Question:
How we should approach the creation account(s) in Genesis?
Should the age of the earth/universe be as divisive an issue as it has become in Christianity?
Response:
When reading the Bible, we need to take it on its own terms which means to read it as it was intended. Part of this means to determine the genre of the text in question. For example, a newspaper report gives a factual account of a particular event that really happened – I expect to read about where and when and what took place. I would be confused to read “the mayor concluded his speech and rode off on a winged horse while the townspeople cheered” in the Calgary Herald, whereas such a line in a fairy tale would be expected.
There are a number of genres within the Bible: historical narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, gospel, letter, prophecy. So, we need to examine them to see which one best fits the creation account in Genesis.
The creation account proves controversial because there are conflicting views as to how it should be understood. The choices are usually either historical narrative or poetry. Why the conflict? If the account is historical narrative, the story that is told is that of a creation week of seven 24-hour days, with instantaneous creation of the items listed, occurring approximately six thousand years ago (based on the genealogical data in later chapters). However, visit any science museum, open any science or ancient history textbook and the story told about origins is very different, involving a billions of years process of cosmological and biological evolution.
Clearly both stories cannot be true. If the genre of Genesis is historical narrative then what do we make of the case made that the earth is billions of years old? Doesn’t that make the biblical account mistaken, casting doubt on its truthfulness?
There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe that the physical evidence indicates a vastly ancient earth. They reconcile these biblical data and the physical evidence by arguing that the creation account is poetic and not meant to be taken as a straightforward historical account of creation. For example, some explain that the word “day” does not mean a 24-hour period of time but a lengthy and non-specific period of time; perhaps it is equivalent to “age” or “eon”.
There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe the Genesis account is historical and meant to be taken as it appears: when it says “and there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, it means a 24-hour period. These Christians believe that since the Bible implies a recent creation, the physical evidence ought to be understood in light of that. They argue the physical evidence does not conclusively show the earth to be ancient, pointing to the assumptions involved in assigning dates to evidence.
The difference of opinion sometimes becomes contentious: “young earthers” accusing “old earthers” of compromising on the truth of scripture in favour of the opinions of fallible man; “old earthers” accusing “young earthers” of rejecting the facts of science in favour of misguided faith in wooden literalism. One side is “faithless” and the other side is “blind”.
Yet the issue is not peripheral. What we believe about origins affects our view of ourselves and the world around us and the meaning of life. And what we believe about the Bible affects how we understand its teachings and how to apply them in our lives.
Should the matter be divisive? That depends. If the matter impedes fellowship because of a fundamental doctrinal difference, then perhaps some people should part company. For example, if an “old earther” goes so far in agreement with main stream scientific opinion that he or she denies the fall of mankind into sin or to deny the death and resurrection of Christ as the basis of the atonement (such as some within the Unitarian and United Church denominations do), true spiritual fellowship with those in the historic, orthodox Christian tradition will not be possible.
But if there is agreement on salvation by faith in Christ, both “young earthers” and “old earthers” can participate in the Lord’s table together and tolerate their differences.
I myself identify with the “young earth” position. I believe the Genesis text is historical narrative with no indication within the text that it should be taken otherwise and that the rest of the narrative of redemption only makes consistent sense when the Genesis account is so understood. The genealogical data in Genesis 5 and elsewhere is an accurate record of the lives of our forebears and does not allow for vast ages between “In the beginning…” and “God spoke to Abraham saying ‘Get out of your country…’”. Christ’s own genealogy traces a line from himself back to Adam (Luke 3) and Christ Himself affirms humanity’s existence from the earliest times when He said “Have you not read that in the beginning he created them [mankind], male and female?” (Matthew 19). I hold the “young earth” position, not as a requirement for salvation but as a corollary of my belief in the perspicuity or “understand-ability” of scripture.
I believe that interpreting the text as poetry or in some other way in an effort to harmonize with modern scientific option is misguided and unnecessary given the uncertainties involved with modern dating methods. I believe that the story of origins which involves a vast, evolutionary process is in direct competition with the biblical account and serves to bolster unbelief in those who are outside the family of faith. Perhaps even affecting those within. I sat under a professor at a Bible college who was a thorough-going evolutionist: billions of years, man from apes etc. What bothered me was, what appeared to me to be his subtle scorn for those who were so naïve as to believe that God created the world in six days.
In this matter of creation and evolution we might say, with Augustine: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, charity, meaning that the matter is not a hill we need to die on. And in one sense that is true in that we do not need to convince or disassociate from every fellow believer who takes a position other than our own.
Yet, our stance on the authority of scripture has implications that affect the essentials of our faith and we would do well to soberly examine our beliefs and motives regarding our stance as well as examining our treatment of our fellow believers in this matter.
