Shades of Creationism 2

All righty.

All righty.

Well, it is that time again.

So why don't I open us up in prayer?

Father God, thank you for this day.

Thank you for allowing us this time to come together

and to think about you and learn about you, Lord.

I ask that this class would be edifying

and that it would glorify you

and that we would come away better able

to love each other in unity.

We love you, Lord, in Jesus' name. Amen.

Okay, so as I'm one to do,

let's start with preamble.

Okay, so the preamble today

is that I have tried my best

to find easy and accessible ways

to break these different views

of interpreting Genesis up.

And I'm trying to use language that makes sense

and I'm attempting to use language

that the adherents of this particular view use themselves.

So, but unfortunately, it's not usually that easy.

So I have had to make up some terms.

But I've tried my best to stay to real terms when possible.

And secondly, I will say that some of these terms

are often used pejoratively,

but that's not my intention in this class.

My intention is clarity.

So try to divest any of these terms

that may have connotations to you.

Just sort of ignore those.

That's not the point.

The point is to understand each other.

So let's get going.

So the first thing,

I'm going to do a little crash course

in the basics of hermeneutics.

And I'm going to use,

to start off with,

just some of the insights

that have come from studying communication

in a field called speech act theory.

So in speech act theory,

they try to understand communication

by dividing it into three different types,

three different parts.

So the three components of communication

are one, the locution,

two, the illocution,

and three, the perlocution.

Okay.

Lots of acutions there,

but really,

these are just ways,

fancy academic ways,

of saying the locution

is the form of the speech,

the grammar,

the syntax,

that kind of thing.

The illocution is the meaning

that you're trying to get across,

and the perlocution is actually

the understanding of the audience.

Okay.

So these are the three parts of speech.

But you know what?

Actually, before I get going too far,

do you have the time?

903.

903.

Isn't that interesting?

I asked you guys,

do you have the time?

And nobody said yes or no.

Everybody is looking in their pockets

trying to find their watch, right?

Because they know

that I'm not actually asking you,

do you have the time?

Like, are you aware

of what the time is, right?

Because according to the locution,

the correct answer to that question is

yes or no, right?

You could not know what the time is.

So the correct answer is either yes or no.

But because of the context

and because of the way I'm speaking it,

we all know what I'm really asking.

I'm really asking,

can you tell me the time?

Right?

But nobody asks somebody,

well, I guess some people ask people,

do you know the time?

Right?

Or can you tell me the time?

And so this is just an illustration

of how sometimes the locution,

the form of the sentence,

doesn't equal the illocution,

what I'm trying to convey to you.

Right?

And it's not just in this situation.

I could change the tone of my voice

and use the exact same words

and have a totally different effect.

So I first ask,

do you have the time?

And you're looking for your watch

and you want to tell me what time it is.

If I'm talking to my daughter,

I say,

do you know the time?

Suddenly she's thinking,

oh my goodness,

I didn't know it's bedtime.

I need to be going to sleep now, right?

Or do you know what time it is?

Right?

Now it's like,

oh, what's going on?

Oh, it's the football game.

Let's go sit down

and watch the football game.

Right?

In none of these situations

is the meaning of my communication

the actual grammatical form

of the communication.

Okay?

And this is important.

Right?

Because of biblical inerrancy.

Right?

As Christians,

we affirm that the Bible

is the word of God

and is therefore inerrant,

meaning all of its truth

claims are affirmed

and it is without error

in any of these truth claims.

Right?

But,

not all interpretations

of the Bible

are inerrant.

Right?

And so our goal,

if we're looking for,

so using some of our new terms,

if we want to understand

what we're talking about inerrancy,

is that the illocution

of the Bible

is inerrant.

The meaning of the Bible

is always inerrant.

It's true in all of its forms.

However,

sometimes the Bible

is using idiom.

Sometimes it's using

poetic language.

Sometimes it's using

analogical language.

Sometimes it's using

scientific language.

Right?

And so it's our job

as the audience

to match our perlocution

with the illocution

of the Bible.

Right?

That's what we're trying

to do in interpretation.

Right?

That's our job

in hermeneutics.

