Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Historical Creationism is a view of Genesis 1 and 2 proposed by John Sailhamer that Genesis has been "bound" by modern English and it is important to understand the Creation account from the perspective of the early Hebrews.

The theory has a mix of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and the gap theory.

Sailhamer states that the days of creation were indeed six literal 24 hour periods, but this Creation Week was the preparation of the Promised Land as the place of origin for mankind rather than the creation of the whole world.

Genesis 1:1 was God's first act of creaton where he made everything except humans during this time. According to this view, we do not know how long God took to create or how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and the Creation Week.

This view maintains that the earth and Universe are ancient, but humanity is young and allows for a literal interpretation of the days of creation.

There was animal death prior to the Fall, but not human death as humans are a special creation.

I probably have not explained it very well, so I will leave a link explaining Historical Creationism in greater detail.

So what are your thoughts on this view? There is a link below.


http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

 

[miamited]

Hi FP,

My only objection is that God then caused to be written:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

What this tells us is that in six days God created the heavens. In that same six days God created the earth. In that same six days God created the sea. In that same six days He also created all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth and all that is in the sea.

This tells us that God created the heavens and the earth and the sea in six days. And it would pretty naturally follow that if the earth didn't exist before the six days, then all that is in and on the earth would not have existed either.

The Scriptures tell us that in those six days that your author understands to be just simple six days, that God created not only the garden, but also everything else in all of heaven and all of the earth and sea. Personally, I have a hard time comprehending that this passage could in any way only be referring to the creation of the garden.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

The link explains how the Commandment only pertains to the Promised Land, but it's been awhile since I read it, so Idk their explanation for it.

 

[miamited]

Hi FP,

Well, it's a rather lengthy write-up and it starts out a lot like many of the writings that are making the circuit of religious 'wisdom', but explaining to us that we just haven't understood the Scriptures correctly. But today, because we are soooooo much wiser and smarter, we've figured it all out. How the Scriptures can be brought into agreement with man's 'scientific' findings.

Personally, I'm of a mind that God's work isn't ever going to be explained by man's science.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Hi FP,

Well, it's a rather lengthy write-up and it starts out a lot like many of the writings that are making the circuit of religious 'wisdom', but explaining to us that we just haven't understood the Scriptures correctly. But today, because we are soooooo much wiser and smarter, we've figured it all out. How the Scriptures can be brought into agreement with man's 'scientific' findings.

Personally, I'm of a mind that God's work isn't ever going to be explained by man's science.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You raise a good point. The truth is I want to believe it but there is a lack of support for the view and it has been analyzed by those outside of the view and say Sailhamer is not interpreting the Hebrew words properly.

I'm a YEC only because I find some stumbling blocks in the OEC view. The days could be thousands of years, but the text seems to indicate they were 24 hour days. So I find an OEC view plausible and moslty biblical, I just don't think it is the plain reading of text.

 

[miamited]

Hi FP,

Why do you 'want to believe it'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Hi FP,

Why do you 'want to believe it'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

It attempts to provide a literal interpretation of Genesis that is compatible with science.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It attempts to provide a literal interpretation of Genesis that is compatible with science.

There is nothing contradictory between a "literal" reading of the Genesis creation accounts and cosmological/biological evolutionary theory. The only contradiction would arise if one believes that the Genesis accounts represent what the modern mind would understand as an "historical" account of the origins and evolution of the universe, as well as life on earth. There is nothing in the text that requires such a rendering, and given the proliferation of other common creation myths and epics within ANE literature of the time, an "historical" rendering is perhaps the least appropriate.

 

[SkyWriting]

I probably have not explained it very well, so I will leave a link explaining Historical Creationism in greater detail. So what are your thoughts on this view? There is a link below.

I might miss Summer if I start reading that source.
It may have merit, but my opinion will not have
any impact on the past.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is nothing contradictory between a "literal" reading of the Genesis creation accounts and cosmological/biological evolutionary theory.

I don't think you ended the conflict by saying it doesn't exist.

 

[miamited]

It attempts to provide a literal interpretation of Genesis that is compatible with science.

