gracEmail
Edward Fudge

THE 'DAYS' OF CREATION

A gracEmail reader is outraged because science professors at a particular Christian college have suggested that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 might not mean literal 24-hour days. He demands that the college "do something" about the science professors, who also believe that God created the universe and that his Spirit inspires the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

*          *           *

We should learn to read the Bible to hear its message to us, not to ask it questions which those who wrote it never remotely intended to answer. That is especially true when reading Genesis and Revelation, both of which discuss the frontiers between time and eternity. Compared to other ancient Near-Eastern accounts of origins (Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite and Ugaritic), Genesis 1-3 uniquely proclaims fundamental biblical truths: God exists separate from and before his creation; God made all that exists; God made humans in his image to care for the rest of creation as good stewards; humans are to live in creaturely dependence on God; when humans abandon proper relationship with God, all creation suffers.

The arguments of the past 150 years, about "how" God created and made all that exists, could not have been farther from the mind of the author of Genesis. Conflicts between science and religion generally arise when scientific people try to elevate scientific theories into a theology, and when religious people try to turn the Bible into scientific theory instead of theology. That does not mean that the Bible is inaccurate when it comments on scientific matters. It does mean that the Bible scarcely comments on scientific matters -- including what it says in the opening chapters of Genesis. "What," "who" and "why" are theological questions, which Genesis answers. "When" and "how" are scientific questions which it does not.  

Sometimes the Hebrew word translated "day" (yom) means a 24-hour day and sometimes it means another period of time. Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven" -- then summarizes events which cover several "days" in Genesis chapter 1. There is certainly room for legitimate question and interpretation regarding what Genesis chapter 1 means by "day." However, there is cause to be sad when people who believe in God, who follow Jesus Christ and who regard the Bible as authoritative canon, assail others who share those same convictions simply because they come to a different conclusion about such uncertain matters as these.


gracEmail
Edward Fudge

FEEDBACK: CREATION 'DAYS'

  PRO -- "Your response to this issue is the most concise, accurate, and appropriately persuasive assessment and challenge I've ever seen or heard. For myself and others who will benefit from what you say here, Thank you!"

  CON -- "To entertain any belief other than a literal six days [of creation] is to undermine the veracity of the entire Bible; if one starts picking holes in the creation account then the entire Bible comes into question, for the creation account 'sets up' everything else in the Bible. With the creation account in doubt, God's entire plan for humanity comes into account."

  PRO -- "Having been a practicing chemist and biochemist, I must give you a hardy AMEN. . . . When theologians teach 'Bible science' to our young people, even to Bishop Usher's setting the age of the earth, and [these students] then attend a secular school and see other evidence, there is conflict and tension which is unnecessary." 

  CON -- "Encourage your readers to go to the Institute for Creation Research website and check out the information regarding a YOUNG EARTH! . . . The idea that the days of creation were longer than 24-hour periods is simply another form of evolutionary theory that scientists who are Christians wanted to believe so they could justify their silly concept of carbon and other dating systems! . . . Stop trying to answer every question yourself and rely on countless hours of research done by [creation scientists regarding] the age of the earth and other refutation of evolutionist dogma!"
 
  PRO -- "Your answers are filled with love, respect, gentleness and truth. . . . You are never defensive [so] communication can take place. You are a true peacemaker."

  CON -- "With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that millions of Christians down through the ages have read the scriptures and have read solar days in Genesis, now to be told that it is not so clear any more."

__________

These responses verify that Christians hold different views on the "science" involved in Creation. My point is that the author of Genesis is not answering those questions, so believers should be tolerant of each other when they differ in their own answers. I am not taking any position on the "science" -- I am talking about the purpose and intent of Scripture. That is my area of specialization.

For more on faith and science, click here.