A Framework Hypothesis

In the previous post I mentioned the existence of a couple of approaches in interpreting the days of Genesis other than six consecutive 24-hour days. I briefly mentioned the day-age theory. Now I will discuss the so-called "Framework" approach. For this I am using information gathered from Lee Irons and Meredith Kline (Kline is a major developer of the hypothesis) from the book The Genesis Debate, and Wikipedia.

There are several observations that can be made about Genesis chapter 1. The first I'll note is that there are parallels between the first six days in Genesis. In day 1 God creates light and in day 4 God creates the lights in the heavens. In day 2 God separates the waters from the heavens and in day 5 God populates the waters with fish and the heavens with birds. With day 3 God brings plants from the earth and in day 6 God brings animals from the earth. These parallels make two groups of three. The groups of three (days 1-3, days 4-6) are referred to as triads. The chart below illustrates the two triads and shows the parallels of the days within the triads, each parallel having the same color (my apologies to people with color visual disabilities). You can click on the diagram to enlarge the image.

What could these parallel arrangements of the days of each triad mean? When I saw this pointed in Meredith Kline's presentation, I could see immediately where he was headed. This is a form parallelism is a recapitulation, where day 4 revisits the activities of day 1, day 5 recapitulates the activities of day 2, and day 6 revisits the activities of day 3. This kind of recapitulation is seen elsewhere in the Bible. One prime example is the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, where there are a series of sevens, the seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, etc. While one popular approach in Revelation is to view each of those sevens as sequential, but the literary structure that makes the most sense is that the sevens  in Revelation are recapitulations of each other. They describe the same sequence of time, from Christ's first advent until his second coming, examining different facets or aspects of the same periods.

Genesis, the first chapter, and Revelation, the last book, are both displaying a style or framework of recapitulation make that style of writing bookends to the Bible, where the Holy Spirit displayed an artistic style through the human authors, Moses of Genesis, and John for Revelation. This framework opens the door that the primary meaning of the days in Genesis are not to be thought of as 24-hour days, but a framework for which the creative acts of God are described. It is possible that the days in this framework hypothesis are 24-hour days, but it is also possible that these days are not tied to any earthly 24-hour periods. Since the days are literary devices to display God's activity, so are the beginning and ending descriptions, evening and morning. Further, these beginnings and endings don't have physical realities in the first days in a literalistic reading of the days of Genesis, since the sun and moon are created in along with day and night in day 4.

The whole sequence marches to the climax for the seventh day. This is the day that God rested from his creative activity. But the book of Hebrews indicates that the seventh day did not end, it continues and will continue into all eternity (Hebrews 4). It is ultimately an eschatological rest that all of God's people will participate in with God in the new heavens and earth.

There is much more to be said in the framework hypothesis, perhaps as time permits I will explore some of the other avenues -- but I have other things I need to prepare for in August, so I will not be devoting much time to the topic in the next couple of months. I recommend The Genesis Debate, it provides an excellent description of the framework hypothesis.

I've heard several objections to not taking the days of Genesis 1 as 24-hour days:

1. Numbers assigned to days are only done to literal 24-hour days in the Bible. In the Bible, numbers can be assigned to periods of time that do not refer to an actual literal period of time. For instance, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament there is a non-literal use of the concept of week.

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. (Daniel 9:24, ESV see the passage to 9:27)

The seventy weeks are a period of time from Daniel to when the Messiah comes and the destruction of the Jerusalem, the Temple, and possibly to the end of history. This is a period longer than a literal 490 years.

2. Exodus 20:8-11 -- the commandment of working six days and resting on the seventh only makes sense if Genesis creation days are 24-hour days. If you consider that the language God uses the language of resting and working in a highly analogous human descriptions, then this objection does not have any force. Consider the following passage:

14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. 16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:14-17, ESV)

This passage describes God's rested to refresh himself. The Hebrew word for refresh is used in two places, Exodus 23:12:

Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. (Exodus 23:12, ESV)

and 2 Samuel 16:14:

And the king, and all the people who were with him, arrived weary at the Jordan. And there he refreshed himself. (2 Samuel 16:14, ESV)

Here you see in these passages, and particularly in 2 Samuel, that people need to be refreshed because they are weary. However, God in Exodus 20:11 is not weary in a literal sense. That Exodus 20 passage makes sense even when we understand we do not take it the part of it saying that God was refreshed in a literalistic fashion. In the same way the week in Genesis need not be a consecutive series of seven, 24-hour days for it to make sense. Considering that the seventh day in Genesis 1 continues from what Hebrew says, we see that tying our hands to only reading the Genesis days as only 24-hour days makes no sense with other passages (e.g., Hebrews) in the Bible.