Hi FP,

Well, for me, what we believe about the creation event or the 'how we got to be where we are today' story, hinges on what we believe about the power and purpose of God. Of course, the evolutionary billion year old worldview must be believed by those who don't believe that there is a God. For them, things must have come about by some naturalistic explanation because the natural is all there is.

But, for those who agree that there must be some greater power that is called God, then what we understand about the power and purpose of that God in bringing into existence all that is, determines how we understand what He has done.

In understanding the purpose, as I do, then we must also understand that it was His purpose to call a man named Abram and through him raise up a nation of people who would be His people to do His bidding upon the earth. That His purpose for calling this man named Abram and building up this nation of people was that through them He would use human hands to write His true account of who He is and all that He has done. According to Paul, that is the chief reason for there even being the Jewish people, God's people.

We must also understand that God caused to be written through the hands of His people His account in words and language that God knew that man would understand. In other words, He didn't cause this account to be written so that the angels would understand what He has done. He didn't write His account so that dogs and cats would know all that He has done. He wrote His account so that man would understand all that He has done. In that effort He wrote using simple words that all men would understand if they would care to search the account.

Those are the first two foundations that I believe must be understood about God and His account. Now, many believe, as has already been brought up here, that the account of the creation as given in the Scriptures isn't any different than many of the other accounts of 'how we got here', that are found in many of the ancient cultures. I outright reject such a view. Those accounts were written with the imaginations and ponderings of the mind of man as their source.

But, the basic foundation of my understanding of the validity and understanding of the creation account as given in God's account, is understanding the purpose for which God even created this realm in which we live. I am convicted and stand firmly resolved that God's purpose in creating this realm was to provide a place where a creature of flesh could live with whom He would have a loving and caring and nurturing relationship with. My understanding is that there is no other reason that God stepped into this realm and spoke the first words, "Let there be light!".

Then we must understand God's power in accomplishing His purpose. He doesn't need a million or billion years for natural processes to slowly build what He desired to be this realm. He merely commands things that are not, to be. He could have commanded it all to exist instantaneously, but that isn't what His account tells us that He did.

It tells us that He first created light in this realm and that over a period of time which He defines as six days, each consisting of an evening and a morning, He created the earth and it was covered in water. Then He divided the water to create the sky, which means that some of the water stayed on the earth and some rose as vapor to create an atmosphere surrounding the earth. For both of these events He merely commanded it to be, and it became. Then over the next few regular days, as defined as a day is still defined today - a single rotation of the planet - He continued to build this realm in which this creature of flesh that He began this effort for, would be created by Him also.

In a mere moment, the earth was rotating with plants and animals and seas among a universe of stars and other heavenly bodies that He had also created so that the earth would endure forever spinning silently and eternally throughout the vast reaches of that which we call space, God made the creature for which He had done all of His work in creating this realm. He fashioned the first man from the dirt of the ground and thus human life, as we know it, began.

But, I readily and quickly admit that for anyone else to have that understanding of the account that God has written for us, then we must also have that understanding of the power and purpose of that Creator. Of course, it could have taken God billions of years through natural and evolutionary processes to build what we now see, but gosh, that's a long time for the angels to be rejoicing. Maybe they rejoiced in shifts. Of course, if God used natural and evolutionary processes to build this realm, then what would the angels have had to rejoice about?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[tdidymas]

There is a contextual problem with his "heavens and earth" theory that it refers to the currently known universe, as opposed to the "land and sky" of the rest of the chapter. Moses also wrote that the "heavens and earth" were created in six days (Ex. 20), so the 2 words used together in both contexts contradicts his theory.

There is always a problem with trying to interpret Gen. 1 as a historical, chronological, and/or scientific account. Whoever does so inevitably conflicts with either Biblical text or known facts about the universe. The fact that the universe has existed for over 13B years is shown by photos of mature galaxies measured over 13B light years distant. Also, if the universe was started only 6k years ago, then how could we see a supernova that happened 167k light years distant, or how could we count up to 800k years of annual layers in Greenland ice cores?

