Response to Comment
August 21, 2009
Arnold Sikkema made the following comment on the quotations from Gardiner Spring that I posted here a few days ago:
There is much one could say about Gardiner. Let me restrict myself to two points. If Genesis 2:1 ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.") is to be taken in a modern scientific sense, one must deny the clear evidence that volcanoes and supernovae occur. This is one of the many clues that in understanding Genesis (or any of Scripture), our current modernist and enlightenment notions of truth -- in which the scientific, chronological, journalistic, technical, materialistic are elevated -- do not serve us well. Gardiner writes, "It has been well remarked that, 'the collision is not between the Bible and nature, but between the Bible and natural philosophers.'" Interesting how hermeneutics is left out of the picture altogether, as if there is no role for theological inquiry (or for preaching). I agree that there is no dispute between the Bible and nature, but the dispute is not between the Bible itself and with natural philosophy (i.e. "science") either -- it is between Biblical interpretation and science. (See Ben Faber's 25 May 2009 post "Humble Realism and Reformed Hermeneutics" on our blog [which is at reformedacademic.blogspot.com] for more about this.)
First of all, thanks for the comment. I disagree with pretty much everything you said after the first sentence.
First of all, you say that our current notions of 'truth' do not serve us well in interpreting Scripture. What this is saying, in effect, is that the ancients had a different standard of 'truth' and evaluating 'truth' than we do. This is an assertion, not an argument, and it's an assertion that, if it is to be accepted, must be backed up with evidence. Where is the evidence that the writers of Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had a different standard of truth, or a different definition of truth? If this is the case, how can we make any sense whatsoever of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul tells Timothy (and by extension, all ministers of the Word), 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and who correctly handles the word of truth.' If there was a correct way of handling the word of truth in Paul's time, surely that standard is still applicable today, otherwise any attempt at discerning and explaining the truth would be completely meaningless, and I might as well stop preaching, and just let everyone come up with their own interpretations.
Truth is not something that varies. It is a universal standard. Four thousand years ago, if I would have told my buddy, 'Wow, the sky sure is green today,' he would have looked at me in the same way that someone today would, and he may have told me to seek professional help. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever gone beyond making assertions about the differing notions of 'truth' that have supposedly existed throughout history, and provided evidence that such is actually the case, particularly when it comes to the Word of God, which proclaims again and again that there is an objective, eternal truth that remains constant throughout the history of mankind. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the ancients were very precise in their scientific analysis, in the areas of mathematics and astronomy, for instance.
'Sanctify them by the truth,' Jesus said to the Father, 'Your Word is truth' (John 17:17).
Jesus said to Pilate, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.' 'What is truth?' Pilate asked (John 18:37,38). Quite frankly, when it comes to the idea of 'truth,' I'd rather side with Jesus than Pilate.
As for your use of Genesis 2:1(and what you call 'reading it in a modern scientific sense') in support of your argument, you're creating a straw man. I've never heard anyone argue that this verse means that there has been no change in creation or addition within creation since God finished His work on the sixth day. God finished His creating work. The earth was complete, and it was 'very good.' Within that finished created order, there is growth and change, of course! But when God rested on the seventh day, His work of creation was done. There's no 'modern, scientific' interpretation, there's no 'ancient interpretation,' there's just a statement of fact that remains true and will remain true. Your use of the verse doesn't back up your argument at all.
There is much one could say about Gardiner. Let me restrict myself to two points. If Genesis 2:1 ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.") is to be taken in a modern scientific sense, one must deny the clear evidence that volcanoes and supernovae occur. This is one of the many clues that in understanding Genesis (or any of Scripture), our current modernist and enlightenment notions of truth -- in which the scientific, chronological, journalistic, technical, materialistic are elevated -- do not serve us well. Gardiner writes, "It has been well remarked that, 'the collision is not between the Bible and nature, but between the Bible and natural philosophers.'" Interesting how hermeneutics is left out of the picture altogether, as if there is no role for theological inquiry (or for preaching). I agree that there is no dispute between the Bible and nature, but the dispute is not between the Bible itself and with natural philosophy (i.e. "science") either -- it is between Biblical interpretation and science. (See Ben Faber's 25 May 2009 post "Humble Realism and Reformed Hermeneutics" on our blog [which is at reformedacademic.blogspot.com] for more about this.)
First of all, thanks for the comment. I disagree with pretty much everything you said after the first sentence.
First of all, you say that our current notions of 'truth' do not serve us well in interpreting Scripture. What this is saying, in effect, is that the ancients had a different standard of 'truth' and evaluating 'truth' than we do. This is an assertion, not an argument, and it's an assertion that, if it is to be accepted, must be backed up with evidence. Where is the evidence that the writers of Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had a different standard of truth, or a different definition of truth? If this is the case, how can we make any sense whatsoever of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul tells Timothy (and by extension, all ministers of the Word), 'Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and who correctly handles the word of truth.' If there was a correct way of handling the word of truth in Paul's time, surely that standard is still applicable today, otherwise any attempt at discerning and explaining the truth would be completely meaningless, and I might as well stop preaching, and just let everyone come up with their own interpretations.
Truth is not something that varies. It is a universal standard. Four thousand years ago, if I would have told my buddy, 'Wow, the sky sure is green today,' he would have looked at me in the same way that someone today would, and he may have told me to seek professional help. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever gone beyond making assertions about the differing notions of 'truth' that have supposedly existed throughout history, and provided evidence that such is actually the case, particularly when it comes to the Word of God, which proclaims again and again that there is an objective, eternal truth that remains constant throughout the history of mankind. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the ancients were very precise in their scientific analysis, in the areas of mathematics and astronomy, for instance.
'Sanctify them by the truth,' Jesus said to the Father, 'Your Word is truth' (John 17:17).
Jesus said to Pilate, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.' 'What is truth?' Pilate asked (John 18:37,38). Quite frankly, when it comes to the idea of 'truth,' I'd rather side with Jesus than Pilate.
As for your use of Genesis 2:1(and what you call 'reading it in a modern scientific sense') in support of your argument, you're creating a straw man. I've never heard anyone argue that this verse means that there has been no change in creation or addition within creation since God finished His work on the sixth day. God finished His creating work. The earth was complete, and it was 'very good.' Within that finished created order, there is growth and change, of course! But when God rested on the seventh day, His work of creation was done. There's no 'modern, scientific' interpretation, there's no 'ancient interpretation,' there's just a statement of fact that remains true and will remain true. Your use of the verse doesn't back up your argument at all.
Dennis R. Venema says:
August 23, 2009 @ 22:54 — Reply
Slightly off topic here, but the discussion of supernovae made me wonder what you think of them, Jim. For example, supernova 1987A, which exploded about 168,000 light-years away from earth (and hence, about 168,000 years ago). How do you fit this into young-earth/cosmos scenario? Was it an elaborate fiction (God created light en-route to earth)? Did God monkey with the speed of light (but what we observe from its light reaching other objects around it is consistent with a constant speed over the last 168,000 years)? You might reply that it is of no concern how this might be resolved, but what if one day you are called on to minister to a non-believer who knows astronomy? Would they have to dispense with their "erroneous" science in your view?