What I am getting at (is not to start an OEC/YEC debate) is the issue of Scriptural authority. What I can't stand about Hugh Ross is not his OEC viewpoint but his view of Scripture. He claims to uphold the Bible as the ultimate authority but he also views science/nature as equivalent to a 67th book. And when there is a conflict, he chooses nature to be the arbiter and interprets Scripture in light of science. Though his claims to uphold Scriptural authority, he does not follow through in practice.

I don’t see it in that light. From what I’ve read and heard from Hugh Ross, his stance goes something like this… In Bible times, people didn’t have the scientific information we do today. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss knowledge gained through science that might appear to contradict scripture if there is another interpretation of the text that reconciles both sides.

Aside from the “7 days” debate over whether the earth is 4 billion or a couple thousand years old, I think there is another passage in the Creation narrative that that undeniably needs reinterpretation in the light of scientific knowledge.

Genesis 1:6-8 (ASV)
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The firmament is the sky conceived as a vast dome. It comes from a root word in Biblical Hebrew - raqa ( רקע), which referred to the process of making a dish/bowl by hammering it into shape. To me, the passage clearly indicates a specific thought process by the author of Genesis. It fits perfectly into what someone in ancient times would think if they didn’t have scientific knowledge about the earth, solar system and water cycle that we do today.

“Hmm, from my perspective on earth, the sky looks like a humongous dome. In addition, the sky is blue and water comes forth from it. That’s just like the ocean, which is a. There must be two oceans - one on the ground, and the other in the heavens. The dome called sky is what separates the two.”

It is obvious that this sort of cosmology is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. So what is one to do? Go into extreme denial and insist that the sky actually is a large dome and the blue expanse above us is a heavenly ocean? Such a course of action would merely cause one to make a fool of himself. The solution for modern Christians was to reconcile scripture and science. More recent translations of the Bible simply swap out “firmament” and “dome” for more vague words like “expanse” and “vault” that can fit into our modern understanding of the sky.

Now here’s the point I’m trying to make: isn’t it possible to be a Christian and view Scripture as the ultimate authority, but adjust the interpretation to match new information? Regardless of how inerrant Scripture is, human interpretations of the texts are inevitably going to be flawed. The fact that there are more than 23,000 denominations of Christianity with conflicting theology is proof of that.

With all due respect to the heavyweights, I'm not quite satisfied that King Erlian's underlying question has been answered:

God terrifies me.

Now is that question the question because of an admission of having been "dismissed"? Probably most of us will be overlooked or pushed around at some point in our lives. And it is true that "you may be the only Bible that some people will ever read" -- that is, people will get a mental and emotional picture of God by meeting His professed representatives. But you don't have to get hassled by "Jerks for Jesus" or have a poor self-image to be terrified of God.

Alternately, is the question is unanswerable? Or at least unanswerable in the sense that life is not like graduating from sixth grade and being done with it; life is something we keep getting tested on. I've heard a few replies suggesting "you SHOULD be terrified" and a few suggesting "you don't have to be terrified." That approach treats the question as an either/or or a both/and, and of course that makes for serious theological wrestling. But it doesn't address the feeling.

To me a possible answer is the idea of relationship. Maybe that's why verses like Jer. 29:11 and Isaiah 43:2 speak to me, and apparently to a lot of other people.

(2a) When thou passest through the waters, I [will be] with thee ...

(11) For I know the plans that I have for you, plans to help you and not to harm you, to give you hope and a future.

Just a thought.

“Hmm, from my perspective on earth, the sky looks like a humongous dome. In addition, the sky is blue and water comes forth from it. That’s just like the ocean, which is a. There must be two oceans - one on the ground, and the other in the heavens. The dome called sky is what separates the two.”

I've heard in the past that the "Ocean" up in the sky might be referring to the body of water that later came down as the Flood of Noah, not just the regular rain we have today. If that's true, the water wouldn't be there anymore, but would be forming our current oceans. At least, that's what I've heard. Someone more knowledgeable than myself when it comes to Creationism and the Genesis record would probably be better at giving the details.