There are 2 other plausible explanations about Gen. 1: (1) that it is parabolic in nature, which is intended to use a similar form to creation accounts of other nations, but pointing out that the God of Israel is the one who did it, or (2) that Gen 1 account of creation is from the perspective of ancient cosmology, in which they believed that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were fixed in position in a roof/dome over the sky (called the "firmament"), and the firmament moved around the earth (which was essentially flat, of course, with the sea around it). So then, Gen 1 would not be a scientific text, but a religious document pointing to Jehova as creator of all things.

I know that most people, especially YEC'ers, gripe that these 2 plausible interpretations diminish the truth of God's word, but I say only in their minds. I say that to try to interpret all the Bible in a strict literalist fashion, then we would have to believe that God actually has jars in heaven that He tips over when He wants it to rain, or worse, that Jesus meant for us to literally gouge out our eyes or cut off our hands at any offense. But do we see many one-eyed Christians walking around?

About the worst mistake people make in Bible interpretation is to make too many assumptions about the text they are reading. And an even worse mistake than that is to assume that those assumptions are absolute truth. This is how we get so many denominations and cults, because people are too proud (or fearful) to say "I could be wrong."
TD

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I don't think you ended the conflict by saying it doesn't exist.

Perhaps not, but as I don't believe there is a conflict to begin with, I see nothing that needs to be resolved. If you wish to create conflict where none exists, that is your prerogative.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

For them, things must have come about by some naturalistic explanation because the natural is all there is.

I don't see how the assumption of the existence of a supernatural creator obviates the need for a naturalistic explanation of the origin and evolution of the universe. Saying that an invisible, imperceptible being created the universe does not actually "explain" anything, at least not in a testable, demonstrable way. I think it is perfectly rational (and necessary, btw) to assert the truth that God is creator, but to also affirm the knowledge that we have gained over time pertaining to the origins and evolution of "all that is", both cosmologically and biologically. I see absolutely no contradiction between the two.

Now, many believe, as has already been brought up here, that the account of the creation as given in the Scriptures isn't any different than many of the other accounts of 'how we got here', that are found in many of the ancient cultures. I outright reject such a view. Those accounts were written with the imaginations and ponderings of the mind of man as their source.

You reject this view based on what, exactly? A lot of textual examination has been done over the centuries, comparing and contrasting the creation epics within Scripture to creation epics within other ANE literature. The number of shared features and common narratives are so pronounced that it is quite unlikely that they did not originate from a collection of stories that was propagated throughout the common consciousness of the ancients. Also, we must come to grips with the fact that, from the perspective of the dating of the narratives in question, the composition of the Hebrew literature is quite late compared to other sources.

Then we must understand God's power in accomplishing His purpose. He doesn't need a million or billion years for natural processes to slowly build what He desired to be this realm. He merely commands things that are not, to be. He could have commanded it all to exist instantaneously, but that isn't what His account tells us that He did.

I don't really understand your point in this. The miracle and mystery of God's creative acts cannot be identified in the phenomenology of the physical universe. That is, we cannot reduce the creative working of God to "mechanisms" of creation whereby we classify one imagined "state" of the universe as "obviously created by a divine being" while another "state" is "devoid of a creative influence by a divine being". As God--and God's creative acts--transcend the limits of human epistemology, we cannot say in any way that "this" kind of universe is more or less commensurate with the creative acts of a supernatural force, or that "that" state of a universe bears the marks of divine creative influence. If God did indeed create the universe, we cannot--from the perspective of the universe itself--deduce this, for our observations and experiences within the universe cannot, in and of themselves, transcend the boundary-limited subjectivity of mind.

But, I readily and quickly admit that for anyone else to have that understanding of the account that God has written for us, then we must also have that understanding of the power and purpose of that Creator. Of course, it could have taken God billions of years through natural and evolutionary processes to build what we now see, but gosh, that's a long time for the angels to be rejoicing. Maybe they rejoiced in shifts. Of course, if God used natural and evolutionary processes to build this realm, then what would the angels have had to rejoice about?