How we should approach the creation account(s) in Genesis?
Should the age of the earth/universe be as divisive an issue as it has become in Christianity?
Response:
When reading the Bible, we need to take it on its own terms which means to read it as it was intended. Part of this means to determine the genre of the text in question. For example, a newspaper report gives a factual account of a particular event that really happened – I expect to read about where and when and what took place. I would be confused to read “the mayor concluded his speech and rode off on a winged horse while the townspeople cheered” in the Calgary Herald, whereas such a line in a fairy tale would be expected.
There are a number of genres within the Bible: historical narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, gospel, letter, prophecy. So, we need to examine them to see which one best fits the creation account in Genesis.
The creation account proves controversial because there are conflicting views as to how it should be understood. The choices are usually either historical narrative or poetry. Why the conflict? If the account is historical narrative, the story that is told is that of a creation week of seven 24-hour days, with instantaneous creation of the items listed, occurring approximately six thousand years ago (based on the genealogical data in later chapters). However, visit any science museum, open any science or ancient history textbook and the story told about origins is very different, involving a billions of years process of cosmological and biological evolution.
Clearly both stories cannot be true. If the genre of Genesis is historical narrative then what do we make of the case made that the earth is billions of years old? Doesn’t that make the biblical account mistaken, casting doubt on its truthfulness?
There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe that the physical evidence indicates a vastly ancient earth. They reconcile these biblical data and the physical evidence by arguing that the creation account is poetic and not meant to be taken as a straightforward historical account of creation. For example, some explain that the word “day” does not mean a 24-hour period of time but a lengthy and non-specific period of time; perhaps it is equivalent to “age” or “eon”.
There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe the Genesis account is historical and meant to be taken as it appears: when it says “and there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, it means a 24-hour period. These Christians believe that since the Bible implies a recent creation, the physical evidence ought to be understood in light of that. They argue the physical evidence does not conclusively show the earth to be ancient, pointing to the assumptions involved in assigning dates to evidence.
The difference of opinion sometimes becomes contentious: “young earthers” accusing “old earthers” of compromising on the truth of scripture in favour of the opinions of fallible man; “old earthers” accusing “young earthers” of rejecting the facts of science in favour of misguided faith in wooden literalism. One side is “faithless” and the other side is “blind”.
Yet the issue is not peripheral. What we believe about origins affects our view of ourselves and the world around us and the meaning of life. And what we believe about the Bible affects how we understand its teachings and how to apply them in our lives.
Should the matter be divisive? That depends. If the matter impedes fellowship because of a fundamental doctrinal difference, then perhaps some people should part company. For example, if an “old earther” goes so far in agreement with main stream scientific opinion that he or she denies the fall of mankind into sin or to deny the death and resurrection of Christ as the basis of the atonement (such as some within the Unitarian and United Church denominations do), true spiritual fellowship with those in the historic, orthodox Christian tradition will not be possible.
But if there is agreement on salvation by faith in Christ, both “young earthers” and “old earthers” can participate in the Lord’s table together and tolerate their differences.
I myself identify with the “young earth” position. I believe the Genesis text is historical narrative with no indication within the text that it should be taken otherwise and that the rest of the narrative of redemption only makes consistent sense when the Genesis account is so understood. The genealogical data in Genesis 5 and elsewhere is an accurate record of the lives of our forebears and does not allow for vast ages between “In the beginning…” and “God spoke to Abraham saying ‘Get out of your country…’”. Christ’s own genealogy traces a line from himself back to Adam (Luke 3) and Christ Himself affirms humanity’s existence from the earliest times when He said “Have you not read that in the beginning he created them [mankind], male and female?” (Matthew 19). I hold the “young earth” position, not as a requirement for salvation but as a corollary of my belief in the perspicuity or “understand-ability” of scripture.
I believe that interpreting the text as poetry or in some other way in an effort to harmonize with modern scientific option is misguided and unnecessary given the uncertainties involved with modern dating methods. I believe that the story of origins which involves a vast, evolutionary process is in direct competition with the biblical account and serves to bolster unbelief in those who are outside the family of faith. Perhaps even affecting those within. I sat under a professor at a Bible college who was a thorough-going evolutionist: billions of years, man from apes etc. What bothered me was, what appeared to me to be his subtle scorn for those who were so naïve as to believe that God created the world in six days.
In this matter of creation and evolution we might say, with Augustine: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, charity, meaning that the matter is not a hill we need to die on. And in one sense that is true in that we do not need to convince or disassociate from every fellow believer who takes a position other than our own.
Yet, our stance on the authority of scripture has implications that affect the essentials of our faith and we would do well to soberly examine our beliefs and motives regarding our stance as well as examining our treatment of our fellow believers in this matter.
