by Steve Risner
In a discussion about doctrine, the question of how we interpret a passage of Scripture is generally brought up. There are many different groups who feel that a certain interpretation of a particular passage is correct while others are incorrect. How do we know which interpretation is correct? How can we tell if one is probably wrong? I’d like to begin to explore that a bit today.
I am a Biblical creationist. This means my beliefs on our origins and the origins of the universe are founded in reading what the Bible says about it. I do not allow external sources to influence what I think the Bible says about this where the Bible specifically speaks on it. But there are certainly details or even entire topics regarding origins that the Bible doesn’t specifically speak on. In these instances, we would not allow an external source to alter what the Bible states, but we can use external sources to supply us with details, keeping in mind these details are subject to change as they are not written in the Word of God and may not be accurate.
For instance, if we are talking about whether or not there was a global Flood that destroyed all land-dwelling and air-breathing animals on earth except a small number of animals and humans that were saved on the Ark, we would have to agree the Bible is fairly clear that this happened. It is even fairly clear on when it happened. However, the Biblical text does not talk about massive graves of organisms that were buried all at once or huge sedimentary layers laid down during this deluge. We can assume, probably quite accurately, that this would happen, but the Bible does not speak specifically of it. We also do not have details on exactly what went on with continental drifting, mountain range formation, uplifting, or ocean creation. However, if we are to use external sources to help guide our thoughts on these ideas, we must be sure we do not allow those external sources to change what the Bible does say about the event. In other words, the Bible may provide a framework for something and where there are holes or left out details, we can use external sources to fill in the gaps, being diligent to not allow those sources to alter the framework the Bible has provided.
So how do we interpret the Bible in general and, in particular, the book of Genesis and other places where origins are discussed? What I believe is the best way to do this is called the “plain reading” or “natural reading” of the text. This is not reading it “literally,” and I’ll explain why later. In short, we allow the passages to tell us what they tell us. We allow them to speak for themselves without injecting our own desires or biases into it. Reading the text “naturally” would mean that if the passage presents itself as a historical narrative, we assume it’s a historical narrative. If the passage presents itself as poetry, we read it as such, but we also understand that poetry can talk about real people and events and be accurate as it does so. If it tells us it is allegorical or a parable, we read it as such. Books of wisdom should be taken as that and so on.
If how we interpret a passage of Scripture seems to contradict another passage of Scripture, we need to remedy this. It is usually not terribly difficult to do, but this can be a challenge on occasion. It could mean we need to reevaluate the passage we are looking into. It could mean we need to take another look at the passage we may seem to be contradicting. However, it is also very important to be sure the apparent contradiction is actually a contradiction. Sometimes we may think something looks like a problem at first glance, but upon further evaluation and after looking at the details a bit more deeply, we can see that the contradiction was just apparent and not real. This is actually pretty common, I think.
Here is just one example of this, but hopefully the reader can figure out others if they run across them in the future. The Bible tells us that Jesus would be, like Jonah in the belly of a fish (Matthew 12:40), in the grave for 3 days and nights. But Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not 3 days and nights by our reckoning, is it? Luke 24:7 tells us this was the case—that Jesus rose on the 3rd day. There are several different explanations for this some have put forth over the centuries. I think the simplest way to remedy this apparent contradiction is to understand how the Jews counted days. A clue is found in Esther 4:16. Here we see Esther will fast for three days and three nights, but she actually approaches the king before the third night. Following our rules for counting the days, she would have had to wait until the fourth day to fulfill this command. Is this a contradiction? Not if we understand that Jews counted days differently than we do. A day actually ends (so the next begins) at sundown. So, Friday starts on Thursday night. However, even part of a day, if it’s before sundown, is counted as the whole day. So, while a passage may appear to be contradictory on the surface, sometimes it’s because we need to understand something about the culture or times or have more details about it. This does not give us license to completely alter a passage. This is often done in the name of following what was known at the time of the writing or something like that. This is not good and makes God out to be some sort of incompetent communicator. He is not.
A common problem today is that people bring their outside sources to the Bible and force the Bible to fit those sources. I believe the Biblical creationist does this to the least degree although, like anyone, it is possible we do interpret things based on our biases. However, if our foundation is to accept what the Word tells us and utilize that as a framework for the rest of our beliefs, it is much more difficult to allow external sources to change what the Bible is telling us. This is called exegesis vs eisegesis (more on that here). One is drawing out from the Word what it is telling us (exegesis) while the other is inserting in what we want or feel the text should say based on something from outside the Bible (eisegesis). Again, we must understand that the Bible does not give details about every last miniscule happening. However, this should not give us license to radically change what a passage says because we have found some external source that, while fallible and likely to change, is at odds with what the Bible tells us. External sources are fine to use, but they cannot ever cause us to rewrite what a well-established interpretation of a passage is saying. The truth is, for thousands of years both Jews and Christians alike have understood the creation account in Genesis to be a real series of events that occurred over 6 days and that the timeline is well spelled out for us to understand when Adam was created.
