the word “day” in Genesis, the proper hermeneutic calls for examination of the broader context of the passage. The book of Genesis is part of the Pentateuch, which was authored by Moses, primarily. In taking the Pentateuch as a whole as the context for Genesis, we see that in no other passage in these five books does the word “day” mean anything other than a 24-hour cycle of light and darkness, as described in Genesis 1. This point cannot be ignored if we are going to talk about proper hermeneutic. Just becasue the word “day” is used to describe ages in later portions of Scripture, does not mean that it is automatically an option for this passage. To imply so is really stretching hermeneutic beyond its reasonable boundaries.

The other flaw I see in your argument is that your perspective of the account of Creation is explained entirely from the human point of view, rather than from God’s. In other words, you imply that the account is not literal in the sense that it is written, but that it is written as if someone were watching it take place while standing on the earth with a limited understanding and perspectiveof waht was actually happening. So you imply that what Moses wrote was not literal, but only what he thought was happening because he could not see beyond his scope of vision and comprehension. Let me point out that the account is written from God’s perspective, because there was no other witness. So it is a first-hand account of what actually happened, not just the writer’s perception of what was happening. With that in mind, the whole “light before the sun” issue is understood. God created light, then he created the sun, moon and stars. Since God is the Creator of light, and is the Light Himself, there is no question about whether light could have existed before the sun, moon, stars, or any of the other heavenly bodies. If we assume otherwise, we suppose that we know better how God should have written what was written. To say that “God used things like gravitational accretion and the collision event that resulted in the Moon to clear away some of the debris that had previously kept light from coming through” is a misinterpretation of Scripture based on the faulty approach of trusting the “truth” of science more than the truth of God’s Word. If God’s Word is to be the standard of truth, we must start there and take God at His word, even though the facts of Scripture may not support our assumptions of what should be the case based on “oppositions of science falsely so called.” Forgive my bluntness, but that is what it comes down to when we choose to ignore the facts of Scripture and proper hermeneutic in favor of a worldview that undermines the veracity of God.

In a previous post, you demonstrated that this is your approach when you questioned the fact of a “global” flood, instead implying that it may have only covered the known and habitated parts of the earth, rather than the entire globe. Gen 7:19 says “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” I believe the phrase “under the WHOLE heaven” basically proves that God meant the ENTIRE earth and not just part of it, if we take the proper hermeneutic. So there is no room for any other interpretation, unless you want to rewrite everything else that God wrote. In that case, we might as well rewrite the Gospel, because it may have been allegorical rather than literal that Chrsit actually died and rose again.

Yes, there are many parts of Scripture that are difficult to ascertain their exact meaning. But using proper hermeneutic, Creation is not one of them. Science may not agree, but we must “let God be true, and every man a liar” if there is a conflict.

As a final note, I do appreciate your postings on this and other subjects. They challenge me to study both sides of the coin further on these subjects, which has led me to a better understanding of Scripture and a deeper faith in God. We may not ever come to agreement on these issues, but I hope we are both striving for a closer rerlationship with and better understanding of our Creator in the process.

sirrahc says:

March 9, 2014 at 12:52 am
As I was preparing this post, I wondered to myself how soon it would be before Ross responded. You did not disappoint. 🙂

I absolutely agree that the Bible must be our starting point. If the Bible unequivocally stated — w/o metaphor, hyperbole, or phenomenological language — that the Earth is flat, I would have to accept that. (Hugh Ross and the RTB crew agree, and I’m pretty sure most (all?) OECs would, as well.) But, that isn’t the case regarding the length of the Creation Days, the extent of the Flood, etc. Both the Bible and Nature (i.e., the Created Order) reliably teach Truth, as they are both revelations from God. In fact, the former instructs us to look to the latter for knowledge and wisdom. But, we rely on fallible Man’s interpretations — ours and others’ — of both Special Revelation and General/Natural Revelation. That said, I think it behooves us to investigate what our options are within the pale of orthodoxy.

I’d like to repeat something I wrote in a previous exchange we had: “I presuppose that God’s general/natural revelation and special revelation will show themselves to be in harmony when sufficient evidence is gathered and both are interpreted correctly. After considering the textual and contextual considerations for the various creation-related passages in Scripture, and taking them as a whole, it becomes apparent that an ancient Earth & universe are at the very least “allowable” within the confines of orthodoxy. (I think the case is stronger than that.) One can then consider the various scientific discoveries and theories of mainstream (and some not-so-mainstream) science and determine what is allowable by, or even strongly harmonizes with, Scripture.”

Regarding both the matters of “evening and morning” and the Sabbath command/explanation, see my previous post: http://aviewfromtheright.com/2012/09/23/another-yecoec-exchange-part-2-of-2-the-sabbath-and-eveningmorning/ Also, author/apologist Rob Bowman has made the following point: “Outside of Genesis 1, “evening” and “morning” always refer to the parts of the day when the sun is near the horizon (this includes numerous occurrences in the Pentateuch). Does this mean that the sun must have existed on the first day of Genesis 1? But this contradicts the YEC view, according to which the universe and the earth existed for 72 hours before God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth creation day.”

