Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry

Or, Why Genesis 1 means exactly what it says: Another response to comments by Sandy Grant

In October 2006 I responded to the position held by Sandy Grant as described in his article “Reading Genesis”, published in the October 2006 edition of Matthias Media’s The Briefing. This was followed by another post in August 2007 after Sandy took the opportunity to clarify his position, believing that I had misrepresented him^[1]. I am quite aware that Sandy’s views are popular among Sydney Anglicans and The Briefing is widely promoted amongst Sydney Anglican churches. In fact during discussions I have had with informed Anglicans on this topic since October 2006, Grant’s article is often cited as an argument against a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1.

However while I believe I dealt with Sandy’s position (and objections) fairly in my previous posts, there were some additional points raised by Sandy in August 2007 that I will address now. In doing so I hope to demonstrate that a straight-forward reading of the early chapters of Genesis^[2] is the most sensible and that the kinds of objections that Sandy raises come from an unnecessary compromised theology that cannot be sustained.

Read the rest of this entry