However,

there are a lot

of different

philosophical

predispositions

and views

that determine

a lot of times

how we are

understanding the text.

How it's hitting us.

Okay?

And this is especially

relevant

to

our discussion

here today

about different

interpretations

of Genesis 1

and how that relates

to whether

intelligent design

or theistic evolution

is a possible view.

Right?

Because today

our goal

is to understand

the question

why are we even

talking about this?

Right?

Why are we even

having a discussion

about intelligent design

and theistic evolution?

Right?

Because

Genesis 1

is so clear.

But I'm going to

talk about today

how different Christians

understand Genesis 1

and how that either

does not allow room

for an evolutionary

mechanism

or allows room

for.

Right?

And we'll talk

more about that

later.

But let me first

talk about

sort of how

I'm going to be

framing our discussion

today.

Okay?

Last week

I talked about

how the scientific

method developed.

Right?

And part of that

was Christians

understanding that

God is a will.

God is a person

who has a will

and can do

anything he wants

in creation.

And so

because he's not

constrained

he has the ability

to do things

other than

you might think.

So we can't just

reason by first

principles

what must be

true of nature.

We have to

actually investigate

nature to understand

what it is that

God did.

So God is often

described as having

written two different

books.

We have one,

the book of nature,

which is called

general revelation.

and this is

what we can learn

about God

just from observing

nature by

introspection,

by reason,

by philosophy,

these kinds of

things.

Right?

This is the kind

of revelation

that's generally

applied to everyone

in the whole world

across time.

Right?

Everyone is in

connection to

the book of nature,

to general revelation.

He also wrote,

most famously,

the book of scripture.

scripture.

Right?

Special revelation.

This is what we can

learn about God

from his own

self-revelation

in his word.

Right?

And so,

we know

that we have

these two kinds

of books,

but there are

a variety

of different ways

to balance

the book of nature

and the book

of scripture.

What I'm going to

call general

and special revelation

for the rest

of the class,

just because

the book of

is kind of long.

So,

we're going to

talk about

general and special.

Special being

scripture,

general being

nature.

So,

we as Christians

hold scripture

to be our

highest authority.

Right?

Scripture is

breathed out

from God.

It is self-revelation.

It is the clearest

form of communication

between us

and God.

But that being said,

scripture itself

points to the

trustworthiness

of the book

of nature,

especially when

it comes to

the world.

Right?

It says in Romans

that God's attributes

are clearly seen

in his works

in nature.

Right?

And that the heavens

declare the glory

of God

in the Psalms.

So,

we are expected

as individuals,

in fact,

in Romans,

we are held

responsible

for the truths

that we can gain

about God

from nature.

Right?

So,

scripture itself,

which is our

highest authority,

has a high view

of what we can

understand from

the book of nature.

Right?

So,

how do we balance

them?

Right?

Because what if

what we learn

in the book of nature

from our understanding

conflicts from

what we learn

in the book of

scripture?

Right?

So,

that is

the first

tension

in creationism.

Okay?

So,

I'm going to go

through

six different

views,

which I am

going to describe

in a spectrum.

Six different

views,

philosophical

views,

about how

we balance

general

and special

revelation.

Okay?

Because this

is going to be

a major part

of how we

approach

Genesis 1.

Right?

It's going to be

a major part

of how we

are dialoguing

with our

fellow Christians

who may have

different views.

Okay?

And rarely,

this is actually

what we're talking

about.

Usually,

we're talking

about,

we think we're

talking about

something else,

but in actual

fact,

a lot of times

we actually are

talking about

this.

So,

the first view

is what I'm

calling,

and this is my

own term,

science skeptics.

Okay?

Now,

science skeptics,

again,

I'm not using,

I'm not trying

to have

pejorative

understandings

here,

but just

try to

wipe away

any connotation

that you're

feeling.

But a

science skeptics

believe that

special revelation

is really

the only

authority.

Right?

Special revelation

is the only

authority,

they are not

really that

sanguine about

what we can

actually learn

from science.

Okay?

This is not

a very common

position,

but it's

characterized

just by

flippancy

about what

science can

do.

Right?

They don't

particularly

think that

it's a

reliable method

of understanding

information,

especially when

it comes to

understanding

the origins

of the world

and the way

that it works.