~Riella

I've heard in the past that the "Ocean" up in the sky might be referring to the body of water that later came down as the Flood of Noah, not just the regular rain we have today. If that's true, the water wouldn't be there anymore, but would be forming our current oceans.

That's known as the "canopy theory", originally proposed by Kent Hovind. It basically states what you said - God originally created a giant body of water that remained suspended in the sky until the days of the Great Flood, when it all came falling down from the heavens. However, there are numerous fundamental problems with this theory.

Right off the bat, if there's a giant pool of water up in the sky, there's the problem of gravity. If we assume that the water canopy was not solid water but rather water vapor, the resulting effects would destroy all life on earth. Even a quantity of water vapor equivalent to 40 feet of flood water would double the atmospheric pressure. If the water vapor was equivalent to an amount that could actually cause a worldwide flood, the resulting canopy would crush practically everything beneath it and prevent almost all sunlight from reaching earth's surface. It would also prevent the stars from being seen, which is directly contradicted by Genesis 1:14-18 in which God creates stars and celestial bodies that are intended to be viewed from earth. Another problem with the water canopy theory is what the Bible said happened to the waters of the flood. According to Genesis, the water receded (which is impossible if it came from a vapor canopy) and was dried by the wind. Neither method would not significantly affect a global flood.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html

In conclusion, Occam's Razor. Instead of developing a canopy theory and resulting in numerous gigantic physical impossibilities that God would have to manually override for Earth's early history, wouldn't it make far more sense to just look for another interpretation?

Dr. Elwin Ransom wrote:

Of course, in one of the series books ("Left Behind: Armageddon"), something absurd happens when one character meets one of these people whom God has decided not to allow to convert. The woman is in anguish that she can't get saved, and knows that her chances are gone; she almost regrets that and is resigned to her fate.

Ah yes, the infamous "woman on the tarmac" sequence. Some readers might say she was crying out to God the way that people in physical pain say all sorts of bizarre things that don't really count. As I read it, she meant it, but in the consutrction of the LB universe it didn't matter that she meant it. It took Rayford-the-Saved to finish off her last hope. She kept calling on the name of the Lord until he told her there was no point. Ironically this was one of the few sequences in the series where Rayford tries to do something nice for a Lost person: by trying to get her Jesus's recommended cup of water to drink.

Now here’s the point I’m trying to make: isn’t it possible to be a Christian and view Scripture as the ultimate authority, but adjust the interpretation to match new information?

I would say, yes, but then I'm not a fundamentalist (e.g. I don't think that the earth is 6,000 years old). The more I read and study, the more I'm convinced that fundamentalism is in left field.

Let me point out right now, that I think spiritually fundamentalists aren't in any serious danger (and I would hope they feel the same about me), but intellectually I think the rejection of fundamentalism is a step in the right direction. There's always the danger in thinking myself more "spiritual" than fundamentalists when, meanwhile, many, many of them are living much more Christ-like lives than I (though not because they're fundamentalists). Ultimately, things like our dating of the earth or St. Paul's "endless genealogies" aren't going to be much help in Final Judgment.

A few things to consider:
- According to N. T. Wright, the literal vs. metaphorical debate is almost exclusively American. At any rate, it doesn't sound like it's a serious debate in England.
- The need to categorize things into literal truth and lies seems like a modern affectation. Our popular modern definition of the word "myth" means simply "untrue", a thing to be thrown away as useless; our ancestors gave the word "myth" a much deeper meaning. As a modern myself, I find it hard to define this older concept of myth, but I can feel the difference in my bones when I read older books.
- John Calvin wrote: "[...] the Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is."
- C. S. Lewis wasn't a fundamentalist. This can probably be best seen in Reflection On the Psalms, probably my favourite of his non-fiction. There's also an interesting chapter in The Problem of Pain called "The Fall of Man" where Lewis speculates on the Fall in light of (gasp!) human evolution.

