Now, here is a man of courage and conviction to which I may look up. On the one hand, your guest stood uncompromisingly against all the detractors of the Genesis account no matter their popularity in the public or in scientific arenas. And, on the other hand he fearlessly stands against the "enthusiasts" who try to see more then what is plainly written in pages of scripture and thus open themselves to easy ridicule. Excellent show!
Around min 28:00, I’m trying to wrestle through the logic of holding to a “normal” understanding of days as morning and evening-not necessarily 24 hours, but not long ages either. Nevertheless, it seems the emphasis is on a normal day, with the implication being that it’s could be 25 hours or something uncertain, but not an age of time. The difficulty is this, “morning and evening” are normally tied to the earth’s solar rotation, but there appears to be no sun until day 4. Now, there was light and dark on day 1. But we are not told if that is the source of the morning and evening for the first 3 days or not. And we have no idea what sort of time periods would attach to this day and night. So the relevant question is, what is the normal meaning of “evening and morning,” when we are prevented by the order of creation events from taking the normal meaning of “evening and morning” at face value? It’s all well and good to say, evening and morning are determinative, but if we can’t rely upon their normal usage, then why can’t evening and morning designate an age-the first and last of a set of light cycles? All deductions from “normal” just seem lost at sea in a context where “normal” is under construction. I appreciate the desire to back off specificity like 24-hours, but given that the rationale of backing off 24-hour days breaks the standard of “normal,” there seems very little reason to exclude ages of time from these ordinal days. I haven’t finished yet. I’m curious if Klein’s framework view is addressed directly or not as this progresses. I think it’s also relevant to note, that we are not given any period of time for the period of the creation of heaven and earth before the first day. So can we say how long the earth has been there on day 1? It seems we cannot say. It may have been many ages. Perhaps long enough for star light to have reached earth?
It seems likely that God made the sun rise and set around a 24 hour cycle (day), rather than determining a day’s length after setting this cycle of the sun. Given that premise, it seems pretty clear that a day can occur before we have a sun or moon. The idea would be that God sets (pun intended) the sun’s cycle around the length of time that he took on day 1 to accomplish what he did on day 1 and so on
@@jak4324, that’s a creative and interesting idea. I have a hard time discerning whether that or a day age cycle is more imaginative. How to tell? The difficulty to my mind is this, when the text is clear, I want the text to govern natural revelation. The text is the divine framework and the natural revelation seen in the natural sciences is the data that fills in that framework. One needs to be realistically chastened and humble about natural science, especially as it relates to historical inference. However, one can read the Psalms as describing the movement of the sun, or one can understand this as description from human observation of the inspired writer. What makes the difference, when confronted with this ambiguity? In part, it’s natural revelation, right? Should we exclude natural revelation from the interpretive process? If so, do we have a context to be able to interpret the Palms, even as the framework for natural revelation? If natural revelation is not the data that goes in the framework, then does special revelation have any relation to natural revelation? What of Calvin’s correspondent interpretation of God over man, but in light of each other? If it’s a choice in the face of an ambiguous text, of straining the relation between natural and special revelation, or having them coherently reflect a mutually supported truth, which is better? Should that make a difference in our imaginative interpretive solutions-for a problem that is one of a kind?
Really enjoyed this topic and episode. Appreciate men like your guest standing on the wall fighting for Biblical creation. Keep up the great work guys!
Great discussion. Thank you for this. I’m currently reading the book, and I think it’s great, but I wonder about the position on the length of creation days as espoused in the book and in this conversation. If, as I think Dr. Van Dam rightly says, scripture communicates truth in plain, straightforward language intended to be understood by plain people, where is there room for interpreting the length of creation days as anything other than what would be normally understood by common people based on their common experience? How is it coherent to insist that the Bible is using language that plainly indicates the days are ordinary days, but then suggest the days could have been five minutes in length? Perhaps I’m missing something. To be honest, I’m not sure I see this as anything other than saying that the days aren’t days as normally understood, which would seem to leave open much room for other interpretive positions seeking to turn the days into long periods of time.