So if I

was to

imagine

a scale

in which

we are

balancing

general and

special revelation,

a science skeptic

may be on

this end of

the spectrum.

Right?

So special

revelation is

the scales

all the way

down,

and really

general revelation

is not really

doing much

in terms of

their interpretation

of the world

or how they

balance things.

Okay?

So this

is

again

not a very

common

position,

mainly because

in our

everyday life

we're sort

of living

with the

fruits of

a lot of

the endeavors

of scientists,

you know,

our cell

phones,

our

automobiles,

etc.

And so a lot

of times it's

sort of hard

to be in

this position

cognitively,

but it is a

position I want

us to be aware

of.

The next

position is

far more

common.

I'm calling

this concordists,

and so what

concordists believe,

and I'm not,

so this is an

actual term,

I'm not making

this up,

so I'll try

to make that

clear as we

go along.

But concordists,

they emphasize

special revelation

in understanding

how nature

came to be,

but they also

have a high

view of what

we can learn

from general

revelation.

information.

So another

way of

understanding

this is that

in general,

these Christians

believe that

the Bible is

intending to

communicate

scientific

information at

a certain

level.

And again,

within the

concordist group

there's going to

be disagreement

about to what

level.

But in general,

the reason I can

fit these together

is that they

try in general

to fit information

that we get

from science

into a

biblical framework,

their biblical

framework.

So they say,

okay,

the Bible is

communicating

scientific

information,

and I have

the scientific

information over

here,

so therefore

they must

be the same.

And so they

are trying

to fit

their view

of science

into their

biblical

interpretation.

And so,

you know,

mostly special

revelation,

but general

revelation

actually has

some weight

in this group.

Okay?

So there's a

little bit more

of a balance.

This third

group I'm

calling

harmonists,

and I didn't

make that up,

but it's not

very common.

So a

harmonist

approach

is they

try not

to privilege

special or

general revelation

when they're

explaining nature.

Basically,

they think

that the

goal is to

understand these

different

areas of

information on

their own

terms,

right?

And then

when there

is conflict

apparent,

they try to

smooth it out.

They try to

harmonize those

conflicts as

they appear.

But they,

in general,

don't try to

use special

revelation in

applying it to

general,

and they don't

use general

revelation to

apply it to

special.

They say that

these are two

groups that

are talking

to each

other,

but they

have their

own ways

of communicating.

And so

you would

imagine that

this group

would be

special revelation,

general revelation,

sort of in

parity when it

comes to

understanding

nature,

again.

Because remember,

I don't want to

confuse anybody

with these scales.

As Christians,

special revelation

is the highest

authority,

right?

But when it

comes to

understanding the

way nature

works and

how it

came to

be,

there was

going to

be a

balance.

So again,

just to make

that clear.

Then we have

accommodationists.

This is in the

term I came up

with, and it's

not actually

entirely pejorative.

So people who

hold this view

call themselves

accommodationists,

and this view,

you can imagine

them as sort of

the reverse image

of a concordance.

they privilege

general revelation

when it comes to

understanding nature.

They have a high

view of special

revelation,

and what can be

learned about

nature there.

And so what is

characteristic of

this group is

usually they try

to de-emphasize

the scientific

implications of

scripture,

and try to focus

more of their

effort on

understanding the

sort of the

spiritual or

moral import,

or theological

import of

scripture.

And so you

would say here

when it comes

to nature,

they're weighting

general revelation

a little more

strongly than

special revelation.

Right?

And finally,

the last group,

because there are

five groups,

not six.

The sixth group

is just secret,

it's just for me.

The last group

I'm calling

biblical skeptics.

Okay?

I came up with

this term.

I don't think

anybody would

call themselves

a biblical skeptic.

But in terms

of this

discussion,

they would

hold that

really general

revelation is

the only real

authority when

it comes to

understanding nature.

And that the

Bible is not

meant to convey

scientific information

at all.

And it's really

there for moral

information,

theological

information,

and is not

a reliable

scientific

witness,

as it were.

And so,

this group

we would

see here,

general

revelation

is just

kind of

all the

way down.

