I don't recall when I first came across the ministry, InspiringPhilosophy (IP). According to their “About us” page, they are an apologetics ministry and describe themselves as, “a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” I'd say they're sincere. I've seen a lot of their videos on YouTube and some of them are really good. Of course, there's probably not anyone with whom I agree 100% of the time and my point of contention with IP is their confrontational attitude toward young earth creationism (YEC).
There are other Christian apologists who compromise on the issue of origins but not all of them are as in your face about it as IP. IP doesn't just disagree with creationism; they produce a lot of material to try refute it. One particular video they've made is TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism. As the title suggests, they present 10 passages from the Bible which, they claim, don't reconcile easily with a young earth. I invite you to watch the entire video for yourself.
I'd like to write a point by point rebuttal of each item. As much as I dislike writing series, I see no choice but to respond in a series of posts. Depending on the length of my reply, I will respond to 1 or 2 points at a time. Please keep checking back.
The video explains: [The prophet] Jeremiah used very similar language from Genesis 1 to metaphorically describe the fallen northern kingdom of Israel. In Jeremiah 4, the prophet is warning Judah that they will be desolated like the northern kingdom if they do not repent. In doing so, he described what happened in northern Israel by heavily borrowing from Genesis 1... Jeremiah is simply using this language to metaphorically say the northern kingdom no longer functions properly. But if the same language is used in reverse in Genesis 1, that implies all it is saying, is God took a disordered cosmos and made it function properly... Thus, within the Scriptures itself, the implication is the language of Genesis 1 does not mean literal, material creation and, therefore, is not necessarily refer to a literal six day creation.
The video really makes a stretch here. It tries to make hay of how Jeremiah used similar language from Genesis 1 – but in reverse order – to describe the fall of northern Israel. Somehow, Jeremiah's metaphoric description of the un-creation of the northern kingdom (un-creation is my word), is evidence that God's creation of the world in Genesis 1 is also metaphoric. Yeah, that's a really big stretch.
I wonder if IP realizes that Jeremiah most certainly had read Genesis? Also, his audience most likely had read Genesis also. Using language borrowed from such a widely known event, probably helped Jeremiah paint a very vivid picture that his readers would understand. I don't see exactly how that necessarily means the original account was a metaphor.
During the Constitutional Convention, when deliberations seemed to stall and tempers started to rise, Ben Franklin made his famous call to prayer:
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. [excerpt]
Franklin used the building of the Tower of Babel as a metaphor for the building of a new nation. He borrowed the fallen sparrow from the Sermon on the Mount to remind the Founding Fathers of the omniscience of God. Everyone hearing him would have immediately recognized these references. Does this mean the Tower of Babel was necessarily a metaphor? Does it mean there was no Sermon on the Mount? Does God not really notice when a sparrow falls? The video's entire point is non sequitur.
Consider, too, John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That sounds a little like Genesis 1:1 doesn't it? It further describes the Word as the Creator who made everything. John 1:3 says, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Most scholars agree that John intentionally borrowed from Genesis when writing his gospel. Of course, Jesus is literally the word who was with God and was God and He literally created everything. IP can't believe Jesus is a metaphor, right? So, by their own logic, since John is using the same language as Genesis 1 to describe something literally true, it must mean Genesis 1 is literal too!
The video is making the same error it has made numerous times already. It is taking an obvious metaphor, and using it to argue that history is metaphor too. I could make a metaphor out of Abe Lincoln or Paul Bunyan. How well my audience knows the original story helps determine how effective my metaphor is. But my use of a metaphor has no bearing on the authenticity of account from where I borrowed it.
The video alleges, The most popular objection, used against young earth creationism, is the fact that nights and days exist before the sun, which was created on day 4. Days and nights cannot exist without the earth rotating and moving around the sun. Young earth believers often reply by suggesting maybe there was another light source or they will argue that maybe God made the light on day 1 and then gathered it together into the sun on day 4.... This whole response from young earth creationists is simply contrived and ad hoc.
I object to the characterization that creationists suggest, “maybe there was another light source.” The Bible is very clear that there was light on day 1. Exactly what was this source of light is the subject of much speculation but the fact that the light existed on day 1 is clearly attested in the Bible. As a matter of fact, it's rather remarkable that God separated the creation of light from the creation of the sun. Certainly, even the unscientific ancients understood that the sun gives light so for the Bible to proclaim that God gives light without the sun must have stunned to those cultures that worshiped the sun.
I will grant that the day/night cycle seems to imply the earth is already rotating, but isn't a light shining on a rotating earth all you need to have days and nights? I don't understand why IP insists “day and night cannot exist” without the sun. I hate to put IP in the same camp as sun-worshipers but why do they seem to believe God must rely on the sun to give light? I can only remind them of the New Jerusalem discussed in Revelation 21:23, “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.”
The video continue, A more likely explanation is that the sun and moon are just elected to serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. Instead of being materially created. And this is what Genesis 1 is actually saying.
I agree that God said, (v. 14-15) “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.” IP wants us to believe that's all Genesis 1 is saying. The video ignores v. 16-17, which say “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.”
You can see what's happening. IP is claiming that the sun and moon already existed and is trying to interpret the text to mean God merely appointed them to be markers for days and years and seasons. The correct order of events as they are described in Genesis 1 is that God wants the sun and moon to be for days and nights then He made them and placed them in heaven to serve that role.
Read the entire series:
No comments:
Post a Comment