Posted on 11/18/2005 6:02:24 AM PST by truthfinder9
by Mark Whorton, Ph.D. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2005. 256 pages. Paperback.
Reviewed by Krista Bontrager, MA., M.A.
NASA scientist, Mark Whorton, shrinks the divide separating young-earth creationists from old-earth creationists down to two words. Everything hinges on the question, what did God mean when He called the creation "very good"?
The real strength of Peril in Paradise is that Whorton approaches a classic debate from a different angle. Genesis 1 is nowhere in view. Rather, Whorton asserts that the discussion about the age of Earth is intertwined with a debate about the similarities and differences between Eden and the new heavens and Earth.
Whorton identifies two vastly different paradigms for understanding creation-the perfect paradise paradigm (used by young-earth creationists) and the perfect purpose paradigm (used by old-earth creationists). Advocates of the perfect paradise model believe God's pronouncement that the pre-fall creation was "very good" indicated that Eden was the best of all possible worlds. It was absolute perfection, a kind of "heaven on Earth." And although humans have ruined this paradise through sin, God will restore the earth to its Edenic state.
The perfect purpose paradigm, by contrast, asserts that the chief purpose of creation is to glorify God, who causes even wicked beings to testify to His glory. This universe is but one part of God's overall plan of creation and redemption.
Beckoning from the background, however, is the realization that what Whorton is really arguing concerns the nature of God's sovereignty over creation. Did He have to implement Plan B-the cross-after creation was spoiled by Adam's sin? Or, was it all part of His master plan?
Whorton tackles this theological powder keg with a surprising depth of knowledge of Scripture and the history of theology, despite the fact that these disciplines rest outside the realm of his formal education. He places himself squarely within classical Protestant theology, quoting from John Calvin and the Westminster Confession, in order to build his case.
But Peril in Paradise is far from a rehash of time-worn arguments. Whorton tills new ground in the age of the earth debate by helping readers to reflect more deeply about what the Bible means when it describes Eden. And the book's release is timely, given the increasing charges of heresy coming out of certain creationist organizations, including the young-earth concern that animal death before Adam's fall undermines the atonement of Christ. They reason that human sin introduced death to God's creation, necessitating the Savior's redemptive work. Therefore, predation (death and bloodshed of animals) could not have been part of a "very good" creation prior to human sin. Whorton demonstrates why such thinking is biblically unfounded.
Whorton's case could have been made even more powerful with better organization of his material. At times it is hard to track how the points of each chapter fit together to form a cohesive whole. I found myself on more than one occasion flipping back to re-read the chapter title, asking, what is he arguing here again?
And there isn't a lot of literary drama to keep the reader motivated to turn the page. It lacks a certain, so what? or what difference does all this make? factor. Peril in Paradise is a straightforward information-driven approach that will largely appeal to those Christians already interested in the topic.
That's the major limitation of Whorton's book. It's not written at a popular level, but it's not exactly an academic treatment of the topic either. It seems to be a book in search of an audience. Whorton could have infused the book with more popular appeal, which I think is the readership he hopes to reach.
For this reason I would not be inclined to pass this book on to a young-earth friend, unless he or she was already well versed on the controversy. It might, however, be a good resource to provide a pastor or church leader, especially one who has expressed concern about the death-before-the-Fall issue.
But most importantly, Peril in Paradise will equip the old-earth creationist with powerful biblical and theological reasons for why animal death before Adam need not be a point of confusion or embarrassment, but rather an integral part of God's eternal plan.
You obviously missed my simple point: The bible uses patterns that aren't day-to-day realities. Youreinterpretation is by no means "clear" unless you presuppose a priori that young-earthism is correct. Sorry, rationalizing the Bible to preconceived beliefs doesn't work.
**
Exodus 20:11 is often held up as undeniable proof of 24-hour creation days. If that is true, what of Leviticus 25:1-4, which uses the creation week pattern in terms of years? Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference. Another type of pattern is the eight day “Feast of the Tabernacles” in Leviticus 23:33-36. It celebrated God’s protection in the desert that lasted forty years - obviously eight days is not a one-to-one correlation with forty years. Also consider that Moses authored both of these passages.
P.S. Who said the years were vague or in question? The verse assigns 8 days to a 40 year period, yet you turn around and claim a 7 day week can't be applied to a long age? You can't have it both ways.
Regarding Leviticus and the Sabbath year, you do not read, "...for the Lord created the earth in six years and on the seventh year He rested."
You are willfully misinterpreting it to fit your theory.
You didn't answer my questions. How long do you figure it will take God to make a new heaven and a new earth, as foretold in Scripture that He will do? What about all the other miracles of the Bible? How long did those take?
Because there is a whole lot more to the Creation story, Genesis 1-3, than the literal text.
Chapter 1 is the six states of man's regeneration and the rise of the Church of Adam. Chapter 2 describes the Church of Adam and the nature of Celestial people that comprised it. Chapter 3 describes further generations of that Church and it's eventual fall before the flood.
