Ken Smith wrote:

A small contribution to just what evangelical scholars believe the Bible teaches about creation and the flood. People might be interested in a related story about commentaries on Genesis. About six years ago, after I had started working in Chaplaincy Services at the University of Queensland, another group of first-year students complained that evolution was being taught in some of their anatomy classes and “creation”, as they termed it, ignored. They went as far as getting up a petition requesting that “creation” be given some time in the lectures. This request was, of course, denied – and Christian academic staff members were among the first to support the exclusion of creationism, knowing what discredit it would bring on their witness.

Don:

More argumentum ad hominem. Us creationists are the scum of the earth, we are.

K:

This came up at the Senate Chaplaincy Committee, and the chaplains were asked for help about the issue. I wasn’t at the meeting (being only classified as a “Chaplain’s Assistant” I don’t attend committee meetings, for which I’m very thankful). After the meeting one of the Chaplains asked me to go over to Koorong Books and purchase about $50 worth of commentaries on Genesis for the Chaplaincy Services library, which can be used – and borrowed from – by staff and students. I was asked to avoid things written from a creationist point of view, since the University library aready had a number of these. I duly went and cast an eye over the Bible Commentaries section in Koorong. I looked at every commentary on Genesis on the shelves. I wasn’t too surprised to discover that I needn’t have been told to avoid “creationist” commentaries – there weren’t any. At other times I’ve noticed “The Genesis Record” by Henry M. Morris on the shelves, but it wasn’t there at that time. And I’d have avoided that anyway – I read commentaries written by theologians, not ones written by civil engineers. The upshot was that Chaplaincy Services now has three commentaries on Genesis written by evangelical theologians. As well as a few books on science and religion for students to consult. Now for my personal library. I have a number of Bible commentaries on my bookshelves, and have tended to concentrate on commentaries on Genesis. The following lists modern ones – written over the last forty years – by evangelical scholars. It is significant that none of these support six-day creation or a world-wide, in the modern sense of “world-wide”, flood. Some of them even have sections with theological arguments against these two basic tenets of creationism. If anyone is aware of any commentaries, written by evangelical theologians, which support six-day creationism, I would be glad to hear about them – author(s), title, publisher and date would be sufficient to identify them. And only commentaries written over the last 55 years, please. This period covers the elucidation of the structure of DNA in biology, the revolution wrought by plate tectonics in geology, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in cosmology.

D:

Ken, you have often repeated Numbers’ nonsense about the creationist view of Genesis being a modern invention. But now you want to limit the consideration of evangelical commentaries to the last 55 years. The only reason that could explain your stipulation is that you know that commentaries that deny the days of creation and the global flood of Noah are a modern phenomenon. In other words, your reluctance to see what older evangelical commentaries say shows that you know that it is your view that is novel, not ours. AiG’s view is indeed the traditional view of the Christian church since the beginning, as I have shown over and over.

Furthermore, your stipulation reinforces what I have pointed out all along: science is your authority, not the Bible (God’s word). I just don’t understand your incredible inconsistency: you say you believe that Jesus rose bodily from death. But if science is your authority, you should also deny the Resurrection, as virtually all (all?) your Skeptic mates do. And what about Jesus’ miracles? Water can’t change into wine instantaneously, can it? That defies ‘science’. And people born blind don’t see just by rubbing some spit in their eyes. Do you believe that these miracles reported in the Gospels actually happened, Ken? If so, why believe these miracles that fly in the face of experimental / operational science but deny the miracles of creation in Genesis? If modern consensus ‘science’ is your guide to understanding the Bible, I don’t understand why you believe any of it. Please explain.

K:

Atkinson, David: “The Message of Genesis 1–11: The Dawn of Creation”, Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. (The Bible Speaks Today series). Eaton, Michael: “Preaching Through The Bible: Genesis 1-11”, Sovereign World, 1997. (Preaching Through The Bible series). Gowan, Donald E.: “From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1-11”, Eerdmans, 1988. (International Theological Commentary series). Hartley, John E.: “Genesis”, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. (New International Biblical Commentary series). Jensen, Phillip D. and Payne, Tony: “Beyond Eden: Genesis 1-11”, Matthias Media, 1990.

D:

These authors often use the phrase ‘wrestle with the text’ because they are clearly uncomfortable with the clear historical narrative of Genesis that cannot easily be made to fit the modern evolutionary view of the history of the universe. I dare say, though, that this commentary would be far too conservative for Ken’s liking, although the authors do not agree with AiG either.

K:

Johnson, Richard and Tricia: “Discovering Genesis”, Crossway Books, 2001. (Crossway Bible Guides series). Kidner, Derek: “Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary”, Tyndale Press, 1967. (Tyndale Old testament Commentaries series).

D:

I thought this commentary was pathetic even before I became convinced of the creationist view. It is incongruous amongst many good commentaries in the Tyndale series.

K:

Malins, Ian: “In the Beginning: Studies in Genesis”, Christian Books Melanesia Inc., 1985. Ward, Rowland S.: “Foundations in Genesis: Genesis 1-11 Today”, New Melbourne Press, 1998.