So,

with these

five

broad

philosophical

views in

mind about

how we

balance

general and

special revelation,

right?

Let us

go

to

scripture

itself.

Let's talk

about

what it is

that we

learn about

creation,

about

origins in

Genesis 1,

2,

and 3.

And this is

just going to

be a very

quick overview.

I did an

even quicker

overview,

like a year

ago,

actually,

when we did

the overviews

of each of

these books.

So,

I don't know

which one is

going to be

quicker,

but this is

going to be

pretty quick.

So,

let's talk

about the

biblical data

that we have

in front of

us.

Okay?

So,

we have

Genesis 1.

In the

beginning,

God created

the heavens

and the

earth,

and the

earth was

without form

and void,

and there

was darkness

over the

surface of

the waters.

That's off

surface of the

deep.

Okay.

I've read it a

bunch of times,

so I kind of

remember.

And God

said,

let there be

light,

and separated

the light from

the darkness,

and that is

evening and

morning,

the first day.

one day.

Or,

depending on

how you

translate it,

one day.

Some people

put a lot of

emphasis on the

fact that there

is no definite

article on the

first five days.

I don't know.

Anyways,

the first day

sounds better.

And so,

on day one

in Genesis,

we see the

separation of

light versus

dark.

And so,

I'm filling

in this

table to

sort of

illustrate how

the six days

of creation

mirror each

other.

Right?

Because we

have the

first three

days,

which are

often described

as forming

days,

where God

is creating

the space

for these

different kingdoms,

these different

domains,

as you were.

Separating light

from dark.

On day two,

he's separating

the waters from

the sky,

so he's

creating waters,

he's creating

the air.

And then

day three,

he's separating

water from

the land.

And on the

land,

there is a

special creation

on day three,

the creation

of vegetation

on the land.

Okay?

So you can

imagine,

in this forming

column,

we have the

creation of

spaces,

the creation

of domains.

And then,

on the

filling days,

day four

through six,

we're going

to be filling

these different

domains with

their inhabitants.

Right?

So on day four,

we have the

creation of

the luminaries.

So we have

the sun,

the moon,

the stars.

These are

the inhabitants

of the light

and dark.

Right?

They are the

inhabitants of

day and night.

Moving forward,

on day five,

we have the

creation of

the fish

and the birds.

And the fish

and the birds,

they live in

the waters

and in the sky.

Right?

These are

the spaces

that God

has created

for these

creatures

on day two.

And on day six,

we have the

creation of

land creatures

in general,

animals and

bugs and

anything that

crawls and

creeps on the

land.

And a special

creation on

day six of

human beings

as separate

from the

animals.

And this

is the

pinnacle

of the

creation week.

Okay?

The entire

creation week

is building

up to

human beings.

Right?

And there's

a beautiful

part where

we get into

strictly poetic

language.

It says,

God created

them in his

image.

In the image

of God,

he created

them.

Male and

female,

he created

them.

Right?

So it's a

triple emphasis

on the creation

of human beings

in the creation

week as the

pinnacle of

his creation.

And in fact,

if you look at

the description

of the

luminaries,

why did God

create the

luminaries?

God created

the sun and

the moon to

watch over the

day and the

night and for

signs and for

seasons.

Right?

And who's

watching for

signs and

seasons?

That's us.

So we're

showing here

in the

creation account

the creation

of a world

meant for

human beings.

It's an

anthropomorphic

creation.

No.

Anthropocentric?

That's the

word.

Anthropocentric

creation.

We're the big

deal here.

In the

creation, God

is the big

deal and the

one doing it,

obviously.

And on day

seven, God

rests.

There's no

morning and

evening with

the implication

that God's

rest continues

on.

And so this is

God's Sabbath

and in the

same way that

God rests on

the seventh

day, we, and

delights in

his creation,

saying that it's

very good, we

as human beings

later in

Exodus and

in Deuteronomy,

we are expected

to rest on the

Sabbath day, on

the seventh day,

keep it holy to

glorify God in

his creation and

to worship

him.

Right?

So this is

sort of

showing us,

giving us a

pattern of

why it is

that on the

seventh day

that we rest

and glorify God

because on the

seventh day, God

rested.

