Saturday, April 17, 2010

iMonk Classic: Why the iMonk (and Me Too) are Not Young Earth Creationists

To Be or Not To Be, or Why I’m Not A Young Earth Creationist
This is a republished article. My views are similar as this statement from Michael Spencer:

The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is “literally” a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh’s relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God’s Word.
Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever.
I would love to speak on this issue someday but, as yet, I feel such discussions might cause a distraction. But...who knows maybe sooner as opposed to later, I will write out my understanding of the proper approach to Genesis 1.  

No comments: