You Tube link: Click here!
It would certainly not. Except for the concordist
interpretation such as day-age, alternative day-age, Gap theory, or so, the
non-concordist views do not even have a hair breadth effect if the science in
future conclude the earth is younger.
As discussed in earlier videos, the most probable views
could have been cosmic temple, framework and ANE polemic or any kind of
literary genre i.e. the days function as literary art rather than natural
history. They do not bear any tension with scientific discoveries as their
purpose was theological.
The age of earth, whether young or old, depends not only on
evidences but also use of independent different methods and independent
cross-checks followed by careful interpretations. The repetitive checks,
observation, analysis and revision hence puts a final remark on earth's age. To
this day, it seems most probable result is that earth is very old. however,
this doesn't close door to young earth unless the discoveries open another door
for further examination. meanwhile, we do not wait for its result to determine
a proper interpretation of Genesis days. The discoveries are life-time process
and depends on interpretation.
The literary views seem to have most appropriate credibility
as they address the context of the ancient near east and contemporary need of
God's people. They weren't looking for fossils, dinosaurs, carbon dating, moon
dust layer, short comets, earth's magnetic field or whatsoever. They had in
their mind who was True God and they were concerned about their survival in
theological context. God was thus showing how he is sovereign ruler of the
cosmos, lord of the Sun, Moon and Stars, the provider of food chain, the one
who established time, the one who created humanity in special way and rested to
take up throne in a cosmic temple. This was indeed attack over the prevailing
ancient near Eastern cultures. God YHWH was indeed showing his people that he
is the one who is Lord over the cosmos. everything is in control of his
sovereign rule. This is most likely view the ancient had in their mind.
The days could serve as literary works as the purpose was to
enable people to imitate God i.e. working 6 days followed by a day rest. Hence,
a typical human work week language was used even in Genesis 1. This doesn't
necessarily follow the 6 days were literal days of natural history.
Hence, the proof of a young earth bears no problem for
interpretation of Genesis unless one holds concordist ways of reconciliation.
Bear in mind, God wasn't taking science class to his people.
***
.png)
.png)
.png)
0 Comments