174 — 6 Days or Nothing?
This one came into tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com at just the right time. I have been doing a reading marathon and just finished six books on quantum physics in the last three weeks with two more to go. I love science, the Bible, and the Lord so this question tends to come up in private discussions from time to time.
Patrick, how important do you consider having a literal view of all of Genesis? My current understanding is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical/allegorical and that Adam and Eve were probably not actual people. I am bing told that unless I believe that God created the universe in 6 literal days and that Adam and Eve were actual people made from dust that I am in serious error and how can I possibly believe anything else in the Bible is real?
My answer to this will probably not make anybody completely happy. So… do me a favor and read all of it carefully before aiming the RPGs this direction.
For those who are late to this column, a few words: my background is eclectic at best, eccentric at worst. Raised by missionaries, I struggled with my own faith. I eventually garnered two doctorates, both in science. Science is still a passion in my life and yet another reason why the UPS guy hates me and Amazon sends me love letters. I still teach at state universities (only short courses, as Rochester Church takes up the rest of my time) and I enjoy a good scientific discussion about anything but especially about quantum mechanics, physics, psychology, biology and pharmacology.
That said… I have no problem with the Genesis account. I can see ways that the universe can appear far, far older than it really is. I can see the logic in the creation progression… i.e. you get sunlight and trees before you get the critters. While most of my colleagues see billions of years of light and noise in the universe, I can look at the same evidence and see the effects of creation, the flood, and an incredibly thorough creation plan!
We know now, for example, that even the speed of light is not constant. At its creation — either by God on day one or by God in the Big Bang — it was much, much faster than today. We know that time itself is a relic of space, acceleration, and mass. That’s why I don’t sweat all the Carl Sagan-like repetitions of “billions of years.” I just smile and say, “Maybe. Maybe not.” I find it very interesting that a good sized percentage of physicists are coming to a firm belief in God. Some of them embrace six day creation but, to be fair, most don’t. They are just too uncomfortable with the facts to say anymore “Once upon a time there was nothing. Then it blew up.”
Do you HAVE to embrace six day creation to go to heaven or to believe the rest of scripture? I don’t think so. I wish everyone agreed with me but, sadly, that seems to be unlikely anytime soon. That said, rejecting Genesis does create some serious issues. For example, if Adam and Eve were not real, but just stand-ins for finally realized humanity, then when did primates become ensouled? How many millions of years did our ancestors grunt and paint their way through the caves before God finally shaved one of them and gave them a soul, conscience, etc? How do we explain the fall of man without Adam and Eve? (sure, it’s possible but it opens all kinds of weird boxes full of other issues)
There are passages that say that there wasn’t any death until sin entered the world. While some try to duck that and say the reference is to spiritual death, the language doesn’t bear that out. However… watch out, those of you who use this as a “killer app” to slay the theistic evolutionists. There absolutely WAS death before sin because the life span of lots of critters on this planet are too short to have survived from Creation to the Fall, even if Adam and Eve raced each other to the fruit tree section of Eden! I think the passage indicates that blood and death because of sin, competition, war, and anger didn’t occur until the fall of Adam and Eve.
But I could be wrong.
I do not embrace the 17.5 billion year view because I find no compelling reason to do so. I hold onto the scripture because I find no compelling reason not to. Besides, as Henry Morris found out when he tried to disprove the Bible, it ends up giving us a lot more answers than any other field supplies. (see his classic “The Genesis Flood”)
Still, it is important to repeat this: we are saved by grace through our faith in Jesus as the Son of God. There are a lot of things he said that make it seem as if he certainly believed in sudden, fast creation but… still… did he give us the right to demand that all others believe it? Even the council in Jerusalem, as we reviewed recently, went to great pains to put a minimum amount of burdens on new believers.
So, once again, I end by saying: be good to each other. Believe in Jesus. Treasure him. Walk humbly with him. And love one another fiercely.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
For those not familiar with it, The Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY is a awesome place that will really get you thinking about all of this. As you walk through it, you’ll find readings and shows and exhibits which tell of The Seven C’s of History:
Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consummation
Take the time to visit and you may find some of the explanations you look for. Check it out:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
April 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
No RPG’s from me. They won’t even let me HAVE one! Besides, the range from here to you is too great.
I can see some of the Genesis-1-as-allegory reasoning. I’m not sure I buy it, but it’s understandable. I have never found any reason NOT to believe that Adam and Eve were real people. I can accept a brother or sister who doesn’t believe it, but they puzzle me.
I heard once of a rabbi who asked one of his new students to recite Genesis. The young man starte out, “In the beginning, God . .” and the rabbi shouted “Stop!” He did this several times before saying, “And if you don’t believe that, there’s the door, because nothing else is going to make much sense to you.”