Right?

That's the

direct implication

of Moses in

Exodus when he

is giving

Israelites the

law.

So this is

the major

biblical data

when it comes

to use a

weird term.

I'm a

scientist.

Sometimes I

use data

when I

shouldn't.

But anyways,

the biblical

information, the

biblical witness

in Genesis 1,

this is the

big, where

most of the

controversy lies

in terms of

interpreting

Genesis and

applying it to

the science and

faith discussion.

But I don't

think we should

give Genesis 2

and 3 short

shrift because

these are also

incredibly important

for understanding

how we parse

out these

different views.

So in

Genesis 2,

we zoom in

to discuss

the creation

of man.

Adam is made

specially by God

in his image.

He's given

dominion over

the animals.

He's tasked

with multiplying,

subduing the

earth.

We're given the

creation mandate.

And Eve is

presented to

Adam.

The first

marriage is

recorded.

God's plan for

creation is on

track to being

completed.

Now he has his

vice regents here

on earth to

subdue and to

participate in

God subduing and

ruling over the

earth.

But we're all

aware of what

happens in Genesis

3.

In Genesis 3,

the narrative

continues with the

great cataclysm that

we call the

fall.

The serpent

deceives Adam

and Eve to

disobey God

by eating from

the tree of the

knowledge of good

and evil, the

one tree that God

said do not eat

from.

And don't we know

as parents how

that is, right?

The one place you

tell them not to

go.

That's the place

they want to be.

Anyways, one of

these days I'll tell

them not to eat

broccoli and we'll

see if that works.

So this

disobedience results

in their death.

Not immediately,

but eventually.

Their death, they

are individually

cursed, the serpent,

the man, and the

woman.

And now the

relationship between

God and man has

been ruptured.

And there is

condemnation.

Although, we have

a promise of

redemption already

in the, pretty

much in the

middle of the

curses, right?

They have just

disobeyed God.

You know, they

have marred his

beautiful creation.

He's cursing them,

but in the middle

of the cursing is a

parenthetical, by

the way, I'll take

care of this, right?

So, this is our

biblical information.

If you guys remember

back to the

biblical theology

courses that we

were just going

through, the

creation, fall, and

the beginning of

redemption history is

a major theme in

all of these

different strands

that fly out from

Genesis throughout

the Bible.

These different

strands that are

connected and

ultimately find

their consummation

and conclusion

and climax,

let's say,

in Jesus.

Sorry, I was just

thinking that.

I just did three

C words and it

wasn't even on

purpose.

So, it's

important.

This is important.

And this is why

there is a

significant amount

of controversy over

the interpretation of

these passages,

because it's not

just how did God

create the world.

It is the sort of

the bedrock

assumptions and

set up for really

the entire biblical

worldview.

Right?

So, just remember

that when we're

having these

discussions with

each other, and

we're disagreeing

with each other on

these different

views, a lot of

the heat comes

from our innate

view, our innate

desire to protect

the witness of

Scripture.

Right?

Because that's

what we're told to

do in the Bible,

to protect the

witness of Scripture

and to preserve

the witness

handed down by

this.

I don't know.

I'm trying to

quote a verse, and

it's not working.

Yeah, there you

go.

That's what I'm

going for.

The faith once

for all.

Yeah, exactly.

Delivered to the

saints.

Okay.

So, this is our

biblical data.

This is what

everybody's reading.

Okay?

These, I'm about

to go through a

variety of

different interpretations

of Genesis 1,

with the implications

for 2 and 3, but

usually a lot of

the discussion is on

Genesis 1.

And so, we all

don't have different

Bibles, right?

We're all reading the

same Bible.

And so, it's

important to take

into consideration

that we're all

looking at the same

stuff.

And the question is,

how do we

understand it?

What is Genesis

attempting to

convey to us?

So, let me start

with probably one

of the more

famous and

well-known

views, which is

young earth

creation

interpretations.

I'm going to

abbreviate that

Y-E-C.

I'm not entirely

sure why, because

I think this is

the only time I

use it.

But the young

earth creation

view basically

takes the face

value understanding

of Genesis as

we read it.

