The Six Day Creation is Incompetent Theologically
Even
the most recent portions of the Christian Bible are thousands of years old, and
written in languages not commonly spoken today. The interpretation difficulty
this presents to Christians is reflected in the hundreds of Christian
denominations and sects, many violently opposed to one another. An even greater
problem is the proper interpretation of texts far older which were written in
languages no one living has ever heard spoken.
The
six day creationists typically make the following claims; the Book of Genesis
is a perfect, inerrant and historical text that can be readily understood from
the “plain reading” alone. They will also insist that if their interpretation
is rejected, then the entire text of the Bible must also be rejected. In public lectures, I hold
up a King James Bible by the 3 physical pages which contain Genesis 1-11 and point out,
“Young earth creationists say you have denied all the rest of the Book if you
don’t like their interpretation of these three pages.” I am
fascinated by the fact that the only other people to make this argument are
atheists attempting to discredit the Bible by pointing to the obvious failure
of Genesis to conform with scientific observation.
Popular
books by “the new atheists” such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or
Richard Dawkins make the same core argument as young earth creationists Ken Ham or Jonathan Sarfati;
the truth or falsity of the Bible is to be evaluated by how well the text
conforms to modern observations of the physical universe. Where they differ is
that the creationists reject science. The Answers in Genesis statement of belief insists that, "No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts
the Scriptural record." Of course, they mean by "Scriptural record" their particular interpretations.
This central irony is why a more
thoughtful theologian such as John F. Haught can appear as a pro-science
witness in the Dover, Pa. Intelligent Design creationism trial and also author
a book, “God and the New Atheism” (2008) challenging Harris, Hitchens, and
Dawkins.
This is not a new problem. Thomas Aquinas (c.a. 1225 –
1274) wrote in “Summa Theological” (1273), "In discussing questions of
this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of
Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be
explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular
explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved
with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of
unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
July, 1925 William Jennings Bryan, the leading fundamentalist in America, was questioned by Clarence Darrow on the accuracy of the Bible. Question after question he did not waver. But when Darrow ask him if the world was created in 6 days, Bryan said, no the Bible doesn't say that. You can believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible without believing in the 6 day creation.
If the bible is to be taken literally then wouldn't a literal interpretation include a literal interpretation of Genesis?
By supporting the idea that the Bible stands or falls on a 6 day creation you have proven Dr. Hurd's point. I would be worried about any idea where atheists are in agreement with young-earth creationist.
Dr. Hurd does not seem like a YEC... he is on the Earth not created in six days side.
My question is: How can you both believe in a literal Bible and at the same time NOT believe in a six day creation? Isn't the whole Genesis as six actual days idea A literal interpretation?
A six day creation is a literal interpretation of Genesis, but it is not the only literal interpretation. You always pick the narrowest interpretation as if it was the only interpretation. It is not.
Wow. Why not stick to arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves???
".... arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves?"
First it is obvious to the most naïve observer that creationist dogma is not honestly identified with Christian faith. Further, I have not attacked any individual because of their religious belief. I have exposed their false claims of truth.
Stop lying, cf Exodus 20:16.
Isn't "false claims of truth" relative to your view?
In my book all you have proven is that you do not believe that it is possible that Creation could of taken place.
Try reading Chaucer out loud in his language. Biblical Hebrew is considerably different from any language spoken today. But more important are the recent discoveries in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician literatures.
Some fairly accessable books I can recommend are;
Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press
Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press
Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
___________
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.
The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.
The use of the work "yom" in Genesis 1, as well as in Exodus 16, 20 or 31, certainly does refer to a single day.
AFAIK, the languages of Genesis are Hebrew and Aramaic. Both of these have continuous spoken traditions. I'm not sure that you are making your point very well.
AiG's point that 'yom' means a common sense day in Genesis 1 is valid. Certainly the Mosaic author of Exodus understood it that way when he used it to justify the creation of a 7 day week and day of rest.