We are not talking about something like geocentrism here or something like that. While people may have had strong opinions on them, those types of things are not specifically stated in Scripture. The Bible does not tell us that the earth is at the center of our solar system or galaxy or universe. In fact, it does not mention the topic at all or earth’s location in physical space. Some may point to a belief in geocentrism and the conflict that arose when Galileo (I realize that Copernicus had a lot to do with this but Galileo had a pretty serious go of things with the Catholic Church over geocentrism) announced he believed the earth was not at the center of the solar system. They may say that this is a great example of allowing modern science to change how we interpret the text. But, this is nothing like this at all because the Biblical text makes no claims as to the specific design of the universe. Someone may have determined that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around us, but this isn’t brought out of Scripture. This means no newer, more accurate interpretation was needed.
I hope you as a reader understand this. We are not talking about something not specifically stated in the Bible. We are talking about something outlined in detail in the Word of God when we discuss origins and even when creation occurred. No external source should be allowed to completely disfigure the portions of Scripture that focus on origins or the Flood. If we are talking about something not specifically stated in Scripture, we might have more room to not be so rigid in our beliefs.
Next time, we will look at this in more detail as I feel it is an important topic. The “that’s your interpretation” argument needs to be put in its place. On occasion, it might be a reasonable defense, but often it is not at all. Thanks for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
6 comments:
This is a Treasure trove of information. Ty!
Thank you, Michelle! I really appreciate you taking the time to read and comment with encouraging words. Be blessed
Part 1 of 3
What is the plain reading of Genesis 1:1? And what is the 'value' of a 'creationary' cum secular inference from that plain reading?
Some Christians claim that Genesis 1:1 implies all five 'fundamental' aspects of any scientific discipline. These five are time, space, matter, action, and cause.
Such a claim is mistaken regarding what is 'fundamental' in science. These five are indeed implicit in Genesis 1. But the typical motive for this claim is based on a deep ignorance of reality, both metaphysical and empirical.
For, empirical science is driven by a concern for life, never without it; And the very possibility for such science as a progressive, or cumulative, enterprise is based on the life-affirming, or Divine, Design in Nature.
But the subset of Christians who love the idea that these five aspects in Genesis 1:1 are there 'by Inspiration' tend to presuppose that these five are rarely, if ever, found outside of 'science'. That is, they tend to think that this particular detail of 'Inspiration' in Genesis 1:1 is truly amazing.
But consider that most any everyday narrative that we tell about our lives implicitly involve these five 'fundamental' aspects of any scientific discipline. Indeed, these five are nearly inescapably implied even in pure fictional narratives that we enjoy.
The fact that even fictional narratives involve these five shows the logical possibility of having falsely reductive conceptions as to what 'pure fiction' means:
A fictional story about a herd of horses borrows upon facts such as (a) animals called 'horses', (b) multiple entities, and (c) progressive connected events. So it would be foolish to think that 'pure fiction' lacks any and all elements of reality. Likewise, therefore, it would be foolish to think that, for a given statement, or given narrative, which involves elements of reality, that statement or narrative necessarily either is (X) entirely true or (Y) intended by its author to be accepted as true. People willfully lie, or accept an untruth for truth, so (Y) is false. And people accept lies for truth and who then teach those lies to others, so (X) is false.
Modern, 'science'-worshiping atheists grant the ostensibly 'fundamental'-ness of these five aspects of any scientific discipline. But what these atheists do not grant is the universal self-evidence of Divine Design (Romans 1:20). They act in mere practical recognition of that evidence, but never in willing metaphysical affirmation of it.
So the foundational context of Genesis 1 is not its own mere 'outward' form. Indeed, if even Adam and Eve were created on the completed Earth, within a completed wider cosmos, then there is exactly one way, apart from all contrary ways, of naturally reading Genesis 1:1. This way is by maintaining, contrary to 'scientific' Secularism, that humans' actual and functional center, and base, of epistemology and cosmology is their natural knowledge of living on the Earth.
This is why there is no record in the Bible that God outright told Adam and Eve about things blandly secular 'things' such as 'gravity' 'energy' 'matter', and 'space'. For, they already experienced these. For, they knew and intuited so much more deeply.
