I want to extend my thanks to JD for proposing and organizing this debate. I look forward to the exchange and hope the audience will find it informative and edifying as they consider the different ways Christians approach this topic in the pursuit of truth.
My view of Genesis 1, simply stated, is that it represents a theological polemic against contemporary Ancient Near Eastern religions. Its literary form, structure, vocabulary, and other internal markers support this view, in my opinion, far better than a concordist position that seeks to harmonize a literal, historical‑narrative reading with current scientific knowledge, whether that position be old‑earth or young‑earth.
As such, my view on the age of the earth and universe is that both are indeed ancient—and while scientific knowledge is constantly changing, I would agree that the cumulative case for deep time across scientific disciplines is strong and should be taken seriously. I do not see this as a conflict with Scripture, because Scripture’s authority rests in what it intends to teach, not in modern scientific categories the ancient authors were not addressing.
That being said, I do affirm a literal Adam and Eve, Fall, and Flood. However, I propose that the Flood was regional, not global, and that the Hebrew text—when read in its proper historical and literary context—does not require a cataclysmic global event in order to be true. The language of universality in ancient texts often reflects the perspective of the narrator rather than a modern global description, and the Hebrew terminology allows for this kind of phenomenological scope.
As for the role of modern science in my interpretation, I would argue that science is actually secondary to my approach. My approach is historical‑grammatical rather than scientific. My goal when interpreting Scripture is to determine authorial intent and how the text was understood by the original audience. A concordist approach begins with modern scientific questions and then seeks them in the text, whereas a historical‑grammatical approach begins with the world of the author and the literary conventions of the time. When it comes to scientific questions, I believe we should first determine what the intent of the author was and whether we should be asking scientific questions of the text in the first place. If the text is silent on scientific questions, then we can look to science to answer those questions without fear of theological conflict.
It is a matter of determining what interpretations of the text are theologically valid first and foremost. If the text is making a scientific claim, then I would expect science to support it and would turn to science to see if it does. If it is not making a scientific claim, then we should not expect scientific evidence for our interpretation, nor should we require or appeal to such evidence as “proof” that Scripture is indeed from God. This distinction between what Scripture intends to teach and what we expect it to teach is not new and is the exact argument St. Augustine made in The Literal Meaning of Genesis (1.19.39), where he warned that recklessness regarding the intersection of God’s Word and God’s world brings the faith into ill repute. When people who understand the workings of the world better than the Christian hear erroneous claims presented as biblical truth, they may take such errors as proof that Scripture is foolish and reject the gospel as a result.
What I feel is most misunderstood about my position is the modern assumption in our culture that “non‑literal” automatically means “untrue,” or that saying Genesis 1 should not be read scientifically means I do not believe God’s Word or treat it as authoritative. Another major misunderstanding I often encounter is the objection that rejecting a YEC reading automatically means that a person is trusting the authority of man rather than God. But this objection unintentionally confuses personal conviction regarding a preferred interpretive approach with God’s Word itself. These disagreements are not about whether Scripture is true, but about how Scripture communicates truth within its ancient literary and cultural context. Much of the disagreement in these debates arises not from the text itself, but from the assumptions we bring to the text about what it must be saying.
My actual position is that God’s Word is true and authoritative for establishing doctrine and for matters of Christian faith and moral conduct (per the Reformers’ articulation of Sola Scriptura). However, I also maintain the Reformers’ position that the creeds, councils, and writings of the Church Fathers and the broader Christian tradition are valuable for helping us understand Scripture, even while remaining subordinate to it. I also affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, recognizing that sufficiency has never meant that every passage is immediately clear or that the “plain meaning” derived through modern assumptions is automatically correct. Historically, Christians have understood sufficiency to mean that Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation and doctrine, while still requiring careful interpretation.
I am not a Biblicist, in the sense of believing that Scripture alone is the final authority on every topic (Solo Scriptura), nor am I a concordist who believes that if Scripture is true, then it must conform to modern science. I actually believe Scripture says very little—if anything at all—about science. But I do believe God’s Word is true. And since God’s Word is true, I believe this is precisely why we need to make sure we are understanding it correctly and avoid making Scripture say things it was never intended to say, about topics it never set out to address in the first place. In my view, reading Scripture according to its intended genre and historical setting is not a compromise but an act of reverence, ensuring that we honor what God actually inspired rather than what we assume He must have meant. In my experience, many of the criticisms Christians face today stem precisely from misunderstanding and misrepresenting Scripture as something more—or less—than it is. We should all strive to let Scripture be what it is and say what God intended it to say. God’s Word is more than capable of defending itself on its own terms if we let it.
To answer JD’s Questions:
Q: What form of old-earth creation do you hold?
A: I hold a cosmic‑temple view.
Q: What existed before Adam’s fall?
A: I believe animal death, predation, disease, and natural disasters existed prior to the fall. How that fits within a “very good” creation depends on understanding tov meod (טוֹב מְאֹד) within the cultural and literary context of ancient Israel—something I expect we’ll explore more fully in Round 5.Q: When Scripture and modern scientific reconstructions of natural history appear to conflict, which one has interpretive priority?
A: As noted above, I don’t believe Scripture intends to answer scientific questions directly, which leaves those matters open to empirical investigation. My methodology begins by determining what, if anything, Scripture actually teaches about the issue in question. Only then can we identify whether a genuine conflict exists and which scientific models are theologically and textually consistent.
In this sense, my approach is similar to that of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine during the Galileo affair, who wrote:
“If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe… then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.”
In sum: I believe Scripture is true, but my understanding of it is fallible. Because Scripture is true, it will ultimately align with what can be known through empirical study. When a conflict appears, the most likely culprit is my own interpretive fallibility—not a failure in Scripture or in the natural world, since both come from God who is faithful and true in all of His works.
With that, I return the floor to JD for his opening statement on what Genesis 1 requires us to believe about the creation days.
JD’s Opening Statements can be read here.
No comments:
Post a Comment