If you want to quibble that it's more important that a day is a day and ignore the meaning of the story, that's okay. That part of the Word (up to Genesis 11) was written in a quasi-historical style... like a myth.
"Chapter 1 is the six states of man's regeneration and the rise of the Church of Adam... "
Whoa friend! Where in the world are you getting all that from??? It is certainly not in the text! Seriously, what sort of theological viewpoint are you coming from.
"If you want to quibble that it's more important that a day is a day and ignore the meaning of the story, that's okay."
The importance of the story - it's meaning and significance - is intimately bound to the HISTORICAL nature of the material.
" That part of the Word (up to Genesis 11) was written in a quasi-historical style... like a myth."
On what do you base that opinion? Have you read it elswhere or do you read Hebrew?
No it doesn't: The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day. Like all young-earth talking points, the "evening and morning" claim fails in about 10 seconds of careful examination.
Boy, are you dense. I didn't say the years are vague. What don't you get about symbolism and patterns? The bible uses the 7 day pattern as a symbol, not a literal construct. Leviticus 25:1-4 uses the pattern but uses years. It's such a simple example of the use of patterns and symbols in the bible, but you don't get it because someone convinced you young-earthism was true.
As for you other questions, they're irrelevant. Nice try with the red herrings though.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day. Like all young-earth talking points, the "evening and morning" claim fails in about 10 seconds of careful examination.
What does the Bible "really" say? Well, you have the superficial interpretation (young-earthism) which ignores context, language and other basic reading considerations. Young-earthers seem to have thrown-out any basic reading skills in trying to uphold their theory. And the "reinterpret it in order to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities" is a classic YEC talking point, sorry it doesn't fly. Old-earthism has been around for quite awhile, even before Darwinism had its current hold on science and thought (and when cornered, YECs can't seem to prove their "compromise" accusation).
Young-earthism is perhaps the best example of the scandel of the evangelical mind.
[You didn't answer my questions.]
Actually, when I thought about it again, it seems you don't understand the nature of time or God.
From God's perspective, he doesn't take any time at all. Many young-earthers ask "Why would god 'take' millions of years?" By the same token we could then ask, "Why would he 'take' 6 days?"
An old universe and evolution are two different things. The age of the universe actually figures into powerful evidences for design. In any case, a being outside of time wouldn't 'take' any time, it's only from our time-bound perspective that time passes.
"In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refers to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13..."
18:13 "The next day Moses sat down to judge the people, and they stood around Moses from morning until evening."
Yea, Moses stood there for 100 million years!
24:3 "Aaron is to tend it regularly from evening until morning before the Lord outside the veil of the testimony in the tent of meeting."
Oh, it gets better! Aaron is to tend to the lamp for countless eons!!!
8:14 "He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be restored."
This one REALLY undoes you! The writer is refering to a long period - Six years and a hundred ten days - and does so not by some vague reference to "mornings and evenings" but by precisely counting the number of days in the long period.
Thanks for the laugh friend! - I really though you folks might have a point hidden in your argument somewhere. But now I see it's all bluster. Really, don't you have anything better than this??? I'd love to hear it.
You may choose to believe in an old earth if you want to but know this - you have no basis in Scripture for doing so.
"Young-earthism is perhaps the best example of the scandel of the evangelical mind."
Don't like scandals? Their integral to your faith!
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
"Boy, are you dense."
So where in your "old-earth" Bible does it give you permission to be rude to a fellow believer???
Or is all the ethical stuff metaphorical to?
Probably.
He has to stoop to rudeness because his argument is weak. Don't worry about me. I've been online long enough to not take those things personally. But thanks for the support just the same.
No, I wasn't being rude, only making a point that you guys don't even have a basic concept of reading while keeping in mind context, language and point of view. The ultimate sign of an weak argument are those who rationalize the bible to a preconceived belief. Young-earthism fits that bill.
No, I wasn't being rude, only making a point that you guys don't even have a basic concept of reading while keeping in mind context, language and point of view. The ultimate sign of a weak argument are those who rationalize the bible to a preconceived belief. Young-earthism fits that bill.
[The fact that the terms morning and evening are used to describe this word "day" points exclusively to a 24 hour period. ]
In other words, you are going to ignore the examples that prove your "fact" wrong. That's called blind fundamentalism. And, by the way, why is the sabbath day not close out like the rest? Most Bible scholars would say that is a "slam dunk" proof that the days aren't 24 hour days.
[Yea, Moses stood there for 100 million years!]
Your childish responses reveal your intellect on this subject. All of these verses refer to time periods other than 24 hour days. But you can't grasp that because, as a fundamentalist, you already have the answers. And you wonder why I have to be stern with you. It's like talking to a kid.
[This one REALLY undoes you! The writer is refering to a long period ]
Let's see here, you admit that this is an example of "mornings and evenings" meaning long periods, but it undoes me? How does that logic work?
Young-earthism is nothing more than a superficial, non-literal interpretation that is contradictory and ignores context. With logic like yours above, no wonder Darwin Fundies use it to claim Christianity is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.