“Beyond the Firmament” (Review) - Introduction
I have just completed reading Gordon J. Glover’s excellent book, “Beyond the Firmament”. It was very helpful in helping me clarify my views on Creation and Genesis 1, and has made me open to the idea of abandoning the umbrella of “Theistic Evolution”, in favor of just unabashedly saying “Evolution”. This is no small feat.
I have documented on this blog a scriptural basis for seeing Jesus at Creation, and His involvement in it. I stand by it, but I realize that I must soften some of my language. I have historically sounded like the insights I write of was God’s own message. I want to clarify that I do not believe that is true. On the contrary, I agree with Mr. Glover, that God’s message on Creation is entirely theological, that the message was specially packaged to the ancient Hebrews in terms of the familiar views of origins and the cosmos, and so was neither historical nor scientific in any literal sense.
So, where does that leave me? Not too far off from where I started, but clearer. I believe that Genesis 1 contains a chronology and description that coincides with many discoveries of science. You can read this blog in more detail to understand how that is, but please do not confuse this with Mr. Glover’s message. In his book, he expresses reservations in trying to read between the lines anything more than a theological message expressed in the cosmogony of the time. For that reason, I want to stress that the parallels I see between Genesis 1 and science were not the substance of God’s message to the Hebrews, and are only marginally important in comparison. Still, the parallels I see in the scriptures remain (in my opinion), but that is something which I am now more equipped to address.
Another point I really appreciated is the necessity of not offering up Genesis 1 on the altar of scientific falsification. Mr. Glover (perhaps he would let me call him Gordon?) is right on the money here, and it is something I am undoubtedly guilty of. Now, I still believe that Days 1 to 6 map nicely to what we have discovered scientifically (though I map them in a possibly original fashion), but I also realize that I cannot “elevate” scripture to the point of scientific documentation. After all, Genesis 1 can be interpreted to match essentially every scientific view of the earth that mankind has had. On the other hand, the mappings I found were so conspicuous to me that I also cannot dismiss it. I hope to write on this more in the future.
Despite the excellent focus and impressive research, there are a few aspects of the book that might detract from its effectiveness as a witnessing tool to Young Earth Creationists. Perhaps that was not his focus, but I know a few YECs who would benefit from Mr. Glover’s research. One possible detraction is the several grammatical omissions from the book. As an engineer who writes frequent technical papers and training guides for my colleagues, I know how leaving out a word can seem careless and unprofessional. Another observation is the many humorous remarks that could be taken as snide jabs against Young Earth Creationists. Of course, I have unwittingly done the same in my own writing, so perhaps that is why it stood out. Finally, I do not think Mr. Glover speaks to the layperson in the manner that he intends. Don’t get me wrong, I think they can follow it, and I applaud his efforts at writing at the level he did. However, it occasionally comes off like he is speaking down at them, and at other times his explanations are too wordy, where a picture would really help. (Yet another tendency I have had to work on in myself)
Personally, I would like to see a more polished version of Mr. Glover’s book at some point in the future. This could be a very useful witnessing tool to help give Young Earth Creationists a more healthy perspective on scripture… I am sure it already is for some, but for others I think the book’s tone will appear dismissive of their faith, when there is clearly (to me) no such intention of doing so.
I hope no one will take my criticality the wrong way… I believe that being dispassionately critical of our brothers in Christ is how iron sharpens iron (which is not to say that I enjoy being sharpened myself!). It was a pleasure to have read this book; I don’t want to see any barriers get in the way of its message.
Bottom line: I recommend this book for anyone who has trouble drawing a sharp line between science and theology. None of us know too much to learn more.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 am
Thanks for the honest review of BTF! I just wanted to let you and your readers know that the 2nd printing of BTF is now available. The manuscript was carefully re-edited for typos/grammar/colloquialisms and I evem softened a few criticisms that came off as unecessarily harsh.
I agree with you that these things were a distraction, and it was unfortunate that more care was not put into the original manuscript (it’s a long story), but I am very pleased that the publisher was willing to put the effort into a second printing, and we now have a “polished” version available.
I also want to say this, I don’t think anything I said in BTF invalidates the hard work you have done. When we say that the original intent of the scriptures was not reveal scientific truths, it does not mean that there won’t be any cordance whatsoever between the two sources of revelation — only that we need not look solely to the scriptures for this information, as some Christians do.
For instance, the New Testament authors, especially the apostle Paul, interpret every OT passage in light of Christ. Even though not every OT text was probably written for that purpose, we still see Christ in everything. Genesis 1:1 is often cited as proof-text for creation ex-nihilo. However, the tohu/bohu (formless and emptiness) would not have been understood as empty space for the Hebrews. They would have identified this with the primordial chaos that every other creation story began with. However, we know from other passages of scripture, like Colossians 1, that God did bring forth the cosmos from nothing, and even Physics tells us this. So it can be appropriate to interpret Genesis 1:1 as teaching a creation ex-nihilo, even though it was not originally intended to convey that information.
Keep up the great work!
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
>> I also want to say this, I don’t think anything I said in BTF invalidates
>> the hard work you have done. When we say that the original intent of
>> the scriptures was not reveal scientific truths, it does not mean that
>> there won’t be any cordance whatsoever between the two sources of
>> revelation — only that we need not look solely to the scriptures for this
>> information, as some Christians do.
I agree. The trick for me will be to recast these observations as being part of God’s divine intent, while not falling into the traps that you have outlined. For example, I used Genesis to conclude that there must have been a world-wide fully formed ocean 3.9 billion years ago, even though everything I’d read said that oceans were only starting to form at that time. So I dug around a bit, and found out about zircon crystals, and their suggestion that the oceans actually began 4.4 billion years ago. I dug around more, and found peer-reviews that didn’t bash the research, but hypothesized on how to reconcile the research with current observation, and it told a story… the story told by the first few verses of Genesis 1. To me, it was divine guidance that led me to this, but now God is showing me (through your book) that my presentation needs to be done with more care. After all, this simultaneously validated both scripture and science for me, potentially blurring faith with science in some people’s eyes, and quite possibly presenting something that makes the scripture appear falsifiable. After all, what if my interpretation of what I’ve read is not what the scientific community accepts in the long run? It won’t shake my faith, but I wouldn’t want it to shake anyone else’s. In meantime, I continue on, in faith.
>> Keep up the great work!
You too! Thank you for the encouragement.