seeing the glory of God in the ordinary things of life
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Significant Problems?

by richard

Mark recently posted about hermeneutics, and how it isn’t always the case that the ‘plain reading’ isn’t always the correct reading. I agree with that principle, but in part of the post he says the following…

Indeed one must concede that if someone opened a Bible for the first time and read through Genesis 1 they would most likely assume that the author was using “day” just as we would normally use it in English, to refer to one 24-hour period. However, as the supporters of the other two views covered in the book (day age and framework) point out, the ‘plain reading’ faces some very significant problems if one pays attention to the ‘œillogical’ ordering of creation events as recorded in the text (such as light and vegetation existing before light sources were created). These difficulties raise the possibility that something other that literal 24-hour days were intended by the author of Genesis 1.

Because my comments don’t really have anything to do with his main point, I’m not leaving this as a comment. But I was irked enough to say something. Also, I haven’t read The Genesis Debate, so I can’t comment on the book at all.

I don’t think the “problem” suggested (light before light source) is at all “significant”. In fact, I donâ’t even consider it a problem.

The text is quite clear, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Whatever someone may think about logic, the Bible is explicitly clear that there was light before the sun. And the sun (and moon) were then created to rule the day (and the night). The light existed, and then the sun and moon were made for the light that was already present.

The only reason this question would be a “significant problem” is if someone first brings a skeptical eye to the text, judging (with their own reason conviently being the standard) whether or not it can be true and accurate. The question that those author’s bring to the table is not ‘what does the text say’, but rather, ‘can we really believe what the text says?’

There is no hermenutical or logical error present in the literal interpretation.

7 comments

1 Mark Traphagen { 10.19.06 at 2254 }

“But I was irked enough to say something.”

So where’s the something? :lol:

Actually, I think I can guess what the something would be. Just be aware that that example was not meant to set off a “days of Genesis” debate. It was merely used to show that there are orthodox interpretations that don’t necessarily conform to a so-called “plain reading” of the text.

2 richard { 10.20.06 at 0735 }

Huh. Half my post disappeared. That’s even more irksome. I guess I’ll write it again later this morning.

3 richard { 10.20.06 at 0754 }

I found it in my rss reader.

4 richard { 10.20.06 at 0756 }

Oh, and I know you didn’t intend to set off a ‘days of Genesis’ debate, and that’s why I didn’t post in your comments and just brought it over here

5 Mark Traphagen { 10.20.06 at 0931 }

I used to concede your argument above…until I read Genesis 1 in Hebrew. The basic problem from a “plain reading” of the Hebrew text is as follows:

The result of God’s creative fiats on both days one and four is the production of light. On day one, God said “Let there be light, and there was light”. The result of the creative fiat on the first day was the production of light. Similarly, on day four, the result of the creative fiat is the production of light (the Hebrew verb is a hiphil infinitive construct with a causative force). The point is this: the luminaries are created for the purpose of producing light. This means that identical functions of light production seem to be in view on days one and four. The Hebrew won’t allow that light was “created” on Day One and then the luminaries are merely put into place to “rule” the light on Day Four. It is clear that light is created (ontologically originated) on Day Four just as it is said to be on Day One.

Additionally, the result of God’s creative fiats on both days one and four is the separation of light and darkness. Gen. 1:18 teaches that God created the sun and moon (and stars) to “separate the light from the darkness” (hiphil infinitive construct). However, the same Hebrew verb (in wci form) appears in Genesis 1:4: God divided the light from the darkness. Again, identical functions pertaining to the separation of light and darkness appear to be in view on days one and four.

My point is that the charge that the Framework view (which sees the Days of Genesis 1 as a literary framework designed to teach theological truths about God’s creative work rather than a literal, sequential account) was formed out of extra-textual concerns is false. Quite the contrary, the reasons behind it arise out of the plain, bold-faced reading of the Hebrew text. Even worse is the charge that Framework supporters formed their view out of “unbelief” in God’s Word. The major supporters whom I’ve read all uniformly and clearly affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible, including Genesis 1.

6 richard { 10.20.06 at 1103 }

I confess ignorance on the Hebrew language. Trusting you to be entirely accurate, though, what you’ve said doesn’t impact my point at all. God created light on Day 1. God then created the sun to make light on Day 4. Nothing about that is illogical. God created light ex nihilo for the first few days, and then created the sun to secondarily produce light. The same can be said for the day/night division. First it was the supernatural light that divided them, but then God created the sun and the moon and the stars to divide the day from the night.

The question being asked is still ‘can we believe what the Bible is saying?’ It isn’t a question about understanding or interpreting what the text is saying. That much is clear… it is saying that God created light on Day 1, and then created the Sun to make light on Day 4. You quoted the authors as then saying this is a significant problem and illogical.

I do not grant that it is false that the Framework view was formed out of extra-textual concerns. I grant that the text does have literary elements that teach theological truths about God’s creative work… in fact, I don’t think there’s anyway to deny this. I reject, however, the dichotomy drawn between that and a literal, historical reading of the text. And, again, I believe that this is only attempted in order to align the text with extra-textual ideas.

7 richard { 10.20.06 at 1109 }

Calvin:

Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God.

Leave a Comment