When does what God says matter?
By Duane | October 30, 2006
The October edition of The Briefing was largely dedicated to an understanding of Genesis and the current debate over intelligent design. I was personally disappointed with the compromise on almost every page, especially the interview with Darrel Falk, whose explanation of origins is virtually indistinguishable from evolution and in direct opposition to the early chapters of Genesis.
I am glad that The Briefing finally did a special on this topic however, because the importance of defending Genesis in our culture is lost on many Christians. My favourite article was by Sandy Grant, where he discussed how we should read the early chapters of Genesis. However in making reference to the possibility that the 24 hour creation days are true (he doesn’t believe they are), Sandy says:
‘…if I get to heaven and discover that’s how it was, I won’t be upset!’
[But] why wait! No time like the present to trust God I always say.
It’s statements like these that make me wonder about a persons commitment to Biblical authority. If Sandy is willing to question the Bible over whether the days were actual days, despite the clearest intention of the text, why should it make any difference if God tells him so face-to-face? Does the written Word have any less authority for him? When does what God says matter?
Sandy’s problem appears to be his commitment to the philosophies of men, rather than the plain teaching of the text. Why would I say this? Because Sandy says this:
‘…this certainly contradicts a massive amount of evidence accumulated by scientists as to how the world developed - over a period of millions or billions of years.’ (pg 11).
Oh well if the scientists say so then it must be true right?
Here Sandy confuses interpretation of evidence with raw data. And so this appears to be the reason he cannot take God at His Word? But what is this evidence? Well Sandy does not say? It’s probably just as well he doesn’t have the same reservations about the resurrection. Scientists know that dead men don’t rise up and walk after all, don’t they?
So Sandy will wait until he gets there to find out, while some of us will be presumptuous enough to take God at His Word.
See this article for a similar perspective.
Topics: Theology |
August 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Thank you for saying my article was your favourite part of October 2006’s Briefing magazine, even if I detect a touch of irony!
You misrepresent me when you say above that I do not believe the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour periods. Nowhere did I say this. Rather the burden of my article was to indicate why some sincere Bible-beliveing Christians do not think we can be totally dogmatic in saying this is the only possible way we can legitimately interpret the text.
You also wrote in your blog, “Here Sandy confuses interpretation of evidence with raw data. And so this appears to be the reason he cannot take God at His Word? But what is this evidence? Well Sandy does not say?”
I am happy for you to evaluate the evidence differently from me. However again you are misrepresenting my article when you say I gave no evidence for my views on the days of Genesis 1.
People who read the article can judge for themselves. You can get it from Matthias Media. But in the absence of that, your readers will be left with the impression that I only asserted that days were not literal, without bothering to supply evidence. However my article gave a number of reasons within the text of Genesis for pausing before insisting that the only possible way to take the days is as literal 24 hour periods.
My reasons included:
* The highly stylized literary structure of Genesis 1, atypical of ordinary historical genre;
* The example in Gen 2:4 where ‘day’ refers to a period other than 24 hours, even if the numbered days of Genesis 1 do not;
* The perceived improbability of Man naming all the livestock and the birds of the air and every beast of the field in one part of one day, and this before God made the Woman as Man’s helper, on that day;
* The difficulty of accounting for the existence of literal days before the creation of the sun and the moon on day four;
* The hint from Gen 2:5 that God used at least some natural processes in his work of creation.
I realise many people find these reasons unconvincing. Fair enough. I am not here to debate that, and I respect your convictions on the matter.
What I find disappointing are Christians who misrepresent other Christians, whether deliberately, or because they cannot be bothered to understand the subtlety of what they are saying.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for the clarification Sandy, it is much appreciated. Given your comments I think I will create a new post so that everyone will have an opportunity to evaluate your article in light of your above comments.
Hope you will come back to take part in the discussion. If you had left an email address, I would be glad to post you the link.
And it really was my favourite article… no irony intended.
In Christ,
Duane