In this series, I will examine what beliefs we should have about the kind of being God is. In general, I can think of four sources of information used by Christians in determining their beliefs about God's nature. Not all Christians place the same value on each of the sources, though most Christians use all of the sources to some extent. The sources are:
Philosophy: There are philosophical ideas about what the nature of God must be, and some of these have been incorporated into some Christian views on God's being.
Tradition: There are views that have been supported by long acceptance by prominent Christians within the church or a segment of the church. Traditional beliefs often have their origin in one of the other sources (such as philosophy), but sometimes the importance of the origin fades compared to the importance of traditional acceptance.
Scripture: There are statements in Scripture that describe God, and various beliefs have as their basis some interpretation of these statements.
Creation: The characteristics of the created world, including characteristics of humans, are used to infer beliefs about what the Creator of such a world must be like.
In this series, I will examine some of the common beliefs about the nature of God, and try to identify the sources that can be used to support these beliefs. I believe identifying the source(s) is particularly important. Combined with an opinion on which sources are most reliable or essential, this should allow us to determine which beliefs should be held most firmly.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Biblical Age of the Universe, Part 1: Starting in the middle
The middle of our modern Old Testament, anyway:
Most people would begin this investigation with Genesis 1, probably for two reasons. First, it is the relevant passage that appears first in modern Bibles, and second it is the most famous and heavily-analyzed passage concerning the creation. I'll get to Genesis 1, but I'm going to start instead with Job, the authorship of which may predate Genesis, in hopes that by starting in a different place, I may travel less-worn paths. The Bible itself identifies no exclusively authoritative text that is to be used for understanding creation and origins, so all seemingly relevant texts are fair game.
Now, before I dive in, I'd like to make a comment about the literary style of Job. Job is poetry. For some (even some self-identified literalists and inerrantists by their manner of argument) this is sufficient to allow it to be ignored, because it is assumed that you can derive whatever interpretation you want from poetry. This is not good scholarship. It's not enough to dismiss any argument using text from Job with "well, Job is poetry". While it is true that applying a literal reading to a poetic passage will yield silliness, it is also true that the passage will make some kind of sense, and some conclusions may be drawn about the author's beliefs.
There are, to my knowledge, two passages in Job that may reference the creation. Job 26:7 may reference the creation of the earth ("he suspends the earth over nothing"), or it may refer to the ongoing suspension of the earth over nothing. Job 38, however, seems pretty clearly to discuss the creation of the earth:
ESV:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
NIV 4-11:
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?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
Verses 4-7 clearly seem to go together, since the pronoun "it", which appears in each sentence, can only refer back to the earth or its foundation, mentioned in verse 4. Verses 8-11 may fit into the same time frame, or may not (later verses in the passage clearly fit into later time frames).
From verses 4-7, I believe we can gather just a couple of pieces of information about the creation of the earth. First, as we can tell from verses 1-3, "I" refers to "the Lord". The phrases "laid the foundation of the earth", "determined its measurements", "stretched the line upon it", and "laid its cornerstone" all create a picture of a builder. In this case, the builder is "the Lord" and the thing being built is either the earth, its foundations, or both. Presumably the earth itself cannot exist in its present form without the foundations first being laid, so these verses would appear to refer either to the time the earth was created, or a time before that. So the book of Job makes the following claim:
God laid the foundations of the earth.
However, verse 4 is also there. Verse 4 says that the foundation-laying and building happening in verses 1-3 happened "when the morning stars sang together and all the [angels/sons of God] shouted for joy" (emphasis mine). Presumably the stars did not actually sing--this is poetry, so the singing may refer to the shining of the stars or something similar. We also don't know if the shouting done by the angels was something like human shouting--this just tells us they were excited. At any rate, we now have an additional claim that the book of Job makes about the creation:
The stars and angels/sons of God were present for the laying of the foundation of the earth.
Now a few considerations:
1) The "foundation of the earth" could refer to the creation of a) the entire earth, b) some part of the earth, or even c) some part of the universe considered "foundational" to the earth, though this interpretation seems unlikely.
2) The stars could refer to angels. Stars are used metaphorically in other places in Scripture. However, a translation from the Septuagint renders the verse: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." This lends support to the correct translation being "stars", though it weakens the case for the stars necessarily existing simultaneously with the laying of the earth's foundations.
However, in the same translation from the Septuagint, it appears that verses 8-11 continue the thought from 4-7 (verse 8 begins with "and"), and so should be considered within a similar time frame, mostly likely following the events in 4-7. Here we find the sea bursting forth, God creating a "garment" of dark clouds for it, and setting limits for the sea. If we take it that the events described here follow those in 4-7, we have the following claims:
Probably after God laid foundation of the earth and after He made the stars (in some order),
The sea (water) burst forth from somewhere ("the womb"),
The sea (and perhaps the whole earth) were covered in dark clouds,
God limited the extent of the sea (it may or may not have been covering the earth before this, though if it wasn't, it must be that it would have been able to cover more apart from God's action, or the limits would already exist)
So, out of Job, we have:
- a few creation acts that are clearly attributed to God
- a possible partial ordering of events
- no time information.