April 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I could have done without the animantronic humanoids at the Creation Museum. They were creepy.
I liked a lot of the rest of it; especially the Cataclysm and Flood information.
Danny, Ray Vander Laan uses that rabbinic episode in his Follow the Rabbi lecture series. He *might* have attributed it to Chaim Potok, but I’m not 100% sure.
I can definitely understand people who have a hard time swallowing the appearance of Cain’s wife and the land of Nod. Jesus believed it, though, and that is good enough for me.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
So many questions…so many answers. I agree with your last sentence Patrick, we seem to find those things challenging enough at times.
Questions are great, especially when we are willing to search for the answers. I’ve noticed as I learn, the answers can change. I believe that is Abba revealing himself to me through the Word.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Nick, that’s where I heard it. I couldn’t remember if it was Chaim Potok, either.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I’m just impressed that you recently read six books on quantum physics in three weeks. To read a book on that subject in a lifetime would be an accomplishment for me. Actually I can settle this issue once and for all. I have an old King James bible that has the timeline printed at the top of the pages and though I don’t have it with me, I do know it dated Adam and Eve just over 5,000 years old. But then, that was way back when that particular bible was published. We’d have to find the publication date and add a few more years but we can all safely know that it was just over 5,000 years. -:)
April 28th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Oh, wait. My answer had nothing to do with the question! Seems like we’ve done a lot of that in our recent history.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
To me anyways, if I’m going to believe in a God why would I limit God? Just the idea that there is a God to me means that anything is possible with God.
If christians have issues with the creation story then at what point did you become a believer in Christ? I would think that raising the dead, parting the Red Sea, and Jesus resurrection, etc. would be right up there with the creation story, no?
April 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Patrick,
You are certainly most right when you say that any answer to this question will be bound to upset someone.
I am not that someone, though I do take the less literal reading of Genesis 1.
To be fair, there is a lot to do with world view working in this discussion. The modern thinker feels the “facts” of the story must measure up, and so they build museums and question the faith of those who come to other conclusions based on “fact” alone.
On the other side of the world view spectrum is us postmoderns. I am quite sure the story is “True” as in it conveys God’s encounter with His people. However, since I don’t believe Genesis was meant to be read as a modern scientific text, I wouldn’t dare approach it to bend it and it fit in that arena.
I found your answer to be full of the wisdom and grace you always write with.
Thank you once again from a committed follower of Christ, who doesn’t need all the t-s crossed to be humbled by a magnificent God’s creation by whatever method he used; and more importantly one who is seeking to bring the Kingdom of love to earth, as it is in heaven. May we all pursue that with greater vigor!
K
April 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
But did Adam and Eve ride dinosaurs?
That’s the real question.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Patrick, what I don’t understand is,why did it take that long? Would it not be more reasonable to think the “Big Bang” might be more feasible, that is the way God did everything else. not everyday labor, a little at a time. If you read Gen. literally would it not seem some of those days were longer than others,judging by the results? We know God is not limited by time, but wasn’t Adam limited, how long did it take for him to name all God created.Just something to think on.
I’m not sure why you think the Big Bang was quick (17.5 billion years from boom to baby) as opposed to the days in creation week. As for the days in Genesis, I find it interesting that they are specifically defined. In the Hebrew, the phrase is “evening, morning, day one” etc. Kind of makes it harder to look at them as epochs. Also troubling, if they are epochs, is that plants were made before the sun. If that is just a matter of a day, no prob. Longer? Big Prob.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Oh by the way, if you had that power, I bet you could invent a lot of stuff in an hour
Yes, but is this world ready for ten foot tall parrots, turbocharged cattle, and a sunrise that comes with its own bagpipe soundtrack?
April 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Wes, I don’t know if Adam and Eve did, but Fred Flintstone did!
April 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I’d go for bagpipe sunrises! But only for the uiellean pipes.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I have studied this topic, but admit my limited knowledge of science forces me to lean hard upon the opinions of those with scientific and Biblical apptitude. I totally respect what Patrick states here and do admire his knowledge of scientific facts. I will continue to monitor arguements presented (with a open mind) on both sides when it comes to the age of our Earth because it is interesting. Fortunately, it is not a salvation issue outside of ackknowleging that God is our creator. I hope to listen to the creation stories and other revelations that occur in that peaceful place prepared for us.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Patrick, as a scientist, are you saying that Radiocarbon dating is bunk. I might agree if we were only dating rock, but with fossils compared to living things today I believe they have a much greater chance of dating once living things and therefore dating the substance in which they are found. Carbon dating is an interesting subject.