In fact, the most advanced modern artificially instrumental modes of empirical inquiry have confirmed our universal everyday most broad and deep sense of things. Specifically, those modes have, in their own ways, found that the entire cosmos, including humans, the Earth, and even the 'fundamental' physics of it all, appears to be very finely tuned for sake specifically of:
(I) water based life,
(II) the Earth's cosmically unique role in the support of that life, and
(III) a Biblically compatible kind of human physical and metaphysical cosmological virtue.
Part 2 of 3
So life, and its cosmically special supports, is the sole central, and first, value in any metaphysically foundational account of origins. God is a living God, not mainly the Creator of 'space and matter'.
Yet we modern, 'scientific' 'Biblical' creationists are proud to 'know' that not only are 'space', 'matter', and 'energy' what comprise everything (including even the Earth and humans), but that Genesis 1 'outright' says that God created these three.
But such a 'knowing' misses the deeper point. The deeper reality is that even cosmic physics is finely tuned for sake of water-based life, and for the Earth's unique role in supporting that life. Textually, this means two things:
One, a 'creationary', but otherwise blandly secular, presentation of cosmic physics is not the most important first thing to know about origins. Two, it would take many more words to (a) tell of the greatest values of Creation from the 'cosmic physics' 'bottom, up' than to (b) tell of those values from the 'center, outward'. So Genesis 1 is not addressing mentally dissociative idiots, much less such idiots who are skeptics.
Indeed, in addressing the Early Church, Apostle Paul reminded all presumably Biblically well-informed Christians that the characteristic of paganism and atheism is the denial of intentional life-affirming Divine design in Nature (Romans 1:20). And Paul did not otherwise refer to the mere 'authority' of Genesis 1.
---
Imagine if humanity, from the beginning, had lived bound inside a Star Trek-like space ship stranded far away from any galaxy. This ship has every artificial system required for our biological survival and increase. It even has an automated system for expanding ship to comfortable accept such increase.
And, just like in the Star Trek universe, all those systems would require our work, toil, and expertise for maintenance. In short, we would have to earn our right even to breathe.
So the deepest difference here to the Star Trek universe is that we would have no natural knowledge of a watery-planet-based, star-orbiting way of life. Even the ship's ambient thermal systems are separate from its lighting systems, and the latter produces nearly no heat, while the former produces none of the kind of light by which we see.
Despite having all the perfectly synthesized food we could ever need, we would know nothing of flora.
Upon our finding Genesis 1, we would say of it,
'What is all this about water? How can water be more important than atmospheric pressure, the latter of which this strange account does not even mention? It goes on about things it calls “land”, “sea” “flora”, “birds”, “fish”, and “land animals”. But it does not once point out the universal need for sealed outer bulkheads. It does not once mention the need for the expertise and toil to maintain gravity generators. It surely is a fantasy account, and a weird fantasy at that.'
So a non-terrestrial 'way of life' does not provide for any of our most crucial natural needs. It may keep us biologically alive, but only by deeply contorting our sense of metaphysics and ethics.
So, by the most naturally plain reading, Genesis 1:1 does not constitute explicit information that, 'In the absolute chronological first moment of creating, God created mere space and matter.' It is not strictly false to say that He did so. But saying so says not even one thing as to His values, and His relationship to us. Saying so can, in itself, suggest only that this is a creator who is as 'physics snob' who only sometimes, and under contingent conditions, is pleased to be a 'real boy'.
Part 3 of 3
So, to think that 'cosmic physics' is how Genesis 1 explicitly begins and proceeds is comparable to a 'cosmic physics first' way of verbally introducing a specially made wedding dress to the hopeful guests at a wedding. The 'introduction' does not even mention the dress, nor the true mastery of its tailor, until after it 'gloriously' tells the guests that 'everything ultimately is made of the same blandly secular constituents as everything else.'
This is not to say that Genesis 1 implies nothing about cosmic physics. On the contrary, as cosmic physics is not the blandly secular mere constituents of everything.
And the 'dress' is none other than the human-affirming, and marriage-affirming, nature of Divine Design:
1. the general cosmos and the special Earth.
2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.
3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;
4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;
5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);
6. Animal biology and its special category, human;
7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-23)
This seven-fold recursion shows that Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned that, since we are the creation of the Living God, we not only are significant, we are the central value both of the entire account and of the entire cosmos.
More so, this recursion fits Genesis 1's conspicuously lack of mention only of humans' material origins. This (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) anticipates the completion forward of Genesis 1. Per the 7th recursion, this is fulfilled in the ending portion of Genesis 2 (vs. 18-23).
Thank you, Daniel. That's a lot to take in and consider but I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
Post a Comment