geocreationism.com

In Part 1 of this series, discussing Paul H. Seely’s article, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, I confirmed that Geocreationism is a Concordist Theory.  In Part 2, I explained why a significant difference between Geocreationism and other Concordist theories is that Geocreationism does not rewrite scripture to fit the accepted geologic ages.  In Part 3, I explained how Geocreationism uses science to confirm the sequence of events the scriptures record.  In this installment, I discuss Seely’s approach for interpreting Genesis as history.

Recall from Part 2 this quote from the Wikipedia page Interpretations of the Creation Account:

There has been little consistency in the various ways of reconciling Genesis 1 with geological history; and concordism still attempts to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific. Critics contend it is still asking the wrong questions, and getting the wrong answers. In concordism, the tendency is to reinterpret Scripture consistent with the very latest scientific theorizing. But according to the grammatico-historical method, you interpret Scripture consistent with original intent.

In contrast to other Concordist theories, Geocreationism does not attempt “to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific,” but instead looks for scientific data that explains the passages.  For example, scripture tells me there was an ocean on Day 1 and no dry land; the discovery of meteor craters on the moon and zircon crystals in Australia provides the science.  Scripture tells me that land mammals did not flourish until after sea life and birds did; study of the fossil record and the KT Impact provide the science.  And on it goes, with scripture providing the history that science eventually confirms.

Genesis as history, confirmed by science.  Hold that thought…

Recall the final sentence in the Wikipedia quote above: “…according to the grammatico-historical method, you interpret Scripture consistent with original intent.”

Seely makes the argument that if you understand the scripture the way the Israelites understood it, then that is its original intent.  It is another way of saying that the scripture must be taken literally, and it is in that vein that Seely makes a convincing argument for what Genesis 1 “literally” meant to the Israelites.  From there, it is a short trip to realizing that the Israelites’ understanding contradicts mainstream science.

Now, I have already shown how the contradictions of sequence (oceans, light, dry land) are explainable, and so I will not rehash those yet again.  However, Seely discusses other “literalities” of Genesis 1 that have nothing to do with the sequence of events, but rather scientific misunderstandings that the Israelites would have had at the time Genesis 1 was written.

Seely makes the case that before Genesis 1 was ever written, the Israelites already believed that the firmament was a huge solid dome with seas above it, and seas below it.  Moses would have believed that, too.  Therefore, it would seem, Genesis 1 records the formation of that dome (Day 2).  They would have also believed that the sun, moon, and stars were literally embedded within the surface of the dome (Day 4).  Well, I do agree that with such a view, Genesis 1 would appear to record that, literally. 

I find it interesting how Seely deals with this, because he doesn’t mean to suggest that these false impressions about a solid dome are scientifically accurate.  He simply means that the scriptures were recording the events in terms the people of the time would have understood.  Therefore… well, his “therefore” is a bit different than mine.

The problem … is that [Concordism] lifts Genesis 1 out of its ancient Near Eastern context, sets it down in the context of modern science, and then reinterprets Genesis 1 so that it agrees with modern science. I do not fault such interpreters personally for reading modern science into Genesis 1 because they were forced by an unbiblical definition of biblical inerrancy to become inventive exegetes. It is my task, however, first to expose the arbitrary nature of their interpretations of Genesis 1 and then point to a more biblical approach.

In other words, Genesis is not recording literal history.  Yet, it has a literal meaning.  Well, I have shown above how the literal meaning of Days 1, 5, and 6 are history.  It seems therefore likely that Days 2 through 4 are history as well.  The problem however is that Seely presents a convincing case that Day 2 and Day 4 are recording the creation based on a literal dome.  Recall that one of the goals of Geocreationism is to interpret the scriptures literally.  OK then.  The scriptures record the creation of a non-existent dome.  What to do?

The answer is to interpret the scriptures as the recording of a literal event, written from the perspective of a scientifically ignorant age.  On Day 2, there really was space created between waters above and waters below.  The space was not defined by a literal dome, but Moses didn’t know that.  The important point is that the space between the waters was created.  On Day 4, the important point is that the sun, moon, and stars were now visible in the sky.  Moses thought they were set within the substance of the dome, and so his language reflects that.  However, the important point is that before Day 4, the celestial bodies did not appear to be in the firmament; after Day 4, they did.  In short, Moses recorded literal history, even while misinterpreting the nature of the firmament.

A possible objection to this treatment of scripture is that God knew the truth.  Why would God tell Moses that He created a dome and set the sun, moon, and stars against its surface?  Good question.  The answer is that He didn’t.

What God actually said on Day 2 was, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”  On Day 4 He said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”  The word for expanse, at the time, would have been interpreted as a reference to the dome of the sky.  However, the word expanse did not mean the dome of the sky.  It was a reference to the limits of the sky, whether that limit is a physical dome or not.  It just so happens that the best science of the day taught that it was a dome.  But, God did not say “dome”, which is an important point.

So, what “literally” literally mean? When it comes to interpreting scripture, it depends on how you are interpreting it.  If you are interpreting Genesis 1 is literal science, then the account in Genesis 1 is unreliable, and casts doubt on the entire scripture.  Interpreted as history however, and the literal meaning becomes a potentially biased account of a literal event.  Interpreted as history, one need only map the account to real events, and explain the discrepancies.  The real event described in Genesis Day 2 is the stopping of torrential rain.  The real event described in Day 4 is the lifting of an atmospheric haze.  The discrepancies are due to the pre-scientific ignorance of the age… not ignorance on God’s part, but on Moses’s.  Make allowances for that ignorance however, and it would seem that his history was right on.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 at 12:12 am and is filed under Day 2, Day 4, Day Age Theory, Concordist Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.