Laymond, they don’t use radiocarbon dating for rocks. Radiocarbon (usually called Carbon-14) is used for living, or formerly living, substances that are less than 15,000 years old. It loses its accuracy rapidly if something is older than 5000 years and also must factor in leeching (in and out) of elements, water, exposure to sunlight, fire, air, etc. It is a system of educated guesses — very useful but you wouldn’t want to build your house on their conclusions. Most scientists I know, even the atheists, would agree with me on this one.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I always thought the Behemoth and Leviathan described in Job 40-41 sounded an awfully lot like dinosaurs.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t fossils minerals? Carbo-14 dating wont work on those at any age.
You’re exactly right. Not even radiometric dating works on those. Radiometric dating only works on igneous rock (rock that at one time was liquid/melted and then hardened). Fossils are dated by evolutionary theory, not by radiometric or radio carbon dating.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Patrick, you might be a better theologian than a scientist, the people I have studied say carbon dating of once living things is accurate up to 50, 60 thousand yrs. and therefore I assume that the rock formation in which they are found should be at least that old. just logic, I know theology don’t have to be logical, but science does. maybe you and some of your readers should write a paper on the subject. I have never run an experiment on this, so I am only repeating those who have.
Laymond, I’m not sure I can win you over on any point, but let it just be said I have two doctorates in science and not even a “Perfect Attendance” certificate from a Sunday School! Think of carbon-14 as a pistol. You might be able to hit the target at long range, but as the range increases, your chances for being right (hitting your target) decrease exponentially.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:29 am
Personally, I lean towards an interpretation of the creation account that leaves room for science and poetry, just because I think the subject deserves both.
And while I’m not 100% sold on a literal reading of six days (as Patrick points out, there’s no guarantee they were 24-hour days, or intended to communicate that), I feel compelled to relate a story.
I took the “long” tour of Blanchard Springs Caverns in Arkansas one summer afternoon in the 1980s with a retired science teacher as my state park guide. In the dark, dynamite-blasted tunnel between the smaller and larger sections of the cave, he paused and – since I was the only other person on the tour – said, “A lot of scientists insist that it takes thousands of years to form just an inch of the flowstone formations we just saw.” He shone his flashlight up at the ceiling. There, growing from a tight crack that must extend to the surface, was a soda-straw stalactite that was at least a foot long. “This tunnel was blasted about twenty years ago,” he said. “Go figure.”
May 1st, 2009 at 3:05 am
Keith, I don’t have a doctorate in any sciences, and I don’t know if a degree in petroleum engineering would qualify me to make this statement, but do you think the blasting may have furnished abundant loose building material thus accelerating the formation of this stalactite. if you don’t have to make your own brick, you might build a house much faster.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:11 am
Patrick, it is hard for me to be convinced that this earth is a young planet , since I have made my living for over forty years drilling deep into the rock and soil from which it is formed, searching for and finding fossil fuels as deep as 20,000 feet from the surface. Here is an excerpt
from an article a paleontologist
wrote on oil discovery.
USING MICROFOSSILS
IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
BRIAN J. O’NEILL
WHEN I meet new people and they find out that I’m a paleontologist working for an oil company, the second question they ask (after “What is a paleontologist?”) is usually “Why would an oil company hire one?” Most people think of dinosaurs when they think of paleontology, or at the very least trilobites and other invertebrate fossils. However, most of the rock samples available to those engaged in finding and developing hydrocarbon resources are in the form of “cuttings.” Cuttings (Baker, 1979) are the small pieces of rock broken up by the drill bit and brought to the surface by the fluid which lubricates the drill bit and removes the cut rock from the bottom of the drill hole. If the bit encounters dinosaur bones or clam shells, they are so broken up in the process as to be almost unusable. Micro fossils on the other hand, by virtue of their small size, can be recovered whole. Micro fossils also happen to be abundant, especially in marine rocks which are the most common form of sedimentary rock in the crust of the Earth.
Patrick, I don’t know for sure how these fossils became so far from the surface, but my guess is they have been there a long time. why do you think we call it fossil fuel?
May 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Why is there so much oil in the deserts of the Middle East? Could it be that the area was once covered in lush vegetation? i.e. – the hanging gardens of Babylon mentioned in the Bible? Is this part of the Bible ‘millions’ of years old? (I think not).
May 1st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
cg, that indeed would be a mystery, as to how the hanging gardens are buried thousands of feet below the surface, and other artifacts are only a few feet down.With the millions of bbls of oil already extracted, and the millions left to recover, that must have been one big garden. from Iraq through Saudi Arabia, and up through north Africa.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Pre-flood vegetation, post-flood artifacts perhaps? I wouldn’t think a few thousand feet of sediment in some places is impossible after such a worldwide catastrophic flood.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 am
cg, you could be right, one thing for sure I can’t prove you are wrong.
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Greetings from rainy East Tennessee! Say Patrick, which books on quantum physics have you read recently?
Thanks
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
As Niels Bohr said, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”