Agree... Exodus 20 helps clarify that the day is an ordinary day, that is 24 hrs. Evening, morning, daylight portion of a day and night are defined in verse 3.
Good point at 48:45 Jesus said "I am the beginning and end" also John 1:3 said "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made". I'm working through a strictly Christological interpretation of the beginning. For example Jesus of Adam, Adam of Earth. Earth made through Jesus (Jn1:3). That earth was under the water (Jonah 2: 1-6) , On the third day the earth was brought out of the Water (death) and God commanded plants of seed (wheat) and fruit ( wine Lk 22:18) to spring forth from that earth to feed mankind (Gen 1:29)! There is much more going on here I think....
The tension spoken of at 51:37, it comes not so much with evolution, but with astronomy and geology. If one is forced to take the days a short and in sequence, then the tension is raised. If God creates over an unspecified period of time as the signals for non-ordinary occurrences would suggest, then the tension is lowered. It’s not clear why short and sequential equals historical. Certainly, the framework reading is still historical. Adam and Eve are still historical persons. It seems there can be a variety of sequence and length views held inside a historical reading. I wish there was more clearly in scripture on this topic. The length of the genealogy period in Genesis 5 is particularly difficult to square with the fossil record. Ah, the mystery (I mean that in a good way). God knows.
The Sun wasn’t created until Day Four correct? What did the earth revolve around before the Sun was created? It didn’t! The idea that the Earth revolves around theSun is an idea brought forth by Copernicus, A Sun Worshiper! The Bible teaches the Earth is Flat and Stationary. Thank you…
About the six days. This got very weird. The literal interpretation was clearly and forcefully stated several times. However, you also say that it does not have to be a 24-hour day at all. It could be a 25-hour "day" or a 5-minute "day". Yes, he even said: "I mean God can do in whatever time period he has." This means, by extension, that the length of the "days" can be extended indefinitely to suit each person. This is a dangerous and treacherous view, and no one there seems aware of where such a view can lead. In any case, you do not believe in any literal interpretation of the days of creation at all. You just want to make it sound that way.
Dr Cornelis Van Dam gives a very simplistic representation of Professor Peter Harrison's significant body of work on the relationship between Christianity and what is now represented as the emergence of modern science. What is missing from Dr Cornelis Van Dam's very brief reference to Harrison's more nuanced treatment of the way 16/17c natural philosophers (who would now be described as 'scientists') articulated their thinking is what Augustine referred to as God's two books - nature and scripture. Harrison rightly identifies the significance of empirical investigation for 16/17 century natural philosophers' understanding of the book of nature, which was motivated by an anti-scholastic approach to truth, which is a corollary of taking seriously man's fallen condition that results in endless theorising without the necessary anchorage in causal explanation. For Dr Van Dam to sustain his thesis, he needs to address the empirical evidence for change and continuity in the history of the earth and its species. It's not good enough to assert the truth of scripture without a dialectical link to the actual, empirical evidence.
So basically a book that will make YEC advocates rejoice in their echo chamber, and presents arguments - against interpretation that are faithful to Scriptures BUT pay attention to ANE context, the genre of the text and do not impose on the text things that are simply not there - that have been refuted long ago. To still hold in 2024 that the days of genesis are 24 hour days really shows that a certain tradition and reading of the text is affecting the exegesis. What's certain is that this discussion is not going to end today and interestingly even in those reformed-minded circles there are voices of the past such as Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, Ridderbos, etc... and others who held views very opposed to YEC. Since we cannot undue the past, those discussions will not cease.