I will take up the discussion further, time permitting, in a couple of months. For now other pressing commitments are demanding my time. I welcome comments. If these series of blog entries do not make sense, don't pursue this. I personally think this makes a lot of sense, but I certainly understand if you don't think so.

The Day the Universe Became Huge

100 years ago, the entire universe was thought to consist of just the Milky Way galaxy. There was speculation by some that the faint spiral nebulae seen in telescopes might be galaxies like the Milky Way -- but the majority of astronomers did not think so. Then it was possible to think of the universe spanning only thousands of light years. A recently created universe was reasonable in that historical setting. Light from the other side of the Milky Way could reach us in tens of thousands of years -- and we didn't really know the size of the Milky Way yet. But our view of the universe then was going to explode. The gentleman on the upper left, Dr. Edwin Hubble, along with other pioneering astronomers, rocked astronomy with discoveries about the size of the universe. January 1, 1925, Hubble announced that the Andromeda spiral nebula was in fact a galaxy, with stars like the Milky Way, that was more than a million light years away. In 1929, Hubble published his red-shift observations, demonstrating that the universe was larger than billions of light years and expanding.

We know that the universe is huge because astronomers can estimate the distance of remote galaxies via certain kinds of stars and exploding stars (supernova) are known to have certain inherent brightnesses, like the supernova pictured in the galaxy on the right (see the bright star on the lower left of the galaxy). When this supernova's brightness is seen here on earth through a telescope, astronomers note how bright it appears here in the telescope. Using the brightness we see here and the actual known brightness of the supernova in a standard formula, the distance can be calculated.

So, the universe is HUGE. It takes light from distant galaxies billions of years to reach earth. That alone indicates the universe is billions of years old. It is certainly possible for God to have created the universe with photons (light) in motion, just as it would be if they originated from the various galaxies stretching across the universe. But there are so many things that fit with an old universe that it would take volumes to list. If the universe actually was created mere thousands of years ago, the conditions we see of the universe all around us then perfectly simulate a universe that is 13 to 14 billion years old.

For Christians, we must make a judgment call on the evidence. For many, the perfect simulation of  the old universe is not a problem. Certainly an omnipotent God described in the Bible can do that -- create a universe thousands of years ago that looks so consistently billions of years old. But the Bible also uses language and descriptions that put the earth at the center of the universe and we dismiss that today without even a  thought In my mind, it is more easy to believe that we live in an earth centered universe that simulates the earth going around the sun than to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old -- that is how strong the evidence is for an old universe. I know there are Christians who will say I put science ahead of the Bible. By that same reasoning, they put science ahead of the Bible when they adopt a sun centered solar system. These Christians part company with John Calvin and Martin Luther, who firmly believed the earth was the center of the universe because the Bible said so. But, those who are convinced that anyone who factors in and is convinced of the evidence for an old universe is selling out on biblical authority -- I would strongly urge them to stay the course and hold to an young universe. It is if first importance not to sell out on biblical authority.In fact, if these blog posts are troubling, by all means stop reading them.

I believe the Bible is inerrant. How can that be? Genesis uses the word days -- six days to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth -- occurring thousands of years ago. Is it possible that the language of creation, the days of creation, can be understood in a way outside of six consecutive 24-hour days, just as we understand the language describing the earth at the center of the universe is not to be taken "literally"? I think so, and I will mention a couple of plausible approaches that theologians I respect have discussed, but concentrate on one approach that makes the most sense to me.

The first approach I mention is the day-age theory. This is probably the one I am exposed to the most simply because I enjoy listening to the podcasts of Reasons to Believe, a ministry of Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross and others. They have a variety of podcast series you can get from iTunes, searching for Reasons to Believe. They observe that the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis has other uses than simply a 24-hour day, just as "day" does in the English language. How I used "day" in the title of this post is an example of using "day" in other than a 24-hour sense. Reasons to Believe propose that days in Genesis refers to long epochs of time in God's creative activity.

Personally, I have reservations in how Reasons to Believe interpret Genesis, reading in a whole lot of detailed scientific theory in the Genesis narration of creation that just doesn't make sense to me in that I don't think late twentieth/twenty-first century scientific theory was purposely inspired by God into the Bible. Read some of Reasons to Believe books or listen to their podcasts and you decide if it makes sense.

