Consider, for a moment, that maybe the opening chapters of the bible are not intended to communicate stringent scientific details of earth history. There are thousands of discussions on this topic both online and in theological texts, and as I did in Part One, I have no plans to rehash the arguments of learned scholars. But, it is important to note that virtually all scholars of a myriad of persuasions would agree that the primary concern of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is to establish who God is in relation to His creation (and us). When we understand the text in this way, it suddenly becomes clear why the logic breaks down when attempting to marry the six days of the creation week with any one view (literal six day view; progressive creationism; gap theory, etc.). Instead of exploring individual inconsistencies between views of earth history and various biblical interpretations, I want to take a look at an historical example that sheds welcomed light on this discussion.
Nicolaus Copernicus was a 16th century astronomer who first formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Up until that time, the world held to geocentrism, the view that the earth is at the center of universe. While you and I don't consider heliocentrism controversial, Martin Luther had a different opinion. In Luther's TableBook (Tischreden), he wrote:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
While it's certain that the Church's oppostion to Copernicus has been overstated, the fact remains that his proposition was by no means eagerly accepted. First of all, heliocentrism is far fram intuitive. The Sun appears to move as we remain stationary (this is why we still refer to the sun rising/setting, although we know this isn't the case). Beyond that, the Church appeared to have scripture on its side. The bible seems to communicate both the mobility of the sun and the stability of the earth quite clearly. Consider a number of verses (there are many more):
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Psalms 18:15
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
As Luther noted in his quote, it is quite difficult to understand the account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 from a heliocentric viewpoint. Furthermore, there are many verses which speak of the immobility of the earth on its foundations or pillars. In this era of modern astronomy, we understand these verses to be figurative or simply speaking from a human perspective. However, it cannot be denied that, if we were to use the bible as our primary source in an astronomical debate, geocentrism would be the clear winner.
I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but it's so very important to let this sink in. Why don't we hear pastors or theologians demand that we "let the bible speak plainly" on the issue of heliocentrism? Why don't we have well-funded organizations established for the sole purpose of upholding geocentrism, the clear biblical view? It is NOT because theologians suddenly decided to interpret the many geocentric passages as figurative based on careful hermeneutics. Rather, it is because science has conclusively proven heliocentrism. As a result, the Church revisited these passages and altered its interpretation.
You see, the bible is not the best source for developing a correct view of astronomy. Though it may speak of the earth, sun, moon, and stars, we cannot attain a detailed or accurate understanding of astronomy from scripture. Instead, we must look to the earth, sun, moon, and stars to establish our astronomical views. I would hope you agree that this approach is in no way unbiblical.
Let me pause briefly to acknowledge that the YEC movement resents any comparison between their view and geocentrism. They've written their fare share of rebuttals to this accusation. I admit that the issues are more complex, both in terms of science and scripture, but it is an extremely helpful lesson from history. And, my intention is not to compare YEC with geocentrism. Instead, I want to apply the principle the Church learned about astronomy to the debate over earth history.
That principle is this: If the bible does not intend to be authoritative about a certain subject, it is advisable to rely upon extra-biblical sources to come to conclusions about that subject. In some cases, we may even be forced to reinterpret scripture as it relates to a particular subject if the extra-biblical sources are irrefutable. Every reasonable Christian agrees that this principle applies to astronomy. I contend that it applies to earth history, also. In order to develop an accurate perspective of earth history, we must look at the amazingly detailed history the earth has provided us. And that's surprisingly easy. It's right under our nose.
In my next post, I will begin to present what I feel to be the most straightforward and conclusive evidence concerning the age of the earth. It is my opinion that any unbiased reader will see that the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
James