You know, as

modern people, we

read Genesis 1,

and there's an

initial understanding

of what we see in

our mind when we

read it, and that

is generally what

the young earth

creation view

attempts to put

forward is what

you read is what

you get, basically.

They take a face

value understanding.

They believe that

the creation account

is straight history

and is meant to

be understood that

way.

And further, usually

they believe that

science done

correctly will prove

that the earth and

universe is in fact

young as is

described in

scripture.

Now, of course,

you may be thinking,

oh, Genesis 1

doesn't give us an

age of the earth.

But if you take

Genesis 1 as

straight history,

and then you add

up all the

genealogical years

going through Genesis

all the way up to

Abraham, you get an

age range, right?

So 6,000 to 10,000

depending on how you

add it up.

So this is, they

are believing, this

is the witness of

scripture, and

therefore the earth

and universe must in

fact be young, and

that science

incorrectly will show

that it's young.

This is the young

earth view.

Oh, man, it's

snowing.

That's beautiful.

The second group, I'm

going to put these

into four different

groups, and these

groupings are largely

my creation, although

I am cribbing off of a

variety of different

sources.

But this next group I'm

calling the ancient

science interpretations.

And what these groups

have in common, I

thought that was

thunder, I was like.

So, yeah, exactly.

Oh, thank you.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I would love that.

All right.

So I've grouped these

under this heading of

ancient science because

they share in common the

belief that the Genesis

account is intending to

convey what God did and

how God created the

world, and that

understanding it

correctly, it will fit

with the sort of the

modern scientific view

of the world.

So the first group

in this group

is the appearance

of age idea.

And so basically what

the appearance of age

interpretation says is

that the young

earth understanding

of the Bible is

correct, except

that the world

does appear old.

but it is merely

appearing old

because it was

created mature.

Right?

And so you can see

that there is, you

may be thinking, what's

the difference between

that and young

earth creationism?

What young earth

creationists would

believe that science

done correctly will

show that the earth

is young and the

universe is young.

A person who takes

the appearance of age

approach would say,

I am taking the

witness of scripture

at face value, and I

recognize that science

seems to indicate that

the earth is old, and

the way I reconcile

that is by positing

that the earth is

merely appears old.

Similar, and they

use this example,

similarly, God created

Adam as a full adult

human being.

Right?

You know, do they have

a belly button?

You know, who knows?

Right?

But the idea is, Adam

was created adult, and

so we can imagine a

scenario in which the

universe is created, in

a sense, adult.

Right?

And fully grown, and

that, when we do

science, it sort of

appears as if it's old,

but really it's not.

That's one view.

The next view in the

ancient science

interpretations is the

gap theory.

So basically, the gap

theory says that

Genesis 1 to 2,

sorry, Genesis 1, 1

to 2, describes sort

of the initial creation

event, and when it

says that the earth

was formless and void,

that the correct way

to understand that is

to say the earth

became formless and

void, and so the

idea is that God

initially created the

whole world, the whole

universe.

This is where we get

all of the age that

we see implicated in

science, but then due

to the fall of Satan,

this world that God

created initially falls

into dissonance,

disrepair, it becomes

formless and void, and

there's extinction

events on earth, etc.

And then in Genesis 1,

3, and continuing in

the Genesis account, we

find the straight

history of how God

recreated the world.

He created the world,

he re-separated things,

he created the light

and the dark, and the

sun, and all these

things, and that the

earth is in fact, or

the universe is in

fact very old, but

Genesis is describing

the straight history.

Does that make sense

to everybody?

I will mention that the

gap theory sounds really

good to our ears, but

most biblical scholars,

the reason that it's not

very popular is most

biblical scholars don't

find the grammatical

connection in verses 1 to 2

to 3 as being legitimate,

so saying that it became

formless and void.

A lot of scholars will say

it doesn't actually say

that grammatically.

The better way to

understand it is the way

that we translate it, but

this is a view, it

actually was very popular

like 150 years ago.

But there are still people

who would affirm this, and

they have their own

arguments.

The last of the ancient

science interpretations that

I'm putting forward, I just

want to make it clear that

this is not exhaustive.