Whether the universe is an instant old, or billions of years old, the amount of time it has taken God to create it is precisely the same; no-time. God's creation of the universe, cannot be measured on the basis of time, for time is only meaningful for those within the domain of the space/time that is the universe. To a being that transcends the universe, the concept of time is utterly meaningless.

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps not, but as I don't believe there is a conflict to begin with, I see nothing that needs to be resolved. If you wish to create conflict where none exists, that is your prerogative.

I was speaking about the conflict other people have noted.
Your internal conflict is rather private, do you think?

 

[SkyWriting]

The Scriptures tell us that in those six days that your author understands to be just simple six days, that God created not only the garden, but also everything else in all of heaven and all of the earth and sea. Personally, I have a hard time comprehending that this passage could in any way only be referring to the creation of the garden.

I agree that there is some chasm between the earth and the garden.
Unless you've see the flying cherubs guarding the gate.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I was speaking about the conflict other people have noted.
Your internal conflict is rather private, do you think?

If I had an internal conflict regarding this issue, I'd keep it to myself. Since this is about the invented conflict that others' keep talking about, I'll continue to try to bring some light where darkness exists.

 

[miamited]

Hi AIB,

You responded to me:

Saying that an invisible, imperceptible being created the universe does not actually "explain" anything, at least not in a testable, demonstrable way.

That is exactly my point about the creation. Scientists are trying to prove the creation by testable and demonstrable means. There is nothing, not one single event, that we are told of in the Scriptures that God allows that He did that we can prove by any testable or demonstrable methodology. We can't prove, using your requirement, that a sea parted and the waters stood as a sentinel on both the right and left hand of the Israelites as they crossed to safety. We can't prove, through that same methodology that for three days there was natural and normal light in all of the land of Goshen and yet for those same three days it was so pitch black in Egypt that one couldn't hardly see their hand in front of their face. Likewise, on those same terms, we can't prove that the shadow of the sun can go backwards 10 steps or that the sun can appear to stand still in the sky for any extended period of time such as several hours. And for someone who must have testable and demonstrable proof that something happened to believe that it did happen, there would be no truth, for that person, to the account that Jesus was born of a virgin and is the Son of God. Friend, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that God claims to have done since the day that the foundations of this realm were established that we can prove through any testable or demonstrable method. Nothing!!!!!!!

So, why would we expect, if God did the work of creating this realm, that there would be any testable or demonstrable method by which we could prove how or when He did it? In fact, if we do have some testable and demonstrable proof that God did something and how He did it. It's highly likely that God didn't do it and certainly didn't do it in that way. If you try to tell me that here's the testable and demonstrable proof of something that God did. I'm going to tell you that you're mistaken, God didn't do it!

Then you wrote:

I think it is perfectly rational (and necessary, btw) to assert the truth that God is creator, but to also affirm the knowledge that we have gained over time pertaining to the origins and evolution of "all that is", both cosmologically and biologically. I see absolutely no contradiction between the two.

No, I imagine that you wouldn't. It seems to be your point.

You asked:

You reject this view based on what, exactly?

Faith and an intimate knowledge of the things of God. But I expect that you are neither going to understand that or believe it.

You wrote:

Also, we must come to grips with the fact that, from the perspective of the dating of the narratives in question, the composition of the Hebrew literature is quite late compared to other sources.

I think I already have a good grasp of that. After all, even the Egyptians, from which the Hebrews had just recently left, had an understanding of the creation and existence of the realm in which we live. However, even here, you and I weigh the evidence differently. You think that because there are similarities that the Scriptural account is just like any of the other accounts. I start with the sure knowledge that the Scriptural account is the truth. Then when I see the same similarities that you do, I know that the Scriptural account must be true because some of what is included in it is also included in other accounts. It all boils down to a different understanding of the power, wisdom and purpose of God.

Finally, you wrote:

Whether the universe is an instant old, or billions of years old, the amount of time it has taken God to create it is precisely the same; no-time. God's creation of the universe, cannot be measured on the basis of time, for time is only meaningful for those within the domain of the space/time that is the universe. To a being that transcends the universe, the concept of time is utterly meaningless.

