Peace On That

This is a guest post written by Malik, author of the blog, The Struggle Within to add his perspective to the Intelligent Disign debate that we are having this week. I am opening the blog up to other guest posters so if you are interested in posting on any subject of your choosing, email me at: jamesmanning1969@yahoo.com.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my perspective. I’ll start by emphasizing that the bible, although literally true, is not a linear account of physical events. It uses symbol and metaphor to describe both physical and spiritual realities, and the usages of words that describe time, such as days, weeks and years, are not always customary usages.

First let’s look at the varying ways in which the bible uses calendar time. An excellent example is the prophecy of Daniel concerning the appearance of Jesus. These are the verses in question:

Dan. 9:24 Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning 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.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

Dan 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

Daniel says that the time between the restoration of Jerusalem and the appearance of an anointed one is seventy weeks, and then he says it’s seven weeks and sixty two weeks. Which is it? Let’s first consider an interpretation of the seventy weeks.

“These seventy weeks begin with the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, concerning which four edicts were issued by three kings. The first was issued by Cyrus in the year 536 B.C.; this is recorded in the first chapter of the Book of Ezra. The second edict, with reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, is that of Darius of Persia in the year 519 B.C.; this is recorded in the sixth chapter of Ezra. The third is that of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign—that is, in 457 B.C.; this is recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra. The fourth is that of Artaxerxes in the year 444 B.C.; this is recorded in the second chapter of Nehemiah.” –Some Answered Questions

The specific edict that Daniel refers to in verse 9:24 is the third edict issued in 457 B.C by Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign, restoring the temple rites. Seventy weeks equals 490 days (7x70). Each day is a year, for according to the Bible, days also refer to years: “forty days, for every day a year.” (Num 14:34) And also, “And you shall count seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the time of the seven weeks of years shall be to you forty-nine years.” (Lev 25:8) Christ was crucified at 33 years of age. 457 + 33 = 490, the time appointed by Daniel.

However in the next verse he says the appointed time is seven weeks and sixty two weeks, immediately after referring to seventy weeks. How do you reconcile the two seemingly different time periods?

There are two events that Daniel makes reference to. The first is the command to restore the temple rites in Jerusalem by Artaxerxes (Dan 9:24). The second is the completion of the restoration of Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), which was completed over a period of 49 years (from the time the wall of Jerusalem was built to the time the temple and the city was completed – cf. Daniel’s Seventy Weeks by Walter T. Robinson). That is the seven weeks. From that time to the appearance of Christ is 62 weeks. The 69 weeks is 457 years, the time elapsed between the restoration of the temple rites and the birth of Christ.

I only mention all of this in order to emphasize that there are many levels of meaning to the words in the Bible, and any part must be read in the context of the whole in order to derive the full meaning. Taking a specific verse out of context and interpreting it according to present-day usages and concepts, as Creationists do, is a poor and misleading method of reading the bible, and does violence to the intent and spirit of the verses. The fact that the apparent meaning is not always the intended meaning is something that the followers of Jesus have always had trouble wrapping their heads around, as the Gospels illustrate numerous times. “Eat your flesh and drink your blood? John the Baptist is Elias? Born again? What?!”

Now let’s consider what’s actually said in Genesis. First of all, as we’ve already established, there’s no reason why we have to interpret “day” as meaning a 24 hour day. We’ve already seen that days are used as years. There’s no reason to believe that days can’t also refer to epochs.

Now let’s compare the order of events as given in Genesis with modern scientific theories.

Day 1

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The formation of proto-planets from stellar material after the Big Bang is a widely accepted theory. And obviously there is light (Day) and the absence of light (Night) in space. No conflict with day one.

Day 2

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Most scientists believe that the atmosphere and oceans formed as a result of the condensation of the gases surrounding the primordial earth. No conflict with day two.

Day 3

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to modern scientific theory, after the formation of the oceans and atmosphere, algae began to grow on the oceans and converted CO2 into oxygen. Then plants began to grow on land. No conflict with day three.

Day 4

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Now day four may seem to be problematic, if you take it to mean that stars were created after the earth, but if you take it as a description of the sky as viewed from earth, there is no conflict, and in fact it fits quite well with current theories of the formation of the moon. There is no universally accepted theory of moon formation, but the current frontrunner is the “big whack” theory. The idea is, something rammed the planet, and tore off a big chunk of it, which became the moon. Let’s see how that theory might fit with the text of Genesis.

The Big Whack theory speculates that an object colliding with the earth kicked up a massive debris cloud (which would obscure the sky) and eventually the cloud coalesced into the moon (revealing the sun and the stars). Some versions of the theory speculate that there actually two whacks: one that accelerated the angular momentum of the planet (which would change the length of the day) and another that slowed its spin (which would give us the length of our current day). At any rate, after the planet and atmosphere stabilized, life on earth came to be regulated by the rhythms of the sun and the moon, and it is the rhythm of the days and seasons that is emphasized here.

Day 5

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

It is widely accepted that animals appeared after plants. No conflict with day 5.

Day 6

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And finally, it is widely accepted that the human species appeared after the first animals roamed the earth. No conflict with day 6.

With all that said, I don’t believe that there necessarily has to be perfect conformity between modern scientific theory and our understanding of the Bible in order for one or the other to be correct, for our understanding of both science and religion is necessarily limited (i.e. there’s always more to learn). But we need both, in order to fulfill God’s will and purpose. When we exclude the knowledge that comes from reason and experience, we fall into fanaticism and superstition. When we exclude the knowledge that comes from faith and assurance, we fall into selfishness and animalism.

All of this is simply to demonstrate that there does not necessarily have to be a conflict between modern scientific theories and the text of the bible. It is never necessary to abandon faith for reason, or reason for faith. Each reinforces and complements the other. There is only a conflict when we make our own narrow and dogmatic conceptions the final arbiter of truth, and substitute them for the plain and evident testimony of God’s handiwork and His Word, in contravention of both faith and reason.