“Beyond the Firmament” (Review) - Genesis is Literal
Having posted my initial reaction to Gordon J. Glover’s “Beyond the Firmament”, I find there is a lot I wish to reflect on.
In my last book review, “Evidence for Creation“, I quoted an awful lot of the book. I do not want to do Mr. Glover that disservice, because it may lead one to think that they only need to read my review, and not his book, and that would be a shame.
One of my own core beliefs is that Moses meant what he wrote, God meant him to write it, the Hebrews were meant to believe it… and so are we. Mr. Glover believes the same thing. The question is where to go from there. He states….
The answer to this question is simple, but not obvious. Rather than read Genesis with modern eyes, effectively transporting Moses to our time and forcing him to answer questions that we think are important — we should go back in time, and put ourselves at the foot of Mt. Sinai leaving our modern empirical sensibilities in the 21st century where they belong. — p. 11
He then spends time meticulously outlining exactly what the Hebrews most likely believed. The historical evidence is well thought out and convincing.
Before I go on, I want to share one of my experiences, unsuccessfully debating Christianity with atheists. It was on the forum Debating Christianity. Many learned atheists there (frequently ex-Christians) would site ancient legends and cosmogonies that both pre-date and foreshadow Genesis, hence “proving” (in their minds) that Genesis 1 was nothing more than a repackaging of what pagans and idolaters already believed. Therefore, so the reasoning goes, Genesis 1 was not divinely inspired, and so God does not exist (or at least the foundation of Christianity is false). I always found this troubling, but was not quite sure what they were missing; Paul exhorts us to be ready with a response, and I was not. Don’t get me wrong, I argued back alright. However, my argument was that somehow the pagan idolatrous cultures got some details right, probably because they were descended from Adam and Noah, who communed with God and likely passed on what they knew. The argument was reasonable enough to get an atta-boy from a Christian brother, but weak enough to paint God as a helpless onlooker (which He is not). The atheists would gloat; I walked away, having done my Lord no service. In BTH however, Mr. Glover takes quite a different tack.
After describing the ancient beliefs of the world, called the Enuma Elish, Mr. Glover silently lets the reader make connections between the several phases of the ancient beliefs and the Genesis 1 narrative. As for me, I was actively notating the pages, mapping the account to Genesis 1. It was exactly what I had read from those educated atheists, but without the hostile bent toward shaking my faith. The perspective I was gaining was God’s, as I see it, as He looked down on His chosen people, preparing to give Moses the Torah. What was He going to do with them?
What happens next can almost seem like a letdown if we have any misguided expectations of a modern scientific treatise on the construction of the observable universe. Rather than seize the opportunity to overturn the commonly held view of the universe which was riddled with technological and cosmological error, God seems to hi-jack the popular cosmogony and use it as a vehicle to set the theological record straight, leaving the cosmological record intact. — p. 63 (emphasis author’s)
What is refreshing about this perspective is that it provides a foundation for giving both natural and special revelation their rightful place, without endangering either, and without providing new doctrine (in my opinion — some might disagree). Here is what I can now state as my own belief. These points aren’t new to this blog, hiding in between the lines in some places, while imperfectly stated in others:
- I believe Genesis 1 is meant literally - I always believed that. However, I must say that the literal intended meaning is not a scientifically accurate description of what God did. It is a detailed description of what the Hebrews already believed, but with God put in His rightful place. In other words, while not scientifically accurate, it wasn’t figurative either. It was the theological truth of creation, simply written at their level.
- I believe Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise - Moses had no foundation for writing one, and the Hebrews had no foundation for understanding one. Had their understanding been more accurate, God would have used that. If they had believed the universe the was a giant hat box, God would have used that. The scientific details were not important. The place of God in their lives was important.
- I believe Genesis 1 reflects physical reality, albeit unwittingly - While I do not believe the purpose of Genesis 1 is to teach Geocreationism, I still believe it is in there. For example, there was a time when there was deep darkness, there was no land, and the waters above seemed indiscernible from the waters below. I have documented on this blog the mainstream scientific evidence supporting it. And that is just one example. However, it is by God’s divine providence that such truth could be reflected in the scriptures, when it wasn’t His immediate intention to communicate it. In some respect, it’s like Moses had one meaning in mind, and God had another. But then, double-fulfillment in the scriptures is a common thing. (Study Daniel and Isaiah if you want to see prophecies with both immediate and future purpose to them.)
The word “unwittingly” that I added to my last bullet above is the detail that I want to stress more within my writing. I find it absolutely fascinating that every scientific tradition can appear rooted in Genesis 1, but I never thought modern discoveries mapped to it very well until I did my own research. For example, Progressive Creationism requires overlapping Days, when a literal reading of Genesis prohibits it. Theistic Evolution usually casts God as helpless onlooker when theologically speaking He was intimately involved. Well, it turns out the science of Progressive Creationism was pointing to the original evolution of the species, when it should have been pointing to their recovery from the KT impact. Then, the sequence of Days is preserved. What a great testimony to our God, that He could use Moses’ own misconception of the universe to write something that so closely mirroring what scientists believe actually happened.
To summarize, as a reflection of the ancient of cosmogony, Genesis means exactly what it says, that the creation story of old must have God at its center. As a scientific treatise, it falls short, because it describes a canopy that isn’t there, and gives the impression of 6 24-hour days. In other words, the scientific record is clearly seen. To see the scientific record, I have had to see God’s wisdom in providing the word Yom for describing a day (it’s definition is not “24-hours” but sundown to sundown). To see the scientific record, I have to let God’s Creative pronouncements stand separately from Moses’ commentary (God’s pronouncements would allow the creation of many from the existence of a few; it’s Moses who suggests it was many out of nothing). To see the scientific record, I have to ask what physical phenomenon would have an appearance that can be described in the ancient cosmogony (For example, why would the sun appear on Day 4 after not being visible on Day 3? Answer: more oxygen clearing up the atmosphere). And the list goes on.
I pray about my understanding of Creation quite frequently. I ask God the question “why” a lot. After all, my own faith is not hinged on my understanding of Genesis, but I know that for many it’s a stumbling block, and this a topic about which God chooses to give me curiosity and answers. But who am I, that He is mindful of me? I only hope that my journey of understanding is one that will help at least one person out their to realize that when the enemy uses science to blot out their faith, Satan is using a truth to perpetuate a lie. The truth is that the earth is Old and that God is glorious, and that He loved us enough to spend 14 billion years preparing the universe for us. Our relatively insignificant time here is not proof that we do not matter… it is proof that we do.