and now for something completely different....

i normally shy away from blatantly theological public debate, but the posts of my friends jon and brandon have blazed the way for me to enter into it.

the debate at hand is the amount of time that elapsed as God created the world/universe/existence/everything that exists in the physical plane/anything other than himself maybe. as a whole, i do not care for this debate. i find it to be hair-splitting and unnecessary, a la micah's comments on jon and brandon's blog entries. however, i will throw in my two cents.

i do not believe in the 6 literal day creation. i also do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible. there are my presuppositions, for all the world to see. i had Martin, too, as you might remember. additionally, i believe (or don't believe) in these things for a myriad of reasons.

first, i believe that there is enough emprical evidence to show that neither the world nor the universe is only 6000 years old. i believe C14 carbon testing results are sufficient enough to establish that point as fact (though these are being disputed. arrgh, nothing is easy). also, consider astronomy, and how many thousands of years it takes for light to reach our planet alone? there is a scientific rationale. second, there are linguistics. i have not personally studied hebrew, though i am certain i would profit and enjoy the study of that language. however, what i have been taught time and again regarding is the translation of the word 'day' in Genesis can be translated to mean 'age' or something broader.

however, i would like to argue another point, another possiblity, as equally plausible as any other. what if at the "time" of the creation, "time" didn't exist? i have heard it explained by Christians that God exists outside of time. if, from an Aristotelian and philosophical point of view, God is the "unmovable mover" who began all things, then time may not have existed. this is of course to assume from the beginning that the language "on the first day" and so on, is not literal. anways, this is just my crazy-idea-tangent.

which reveals the reason why i do not like this argument. the reason why there is such an embittered--albeit largely friendly--struggle about this debate, i don't really think the idea of literal/metaphorical about creation is what is really at stake. to the largely unconcerned layman outside of the scientific community, nothing is really at stake other than what is taught in a science unit at public schools. i have no issue w/ intelligent design being taught at public schools, just as i have no issue w/ evolution being taught. if parents have a concern about what their children are being taught, then they should take a proactive interest in what they are taught at home. public and private dialogues are necessary.

at the heart of this debate is a misplaced, though well-intentioned, concern regarding the interpretation of Scripture, and the hermeneutical elements that are to be discerned from it. i found both arguments fraught with irrelevancies and gaps in logic. to argue that simply because an idea or practice has been around longer, as brandon has, does not validate the idea or practice. some ideas are tried and true, i.e., exchanging money for goods and services. i personally do not want to be a serf, despite the job security. (that example in and of itself is a "new idea" in comparison to fiefdom; is fiefdom therefore the better idea as it has more historical precdence? a host of other examples can be thought of.) the study of science was long-stunted by the Catholic church's unquestioning reliance on Aristotle's scientific writings, as was the interpretation of the Bible. Wycliffe and Luther, whom I studied intensively in college and wrote my senior thesis on (Luther, that is), were the first to openly question the Church's right to interpret the Bible. even that idea is only 7 centuries old (Wycliffe: 14th century). the list goes on.

additionally, i believe that it may be possible that the figure of Christ could still be historically known without the records of the Bible. Jesus is mentioned in several texts of the 1st century, and it has been argued that he is one of the more verifiable figures in the 1st century figures.

alas, i cannot respond to each assertion in all my friends' blogs. i will conclude by saying that i do not believe that any matter of orthodoxy is at stake whether or not God created the world in 6 days or 6 billion years, or in 6 seconds, or whatever. personally, i have studied the texts of the New Testament and learned that some the Pauline epistles may have been written psuedonymously, or by an amenuensis (big word for secretary). i have learned that there are multiple definitions for single words and different people read the same words in different ways. i still have faith in God and Christ, though it has been shaken considerably.

i think learning learning the tiniest bit about Kant's ideas changed the way i reason. Kant states that we can see and perceive "the thing," but we cannot know "the thing itself." that means we cannot know anything outside ourselves with any certainty. but that is no way to live. as such, we have faith in nearly everything. ultimately i agree with brandon's statement that belief in either a 6 day literal creation or some metaphorical understanding of creation is a matter of faith and reasoning, but still finally coming down to faith.

to me it seems that this argument limits God. i do not feel comfortable saying that God definitely did it this way or that and no other way is possible. others might, but i don't.

this entry was everything i wanted it to be and everything i didn't want it to be. unfocused and all over the place, but touching on the things i wanted it to touch on i think.

anyways, these thoughts are largely unedited. think what you want of this debate and my argument. just try not to limit God.