I'm only showing you a,

what I hope to be a

representative sample of a

lot of the interpretations

of Genesis, but there's

like a whole bunch, way,

way more than this.

Actually, not that much

more.

Let me like double.

But I feel like this is,

this covers the ground.

A lot of them are sort of

the nuances, they're very

close to each other.

So the third one is we have

the day-age theory, and this

takes the Genesis account to

be describing how God

created, but takes the less

common understanding of the

word day, when we're talking

about one day, a second day,

a third day, evening,

morning, etc.

They take the word day to

indicate a long period of

time.

Now, in the Bible, there are

usages of the word day in

the, that's used in Genesis

1 to describe a long period

of time, like the day of the

Lord, right?

These are usages of the word

day that indicate a long

period of time, or just an

indeterminate amount of time,

right?

And so a day-age theorist

would say that Genesis 1 is

straight history, but we're

meant to understand the day

described in these different

days as a long period of time

and age, right?

Which is how we get this view.

But they, this allows them to

take sort of a mostly literal

approach to understanding

Genesis, but allows for the

universe to be very old,

right?

So you can see that these three

different views, they are

taking some of the information

that we get from general

revelation, and they are saying

that the Bible is attempting to

convey this information in the

text, right?

Which is why I call it ancient

science, right?

The Bible is telling us something

scientific.

This third group, creation poem

interpretation.

So I grouped these two together

because they both posit that the

Genesis is using figures of

speech and literary conventions to

convey God's activity in creation.

And so these views usually allow for a

variety of different hows of how God

created, but they all are indicating

that the Genesis passage is telling

us what God did in creation.

Okay?

Does that make sense?

So the first view I'm going to talk

about is the analogical day theory.

In this view, God is using analogical

language to compare himself, his activity

in creation to a craftsman and his work

week, right?

So he's using the language of just like

a craftsman in his work week does

this, God as the ultimate craftsman

makes the entire world and the last day

rested.

So it's using analogical language in the

sense that it's describing what God

actually did.

He did create the light and the dark and

the sun and the moon and et cetera,

but it's using figures of speech to

describe it.

And so in that sense, we're not wedded to

the specific hows of God is, of how God

is doing these different things.

In fact, we're not necessarily saying that

the creation week is using chronological

time and maybe taking things out of order

to make a theological point, but it's still

saying what God actually did.

This other group is the framework view

crowd.

This framework view relies heavily on what I

described in Genesis 1, which is that

symmetry in the creation account, in the

forming and the filling and the Sabbath.

This is basically what everybody acknowledges

is going on in the Bible.

And so they say, well, based on that,

Genesis 1 is using a literary framework

to describe God's creation.

It's not really trying to tell us anything

about how God did any of this stuff.

It's not trying to tell us chronology or

what came after what.

It's just saying it's using a literary

framework.

There's really no better way to say it.

That's why they call it the framework view.

And so Genesis is outlining the structures

of creation and what is going on, God's

creation of the different domains and the

people who live in the domains, but it's not

really telling us how he's creating these in

detail.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

And finally, this last group I'm calling the

religion only interpretations.

And basically this group I'm putting together

because they don't believe that Genesis is

meant to describe what or how creation happened,

but really the who and the why, right?

So these interpretations are describing who God

is and why God is creating the world.

And it's using different, and we'll see,

different ways of understanding what Genesis

is conveying in the what, but in no case is the

what meant to be taken as history.

So the first view here is the proclamation day view.

So in this view, God in his throne room is

proclaiming his acts of creation sort of in a

transcendent state.

He's in his throne room.

He is proclaiming what he is doing in creation to

the angels in heaven.

And it really has no correspondence to actual

history.

It's just saying that God is saying, I'm going to

create the sun.

I'm going to create light and dark, et cetera.

And then on earth, as it is actually carried out,

it's going to look completely different.

So we're meant to understand that in Genesis,

we're reading a description of God in his throne room

describing what he's going to do.

That's the proclamation day view.

The kingdom temple view.

So this view says that God in Genesis 1 is

indicating a literal week in history in which God

is inaugurating his creation.

Right?

So God created however it is that he created,

but in a week in the real world, God is saying,

I am inaugurating the light versus the dark.