D:

Ward’s PhD was in the history of the Presbyterian Church in Australia. See a critique of his errant treatment of the days of creation in ‘The numbering pattern of Genesis’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/numbering.asp) Ward pushes for the framework hypothesis, a popular modern view, which has been critiqued by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., Westminster Theological Seminary/California (http://www.capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm )

K:

Wilkinson, David: “The Message of Creation: Encountering the Lord of the Universe”, Inter-Varsity Press, 2002. (The Bible Speaks Today series).

D:

See ‘Liberalism in evangelical garb’, commenting on this commentary, originally published in The Evangelical Times (U.K.): http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601liberalism.asp

K:

Youngblood, Ronald F.: “The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary”, second edition, Baker Book House, 1991. A greatly expanded revision of his two earlier commentaries “How It All Began: Genesis 1-11” and “Faith of Our Fathers: Genesis 12-50”.

D:

I could add other compromising ‘evangelicals’ to the list of commentaries here. And you could have saved a lot of space by just citing Dr Nigel D. Cameron’s analysis of commentaries published since Darwin, in his book ‘Evolution and the Authority of the Bible’. Well, as I have said before, truth is not decided by a majority vote. Didn’t Jesus say something about a broad way and a narrow way? The Bible is full of accounts of people who went against the flow; they are the heroes of the faith.

But just to balance the scales a little, here is a recent thoroughly creationist commentary, on Genesis 1-2:4 by a systematic theologian: ‘Creation and Change’, Christian Focus publications, 1997. Author Douglas Kelly is Jordan Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theology Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Here is another one, an in-depth treatment of Genesis chapter one: MacArthur, John, ‘The Battle for the Beginning’, W Publishing Group, 2001.

Of course there have been a number of prominent evangelicals of Ken’s time frame that have been very clear about the historicity of Genesis and its incompatibility with evolutionary ideas.

Broughton Knox, former Principal of Moore Theological College, wrote: ‘The theory of evolution has no need of any reference to God or his purposes. It eliminates the supernatural and substitutes the idea that everything has arrived at its present state by accident. It is an incredible theory when you think about it. It is against the evidence….The theory of evolution replaces the God who created the heavens and earth and everything we see around us with the theory that everything has been formed by accident…The great issues of today will turn on the outcome of this battle of ideas.’ -D. Broughton Knox, ‘Not by Bread Alone’, Banner of Truth, 1990, pp. 3, 4.

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones said: ‘Our Christian faith is based entirely upon history….It is quite unique because it is teaching which is based upon history…Our Christian faith is entirely different [to Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.]. It calls attention to facts….the garden of Eden…Do you remember the history of the flood? That is fact. That is history. Then God gave a new start….Tower of Babel…Abraham…the facts about our Lord…’ (What mean these stones? Sermon preached 12 Nov 1977. Evangelical Action 2002(6):17-24).

The real irony is that non-evangelical Hebrew scholars unanimously agree that Genesis is meant to be understood as history. Those who have said this include James Barr, S.R. Driver and Gerhard von Rad. Von Rad, in his monumental ‘Commentary on Genesis’ (1960), writes: ‘Unquestionably the days are to be regarded as literal days of 24 hours’. Of course Barr, Driver and von Rad would explain the Six-Day Creation as a mistaken and primitive idea: I call on them only as acknowledged Hebrew experts to tell us what the original writer really MEANT (that is our topic of discussion, is it not?). Unlike evangelicals, they have no compunction about simply saying that Genesis has no validity whatsoever – they are not out to harmonize it with the conjectures of historical science while at the same time trying to hold on to some sense of biblical authority.

But older commentaries knew nothing of a view other than six ordinary days of creation. Scott’s Commentary (1780) usually mentions varying interpretations where they exist, but he says nothing about any possibility of the ‘days’ being other than 24 hour days. With the rise of long-age geological ideas in the 1800s, Keil and Deilitzsh (1875) indicated that they knew of other views, but emphatically rejected them:

“If the days of creation are regulated by the interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, or of thousands of years, but as simple earthly days”.

As Marcus Dodds commented: ‘If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of scripture is hopeless.’ (Marcus Dods, Principal, New College, Edinburgh, The Book of Genesis, Armstrong, NY, p. 4, 1907).

So why do so many modern ‘evangelicals’ deny the clear teaching of Genesis and so undermine the Gospel at its roots? It’s a question of misplaced authority and misunderstanding the conjectural nature of what they are selling out to (historical ‘science’). Prof. Douglas Kelly discusses the reasons for evangelical compromise at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/kelly.asp

Once again, the question is ‘How are we meant to understand Genesis?’ not ‘How would we like to understand Genesis?’

Blessings,

Don

K:

Salaam Ken Smith Dr Ken Smith – Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, … `It is now clear how large a price had to be paid for a misunderstanding of both science and religion: to base religious beliefs on an estimate of what science cannot do is as foolhardy as it is blasphemous.’ Gerald Holton

D:

Yet more argumentum ad hominem (we are blasphemers?). It is not because of lack of knowledge that we can see that there must be a Creator, but because we do understand that we see that there must be a Creator. More knowledge does not banish our Creator – quite the contrary.