However, I find  Reasons to Believe (RTB) podcasts useful because I enjoy reading and listening to perspectives different from my own (I also listen to young earth creationists), and RTB discusses all sorts of science and theological issues that illuminate in so many ways -- without the agenda of a young earth creationist which, I'm sorry to say, often skews the science and doesn't present the whole picture. RTB topics range from radiometric dating, multiple parallel universes, the philosophical and theological problems of evolution, and the list goes on and on.

The next post I will examine another approach to Genesis days.

Virtual Reality

This is another thought experiment. There are two premises to this experiment:

1. The earth was created 6000 years ago in six 24-hour days, as outlined in the first two chapters of Genesis. Each of the days is 24 hours and they sequentially describe what happened each day.

2. It appears that the universe is on the order of 13 to 14 billion years old. This appearance is so striking that in all the careful scientific analysis, everything is consistent with an old universe. Sometimes there seems to be anomalies, inconsistencies with what is observed and the age of the universe, but as measurements and observations are refined, these too fall in line with being consistent with a 13 to 14 billion year old universe.

I do not know if anyone is advocating this view. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis certainly is not. Neither do the people at the Institute for Creation Research. They would disagree with premise 2. Scientists who believe that the universe is 13 to 14 billion disagree with premise 1. Let's note how people differ with the premises but move on with the thought experiment and run with these two premises.

Oh -- as a parenthetical note, it is possible that Tim Challies was reporting this viewpoint in his blog about the Ligonier Ministries’ annual conference. This is the position I take whenever I take the young earth/universe view the third month of every prime number year (that makes March of 2011 my young universe/earth viewpoint month).

So, back to the premises. So, according to this thought experiment model, the universe/earth were created 6000 years ago, but all the empirical evidence looks as if the universe sprang into existence 13.74 billion years ago.

So,we live in the reality of a 6000 year old universe, but a virtual reality of a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. It is as if this is a simulation, an extremely good simulation, of an old universe.

In this thought experiment you can see why scientists fall for believing we are in an old universe. It really looks old. You can also see why many Christians, like me, also fall for thinking the universe is old -- it really looks old. The only ones who aren't fooled are the ones who read Genesis literally, taking the days as six, 24-hour sequential days. But those other Christians, like me, see that the evidence for the old universe is analogous to once held view of the earth centered universe -- that even my heroes Martin Luther and John Calvin mistakenly believed in. They, after all, simply took the Bible literally when it said that God made the sun stand still (implying it when around the earth) and that the earth is unmoved (implying the earth stands still and everything moves around the earth). Since theologians and the church did this once before without ill effects, shouldn't it be done again because of the strong evidence? -- or so would Christians like me think.

Some questions assuming these premises:

1. Suppose the study of the solar system as if it were billions of years old showed a pattern that it appears that every 10,000 years comets would bombard earth from a certain direction, and the last bombardment appears to be 10,000 years ago. Should we ignore this study because nothing existed prior to 6,000 years ago?

2. Given that reality is the universe is only 6,000 years old, even though the overwhelming evidence is that it looks like its billions of year old, why should we give up the earth centered universe since the language of the Bible seems to imply the earth is at the center it while the scientific evidence points the other way?

Thought Experiment 1

Imagine, for a moment, that the earth is actually at the center of the universe. The sun, the planets, and the stars revolve actually around the earth. Newton's laws, modified by Einstein's General Relativity, computationally compute orbits around the sun. They are very useful in providing simple, accurate approximations for all the spacecraft we send to other planets. But in reality, the sun, Mars, and everything else revolves around the earth.

Now consider that it is actually possible to develop a version of Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's General Relativity that would actually describe accurately the motions of spacecraft going to Mars where everything revolves around the earth. It would be much more complicated than the orbital dynamics equations that are currently used, but it would just as accurately give the results needed to send spacecraft to Mars.

So, here is the reality in our thought experiment, everything revolves around the earth. When planets go through complicated retrograde motion, where they appear to go backwards in the sky -- they actually are, instead of the earth's orbit around the sun passing the more distant planet in the same orbital segment.

So, in our thought experiment, the earth is the center of the universe. It only appears that the earth is orbiting around the sun with the rest of the planets of our solar system. In fact, the appearance of the sun being at the center of the solar system is so striking that there is no way to tell, experimentally and mathematically, that the sun is not at the center of the solar system.

Now suppose that much of the world is deluded into believing the sun is the center of the solar system, even though the earth is actually at the center. In fact, many scientists are also deluded in believing the sun is the center of the solar system.

Here are some questions based on the thought experiment where the earth is actually at the center of the universe.

Questions:

1. Is there any scientific validity to discuss the solar system as if the sun is at the center of the solar system, even if earth is really at the center?

