Some might be aware of that I started a thread on The Book Nook board, concerning Vern Poythress’s book ‘Redeeming Science’. This book can be found on-line
here .
I am starting this thread mainly because I thought it might be interesting to discuss Dr. Poythress’s arguments for his belief in the Analogical Day Theory. Something I found quite interesting about Dr. Poythress’s arguments is something I have never heard coming from a Reformed theologian.
Chapter two describes 'The Role of the Bible', and makes several significant statements to the relation between science and religion. He states that because both nature and the Bible are, in effect, the 'word' of God, they harmonize with each other seamlessly when properly approached. When discrepancies appear between the two, Poythress suggests that one should be ready to examine both their thinking about science, as well as their thinking about the Bible (43).
This might possibly be the main sticking point for his rejection of the traditional 24hr./ 6 day of creation view.
As I read that, I was reminded some what of the Roman Catholic argument that both the Bible and Church tradition are equal. While I believe that creation is a thumb print (so to speak) of the Creator. Can we legitimately say that creation and the Bible are the Word of God? Should the creation be used to interpret the Bible and visa versa?
One of Dr. Poythress’s arguments against believing the traditonal view is his understanding that if indeed God created in 6 literal 24 hour days, then He would be deceiving what man has observed in the creation.
He uses from science arguments such as astronomic evidence, which he believes young earth arguments do not sufficiently answer.
I have included the following from his book on this point.
One might question whether the estimates of distance to faraway galaxies
are accurate. So consider the Andromeda galaxy (also called the Great
Nebula in Andromeda), a neighboring galaxy about 2 million light-years
away (a light-year, the distance that light travels in one year, is about 6 trillion
miles [6,000,000,000,000 miles] or 9 trillion kilometers).6 Even this distance
is too much for a young-earth theory of origins, because it suggests that
the Andromeda galaxy as we now observe it is over two million years old.
Even within the Milky Way galaxy, we deal with distances up to 100,000
light-years, which is still too much for young-earth creationists, who usually
maintain an origin less than 20,000 years ago.
One of the things that I am not certain that Dr. Poythress deals with is concerning the issue of the Hebrew word “Yom” (Day). It is my understanding that although there are times in Scripture that this word can mean something other than a 24 hour day. However, if I have my facts straight everywhere where a numeral is used in connection with the word “Yom”, its meaning is a 24 hour period of time.
Perhaps he believes that in the case of Genesis chapter one, God is using an analogy rather than the usual meaning. Dr. Poythress does say something about God using the common language of the culture it was written to and therefore the Analogical Day Theory, fits best.
However, as I think about that, forgive me if my thoughts are somehow flawed. But wasn’t God using the common language of the culture, in all the other cases where the word “Yom” was used as well?
Should we then understand all of them to be used as analogies as well?
Tom