I am sure that Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, Ridderbos, etc. thought that their views on Gen. 1-11 were confessional, but I do not think that their views are compatible with the Westminster Standards. For example, I believe the hermeneutic of Kline was the analogy of Ancient Near East Manuscripts rather than the analogy of Scripture. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, I find Kline (and others) allowing ANE manuscripts to interpret Scripture. Also, if one does a deep dive on the thinking of the Westminster divines, one discovers that WCF 4:1 was seeking to address two Roman errors. (1) the error of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, and (2) the error of Aquinas’ unchanged creation. “The space of six days” was meant to convey that Gen 1 is not an allegory or merely a literary devise. “All very good” was meant to convey that the world was “blessed” by God at creation and that the “curse” brought a great change upon creation. The divines were of two camps about the change that came upon creation (a) the physical features of the creatures did not change, but their used did, (b) the physical features and use changed. Though the divines differed on this, they all agree that the curse brought about a great change upon creation including the war and death that is now manifest among the creatures. Aquinas and much of Rome maintained that the animal world, as we see it today, is the same as it was at creation. The Westminster divines saw this as an error and even worked on a separate catechism question on the nature of original creation. If we cannot connect “blessing” with “living” and “cursing” with “dying,” then these words become meaningless (e.g., it is very good that animals kill each other and die. Disease and death among animals is not a curse, and the Noaic covenant, which is made with the animals, is not really a blessing to them etc.). “Blessing” and “cursing” must be understood and applied to all the living creatures, because God blessed them at creation, cursed them in the flood, and included them in the covenant of grace after the flood. Also, the command not to eat the blood of animals (which I believe still stands for us New Testament believers via Acts 15), still stands. We ought to recognize that life is a blessing. Creation, by means of evolution, requires war among the living creatures. Old earth creation maintains that the present world that we live in is the product of the present forces and laws within the universe. This presupposition denies two whole chapters of the WCF. The Westminster Standards correctly interprets the Bible when it states the work of creation was separate and distinct from the works of providence. Not only is an old earth creation (e.g. Kline) contrary to the confession (OEC teaches creation was by means of ordinary providence), it actually maintains that creation was by means of the curse (God created the present world, with its war among the animals, by means of a world which had a war among the animals). Since creation was originally good, the only conclusion is that the present war among the animals is good. This renders the idea of a curse upon the earth as meaningless. The statement often made by OEC is that Gen. 1-2 is not a scientific text. What is assumed by this statement is that God could have provided us with a scientific textbook about how he created the universe. This is false. Gen. 1-2 is not a scientific text, because science is the study of providence, not miracles. The creation period (six days) was a distinct supernatural work of God which cannot be explained by the present “laws” of providence. I believe Kline wanted to view Gen 1-2 as merely literary in order to free scientist to speculate about how God created the world rather than understanding that there is no possible way to scientifically explain how creation occurred. The universe was Spoken into existence, it was not brought to be what it is by forces within it (Heb. 11:3). So, OEC is incompatible with the Westminster confession in that there is no distinction between creation and providence in that view. If one thinks that it is possible to scientifically explain creation (and that Gen. 1-2 is just meant to teach theology and not provide the science), then he misses a fundamental point. The work of creation was a distinct supernatural work (the laws of nature were being created and formed). The works of providence were not the means of creation and one of the works of providence that came upon creation was a curse (which altered the blessed living creation into a dying one). Yes, Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, and Ridderbos were good Christian men wanting to faithfully interpret the Bible. But, I believe they were simply wrong about this issue.
Si la théorie de l'évolution n'existait pas, tant de théologiens n'auraient jamais trouvé l'évolution théiste attrayante. Ils n'y auraient même pas pensé. Quant au contexte de l'ancien testament, il n'y a rien dans les cosmologies/cosmogonies de l'ancien Moyen-Orient qui exigerait une lecture strictement métaphorique ou théologique des premiers chapitres de la Bible au dépit d'une lecture historique de ce texte.
