« Creationism | Main | Questions of balance »
February 07, 2006
Reply to KY Packrat
For some reason the MT comment blocker won't let me post this as a comment - it says it is "questionable content", so I am having to reply as a post! This isn't the first time it has happened, usually when I am trying to respond to someone, but as it won't tell me what the "questionable" content is, I cannot adjust it to beat the block! So, here goes .....
I suspect that we will never fully agree on this. I do not read Genesis in the absolute terms that you do obviously, and I think that Day 1 saw the beginnings of formation, not a firmament and fully formed planet. Also "the earth was without form" could be reconciled with the accretion disc postulated in planetary formation. Both "firmament" and "waters" have different interpretations open to them, and could as well say "elements" and "moving surface" without losing the apparent intent. Chapter 1 of the book is also, in my view, a construct, in that it ends with the creation of men and women, but Chapter 2 specifically starts with the Garden of Eden, a story found also in the infamous Ballad of Gilgamesh. (Interestingly, Romanian Gypsies argue that they are the children of these men and women and not the children of Eve - and therefore not subject to the curse on the children of Eve to work and feel pain!)
While I do not accept the literal interpretation of the beginning of this Book, I do accept the hand of God in the overall act of creation, and, just as He is for you, Jesus Christ (or if you prefer, Yeshua bar Joseph) is my saviour and Lord, the only begotten Son of God. In fact the only way to understand His position in our common faith is in the opening words of John's Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ..."
As you point out, "Yom" is a word with dual meaning, and general rules dictate that it is a specific meaning with a number, however, there are exceptions, and these were pointed out to me by a Hebrew speaker who finds our arguments over this amusing. I have not seen any of the research you refer to, I'm afraid my normal work is in the realms of the scientific, primarily forensics which means I am not normally in contact with the sort of research they appear to be doing, and I would wish to study these carefully before commenting on them. It is, however, my experience (and my disappointment) that many such researchers in the past have fallen into the trap of only including in their researches those things which support their hypothesis, something that is all too easy to do if you start from a particular viewpoint and a determination to "prove" the correctness of the view. (This applies in my discipline as well - all to often the investigator will "see" only what he or she is expecting to see or wanting to see!)
My faith is built on the simplicity of the declaration of Faith known as the Apostle's Creed and a lifetime of exploration and wonderment at the diversity and magic of the creation all around us, not on whether a piece of poetic description contained in a book gathered from several different sources is scientifically (or any other form of examination) accurate. God has worked and is working His planned Creation through any means at His disposal, that is all I have to hold in mind and sufficient for my faith.
As a Rabbi once said to me, "Science is for the things we can work out and understand; Faith is for everything else!"
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 7, 2006 04:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt3.mu.nu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3936
Comments
If you're going to go Hebrew, at least make it Yeshua ben Yoseph. "bar" is daughter. ;)
I think the fundamental danger of accepting Evolution is that we are promoting the man-interpreted evidence of Nature over a clear reading of Genesis. Genesis 1, when read on its own without external influence, is historical prose (it's NOT poetry). The text itself gives one no reason to think its author meant it as metaphorical.
If we say "Genesis has to be metaphorical because Evolution is true", then that may even be right, but we have moved into making the Scriptures yield to human logic. At that point, we as Christians no longer have a defense against those who attack other points (like Christ's divinity) on equal terms.
After all, what is our argument against "Oh, he was just a good man. He wouldn't have liked all of this God stuff."? We open our Bibles and point out Jesus's multiple veiled and direct claims to Godhood, of course. "Well, you say that one part isn't really true, and this other part really isn't true, and that other part's just a story. Why not this part too?"
It's almost secondary to me that modern evolutionary theory is totally bankrupt. The original Darwinian evolution didn't survive Mendel, since Darwin's trait passing is inconsistent with genes. Modern neo-Darwinian evolution (natural selection via genetic mutations) is being stumped by Behe, who IMHO is demonstrating rather thoroughly that the incremental changes needed to develop a complex biological system create short-term competative disadvantages, which natural selection will select against.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but as Christian thinkers that's not a bad thing either. :)
Posted by: Kentucky Packrat at February 8, 2006 06:15 PM
Oops! Yes, you could call that a Freudian slip! As you say, we will not quite agree on this methinks, primarily because the Darwinian view has been and is being far more rigorously tested and proved than any alternatives - including the genetic evidence. I suppose it all depends on how one reads that evidence.
I agree that we have a problem with interpretation, but I am of the view that the empty tomb speaks far more loudly than any of the other suggestions of Godhead, all of which may be challenged on one level or another. Even the tomb itself can be challenged, unless one asks the important question of precisely why the hardened soldiers sent to guard it, ran away, apparently terrified by what they saw.
It is the Resurrection which is the key to the whole, since it affirms and concludes God's promise to mankind. As to the Geneisis, fact or fantasy argument, my principle problem with the argument that all the fossil record and all the other indications of planetary formation, evolution and development are put there to mislead or to confuse, raises the question of why would God wish to deceive us? And, if He is deceiving us on this, might He not be deceiving us on the Resurrection as well?
I might not fully understand the Bible or the Scientific debate, but I still have to take the evidence of my own understanding and research and carry it alongside my faith. In the end, it is faith that saves, not the understanding.
Posted by: The Gray Monk at February 9, 2006 10:17 AM