The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Creation

There is a vast difference between reading the Joshua passage and then formulating a geocentric model and reading the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, which are propositional statements and simply embracing them as being true. There is no "hermeneutical gymnastics" needed to understand Genesis 1 & 2. It is plain enough on its face.

Secondly, there is the matter of which hermeneutical principle one is going to adhere to. Historically, and I do believe it is the biblical principle, the Church has concluded from the study of Scripture that the Bible's own hermeneutic is the "grammatico-historico" principle. 1) There is no reason to question that the Genesis account was written as history; propositional statements concerning how God created the heavens and earth. 2) There is great weight to show that the hearers/readers of what God through Moses revealed about the creation of all things was understood to be 6 24-hour days. References to this event are found throughout Scripture upon which other truths, laws, etc., are established which can only be understood if the "days" are 24-hour days.

I cannot agree that Exodus 20:8-11 simply focuses upon "the theological implications" of creation, although there is much to be learned about the nature and work of God in it. The CONTEXT is primarily prescriptive, i.e., that which God commands all men to do. As I have written elsewhere in this thread, IF for the sake of argument, "day" is to be understood as "era" (perhaps millions of years), it becomes an irrational command for man to work six "eras" (perhaps millions of years) and then rest for an "era" and within it doing no work.

Correct. But more on this below.

Here I think Tom was correct in responding as he did, although I think he missed something and apparently thinks that men like yourself think that those of us who hold to the traditional view discredit your profession of faith. I do not think this is what you are implying.

However, what is most salient is this: "I would just suggest that you be very sure of your position before telling people they must deny reality to become Christian."

1) Reality is NOT necessarily what is perceived and/or what is concluded from what is perceived. In Romans 1 the Word of God, through the inspiration of the apostle Paul, says that what can be known about God (God is assumed to be) is CLEARLY seen in the things which are made (created), namely His eternal power and divinity. Even further, it says that men are without excuse because the existence of God and He as Creator is manifest IN THEM; an inherent knowledge as part of all men being created in the image of God. Further, it is also clear that this Creator God is angry with all the inhabitants of the earth due to man's sinfulness. But, despite the perspicuity of the general revelation, men reject this testimony and substitute their own ideas (lies) in regard to the origin of all things. Here, men deny REALITY due to their innate hatred of God.

2) The writer of Hebrews (11:3), again under the divine inspiration of God, says that BY FAITH we understand that all things were created by God and are not the result of accident, nor did God take existing material and form that which we now perceive. Is the writer referring to a "blind" faith, ala Bonhoeffer? No, not at all. This faith is based upon facts revealed but not those which are simply perceived, because men via empirical observation, aka: science, cannot determine the origin of all things. These facts are revealed in special revelation, the Scriptures wherein God Himself has seen it good to make known His majesty and creativity. This He has done in far more places than simply Genesis 1 & 2, e.g., Ps 33:6; Job 38ff; Isa 40:26; Jer 10:16; Jh 1:3; Acts 14:15; 17:24; 2Pet 3:5. In short, "science" is inadequate to speak to the matter of origins.

3) I am convinced that there is a horrid exchange happening in our day, albeit a marvelous one to behold. Science, is only plausible because it "borrows" from the Christian faith. There can be no axioms, laws of nature, predictable behavior, scientific theory, etc., unless the biblical God exists. There is no regularity to be found in randomness. There can be no existence without God. Something cannot come out of nothing. On a more simple level, one could never expect the "sun to rise" another day never mind predicate that it will rise at a particular hour day after day based upon science's presupposition that all things happen via chance. A denial of the Christian God who by His power and providence not only created all things according to His perfect will and also directs all things to their appointed ends for His glory de facto eliminates any possibility of such things as reason or logic. On the other hand, we have those who reject the traditional understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 and hold that "science" must be the source of truth in regard to the matter of origins. How sad this is. For those who have been and continue to be, for the most part, the stronghold of science are those who deny the biblical Christian God. One of their primary goals is to discover the "origin of life." Billions of dollars and countless hours are spent searching for "clues" which will bring forth an answer to this question; Where did life (we) come from? And, How did all things come to be as we now know them? The presupposition which underlies these questions, even the questions themselves flow from the mind which denies the existence of God (Rom 1:18ff). The answer is found in SCRIPTURE... not science and is apprehended by faith. But truly, how can a scientist who rejects the existence of the biblical Christian God who is born a God hater, who is blind to the truth, whose heart is darkened and whose mind is opposed to truth ever hope to know reality? Yet, there are Christians who adopt this humanistic presupposition in order to "understand" what the Bible says concerning creation.

4) The accusation sometimes comes that if God did create the heavens and earth in the span of 6 24-hour days, then He (God) is a deceiver, for the truth of creation is allegedly hidden from men. Again, this accusation is spiritually bankrupt for it denies that there was a Fall and the noetic affects of it. The truth is that all men are born blind, haters of God and incapable of understanding even the most basic things of themselves, never mind how all things came to be. Sin has blinded them to the truth and they by nature exchange the truth, even those truths which can be perceived with the natural eye, for a lie, i.e., their own godless ideas. The deception is their own for again what can be known of God, mainly His omnipotence and divinity are clearly seen in the things which are made. They are therefore self-deceived and stand opposed to what God has made manifest around them and even within them. God is not and cannot be a deceiver. That God created the heavens and earth in 6 24-hour days is clearly written in His infallible Word. It is embraced as truth by faith. When someone rejects this truth, then what else could one conclude than there must have been billions of years gone by during which all things came to be as we see them; i.e., without the biblical God then everything, anything is postulated to answer these questions.

Well, I'm certainly no "expert" but I can read Scripture and understand it by God's grace. And, I am thankful that I was taught by such men as Dr. Vern Poythress the traditional biblical hermeneutic. That he would contradict that which he taught is nothing short of amazing and extremely disheartening. Sin is a wicked thing and the Devil is a deceiver and the entire world is under his power. He is the arch enemy of the Church which he is always trying to destroy, even knowing that he shall never succeed in doing so. Thus, I am not surprised that good men would question the simple and plain understanding of creation.

In His grace,