Instead of developing a canopy theory and resulting in numerous gigantic physical impossibilities that God would have to manually override for Earth's early history, wouldn't it make far more sense to just look for another interpretation?

As long as the interpretation is in line with the Bible, and not contradicting any part of it, sure.

And if the canopy theory really is impossible, there is probably some other scientific explanation, rather than God supernaturally convening and miraculously not letting it destroy the atmosphere. I do believe in miracles, but I think God working naturally through His own Laws of Science is much more common. He invented the Laws of Science for a reason, after all.

I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, and that God knows far more about science than we do, since He made it. I don't think the Bible and true scientific facts are ever at odds. And when they appear to contradict each other, either our interpretation of the scripture is incorrect, or the scientists are (at the time) missing a key point of evidence that is vital to the facts and which will most likely be discovered at a later time - because the truth is, "scientific facts" as we know them keep changing as we learn and discover more; we don't know everything about it yet. Both the Bible and real scientific facts are made by God, true, and work together hand-in-hand. But since we humans are flawed, the way we perceive one or the other (or both) can (and will) contain mistakes. There is only one true interpretation of the Bible, the Bible is unchanging; and all of the scientific principles of the universe are also unchanging. But because we humans learn with time, understanding both is a continual process for us. (Although the difference between the two is, with science, we don't have all the facts yet, and have to keep adjusting our views as more is discovered. With Theology, we have all the evidence before us already in the Bible. The trick is figuring out what the evidence actually means. )

As for more detailed argument about the canopy theory or other theories, I'm afraid I can't comment on it much. It was just a theory I've heard in passing, which I decided to post in case it would help. I'm not too familiar with the arguments for/against it, or with the other interpretations of the scripture. I started intensely studying the Bible just a couple years ago; and so far my focus has been mostly on the New Testament. Though I find it fascinating and hope to study it when I'm finished with the NT, I think that when it comes to the conversation here and now, some others here would be much more fit to discuss the scientific aspects of Genesis.

~Riella

Now here’s the point I’m trying to make: isn’t it possible to be a Christian and view Scripture as the ultimate authority, but adjust the interpretation to match new information?

In the sense that when we get new ideas, we take another look at our interpretation to see which is wrong: our interpretation or the new scientific theory. In certain cases, like geocentrism, it turns out that Scripture wasn't saying what some had thought it said.

The Bible is not a science textbook---but it does contain historical accounts that, for the believer, have to be preferred over the latest archaeological theories. I think it's fairly clear, Scripturally, that Adam was a historical person who was not the product of evolutionary biological processes. Too much of our doctrine of creation and of the Christian understanding of the atonement and the work of Christ rests on this for us to bow to the whims of scientific theory on this point.

I would say, yes, but then I'm not a fundamentalist (e.g. I don't think that the earth is 6,000 years old). The more I read and study, the more I'm convinced that fundamentalism is in left field.

Fundamentalism is a complex term and also highly polemicized such that it has become a term of abuse. I am not a fundamentalist---I am traditionally orthodox and reformed, and the latter category excludes me from being a fundamentalist. However, because I take Scripture seriously as containing the infallible and inerrant inspired Words of God, I have, at times, been accused of being a fundamentalist.

I should also mention that holding that the earth is 6,000 years old is not necessarily fundamentalist. I know a number of good reformed brothers who do so who are very clearly not fundamentalists. I'm careful about applying this word, as I said, because it's mostly an insult and has little real meaning aside from invective.

TBG

The Canopy Theory has been tweaked since Kent Hovind initially brought it up. What many people continuously forget about Noah's Flood is the 2nd source of water: the Foundations of the Deep. I personally believe that the foundations broke forth at the tectonic plate lines. I haven't explored the details of it yet, but the Hyrodplate Theory seems to be the most accurate one. What we have learned about science is that there wasn't as much water as the initial Canopy Theory held (and Kent Hovind has revised his thinking since the math was worked out), but that doesn't rule out water being up there. Enough for 40 days of rain perhaps, also combined with water that would have burst forth from the surface.