@@andre-philippetherrien2185 The framework interpretation, which is by far superior to the reading YEC have, has nothing to do with evolution. proof of the matter is that (some of) its proponents rejected evolution, such as Meredith Kline. I said nothing about the theory of evolution so why bring it up as a boogey man? In any case, even if the argument "if x did not exist then interpretation g(x) would not exist was true, it can be dismissed on the simple fact that many conservative theologians rejected the science of their day on scriptural ground. A clear example was heliocentrism or the three-tiered cosmology. Who in this day and age subscribes to the geocentric model? Hopefully no one. And yet the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and shall never be moved! The Bible also says that there are waters above the dom of heaven that encircles the mostly flat earth we walk on, and the underworld in below! If one takes the Bible to be a science textbook then surely the Bible is false. But since the Bible is not false, as it is the word of God and God cannot err, then the Bible is not teaching science in those passages. If there are passages in the Bible that can be interpreted culturally, why not some parts of Genesis 1-11? In truth, YEC interpretations are the ones that rely on science and are trying to have a scientific understanding. Creationist ministries are all about teaching some pseudo-"science" that "fits" with the Bible. But this is not how the text was received or was meant to be received. So the text should not be interpreted to fit any scientific understanding. Ancient people did not think of the world that way and God spoke to those people. he spoke in ways they could understand and in ways in which his redemption would be carried out without being contingent on a scientific understanding of nature. One of the great advantages of the framework interpretation is that it has nothing to do with science. It cares not what science has to say. It does not try to fit interpretation with natural world history. It's about being faithful to the text and its audience. Now that's just my opinion after much study. And the authors I have cited said it better than me so I will refer you to them. One thing I will add is that we need to stop opposing a "historical/literal reading" to a "metaphorical/phenomenological/theological" reading of the text. Those things are by far not mutually exclusive, and most often than not, those terms are abused. May our common Lord bless you!
@@lalumierehuguenote That extremely literal interpretation is also a carnal one as it separates the Genesis text from the fundamentally spiritual experience of revelation, promise, and covenant by patriarchs, prophets, kings, etc. The Prophets, Psalter and Wisdom books certainly give us the spiritual context of that experience of which Genesis 1-3 are the narrative and declaratory statement.
Now, here is a man of courage and conviction to which I may look up. On the one hand, your guest stood uncompromisingly against all the detractors of the Genesis account no matter their popularity in the public or in scientific arenas. And, on the other hand he fearlessly stands against the "enthusiasts" who try to see more then what is plainly written in pages of scripture and thus open themselves to easy ridicule.
Excellent show!
Thank you so much.So wonderful to hear these views from such an esteemed scholar.
Thanks, men. Things to ponder in light of Scripture and The One Scripture is about.
Thank you for this! Please also press on to Genesis 3-11!
Good show! I'll be getting this book. Thank you!
Around min 28:00, I’m trying to wrestle through the logic of holding to a “normal” understanding of days as morning and evening-not necessarily 24 hours, but not long ages either.
Nevertheless, it seems the emphasis is on a normal day, with the implication being that it’s could be 25 hours or something uncertain, but not an age of time.
The difficulty is this, “morning and evening” are normally tied to the earth’s solar rotation, but there appears to be no sun until day 4. Now, there was light and dark on day 1. But we are not told if that is the source of the morning and evening for the first 3 days or not. And we have no idea what sort of time periods would attach to this day and night.
So the relevant question is, what is the normal meaning of “evening and morning,” when we are prevented by the order of creation events from taking the normal meaning of “evening and morning” at face value?
It’s all well and good to say, evening and morning are determinative, but if we can’t rely upon their normal usage, then why can’t evening and morning designate an age-the first and last of a set of light cycles?
All deductions from “normal” just seem lost at sea in a context where “normal” is under construction.
I appreciate the desire to back off specificity like 24-hours, but given that the rationale of backing off 24-hour days breaks the standard of “normal,” there seems very little reason to exclude ages of time from these ordinal days.
I haven’t finished yet. I’m curious if Klein’s framework view is addressed directly or not as this progresses.
I think it’s also relevant to note, that we are not given any period of time for the period of the creation of heaven and earth before the first day. So can we say how long the earth has been there on day 1? It seems we cannot say. It may have been many ages. Perhaps long enough for star light to have reached earth?
