accommodate science-it was drawn from an
analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its
ancient environment. The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical
position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the
earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a
young-earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are
willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of
alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical
text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there
would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion.
If there is no biblical information concerning the age of the
material cosmos, then, as people who take the Bible seriously, we
have nothing to defend on that count and can consider the options that science has to offer. Some scientific theories may end up being correct and others may be replaced by new thinking. We need
not defend the reigning paradigm in science about the age of the
earth if we have scientific reservations, but we are under no compulsion to stand against a scientific view of an old earth because
of what the Bible teaches.'
One of the sad statistics of the last 150 years is that increasing
numbers of young people who were raised in the environment of
a biblical faith began to pursue education and careers in the sciences and found themselves conflicted as they tried to sort out the
claims of science and the claims of the faith they had been taught.
It seems to many that they have to make a choice: either believe
the Bible and hold to a young earth, or abandon the Bible because
of the persuasiveness of the case for an old earth. The good news
is that we do not have to make such a choice. The Bible does not
call for a young earth. Biblical faith need not be abandoned if one
concludes from the scientific evidence that the earth is old.
At this point a very clear statement must be made: Viewing
Genesis 1 as an account offunctional origins of the cosmos as temple does
not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material
origins-it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story. To the author and audience of Genesis, material origins were simply not a
priority. To that audience, however, it would likewise have been
unthinkable that God was somehow uninvolved in the material
origins of creation. Hence there wouldn't have been any need to
stress a material creation account with God depicted as centrally
involved in material aspects of creation. We can understand this
issue of focused interests through any number of analogies from
our own world as we indicated in chapter two with the examples
of a company and a computer. Many situations in our experience
interest us on the functional level while they generate no curiosity
at all about the material aspect.
Our affirmation of God's creation of the material cosmos is
supported by theological logic as well as by occasional New Testament references. By New Testament times there was already a
growing interest in material aspects and so also a greater likelihood that texts would address material questions. Speaking of
Christ, Paul affirms, "For by him all things were created: things
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and
for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col 1: 16-17). This statement can certainly be understood
to include both the material and the functional. Hebrews 1:2 is
less explicit as it affirms that the Son is appointed the heir of all
things and that through him God made the "universe." Here it
must be noted that the word translated "universe" is aionas, not
kosmos-thus more aptly referring to the ages of history than to
analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its
ancient environment. The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical
position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the
earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a
young-earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are
willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of
alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical
text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there
would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion.
If there is no biblical information concerning the age of the
material cosmos, then, as people who take the Bible seriously, we
have nothing to defend on that count and can consider the options that science has to offer. Some scientific theories may end up being correct and others may be replaced by new thinking. We need
not defend the reigning paradigm in science about the age of the
earth if we have scientific reservations, but we are under no compulsion to stand against a scientific view of an old earth because
of what the Bible teaches.'
One of the sad statistics of the last 150 years is that increasing
numbers of young people who were raised in the environment of
a biblical faith began to pursue education and careers in the sciences and found themselves conflicted as they tried to sort out the
claims of science and the claims of the faith they had been taught.
It seems to many that they have to make a choice: either believe
the Bible and hold to a young earth, or abandon the Bible because
of the persuasiveness of the case for an old earth. The good news
is that we do not have to make such a choice. The Bible does not
call for a young earth. Biblical faith need not be abandoned if one
concludes from the scientific evidence that the earth is old.
At this point a very clear statement must be made: Viewing
Genesis 1 as an account offunctional origins of the cosmos as temple does
not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material
origins-it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story. To the author and audience of Genesis, material origins were simply not a
priority. To that audience, however, it would likewise have been
unthinkable that God was somehow uninvolved in the material
origins of creation. Hence there wouldn't have been any need to
stress a material creation account with God depicted as centrally
involved in material aspects of creation. We can understand this
issue of focused interests through any number of analogies from
our own world as we indicated in chapter two with the examples
of a company and a computer. Many situations in our experience
interest us on the functional level while they generate no curiosity
at all about the material aspect.
Our affirmation of God's creation of the material cosmos is
supported by theological logic as well as by occasional New Testament references. By New Testament times there was already a
growing interest in material aspects and so also a greater likelihood that texts would address material questions. Speaking of
Christ, Paul affirms, "For by him all things were created: things
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and
for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col 1: 16-17). This statement can certainly be understood
to include both the material and the functional. Hebrews 1:2 is
less explicit as it affirms that the Son is appointed the heir of all
things and that through him God made the "universe." Here it
must be noted that the word translated "universe" is aionas, not
kosmos-thus more aptly referring to the ages of history than to
Similar Books
