|
Mike's
conclusions
|
||
|
My own view is that God is the Creator of all matter and that the ultimate Creator must, by definition, be separate from the creation. There must be an ultimate beginning and Beginner for philosophical coherence. Usually the “ultimate beginning” is referred to as the singularity point. Thos who prefer a “traditional” approach to the big bang use such terms, even though they know that prior to the big bang there must have been something (that which exploded). Recently things have changed in physics, as scientists who are not content to have God put the “pre big bang stuff” there to explode have come up with what they imagine removes the need for a singularity: the universe as we know it came from another universe that birthed our universe into existence. This “parent-baby universe” view has been popularized by James Gardner in his book Biocosm. Gardenr posits that the intelligent designer of the universe IS the universe (or rather, the parent universe that birthed our universe). Gardner therefore accepts the idea of a multiverse that births universes all over the place. This view takes away the need for a “first cause” to our universe as we perceive its beginning. But all Gardner’s view means is that the question changes. Now the question becomes, “So where did the parent universe come from?” Gardner would likely reply “from another parent universe” – and so on in endless regression of universes begetting other universes. This is another example of where an “answer” for ultimate beginning just moves the question back one degree. It thus keeps removing the question in infinite regression, perhaps hoping we’ll get tired of asking it. I say all the above for a couple reasons. One, I am not troubled by modern cosmology. The pre-creation chaos view is workable from my discipline, and so it’s easy for me legitimately to say Genesis had this covered from the beginning (pardon the pun). Two, it means I feel comfortable waiting until science comes to certain conclusions (but I’m not holding my breath since that might be asking for the impossible). However,
my own view is that Genesis wasn’t meant to tell us how God created with
scientific precision or details. As a Semitist, it is very obvious to me that the cosmology of
the Old Testament follows ancient Near Eastern pre-scientific cosmologies,
albeit with Yahweh at the helm and a polemic purpose in the rhetoric of
Genesis to smack the other gods around a few times.
There are just too many (an abundance, actually) examples where
there are tight linguistic parallels between the language of the
description of the Genesis cosmology and that of other ancient Near
Eastern cultures – things like: 1. Firmament or fixed dome covering the earth (Gen 1:6ff.) 2. Waters above the firmament 3. Chambers of winds 4. windows of heaven 5. Pillars of the sky 6. Pillars of the earth 7. Fountain of the deep 8.
Waters under the earth I am in basic agreement with Paul Seely, whose three articles on OT cosmology can be accessed below. I believe that God communicated to the biblical author the salient points of creation: Yahweh is the creator and no other god, everything that is was brought about by Yahweh. Just as Scripture doesn’t give us lessons on genetics and embryology when describing the development of the human being inside the womb (cf. Psalm 139), describes such development in terms understandable to the culture at the time. God didn’t inspire lectures on physics and astrophysics in Genesis. He prompted men to write the basic truths with the vocabulary at their disposal. This is why the Hebrew Bible changes details from surrounding creation myths, and yet keeps a lot of the common vocabulary. The readers were pre-scientific, but they needed to know who the Creator was and the fact that everything began with that Creator. The use of mythological language is therefore a concession by God to human ignorance (and God does this a lot in the Bible – he doesn’t waste his time giving answers that won’t be understood) and a slap in the face to the other gods and those who follow them. We need only align Genesis with science when there is warrant to do so – and in the matter of the origin of all matter, there is warrant. Scripture affirms a Creator unambiguously. What
about the creation days then? The most straightforward reading the of text is that from Gen 1:3ff. the days are 24 hours periods. I have no trouble applying the pre-creation chaos view to this question. Gen 1:3 marks the beginning of God’s fashioning of material already in existence. We aren’t told precisely what that material was. Whatever it was, it is conceivable that God did what he did in consecutive 24 hour days. I would add, though, that I also think the “literary framework” view is workable (that the day descriptions are a literary device to describe the “making productive” and “filling” of the “desolate and empty” place that God began working with as of Gen 1:3. This view does not require the days be 24 hours, but would argue that the correct terminology for 24 hour days is used because the sub-intent of the author is to wed the Sabbath weekly cycle to God’s creative activity. Summation In summary, I am willing to accept the traditional view but in the way(s) described above. For me to adopt that, I would need scientific evidence to prove that current scientific cosmology is wrong. This would not trouble me in the least. On the other hand, I am willing to accept the pre-creation chaos view. This view fits with modern cosmology and the literary framework view handles the “day” issue. Right now, the cosmology of the Hebrew Bible, matching as it does the ancient Near Eastern material, suggests to me that God accommodated himself to the pre-scientific writers and that we should not look to Genesis as a science textbook. The key question for me would be “does Genesis (or some other passage in the Bible) affirm a non-scientific cosmology? That would depend on what is meant by “affirm.” The question is really, “Does Genesis present its cosmology as scientific fact?” vs. “Does Genesis show us God curtailed his own knowledge to pre-scientific people?” These options seem mutually exclusive, and I think the latter is the correct way to view this issue. I believe the Bible is the product (equally) of both God and human beings). Therefore, I don’t see how the human authors would be presenting scientific fact since they weren’t scientists (nothing in the text ever says they were). If I wrote something about some area of science as a non-scientist and claimed it was scientifically tested fact, that would be dumb. I also don’t see how the premise that there is a God allows us to say God is so stupid as say the earth is covered by a dome. To me it’s obvious accommodation. God actually does this a good deal in the Bible. He tells us that Jesus is both God and Man, but doesn’t explain to us how that works; he tells us that our lives are foreknown and we also have free will, but doesn’t bother to explain how that works; he tells us there’s such a thing as celestial flesh, but doesn’t explain how that works; he tells us Jesus was human but that he had no sin nature, and that every human has a sin nature post-Adam, but doesn’t tell us how all that fits. The list could go on and on. Why do we require scientific certainty from the biblical text in creation and not these other areas, especially when these other areas are in the province of theology, not science? One last illustration. When your toddler comes to you and asks you where babies come from, it would seem you have a choice. You can give him or her a scientifically precise answer, or you can put it into terms they understand, skipping details and casting precision to the wind. Have you answered the latter way because you want to deceive your child—to misdirect them to error—or because you know what they can handle and still get a real answer? If you answer the former, then you can say the Bible has a problem with accuracy (and you might have a problem with parenting). If you say the latter, then you understand the accommodation principle, articulated in much the same manner as John Calvin argued centuries ago, seemingly way ahead of his time. Bibliography Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3 — Part I: Introduction to Biblical Cosmogony,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (Jan 1975): 25-36 Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3 — Part II: The Restitution Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132:526 (Apr 1975): 136-144 Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3 — Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (Jul 1975): 216-228 Mark Rooker, “Part 1: Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?” Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (Jul 1992): 316-323 Mark Rooker, “Part 2: Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?” Bibliotheca Sacra 149:596 (Oct 1992): 411-427 Paul Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part 1: The Meaning of raqia( in Genesis 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal 53:2 (Fall 1991): 227-240 Paul Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above, Part 2: The Meaning of ‘The Water Above the Firmament’ in Genesis 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal 54:1 (Spr 1992): 31-46 Paul Seely, “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” Westminster Theological Journal 59:2 (Fall 1997): 231-256 [1]David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ( New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 1:1167-1168.
|