It seems likely that God made the sun rise and set around a 24 hour cycle (day), rather than determining a day’s length after setting this cycle of the sun. Given that premise, it seems pretty clear that a day can occur before we have a sun or moon. The idea would be that God sets (pun intended) the sun’s cycle around the length of time that he took on day 1 to accomplish what he did on day 1 and so on
@@jak4324, that’s a creative and interesting idea.
I have a hard time discerning whether that or a day age cycle is more imaginative. How to tell?
The difficulty to my mind is this, when the text is clear, I want the text to govern natural revelation. The text is the divine framework and the natural revelation seen in the natural sciences is the data that fills in that framework.
One needs to be realistically chastened and humble about natural science, especially as it relates to historical inference.
However, one can read the Psalms as describing the movement of the sun, or one can understand this as description from human observation of the inspired writer.
What makes the difference, when confronted with this ambiguity? In part, it’s natural revelation, right? Should we exclude natural revelation from the interpretive process? If so, do we have a context to be able to interpret the Palms, even as the framework for natural revelation? If natural revelation is not the data that goes in the framework, then does special revelation have any relation to natural revelation?
What of Calvin’s correspondent interpretation of God over man, but in light of each other?
If it’s a choice in the face of an ambiguous text, of straining the relation between natural and special revelation, or having them coherently reflect a mutually supported truth, which is better?
Should that make a difference in our imaginative interpretive solutions-for a problem that is one of a kind?
Really enjoyed this topic and episode.
Appreciate men like your guest standing on the wall fighting for Biblical creation.
Keep up the great work guys!
I love this channel 🙌🏼
Great discussion. Thank you for this. I’m currently reading the book, and I think it’s great, but I wonder about the position on the length of creation days as espoused in the book and in this conversation. If, as I think Dr. Van Dam rightly says, scripture communicates truth in plain, straightforward language intended to be understood by plain people, where is there room for interpreting the length of creation days as anything other than what would be normally understood by common people based on their common experience? How is it coherent to insist that the Bible is using language that plainly indicates the days are ordinary days, but then suggest the days could have been five minutes in length? Perhaps I’m missing something. To be honest, I’m not sure I see this as anything other than saying that the days aren’t days as normally understood, which would seem to leave open much room for other interpretive positions seeking to turn the days into long periods of time.
Agree... Exodus 20 helps clarify that the day is an ordinary day, that is 24 hrs. Evening, morning, daylight portion of a day and night are defined in verse 3.
Good point at 48:45 Jesus said "I am the beginning and end" also John 1:3 said "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made". I'm working through a strictly Christological interpretation of the beginning.
For example Jesus of Adam, Adam of Earth. Earth made through Jesus (Jn1:3). That earth was under the water (Jonah 2: 1-6) , On the third day the earth was brought out of the Water (death) and God commanded plants of seed (wheat) and fruit ( wine Lk 22:18) to spring forth from that earth to feed mankind (Gen 1:29)!
There is much more going on here I think....
The tension spoken of at 51:37, it comes not so much with evolution, but with astronomy and geology.
If one is forced to take the days a short and in sequence, then the tension is raised. If God creates over an unspecified period of time as the signals for non-ordinary occurrences would suggest, then the tension is lowered.
It’s not clear why short and sequential equals historical. Certainly, the framework reading is still historical. Adam and Eve are still historical persons.
It seems there can be a variety of sequence and length views held inside a historical reading.
I wish there was more clearly in scripture on this topic. The length of the genealogy period in Genesis 5 is particularly difficult to square with the fossil record.
Ah, the mystery (I mean that in a good way). God knows.
The Sun wasn’t created until Day Four correct? What did the earth revolve around before the Sun was created? It didn’t! The idea that the Earth revolves around theSun is an idea brought forth by Copernicus, A Sun Worshiper! The Bible teaches the Earth is Flat and Stationary. Thank you…
About the six days. This got very weird. The literal interpretation was clearly and forcefully stated several times. However, you also say that it does not have to be a 24-hour day at all. It could be a 25-hour "day" or a 5-minute "day". Yes, he even said: "I mean God can do in whatever time period he has." This means, by extension, that the length of the "days" can be extended indefinitely to suit each person. This is a dangerous and treacherous view, and no one there seems aware of where such a view can lead. In any case, you do not believe in any literal interpretation of the days of creation at all. You just want to make it sound that way.