The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically sound. Yes, we must realize that our interpretations of Scripture can be faulty. But we must also realize that not only our interpretations of science can be faulty, so can the science itself. And I am a scientist by formal education. I love science and I believe science and Scripture will never conflict. I do fall on the YEC side of the creation issue, but I prefer to consider myself on the side of Scriptural authority. When there is an apparent conflict, Scripture is the trump card. And as the ultimate authority, the key to interpreting Scripture is through itself. The highest authority can only appeal to itself (as we learned with the Abrahamic Covenant). YEC does have holes. It's not a perfect model and no perfect model will ever come forth. But I find YEC has the fewest and is most consistent with Scripture.

Fundamentalism is a complex term and also highly polemicized such that it has become a term of abuse. I am not a fundamentalist---I am traditionally orthodox and reformed, and the latter category excludes me from being a fundamentalist. However, because I take Scripture seriously as containing the infallible and inerrant inspired Words of God, I have, at times, been accused of being a fundamentalist.

Perhaps a new word is in order. What I mean by "fundamentalism" is the belief that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate to the Nth degree. As in, if you traveled back in time, the events of the Bible would play out literally word-for-word.

The Bible is not a science textbook---but it does contain historical accounts that, for the believer, have to be preferred over the latest archaeological theories. I think it's fairly clear, Scripturally, that Adam was a historical person who was not the product of evolutionary biological processes. Too much of our doctrine of creation and of the Christian understanding of the atonement and the work of Christ rests on this for us to bow to the whims of scientific theory on this point.

I hear this sort of reasoning fairly often from Christians in my area of the world but it's something I really don't get. The anti-evolution movement is a fringe group almost entirely based in the United States. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support its legitimacy and has been the foundation for modern biology and medical treatments, as scientists have only been able to develop new medicine constantly by predicting the evolving patterns of infectious microbes. Most Christians around the world accept evolution and it doesn't seem to destroy their faith.

As Reepicheep775 pointed out above, C.S. Lewis himself was a evolutionist, and he is considered one of the greatest theistic apologists of the 20th century. Even some of the most prominent proponents of creationism concede that evolution explains the origin of species, such as Michael J. Behe. In his famous book "Darwin's Black Box" he wisely chooses to keep his case mostly confined to the areas of biochemistry and the inner workings of a cell, which is an argument more effective against abiogenesis than evolution. Even the leader of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, can publicly state that humans “descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago” and still call himself a Christian. In his books, he has talked about how Genesis should not be interpreted in a strict literal sense but rather be seen as an allegory for how God gave human beings spirituality.

YECs spend a lot of time developing complicated scientific explanations for certain parts of the prehistoric Bible narrative (Creation, Flood, Babel). They will debate all day over the Grand Canyon's formation, plate tectonics, perceived gaps in the evolutionary theory, etc...but there are far more glaring problems that they always seem to ignore, such as Noah's descendants somehow having to spread across the entire globe and develop hundreds of isolated cultures insanely fast, many of which devolved back to the stone age.

It seems perfectly possible to be a theistic evolutionist. Life would still be God's design - after all, evolution says nothing about how the first cell came to be. The creation story would be more metaphorical, but that's probably the best way to view it anyway. The creation story is designed to make sense to someone who lived thousands of years ago with a primitive worldview in which the Earth is the center of everything and celestial bodies are just tiny blobs of light.

Consider this - God creates the sun, the moon and the stars on day #4. With our modern understanding of the universe, this means that God created 99.99999999% of everything in 1 of the 6 days of creation. A rather stilted creation plan, especially when the humans aren't even around yet to see the progression that is balanced only from their point of view.

Perhaps a new word is in order. What I mean by "fundamentalism" is the belief that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate to the Nth degree. As in, if you traveled back in time, the events of the Bible would play out literally word-for-word.