I would note that the primary purpose of this passage appears to be the attribution of actions to God, rather than the order of those actions, so it seems likely that the order needs confirmation from another source or sources. However, the remainder of the chapter refers to ongoing processes on the earth, rather than creation activities, so inferring a rough forward chronology seems in line with the rest of the passage.
Most people would begin this investigation with Genesis 1, probably for two reasons. First, it is the relevant passage that appears first in modern Bibles, and second it is the most famous and heavily-analyzed passage concerning the creation. I'll get to Genesis 1, but I'm going to start instead with Job, the authorship of which may predate Genesis, in hopes that by starting in a different place, I may travel less-worn paths. The Bible itself identifies no exclusively authoritative text that is to be used for understanding creation and origins, so all seemingly relevant texts are fair game.
Now, before I dive in, I'd like to make a comment about the literary style of Job. Job is poetry. For some (even some self-identified literalists and inerrantists by their manner of argument) this is sufficient to allow it to be ignored, because it is assumed that you can derive whatever interpretation you want from poetry. This is not good scholarship. It's not enough to dismiss any argument using text from Job with "well, Job is poetry". While it is true that applying a literal reading to a poetic passage will yield silliness, it is also true that the passage will make some kind of sense, and some conclusions may be drawn about the author's beliefs.
There are, to my knowledge, two passages in Job that may reference the creation. Job 26:7 may reference the creation of the earth ("he suspends the earth over nothing"), or it may refer to the ongoing suspension of the earth over nothing. Job 38, however, seems pretty clearly to discuss the creation of the earth:
ESV:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?
NIV 4-11:
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?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
Verses 4-7 clearly seem to go together, since the pronoun "it", which appears in each sentence, can only refer back to the earth or its foundation, mentioned in verse 4. Verses 8-11 may fit into the same time frame, or may not (later verses in the passage clearly fit into later time frames).
From verses 4-7, I believe we can gather just a couple of pieces of information about the creation of the earth. First, as we can tell from verses 1-3, "I" refers to "the Lord". The phrases "laid the foundation of the earth", "determined its measurements", "stretched the line upon it", and "laid its cornerstone" all create a picture of a builder. In this case, the builder is "the Lord" and the thing being built is either the earth, its foundations, or both. Presumably the earth itself cannot exist in its present form without the foundations first being laid, so these verses would appear to refer either to the time the earth was created, or a time before that. So the book of Job makes the following claim:
God laid the foundations of the earth.
However, verse 4 is also there. Verse 4 says that the foundation-laying and building happening in verses 1-3 happened "when the morning stars sang together and all the [angels/sons of God] shouted for joy" (emphasis mine). Presumably the stars did not actually sing--this is poetry, so the singing may refer to the shining of the stars or something similar. We also don't know if the shouting done by the angels was something like human shouting--this just tells us they were excited. At any rate, we now have an additional claim that the book of Job makes about the creation:
The stars and angels/sons of God were present for the laying of the foundation of the earth.
Now a few considerations:
1) The "foundation of the earth" could refer to the creation of a) the entire earth, b) some part of the earth, or even c) some part of the universe considered "foundational" to the earth, though this interpretation seems unlikely.
2) The stars could refer to angels. Stars are used metaphorically in other places in Scripture. However, a translation from the Septuagint renders the verse: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice." This lends support to the correct translation being "stars", though it weakens the case for the stars necessarily existing simultaneously with the laying of the earth's foundations.
However, in the same translation from the Septuagint, it appears that verses 8-11 continue the thought from 4-7 (verse 8 begins with "and"), and so should be considered within a similar time frame, mostly likely following the events in 4-7. Here we find the sea bursting forth, God creating a "garment" of dark clouds for it, and setting limits for the sea. If we take it that the events described here follow those in 4-7, we have the following claims:
Probably after God laid foundation of the earth and after He made the stars (in some order),
The sea (water) burst forth from somewhere ("the womb"),
The sea (and perhaps the whole earth) were covered in dark clouds,
God limited the extent of the sea (it may or may not have been covering the earth before this, though if it wasn't, it must be that it would have been able to cover more apart from God's action, or the limits would already exist)
So, out of Job, we have:
- a few creation acts that are clearly attributed to God
- a possible partial ordering of events
- no time information.
I would note that the primary purpose of this passage appears to be the attribution of actions to God, rather than the order of those actions, so it seems likely that the order needs confirmation from another source or sources. However, the remainder of the chapter refers to ongoing processes on the earth, rather than creation activities, so inferring a rough forward chronology seems in line with the rest of the passage.
Biblical Age of the Universe, Part 0: Introduction
The age and origin of the universe is a topic that is relevant to Christian apologetics. In fact, many "apologetics" classes at Christian schools focus almost entirely on some form of Creationism (usually young-earth in my experience).
