- May 1, 2022
- 803
- 141
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
For a big part of my life I have been confident in the young earth creation model but one thing that has sort of been a sticking point for me is the ancient near east (ANE) interpretation of creation. It was first pointed out to me in talking about day 2 of creation, the idea that the writer is making reference to a solid firmament. It is further reasoned that the people in those days only knew of a flat earth cosmology, so they were just speaking in terms that everyone would understand. Just because they got something wrong does not mean God’s word is not true. It’s not a science textbook after all. And I have thought about this and wondered if there is any validity to it. The other thing that has really captured my attention is ideas surrounding behemoth and leviathan found in the book of Job. I have been persuaded that these are references to dinosaurs until I saw this video of Ben Stanhope’s critique of Answers in Genesis. He makes a compelling argument that these are descriptions of a mythological creature that symbolizes a false god, such as the followers of the Canaanite deity Baal. The comparison may have been a way of showing people that the true God is omnipotent and has no fear of them. And while I may want to entertain the idea that humans lived alongside dinosaurs, it is a weak argument to suggest Job makes mention of it.
It leads me to ask, if I am wrong on these things, what else am I wrong about? Most people who espouse this view about creation week, saying that it was a polemic to the pagan nations who say their gods took part in creation, tend to also be theistic evolutionists. In a wikipedia article “Firmament” it reads,
Maybe the way to reconcile this is to say that philosophers in those days were more split on the issue and many thought it was flat before the time of the Middle Ages.
But if I cede the argument and say it had an ANE context, wouldn’t I be inconsistent to still believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? I have argued before that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that no contradictions exist, only apparent contradictions. And I do feel in some way it would be a compromise to say that the Bible was wrong about the firmament being a solid dome that separated the heavenly waters above. I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but I believe that it has to be right whenever it does talk about science.
It leads me to ask, if I am wrong on these things, what else am I wrong about? Most people who espouse this view about creation week, saying that it was a polemic to the pagan nations who say their gods took part in creation, tend to also be theistic evolutionists. In a wikipedia article “Firmament” it reads,
But one thing I found interesting is that John Hancock believes the ancients did believe the earth was round.
Maybe the way to reconcile this is to say that philosophers in those days were more split on the issue and many thought it was flat before the time of the Middle Ages.
But if I cede the argument and say it had an ANE context, wouldn’t I be inconsistent to still believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? I have argued before that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that no contradictions exist, only apparent contradictions. And I do feel in some way it would be a compromise to say that the Bible was wrong about the firmament being a solid dome that separated the heavenly waters above. I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but I believe that it has to be right whenever it does talk about science.