I would say, rather, that the historical narratives in the Bible are accurate as historical narratives. As with any historical narrative, they do not record everything, but that which they record is accurate for it is the inspired and inerrant words of God.

Evolution has mountains of evidence to support its legitimacy and has been the foundation for modern biology and medical treatments, as scientists have only been able to develop new medicine constantly by predicting the evolving patterns of infectious microbes. Most Christians around the world accept evolution and it doesn't seem to destroy their faith.

I'd be interested to hear your evidence for this last statement. You may be right that the majority of Christians today (that is, Christians in Korea, China, Africa, and Latin America) would believe evolution, but I would be careful in making this categorical statement.

The evidence that we have is that organisms adapt biologically to changing conditions. The question is whether, over a significant enough period of time, complex organisms can mutate in a beneficial way that can be passed on to descendants. Even if we admit this premise (which has yet to be tested in a laboratory), there still remain the challenges of proving a) that such processes happened in the past b) that humans are the result of such processes.

As for myself, my belief is that whatever the Bible means by God creating the world in six days is what happened. It may well be that Genesis 1 is a kind of prose poem or literary framework---but it's very clear that after Chapter 2 verse 4 we have an historical narrative.

The creation story is designed to make sense to someone who lived thousands of years ago with a primitive worldview in which the Earth is the center of everything and celestial bodies are just tiny blobs of light.

Quite a bit of chronological snobbery, this: "maybe people needed this back when they were children, before science. But now we're grown-ups."

However, I think you're right in one respect: the debate over YEC and evolution is not one that is between the church and the world---at least not until the church can speak with united voice about it.

TBG

Yes, it's a modern fallacy to believe people in the distant past were primitive, even stupid. "We're much more intelligent and important because we got science". No.

The creation story is designed to make sense to someone who lived thousands of years ago with a primitive worldview in which the Earth is the center of everything and celestial bodies are just tiny blobs of light.

Is there anything in the Bible that says the earth is located in the center of everything?

~Riella

The creation story is designed to make sense to someone who lived thousands of years ago with a primitive worldview in which the Earth is the center of everything and celestial bodies are just tiny blobs of light.

Quite a bit of chronological snobbery, this: "maybe people needed this back when they were children, before science. But now we're grown-ups."

Indeed. I said earlier, how I felt that our ancestors understood myth so much better than we do. That's why, among other reasons, I think that the need to categorize things like the Creation narrative into either the Historically/Scientifically/Literally True Box or the dust bin is a modern affectation. In many ways I think our ancestors were more well equipped to understand passages like the Seven Day Creation than we are. I think there is some truth in what Minotaur is saying (not just about "primitive" man, but man in general) though. John Calvin developed the idea of "divine accomodation": God communicating with us through "baby talk", so that we can understand Him. After all, if divine revelation is true, it's an Infinite Mind trying to communicate with finite minds.

I've never understood the hostility towards humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor. Hasn't an "animal nature" always been a part of Christian teaching? We have the sins of the spirit that we share with angels and the sins of the flesh that we share with animals. Even in the Genesis account, man is made from the same material (dust) as the animals, but he is given something supernatural: consciousness. You can define consciousness however you wish, but it's the thing that makes us aware of ourselves in relation to the world, each other, and God. It gives us art, religion etc.

Is there anything in the Bible that says the earth is located in the center of everything?

I've never seen anything in the Bible that directly states a geocentric model. I think it's more that the geocentric model (in some ways more of a work of art than a work of science) was heavily influenced by Christian theology along with Pagan mythology. The seven stars of medieval cosmology were represented as heavenly spheres that would exert their influence on earth (e.g. Mars, named after the god of war, would influence warfare). It was also thought that evil only existed from the Earth to the Moon, and that everything beyond the Moon was good and pure. Earth was at the "centre", as the centrepiece of Creation, but the true centre was God, the Unmoved Mover, the "Love that moves the stars". This became so ingrained in our minds that when the geocentric model was proven wrong by Copernicus, it was a blow to faith - though meanwhile, the "evidence" in the Bible was scant at best.