The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Analogical Day Theory

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 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

I am not expert in these matters, but it seems as if Dr. Poythress ignores an important doctrine in developing his theory.

That is the supernatural element of Christianity. God can create something just by speaking it into existence. He is not bound by the laws of nature like fallible men are. But that may be the argument by some who argues that God is bound by his created nature.

It's too deep for me. If I am going out on the limb to believe in the gospel, why not believe in the 6 day creation.

John

In many ways this is too deep for me as well. But I am trying to go a little deeper, to see just where God can take me.

If I remember correctly Dr. Poythress did delve a little bit in to the matter of God speaking into existence. But, I believe he said something to the effect that science shows when God did so. He believes that if the traditional view is correct, then God is deceiving scientists, because the so called evidence (i.e. astrological) can not support the young earth view.

I do not know enough about this astrological evidence, or whether or not the young earth scientist's arguments are good. But even if it is true that young earth scientists arguments are flawed. It could just mean that not enough is known at present in science.
Even theories that might seem to be the best theories at a given time can be shown too flawed when more evidence is found.

What I do believe however, is that his views seem to be based on outside influences. Something that if I am correct, was not done by either the Hebrews in which Genesis was originally written to, or any of the early Church.

Anybody know when the Analogical Day Theory first came to be?
Also, if indeed this view is an old view, who held to it?

Tom

So many assumptions are made! How arrogant to assume that light and gravity and time and dimension behave universally just as we observe them here on one little planet in one little solar system amongst untold trillions of galaxies. We only know how fast light travels from our own sun, and assume that light travels at exactly the same speed from every other star. Light, time, gravitation - these are all assumptions that scientists take with them from our very limited human viewpoint, and used as if they must apply everywhere else in the universe. In my opinion it is man's arrogance that accounts for any conflicts between the Scriptures and "science."

-R

Robin

Very good points.

Your post reminds me of the time my wife and I had a tour of a cave. The tour guide told us of how certain stalactites were over two thousand years old. He said they know this because of the rate the water and calcium flowed to form it.
I didn't say anything at the time, but I couldn't help but think that they were making a lot of assumptions. I.e. how do they know that the rate of growth is always the same year after year? Couldn't the shift in the mountain above and other things affect the rate of growth?

Tom

Tom,

Here are my thoughts without having read the book.


I agree that science and the Bible agree. I think when science and the Bible seem to disagree, it is almost always the case that it is the scientist mis-interpreting the facts of science and not the Bible's interpretation. The simple fact is that scientists are sinners and they are not neutral in this respect when they interpret 'the facts of science'.


I don't agree that creation is the Word of God as the Bible is. Maybe if you shift the meanings of "Word of God" as it applies to the Bible and to creation you might be able to wedge them together, but I would not do this. For those who make this argument, I think you have to pin them down on their definitions. The Bible should be used to interpret creation. I don't think creation should be used to interpret the Bible, although I don't think anyone would dispute that our experiences do affect how we interpret the Bible. We should use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Creation can and does validate what the Bible teaches.


I disagree 100%. God has deceived no one and has explicitly stated that the universe was created in 6, 24 hour days. There is no deceiving going on but there is plenty of willful suppression of the truth in the name of science. As Robin said God controls and created the laws of nature. It is only man's foolish pride to think that God must be subject to those laws. As Robin pointed out, our assumption that physical laws are constant or the same everywhere may be wrong. They certainly weren't constant for eternity since at one point they did not exist. Another equally valid possibility is that God created the light from distant galaxies already 'on-its-way' in the proper place. If that is the case, God is still not deceiving because he told us so.

John

Of course, it used to be maintained that God was deceiving us by pointing to the rocks--suggesting that they are obviously older than 6000 years. Trouble is, now we know better. We know rocks can be formed in a short space of time if the conditions are right. So, if we accept Poythress' premise about distance of the stars and light travel and such, perhaps we can also cut God some slack and conclude that we may just learn something in the future that would make us revise such conclusions. Remember that in the Victorian Era there were many who concluded Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch because there were no alphabets in his time. A few short years later we found out that there were alphabets predating Moses hundreds of years.

It always seems to me that the problem with those who don't accept 6 day creation is faith. "Hath God really said." I am supposed to believe every part of Bible as it is presented, like the resurrection, but not the straightforward presentation of how God made the world. And, actually, the problem isn't days since a fiat creation is indicated.

I love my brothers who do not believe in the straightforward presentation of the creation. I think consistency in how they approach the rest of scripture will win them over.

First of all,

Methinks you have stated what should be the obvious in regard to why people reject the historic 6 day/24 hr creation view; they lack faith in the Word of God. Yes, it is also a hermeneutical question, but the way the question(s) are posed, it seems to me that there is already a presupposition of unbelief behind them. There are far too many walls they have to traverse to make any other view reasonable. For example, the basic hermeneutical principle; Historico-Grammatico has to be abandoned if one embraces any other view. Are we to accept that not only did the people in Moses day have no true understanding about how God created the world and all it contains? And, even further, that with very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the most godly men and Christian scholars throughout history have totally misunderstood what Scripture teaches concerning the creation? There is also the issue of the Fourth Commandment; the Lord's Day which is based upon both creation and the redemptive acts of God. To reject the 6-day/24-hour creation view, one of necessity has to reject this commandment as binding upon all believers. There are also NT passages where even the Lord Christ Himself affirms the 6-day/24-hour creation view, etc., etc....

Secondly, I can only guess, but it appears to me that Dr. Poythress has gone the way which some other noble men have gone, e.g., B.B. Warfield and E.J. Young, et al. They have given in to worldly pressure for the sake of Academia and/or personal credibility in regard to being a scholar. Additionally, in some cases some have allowed God's authority, the inspired, infallible written Word of God to be shared or overshadowed by the opinions of godless science. No, I am not saying that science, in and of itself is godless and thus should not be pursued. But rather, the presuppositions that govern most science(tests) is godless and thus the conclusions reached or deduced from what can be empirically seen (raw data) is often wrong. This is surely the case with the conclusions reached concerning the age of the universe/earth and its objects whether measured via light synthesis, carbon dating, etc. The 'measurements' might be accurate, although this is not a given, but how those measurements are to be understood is going to be directly influenced by one's presupposed cosmology. In short, I believe Dr. Poythress, John Frame and any/all professing Christians who reject a 6-day/24-hr creation view have bartered their faith by allowing godless science's understanding of God's natural revelation to intrude upon God's special revelation where it has no warrant to do so. They have believed the lie... "Hath God said...?"

That's my

I'm sorry but I can't share your optimism. History has shown that rarely does one come back to the historic/traditional view after leaving it, especially with those in the academic community. Pride is one of the strongest sins to overcome.