Regarding your statement that “the proper hermeneutic calls for examination of the broader context”, I agree. But, why limit it to the Pentateuch — i.e., the other books written by the same author? This seems an odd and somewhat arbitrary hermeneutical rule. I agree that the same author will tend to use similar style and vocabulary, but that is a guideline, not a rule, and Moses himself seems to violate that somewhat in Genesis. (Thus, the liberal JEDP Theory.) Besides, if your proposed hermeneutic were indeed a rule, where would that leave us when a interpreting book for which it is the only example we have from that author? Plus, isn’t it well-established hermeneutical principle that we should use clear(er) passages to illuminate difficult or confusing passages re a particular doctrine? Since when do we limit ourselves to a specific author? Isn’t the whole of Scripture inspired?

BUT,… let’s assume for the moment that your hermeneutic applied. It would not help you. Your claim is that “no other passage in these five books does the word ‘day’ mean anything other than a 24-hour cycle of light and darkness, as described in Genesis 1.” But, that idea falls apart, and I don’t even need to leave Genesis 1. The beginning (no pun intended) of verse 5 says, “God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” Clearly, this is contrasting (roughly) 12 hours of “daytime” with (roughly) 12 hours of “nighttime”. Gen 2:4 refers to the account that preceded it as occurring “in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” Clearly, this “day”/yom is not a 24-hour day. Let’s jump to Gen 30:14. Some translations use the plural “days of wheat harvest”, but the Hebrew word (yom) is actually singular here — clearly referring to a length of time and *not* a single, 24-hour day. Sorry, dude.
sirrahc says:

March 9, 2014 at 12:55 am
Part 2 will address phenomenological language and authorial frame of reference. However, I will say a couple things here. Certainly, God inspired Moses’ account, but that does not mean that everything is from “God’s perspective” in a physical sense, which seems to be what you’re saying. Gen 1:2 appears to establish the frame of reference for the rest of the account, starting with “the surface of the waters”. I would also point out that, other than direct quotes from what God “said”, the account refers to God in the third person. At the very least, this indicates that someone else (Moses) is telling the story. (Else, wouldn’t the account be replete with “Then I said”, “I created”, “I blessed”?) But, it also may imply that the point of view from which it is told is not God up in the heavens. Some scholars have speculated — within reason, though I am ambivalent about it — that God related the creation events to Moses in a vision. Even if this is true, I don’t see how any of it implies that the account is somehow non-literal.

God was indeed the only eyewitness to everything at the time, so He is the only one Who can give a firsthand, propositional account of what literally, actually, historically happened. (I still believe in the capabilities of the historical sciences, though.) God superintended the writing to make sure it accurately communicated what He wanted it to, even if it wasn’t as clear in places nor had as much detail as we would like.

Technically, my statement that “God used things like gravitational accretion…” is not a misinterpretation of Scripture but more a filling-in-the-blanks of what likely happened, based on scientific discoveries and current theory. (Btw, Job 38:9 seems to support the early conditions I wrote about, when God talks of His forming the Earth and says He “made a cloud its [i.e, the Earth’s] garment and thick darkness its swaddling band”.)

I will address the Flood matter in a separate comment (maybe tomorrow, er, later today).

Contrary to your assertions, I am not questioning how God “should have written” Scripture, nor am I choosing to ignore (relevant) facts of Scripture, nor am I favoring “a worldview that undermines the veracity of God.” Rather, I am disagreeing with a certain (now popular) understanding of certain Biblical passages and associated doctrine, while doing my best to remain well within traditional (specifically, evangelical Protestant) orthodoxy. In questioning 24-hour-day teaching, I am in good company with many noted and well-respected theologians & other scholars from the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Augustine) to the Old Princetonians (e.g., Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield) to the present (e.g., Gleason Archer, Norm Geisler, J.P. Moreland).

And, yes, I do echo your sentiments in your “final note”. 🙂

P.S. Later this month, I’ll be posting a follow-up (of sorts) called “Response to a YEC about Creation and the Bible”, which will touch on the matters of possible translations & interpretations, metaphysical biases, etc.
sirrahc says:

March 9, 2014 at 7:45 pm
Re Genesis 7:19

I appreciate your passion and desire to remain faithful to Scripture, Ross. Believe it or not, I do, too. And I understand why you believe what you do, as I once did, and it is common enough. But, a closer look at some of the Hebrew words used in the passage reveals more flexibility than you are either aware or will accept. In fact, let’s back up a little to the word often translated “earth”. Because we call our planet “Earth” and often think in global terms, it is natural (for us) to read that as the entire globe of “planet Earth”. But, while < 'eres> (or < erets>) can mean the planet, it can also be translated “land”, “region”, “country”, “kingdom”, “continent”.

It’s also doubtful that they thought in global terms back then. When the Bible uses such phrases as “on the face of the earth” or “the whole world”, it is speaking of the “known world”. For example, when Gen 41:56 (KJV) says, “The famine was over all the face of the earth,” we understand that it speaks of the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. Same thing with I Kings 10:24. When it says, “the whole world sought audience with Solomon”, no one should think that included delegations from Australia or the Americas. There are similar statements in the New Testament (e.g., Rom 1:8; Col 1:6) that clearly refer to the Roman Empire (and possibly adjacent regions).

