geocreationism.com

Based on my latest post, Geocreationism and Concordist Theory (Part 4) - What does “literal” literally mean?, I believe I am headed down what some would consider a dangerous path… concluding that Moses wrote things in the scriptures that were not true.  With most people, I am sure this hits a nerve (hey, it hits a nerve in me!) However, this does not worry me.  The reason is because Moses’s misperceptions are not God’s message.  Moses, as we all do, had an understanding of the world that served as a framework and backdrop for the story that he lived out. Naturally, what God inspired Moses to write is the truth.  When Moses wrote it however, the backdrop against which that inspiration was followed was not always true.

The reason this appears so dangerous is because it calls into question the inerrancy of scripture.  If scripture has errors, then what good is it?  If scripture means anything at all, and if Jesus is to be accepted as Lord and Savior, then we must be able to accept scripture as God’s Word, right?

Right.  Absolutely.  You betcha.  Without a doubt.

But while every Word of God is true, not every word of man is true, and it would seem that the scriptures have both varieties mixed into them. 

This begs several questions:

- How do you to tell the difference between man’s word in scripture and God’s Word in scripture?
- Does the existence of man’s word in scripture contradict the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?
- What is Biblical inerrancy?

First, let me tell you how a fundamentalist Christian is most likely to answer these questions:

- It is all God’s Word.
- It would, but it is all God’s Word.
- Biblical inerrancy means: “Everything the Bible says is true.”

Next, let me tell you how an atheist is most likely to answer these questions:

- It is all man’s word.
- Yes.
- Biblical inerrancy means: “Everything the Bible says is true.”

Notice the paradoxical polarization here, at least in my own observation.  It is based on a common understanding of what biblical inerrancy is, that everything the Bible says is true.  Now, let me tell you my own answers to the three questions above:

- It is all God’s Word.  It is all man’s word.
- No.
- Biblical inerrancy means: “The Bible is without error.”

Now, how can I say this with a straight face?  The answer is because I believe in faith that it’s the truth.  But, that’s too easy.  Every Christian answers that to whatever it is they believe.  So let me answer you a little more thoughtfully.

As I write of Seely’s paper in the post linked to above, his historical analysis of ancient pre-scientific cultures has convinced me that the Israelites, including the Egyptian-raised Moses, believed the skies were a solid dome.  It explains much of the peculiar wording of Genesis 1 that some would surely say I have been dancing around on this blog for the last year or more.  But, in explaining the peculiarity of Moses’ words, have I actually damaged the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?  I do not think so.  Seely does not think so either.  Here is how he reconciles it:

The biblical approach that I believe better relates science to the Bible is to accept the historical-grammatical meaning of Genesis 1. Admit that it reflects the cosmology of the second millennium B.C., and that modern science presents a more valid picture of the universe. Then, recognize the fact that the theological message of Genesis 1 stands out in such superior contrast to the mythological accounts of creation (both ancient and modern) that even so radical a critic as Gunkel could see the difference. Finally, draw what seems to me the obvious conclusion: Science and the Bible are complementary.

Well, he and I close are on this one, but not quite.  Speaking to Biblical inerrancy, I do not believe Seely’s formulation meets the standard.  However, he does appear aware of that perception.  He goes on:

Admittedly, this does not uphold the common but unbiblical assumption that the divine inspiration of Scripture cannot entail concessions to ancient “science.” But, there is no biblical reason why the theological message in Genesis 1 cannot be eternally valid, while the package in which it came was a temporal concession to the people of that time. Indeed, it was Jesus who taught that divinely inspired Scripture can and does include concessions to hardened hearts, concessions in the area of faith and morals (Mark 10:5). How much more then is concession possible in the area of mere science?

The problem here is that Genesis 1 is written like it is historical.  Relegating it to a status if merely “theological” would seem to miss the very point that his own historical observations appear to suggest.

To make my point, I will focus on Days 2 and 4.  Basically, Day 2 would seem to be the creation of the dome in the sky over the earth, separating the waters above from the waters below.  Seely’s case, which he makes in The Firmament and the Water Above, is that everyone perceived the sky to be a solid dome.  Therefore, the word firmament would mean whatever the people of Moses’ time would mean, and they would mean it to be a solid dome.  Therefore from that perspective, after Day 2, there would be waters above the dome and below.  Then, on Day 4, God set (i.e., literally embedded with its surface) the sun, moon, and stars within the dome to guide the day, night, seasons, and years.  Obviously, we know that even while the Israelites would have believed that, their belief in a solid sky dome is not true.  Today we know that there is no solid dome, but an atmosphere.

Now if I can diverge for a moment, I have to confess to being a little bit curious how a Young Earth Creationist would respond to this.  To believe this scripture as a YEC, one must either dismiss the history (that people believed in a dome) or dismiss the science (that there is no dome).  I am not sure how one can see the peculiar wording of Genesis 1, discover the pre-scientific views of the time, and then persist that secular science is an invalid instrument for interpreting the scriptures.  Ah, but I digress.

In my view, the scripture is not teaching us that there is a dome.  Rather, the dome was an assumption, a preconceived notion that Moses had, and therefore not a divinely revealed fact.  In fact, Moses tells us what God actually said:

• Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.
• 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, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth. 

Now, let us examine the word “expanse” (or firmament), using the historical-grammatical approach that Seely correctly advocates. If we are to accept the definition of a word as it would have been understood by the person receiving it, then who actually received this word?  Seely would say, “the Israelites”, but that is not so.  The actual receiver of this word was God Himself as the Father was commanding the Son, the “master craftsman”, on what to do.  To Jesus, the expanse would have been the atmosphere, and so letting the lights be in the expanse would have meant what it does to us now: seeing the lights through the expanse, or firmament.  It would seem therefore, that Moses accurately recorded what God told him He said, but Moses understood it in terms of the then-contemporary science… and so wrote the following about the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4:

• God set them in the expanse of the sky.

The word for set is consistent with the word for embed, reflecting the science of the time.  But, if one can understand the science with which Moses understood God, then it is fairly straightforward to start with the words in scripture, and figure out what actually happened.  First we consider that if the sky were a solid dome, then it would seem to Moses that God literally “set” — or embedded — the sun, moon, and stars in the sky.  The reason it appeared so, is because before Day 4, these bodies were not visible in the sky.  Now if we turn to modern science, we now know the reason for that is because of the haze that the early atmosphere would have had.  The conclusion is that within Moses’ mistaken view of the universe, God managed to record for us the truth of what really happened. 

Man’s word was mistaken.  God’s Word is inerrant.

It is this duality that much of the church misses, even when they correctly describe the scriptures as “inspired” or “God-breathed”, neither of which mean “God dictated”, though many Christians would seem to treat it so.  It is for this reason that most extreme views, from militant Fundamentalist Christianity to militant Atheism, have inconsistencies that cause many to dismiss both without serious consideration… the reason most of us fail to see man’s shades of grey amidst God’s black and white.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Word Studies, Creationism, Day 2, Q & A, Day 4, 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.