2. Is it okay to use the mathematics of a sun centered solar system to calculate spaceship paths, because it is simpler to do, rather than using the much more complicated (but physically correct and real) earth centered orbital dynamics?

3. How much effort should be given to correct the delusions of others who believe the sun is the center of the solar system rather than the earth?

Starting Points

This continues a series of posts on the idea of the old universe. I want to thank Jared for his good comments and critique on my previous post for it is providing a springboard for this series of articles.

The previous article stated some of my views of why I view the universe to be old, on the order of billions of year old, even though I am a Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible. This is in contrast to many other Christians, and what was the majority view in the history of the Christian church for 2000 years that viewed the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I know that many in the Christian community view that those who hold to an old universe/old earth position start with the speculations of the dominant view of science and twists the Bible to fit with those speculations.

Before I continue, first I will say that I have the greatest respect for Christians who believe that the universe and earth were created in the span of six twenty-four hour days. I have some reservations in discussing this. First, I believe that overall those who believe in the young universe, along with the understanding that the Triune God is actively involved in history drawing his specially called people to himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity (this activity of God through Jesus is commonly referred to as the gospel) -- have a more accurate view of the important features of the universe (even though in my opinion they get the young universe part of it wrong), than those who correctly see the age of the universe but do not believe that God is at work through Jesus. Secondly, if those who hold to a young universe were persuaded to abandon that view and this were to weaken their faith in the gospel -- I would rather they not be persuaded to an old universe/old earth view at all. The gospel is the core of everything, everything else pales to it. Thirdly, I think there are more important discussions inside and outside the Christian community than the age of the universe. The gospel itself, the work of God in history through Jesus Christ, and its ramifications, are far more important than debating the age of the universe.

So why engage in this discussion at all? Here are a few thoughts:

1. God, first and foremost, has disclosed who he is and who we are through the Bible. In theological terms, this is referred to as special revelation. Special revelation gives the most detailed and comprehensive understanding of God, his activity, who we are, and how God, humanity, and all of the universe interact with God. God also discloses information about himself and his creation through the world and universe around us. Theologically this is referred to as general revelation. It's called general revelation because this is information open to all people, regardless of whether they have been exposed or not to the special revelation contained in the Bible. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood and interpreted, give an accurate picture of reality, of truth, of the way the universe is, who God is, and the relation of everything to God. Both forms of revelation, when properly understood, do not contradict each other. Rather,they complement each other in understanding the truth.

2. Special revelation, the Bible, is to be given the priority over everything else, including general revelation. However, special revelation is not given in a vacuum. Foundational is the work of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in convicting and convincing people of the truth contained in the special revelation. General revelation provides insights into understanding special revelation.

Consider the following passage written by King David thousands of years ago:

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
(Psalm 19:1, ESV)

King David knew that the heavens were immense. He knew whenever anyone looked at the heavens above they saw it declared the glory of God. The sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, especially in the dark skies of that time, would take their breath away.

The English Standard Version (ESV) quoted above hides some interesting features of the passage. The King James Version (KJV) says:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psalm 91:1, KJV)

In particular, notice the word firmament used in the KJV instead of sky in the ESV.

The word for sky or firmament comes from the Hebrew vault of heaven. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse. (The Jewish Encyclopedia)

One way of reading the descriptions of the sky and the heavens in the Old Testament is that the sky consists of a sold arched vault. For us Christians this doesn't even enter our minds as a possibility in large part because we've grown up in a global culture where advances in science, and in particular, astronomy, aeronautics and space endeavors, have demonstrated that the sky is not a solid vault. Our collective understanding of what the Bible is saying about the sky changes accordingly. Whether or not King David, or Moses for that matter, had the opinion that the sky consisted of a solid vault is immaterial to us. In turn this gives an even greater appreciation of how that heavens declare the glory of God. The sheer size of the heavens is almost infinitely greater than the early Hebrews and possibly David and Moses and the impact of Psalm 19 is greater as a result. What we correctly observe in general revelation corrects some of our misunderstandings about special revelation. There are numerous areas where general revelation provides feedback to special revelation.

It is not a one way street where general revelation clarifies special revelation. For example, special revelation in the Bible unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all of creation is moving according to God's eternal plan towards a climax. Any interpretations of general revelation which say that the universe and all the is contained in it are brought about by impersonal, undirected events, is rejected by special revelation. There is a feedback cycle between special and general revelation, with the clear principles of special revelation taking the priority over the interpretation process. Nevertheless, general revelation does provide feedback. When general revelation is interpreted correctly, the feedback corrects our misunderstandings of special revelation that we may have when reading our Bibles.