Dr Cornelis Van Dam gives a very simplistic representation of Professor Peter Harrison's significant body of work on the relationship between Christianity and what is now represented as the emergence of modern science. What is missing from Dr Cornelis Van Dam's very brief reference to Harrison's more nuanced treatment of the way 16/17c natural philosophers (who would now be described as 'scientists') articulated their thinking is what Augustine referred to as God's two books - nature and scripture. Harrison rightly identifies the significance of empirical investigation for 16/17 century natural philosophers' understanding of the book of nature, which was motivated by an anti-scholastic approach to truth, which is a corollary of taking seriously man's fallen condition that results in endless theorising without the necessary anchorage in causal explanation. For Dr Van Dam to sustain his thesis, he needs to address the empirical evidence for change and continuity in the history of the earth and its species. It's not good enough to assert the truth of scripture without a dialectical link to the actual, empirical evidence.
So basically a book that will make YEC advocates rejoice in their echo chamber, and presents arguments - against interpretation that are faithful to Scriptures BUT pay attention to ANE context, the genre of the text and do not impose on the text things that are simply not there - that have been refuted long ago.
To still hold in 2024 that the days of genesis are 24 hour days really shows that a certain tradition and reading of the text is affecting the exegesis.
What's certain is that this discussion is not going to end today and interestingly even in those reformed-minded circles there are voices of the past such as Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, Ridderbos, etc... and others who held views very opposed to YEC. Since we cannot undue the past, those discussions will not cease.
I am sure that Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, Ridderbos, etc. thought that their views on Gen. 1-11 were confessional, but I do not think that their views are compatible with the Westminster Standards. For example, I believe the hermeneutic of Kline was the analogy of Ancient Near East Manuscripts rather than the analogy of Scripture. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, I find Kline (and others) allowing ANE manuscripts to interpret Scripture.
Also, if one does a deep dive on the thinking of the Westminster divines, one discovers that WCF 4:1 was seeking to address two Roman errors. (1) the error of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, and (2) the error of Aquinas’ unchanged creation. “The space of six days” was meant to convey that Gen 1 is not an allegory or merely a literary devise. “All very good” was meant to convey that the world was “blessed” by God at creation and that the “curse” brought a great change upon creation. The divines were of two camps about the change that came upon creation (a) the physical features of the creatures did not change, but their used did, (b) the physical features and use changed. Though the divines differed on this, they all agree that the curse brought about a great change upon creation including the war and death that is now manifest among the creatures. Aquinas and much of Rome maintained that the animal world, as we see it today, is the same as it was at creation.
The Westminster divines saw this as an error and even worked on a separate catechism question on the nature of original creation. If we cannot connect “blessing” with “living” and “cursing” with “dying,” then these words become meaningless (e.g., it is very good that animals kill each other and die. Disease and death among animals is not a curse, and the Noaic covenant, which is made with the animals, is not really a blessing to them etc.). “Blessing” and “cursing” must be understood and applied to all the living creatures, because God blessed them at creation, cursed them in the flood, and included them in the covenant of grace after the flood. Also, the command not to eat the blood of animals (which I believe still stands for us New Testament believers via Acts 15), still stands. We ought to recognize that life is a blessing.
Creation, by means of evolution, requires war among the living creatures. Old earth creation maintains that the present world that we live in is the product of the present forces and laws within the universe. This presupposition denies two whole chapters of the WCF. The Westminster Standards correctly interprets the Bible when it states the work of creation was separate and distinct from the works of providence. Not only is an old earth creation (e.g. Kline) contrary to the confession (OEC teaches creation was by means of ordinary providence), it actually maintains that creation was by means of the curse (God created the present world, with its war among the animals, by means of a world which had a war among the animals). Since creation was originally good, the only conclusion is that the present war among the animals is good. This renders the idea of a curse upon the earth as meaningless.
The statement often made by OEC is that Gen. 1-2 is not a scientific text. What is assumed by this statement is that God could have provided us with a scientific textbook about how he created the universe. This is false. Gen. 1-2 is not a scientific text, because science is the study of providence, not miracles. The creation period (six days) was a distinct supernatural work of God which cannot be explained by the present “laws” of providence. I believe Kline wanted to view Gen 1-2 as merely literary in order to free scientist to speculate about how God created the world rather than understanding that there is no possible way to scientifically explain how creation occurred. The universe was Spoken into existence, it was not brought to be what it is by forces within it (Heb. 11:3). So, OEC is incompatible with the Westminster confession in that there is no distinction between creation and providence in that view.
If one thinks that it is possible to scientifically explain creation (and that Gen. 1-2 is just meant to teach theology and not provide the science), then he misses a fundamental point. The work of creation was a distinct supernatural work (the laws of nature were being created and formed). The works of providence were not the means of creation and one of the works of providence that came upon creation was a curse (which altered the blessed living creation into a dying one). Yes, Bavinck, Warfield, Kline, Blocher, and Ridderbos were good Christian men wanting to faithfully interpret the Bible. But, I believe they were simply wrong about this issue.
Si la théorie de l'évolution n'existait pas, tant de théologiens n'auraient jamais trouvé l'évolution théiste attrayante. Ils n'y auraient même pas pensé. Quant au contexte de l'ancien testament, il n'y a rien dans les cosmologies/cosmogonies de l'ancien Moyen-Orient qui exigerait une lecture strictement métaphorique ou théologique des premiers chapitres de la Bible au dépit d'une lecture historique de ce texte.
@@andre-philippetherrien2185 The framework interpretation, which is by far superior to the reading YEC have, has nothing to do with evolution. proof of the matter is that (some of) its proponents rejected evolution, such as Meredith Kline. I said nothing about the theory of evolution so why bring it up as a boogey man?
In any case, even if the argument "if x did not exist then interpretation g(x) would not exist was true, it can be dismissed on the simple fact that many conservative theologians rejected the science of their day on scriptural ground. A clear example was heliocentrism or the three-tiered cosmology. Who in this day and age subscribes to the geocentric model? Hopefully no one. And yet the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and shall never be moved!
The Bible also says that there are waters above the dom of heaven that encircles the mostly flat earth we walk on, and the underworld in below!
If one takes the Bible to be a science textbook then surely the Bible is false. But since the Bible is not false, as it is the word of God and God cannot err, then the Bible is not teaching science in those passages.
If there are passages in the Bible that can be interpreted culturally, why not some parts of Genesis 1-11?
In truth, YEC interpretations are the ones that rely on science and are trying to have a scientific understanding. Creationist ministries are all about teaching some pseudo-"science" that "fits" with the Bible.
But this is not how the text was received or was meant to be received. So the text should not be interpreted to fit any scientific understanding. Ancient people did not think of the world that way and God spoke to those people. he spoke in ways they could understand and in ways in which his redemption would be carried out without being contingent on a scientific understanding of nature.
One of the great advantages of the framework interpretation is that it has nothing to do with science. It cares not what science has to say. It does not try to fit interpretation with natural world history.
It's about being faithful to the text and its audience.
Now that's just my opinion after much study. And the authors I have cited said it better than me so I will refer you to them.
One thing I will add is that we need to stop opposing a "historical/literal reading" to a "metaphorical/phenomenological/theological" reading of the text. Those things are by far not mutually exclusive, and most often than not, those terms are abused.
May our common Lord bless you!
😂
@@lalumierehuguenote That extremely literal interpretation is also a carnal one as it separates the Genesis text from the fundamentally spiritual experience of revelation, promise, and covenant by patriarchs, prophets, kings, etc. The Prophets, Psalter and Wisdom books certainly give us the spiritual context of that experience of which Genesis 1-3 are the narrative and declaratory statement.