The age of the universe comes up primarily in this way: If the universe is quite young, then there is not time for many things that exist (such as solar systems or complex living organisms) to have come about via purely naturalistic means. The conclusion, then, is that supernatural action of some sort is required. Contrarily, if the universe is old, there may have been sufficient time for many things that exist to have come about via purely naturalistic means, though oldness does not prove that any or all did arise so. The result is that solid evidence for a young universe seems like it would produce a very strong case against naturalism, which might be good for theistic creationism and theism, provided there are not a large number of other, reasonable-sounding non-naturalistic theories. On the other hand, old age does not hurt theistic creationism apart from possibly making naturalism more plausible. Heads we win, tails, we play a different game.
Unlike the age issue, where either side is compatible with theistic creation, the origins issue matters. Nicene Christians believe that God is the "maker of heaven and earth". Any theory of origins that is incompatible with that statement is incompatible with the theistic creationism of Nicene Christianity. This series will focus mainly on age issues, but may touch on origins apart from age as well.
It seems to me that the scientfic arguments concerning the age of the universe are overwhelmingly in favor of an age measured in billions, not thousands of years. For me, the most convincing pieces of evidence are those concerned with starlight, but many other evidences exist. That, however, is a topic for another post, maybe even by another person on another blog. We'll see.
My interest in this series is to examine the issue from a purely biblical perspective to the greatest extent possible. That is, I want to examine the issue exclusively in the light of what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the age of the universe. Now, it should be clear that at this point, I already have a bias based on the scientific evidence, and I will most likely fail in ignoring that bias. I'll try my best anyway. One comfort I have is that the old-universe perspective is by no means new within the Church, or the history of Biblical interpretation. Many early Church fathers and Judaic scholars took an old or unspecified age perspective, and it cannot be said that they were much influenced by modern scientific evidence, so it is possible to come to those interpretations without the bias of modern evidence.
For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that Biblical inerrancy is to be preserved. I know not all Christians accept total Biblical inerrancy, or even exactly the same Bible, but I don't believe there is widespread agreement on what passages may contain errors, especially considering the inerrancy folks, who won't agree on any of them, so I can't just throw out difficult or inconvenient passages. I'll try to produce the most consistent account I can. Furthermore, I'll at least try to start with a "plain" reading, with the understanding that the text of the Bible contains cultural and linguistic peculiarities and makes use of literary devices. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for my reading. Also for purposes of this discussion, I will not be actively considering the books considered apocryphal by Protestants. This is a somewhat unfortunate result of my own unfamiliarity with these books, and I welcome any input about anything these books mention about creation or any age issues.
The age of the universe comes up primarily in this way: If the universe is quite young, then there is not time for many things that exist (such as solar systems or complex living organisms) to have come about via purely naturalistic means. The conclusion, then, is that supernatural action of some sort is required. Contrarily, if the universe is old, there may have been sufficient time for many things that exist to have come about via purely naturalistic means, though oldness does not prove that any or all did arise so. The result is that solid evidence for a young universe seems like it would produce a very strong case against naturalism, which might be good for theistic creationism and theism, provided there are not a large number of other, reasonable-sounding non-naturalistic theories. On the other hand, old age does not hurt theistic creationism apart from possibly making naturalism more plausible. Heads we win, tails, we play a different game.
Unlike the age issue, where either side is compatible with theistic creation, the origins issue matters. Nicene Christians believe that God is the "maker of heaven and earth". Any theory of origins that is incompatible with that statement is incompatible with the theistic creationism of Nicene Christianity. This series will focus mainly on age issues, but may touch on origins apart from age as well.
It seems to me that the scientfic arguments concerning the age of the universe are overwhelmingly in favor of an age measured in billions, not thousands of years. For me, the most convincing pieces of evidence are those concerned with starlight, but many other evidences exist. That, however, is a topic for another post, maybe even by another person on another blog. We'll see.
My interest in this series is to examine the issue from a purely biblical perspective to the greatest extent possible. That is, I want to examine the issue exclusively in the light of what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the age of the universe. Now, it should be clear that at this point, I already have a bias based on the scientific evidence, and I will most likely fail in ignoring that bias. I'll try my best anyway. One comfort I have is that the old-universe perspective is by no means new within the Church, or the history of Biblical interpretation. Many early Church fathers and Judaic scholars took an old or unspecified age perspective, and it cannot be said that they were much influenced by modern scientific evidence, so it is possible to come to those interpretations without the bias of modern evidence.
For purposes of this discussion, I will assume that Biblical inerrancy is to be preserved. I know not all Christians accept total Biblical inerrancy, or even exactly the same Bible, but I don't believe there is widespread agreement on what passages may contain errors, especially considering the inerrancy folks, who won't agree on any of them, so I can't just throw out difficult or inconvenient passages. I'll try to produce the most consistent account I can. Furthermore, I'll at least try to start with a "plain" reading, with the understanding that the text of the Bible contains cultural and linguistic peculiarities and makes use of literary devices. I'll do my best to explain the reasons for my reading. Also for purposes of this discussion, I will not be actively considering the books considered apocryphal by Protestants. This is a somewhat unfortunate result of my own unfamiliarity with these books, and I welcome any input about anything these books mention about creation or any age issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)