3. Suppose for a moment, that the universe and the earth is truly old, on the order of billions of years old. Then those who correctly surmise that the universe is old through general revelation can have an unneeded intellectual impediment for embracing the Christian Faith and the gospel when they are informed that the correct Biblical view is that the earth and universe is no more than thousands of years old.

This is not an argument that the universe is billions of years old. Neither am I denying the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to himself even with intellectual impediments. What I am arguing for is being careful not to introduce impediments to the gospel. I recognize I could be wrong that the universe is old and so that a young universe viewpoint would not a true impediment to the gospel. But are we absolutely sure that the old universe is wrong? Is there room for error, and if there is, can we be so certain in the young universe that is becomes part of the package of the gospel we present to others outside the Christian faith?

4. That the universe has a beginning in the Big Bang theories can be used to point to God. There are non-Christians who are convinced that the universe and earth are old and who are curious about Christianity. While many Christians may disagree with the Big Bang Theory (the theory that the universe came into existence in an instant some 13 to 14 billion years ago and started expanding from a small region), the theory itself does point to the universe having a beginning. Since the universe has a beginning, it is reasonable to conclude there was a "Big Bang Beginner". While that does not necessarily imply the Christian God, it certainly opens the door for the possibility. Some Christian philosophers, such as William Lane Craig, follow the example of the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill in the book of Acts in the New Testament. This is where Paul noted the objects of worship of the people of Athens. Paul saw an alter to "the unknown god" and and took that inscription to introduce to them the God of the universe. This is taking a concept from our culture and pointing to God. Dr. Craig has refined a version of the cosmological argument and presents this to university campuses around the world.

5. There are Christians who see that the universe is old and struggle with their faith thinking that holding to a young universe is required in the Christian faith. These believers need to know that belief in a young universe is not required for faith in Christ and walking in the Christian life. Just as I do not want to wound those who believe in a young universe/young earth, who would have their faith hindered in adopting an old universe viewpoint -- I do not want to see those believers who are intellectually convinced that the universe is old be forced into holding a young creation view that makes them feel that Christianity is intellectually compromised.

5. Finally, there are examples of well known and respected theologically conservative Christian theologians who hold to the possibility of an old universe and earth. Examples of other Christians who hold to at least the possibility of an old universe include:

• Charles Hodge (see The Protestant Rule Of Faith, Part 2 under the section labeled Objections, number 4).
• B.B. Warfield (B.B. Warfield, Wikipedia),
• C.S. Lewis (C. S. Lewis, Wikipedia),
• Alvin Plantinga (Alvin Plantinga, Wikipedia),
• William Lane Craig (William Lane Craig's website),
• Nancy Pearcey (Pearcey's review of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box),
• Hank Hanegraaff (See the Christian Research Institute's statement on the topic.)
• Tim Keller (Tim Keller at www.monergism.com),
• Francis Schaeffer (Wesite dedicated to the works of Schaeffer )

So, am I starting with some popular speculations of science and then warping the Bible around those views? Perhaps it depends on who you are asking. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis would say I am. Astrophysicists Max Tegmark of MIT and Sean Carroll of Cal Tech would say I'm not, that instead I start with a faith position from the Bible and bend science around that.

I would say I fit more in the thinking of Charles Hodge, Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller and others on the list I mentioned who allow for an old universe. These people do not start with science and then bend the Bible to their view. Rather these people are taking the Bible as their foundation and recognizing that the facts from general revelation will not contradict what the Bible genuinely teaches. These people will carefully weigh the various theories being proffered in the scientific community, and those, in their opinion, that have strong evidence, they will use to correct possible misinterpretations they have about the Bible. Again, most every Christian engages in this activity, often without realizing it, including Ken Ham. For instance Mr. Ham does not believe the the sun revolves around the earth whenever he reads about a sunrise or sunset in the Bible. What he has done is find compelling from the scientific community that feeds back to interpreting the Bible. Specifically, Mr. Ham finds that evidence for a spherical type of earth, rotating and orbiting the sun to be very compelling, which in turn he uses to guide his interpretation of the Bible. Various theories and evidence from the scientific community is not equally compelling to all Christians. Many Christians do not find the spectrum redshift of stars and galaxies, along with the cosmic background radiation and other evidences for the Big Bang billions of years ago, to be very compelling. For those who don't find it compelling, don't budge from a young earth perspective. But for those who do find it compelling, it is worthwhile to explore the ramifications. For both camps, we need to exercise patience with each other.

There are theological questions about an old universe. This will be covered in upcoming posts.