The word translated “mountain” (< har>) can be anything from a large mound that kids play on… to what we normally think of as a hill or “hill country”… to a towering peak. The Hebrew adjective < gaboah> means “high”, “exalted”, “elevated”, or “lifted above”, and can apply to any elevation above the plain. Furthermore, the word translated “covered” (< kasah>) can mean either that the water stood/remained over the hill-/mountain-tops, or it can mean that the water was “running over” and/or “falling upon” the high hills/mountains (i.e., flash-flood or torrential rainfall). No clear indication of which is most appropriate is found in the text.

It comes back to the actor’s and/or reader’s frame of reference. When Noah looked out from the ark’s upper deck, the deluge was so great that, everywhere he looked and as far as he could see, the hills/mountains were obscured. This may be attributed to any combination of factors — e.g., atmospheric conditions, wave action, curvature of the Earth, dimming eyesight, etc. If the ark started out floating anywhere near the middle of the huge Mesopotamian plain on water as deep as 200-300 feet, no hills or mountains would be visible from it. All Noah would see “under the whole heaven” would be water. I believe that is what literally, actually, historically happened.

I should point out that none of this lessens the wonder or the import of the Flood miracle. (This seems to be a major concern of YECs.) And, while not all OECs may agree, I believe that the Flood did indeed wipe out all (save 8) Homo sapiens — i.e., those born with the imago Dei. There are indications in Scripture that Man had not yet spread out beyond Mesopotamia.

There is much more to consider, but I’ll stop there.

If someone was unaware of scientific findings/theories re geology, hydrology, seismology, fossil record, etc., and only considered the Hebrew of this passage (or even other related passages), nothing demands a global flood. There is no proof “that God meant the ENTIRE earth”, if by “earth” you mean the planet. Your conclusions about wanting to rewrite the Bible and making everything allegorical do not logically follow from the Local Flood position. It does no damage to Scripture and is entirely within orthodoxy. It also comports with scientific findings, whereas the claims of Flood Geology do not. A global flood may be a possible interpretation, but it certainly isn’t the only — let alone, best, imho — interpretation. I realize this is potentially paradigm-shifting. (It was for me.) But, I think an honest and informed assessment demands acknowledgement of this.

GCFM says:

June 20, 2014 at 11:07 am

Hey, really loved the read, thank you so much for being a both Christian and a student of science. I recently watched a documentary presented by Steven Hawking on Netflix explaining why God was not needed for the universe to come into existence. I was appalled by the audacity of his rationale, not because it precluded God, but because his rationale was based in spontaneous generation of matter… which is creationism if I am not mistaken. I have heard all the way back to 7th grade science class that creationism is only a belief shared by the ignorant who are unable to grasp the concept of science due to having either limited intellect or because of living in a more primitive society that doesn’t have access to scientific resources.

I think the only way time can exist is if eternity existed before it, since time cannot exist without matter. If matter was created, something created it. Eternity is the only expression which can not be assigned an integer. It makes perfect sense to me that “eternity” is what is missing from the equation and why science has not unlocked the secret to the universe, Newton’s law works fine in space but when discussing the cosmos, even using words like “finite” is still like baby math, in the large scheme of things because creation existed before even the astronomically sized numbers we are presented with. It’s because of this that science runs into brick walls and explains things with “magically” appearing sub atomic particles who needn’t extrinsic force for them to spawn. I propose that without an eternity integers can not even exist since they are limitless and would need that much space to be expressed, even an army of Steven Hawking’s couldn’t fit eternity into an equation.
My point is I think today’s Christians need to arm themselves with some degree of scientific knowledge in order to not be labeled as “ignorant” by secular society, and being ridiculed for their beliefs.
Both sides of the argument: be one on the side of God, or on the side of atheism boil down to” belief.” But for an intelligent discussion to occur between the two sides, both sides need to be educated in both faith and science… then and only then will we both understand that regardless of what we believe, it will always be belief, we won’t know till the end. But in the mean time, I’d just assume to not be called “stupid” because of what I side I’m on.

sirrahc says:

June 23, 2014 at 1:43 am
Thanks so much for reading and leaving a thoughtful comment, GC.

I agree with you on the irony of Hawking’s claims. However, I am confused by your use of “eternity”. You seem to refer to it as a thing unto itself — perhaps even God — rather than a reference to “timelessness” (aka “atemporality”) or “everlastingness”, the two terms that philosophers use. I’m not really up on that stuff. Regardless, if you are saying that the matter/energy/space/time of our universe requires an Originator from beyond the bounds of matter/energy/space/time, then I obviously agree. (Also, quantum theory does not *work* for the naturalist, either.)

I also totally agree with your conclusion that “both sides need to be educated in both faith [I would say ‘religion & theology’] and science”, which means that today’s Christians need to arm themselves with some degree of scientific knowledge in order to not be labeled as ‘ignorant'”. Many times, Christians assume they already have the faith/religion/theology part down, but we also need to make sure we properly understand Christian orthodoxy. I’m still working on both….