And yet, God said that He did it in six days. Go figure. Question: How do you know that time is only meaningful for those within the domain of the space/time that is the universe? Do you have some testable and demonstrable proof of that claim? Further, even if your claim were to be proven true, once God commanded that there be light in this universe, then everything after that would have happened within the domain of the space/time that is the universe. The earth would have appeared within the domain of the space/time that is the universe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[alexandriaisburning]

That is exactly my point about the creation. Scientists are trying to prove the creation by testable and demonstrable means. There is nothing, not one single event, that we are told of in the Scriptures that God allows that He did that we can prove by any testable or demonstrable methodology. We can't prove, using your requirement, that a sea parted and the waters stood as a sentinel on both the right and left hand of the Israelites as they crossed to safety. We can't prove, through that same methodology that for three days there was natural and normal light in all of the land of Goshen and yet for those same three days it was so pitch black in Egypt that one couldn't hardly see their hand in front of their face. Likewise, on those same terms, we can't prove that the shadow of the sun can go backwards 10 steps or that the sun can appear to stand still in the sky for any extended period of time such as several hours. And for someone who must have testable and demonstrable proof that something happened to believe that it did happen, there would be no truth, for that person, to the account that Jesus was born of a virgin and is the Son of God. Friend, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that God claims to have done since the day that the foundations of this realm were established that we can prove through any testable or demonstrable method. Nothing!!!!!!!

And? I never said that these things should be testable or demonstrable. My only point is that saying that "God created the universe" doesn't actually "explain" the universe. As improbable as the existence of the universe might be, any naturalistic explanation for the universe is infinitely more likely and demonstrable than a supernatural origin. This does not mean that God did not create the universe, nor that an investigation of the naturalistic mechanisms of the evolution of the cosmos and biological life are a denial of the miraculous creation of the universe by God. The latter can only be apprehended by faith; but as an article of faith, it is necessarily not an explanation for anything.

So, why would we expect, if God did the work of creating this realm, that there would be any testable or demonstrable method by which we could prove how or when He did it? In fact, if we do have some testable and demonstrable proof that God did something and how He did it. It's highly likely that God didn't do it and certainly didn't do it in that way. If you try to tell me that here's the testable and demonstrable proof of something that God did. I'm going to tell you that you're mistaken, God didn't do it!

I never suggested that we should expect any evidence of a supernatural creator. My entire point is precisely that such is impossible to establish.

You think that because there are similarities that the Scriptural account is just like any of the other accounts.

No, I don't think that. There are obvious differences, many of which result from a later time frame of composition/compilation. Additionally, the theological content (perhaps the most important) has important differences.

I start with the sure knowledge that the Scriptural account is the truth. Then when I see the same similarities that you do, I know that the Scriptural account must be true because some of what is included in it is also included in other accounts. It all boils down to a different understanding of the power, wisdom and purpose of God.

You start from assumptions and opinions, just like the rest of us. The "sure knowledge" that you have is simply the subjective "offspring of your brain" that has entrenched itself in layers of self-justification and circular reasoning. Just as you cannot establish the acts of God in creation by means of the tools of epistemology, neither can you establish the "truth" of Scripture by the same means.

And yet, God said that He did it in six days. Go figure.

Well, the writer of the narrative said that. Whether this equates to God "saying it" is impossible to establish.

How do you know that time is only meaningful for those within the domain of the space/time that is the universe? Do you have some testable and demonstrable proof of that claim? Further, even if your claim were to be proven true, once God commanded that there be light in this universe, then everything after that would have happened within the domain of the space/time that is the universe. The earth would have appeared within the domain of the space/time that is the universe.

It would seem to be a result of basic logic. If the universe is the domain of all that is, and God is not contingent to the universe, then that which is "other-than" the universe (e.g., God) is not under the influence of that in which space/time is operative.

 

[miamited]

Hi AIB,

There must be an award for that and you rightly deserve it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted