Genesis: Creation in six literal days?



Here is something I had not seen before: an argument that creation of the earth in six days, of twenty-four hours each, does not conflict with modern science. See the slides linked below. How the argument works: Due to relativistic time dilation, the amount of time seen to pass on the earth would be variable. It would depend on the location of the observer. Six days from God's external point of view could well be long millions of years when seen from the local time rate perspective, on earth. The Bible's time scale shifts then, after telling us about that initial stage of creation, to talking about earth days, after Adam shows up to observe days from our perspective.

Other possible explanations exist as to why Genesis explains things as it does, some of them at least as plausible. But insofar as this new, highly scientific approach adds one more such possibility to the discussion, it strengthens the overarching point that people have been making all along. A woodenly literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis does indeed put one at loggerheads with science. But why would anyone read them that way?

I have noted before that insisting on a particular, narrow and woodenly literal reading of the creation account is a stumbling block in evangelism. It is troublesome also for Christian unity, if one camp forms a rigid opinion and rejects, utterly, anything else other Christians have to say on the subject. Here is an area where we should pause to ponder one another's points. It is an argument we should keep out of the public square. There is no need to confuse unbelievers with things we are none too sure of ourselves. We ought to admit to one another that actually, we are none of us all that sure just what happened back then. At least, we are not sure of all the details: We were not there.

Job 38:1-39:30

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

[...]


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more