Review of 'Seven days that divide the world'

We dare not make scripture subservient to science;
A (continuing) review of 'Seven Days that Divide the World' by John Lennox. I normally wouldn't read a defense of 'old earth' creation, but since I have respect and affection for Lennox I felt obligated to read it.

Quotes and comments;

Ch. 1. But does it move? a lesson from history

p. 15 '...what are we to think of astronomer N. Copernicus's suggestion that the earth moves when scripture seems to teach that the earth is immovably fixed in space?'

- Does scripture seem to 'teach' that the earth is fixed? I don't agree that it does; and reject the idea it 'teaches' this. (There's a difference between stating something in passing... e.g. in a psalm and teaching it as a fact... in a non-poetical setting.) Young earth creationists [YECS] point to verses that suggest the opposite. (e.g. "the earth hangeth upon nothing")

p. 15. He tells us that Aristotle taught a geocentric universe, but then he strangely references this claim by pointing to Job 38. This doesn't make sense to me.
Job 38:4. ''Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?''

- To refer to the earth's foundation doesn't make a claim about geocentricity or to the fact the earth is fixed (i.e. doesn't move) We might ask 'fixed on what?' The very idea makes no sense to me; as it would require the earth to be infinitely deep... to have no bottom. I'm not aware that anyone thought this. Many of the ancients believed the earth was circular in shape (i.e. shaped as a ball.)

p. 16. He points to psalm 93:1. ''Yes, the world is established, it shall never be moved.'' (apparently as evidence the bible makes false claims.)

What was the psalmist referring to however?
Let's quote the full verse... as only quoting a part of a verse can be confusing.
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.''

The psalmist is not making a scientific comment but referring to god's control of the universe he made, to his providential government.

'The thought seems abrupt here. It would appear as if the psalmist had been meditating on the dark things which occur in the world; the mysteries which abound; the things which seem irreconcilable with the idea that there is a just government over the world, and that suddenly the idea occurs, as a flash of lightning in a storm, that Yahweh reigns over all, and that all must be right. Amidst all these things God sits upon the throne; he orders all events; he sways his scepter over all; he orders all things according to his own will; he secures the accomplishment of his own purposes. - Barnes [2.]

- 'The Lord reigneth - He continues to govern every thing he has created; and he is every way qualified to govern all things, for he is clothed with majesty and with strength - dominion is his, and he has supreme power to exercise it; and he has so established the world that nothing can be driven out of order; all is ruled by him. Nature is his agent: or rather, nature is the sum of the laws of his government; the operations carried on by the Divine energy, and the effects resulting from those operations. - Clarke

- 'The Lord reigneth," or Jehovah reigns. Whatever opposition may arise, his throne is unmoved; he has reigned, does reign, and will reign for ever and ever. Whatever turmoil and rebellion there may be beneath the clouds, the eternal King sits above all in supreme serenity; and everywhere he is really Master, let his foes rage as they may. - Spurgeon

Lennox just ignores orthodox commentary on this verse, and distorts the plain meaning by claiming the author is 'teaching us' the earth is fixed in space. This is not even remotely close to what the author is saying!

p. 17. He quotes 1 Sam. 2:8
''for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."

- Again this is only part of the verse; the full verse reads;
''He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

- The author is not talking about geology or astronomy as surely everyone can see; he is talking about god's providential government of all things. He's talking about people not about planets.
e.g. ''1 Kings 16:2 "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins.

The 'pillars' of the earth is not meant to be taken literally. (This of course is what the 'higher' critics of the bible claim... in their attempt to defame the bible.) If the earth was founded on pillars where were they? and what were they set upon, and what was that set upon. The whole image is little more than comical. (e.g. it's turtles all the way down)

What were pillars? they were gates of the city perhaps, they were the columns of royal palace perhaps. i.e. they were signs of power and authority. (The word pillars seem to come from something poured out. e.g. cement or molten metal in the manufacture of some item. We might speculate that the ancients knew of the molten source for much rock.... no doubt some had seen lava turn to rock.)

- 'The princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zechariah 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God.' - Gill

p. 16. He quotes psalm 104:5
''He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.''

Moved is not the best translation in my opinion; e.g. 'So that it shall not totter [NASB]
a. to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall -- be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.

- I agree with the tone of the KJV that reads ''Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
i.e. the idea isn't what was done but who did it.

If we include the surrounding verses we see clearly that the psalmist is using poetic language; that he's employing figurate metaphor. e.g. v.3. ''and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.''

The psalmist isn't teaching students about geology or astronomy but declaring to them the greatness of the creator God. It's plain distortion to claim this is teaching people about geology... this isn't remotely the point. He's using figurative language to do his best to express the awesome power of God.

'This image Bishop Lowth thinks evidently taken from the tabernacle, which was so laid upon its foundations that nothing could move it, and the dispensation to which it was attached, till the end purposed by the secret counsel of God was accomplished: and thus the earth is established, till the end of its creation shall be fully answered; and then it and its works shall be burnt up. On the above ground, the stability of the sanctuary and the stability of the earth are sometimes mentioned in the same words. - Clarke

'Who laid the foundations of the earth,.... Or "founded the earth upon its bases" (l); which some take to be the waters, according to Psalm 24:2 - Gill
i.e. 1. ''The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
2. for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.
- this being a reference to Genesis 1.

Zecharia 10:4
''From Judah will come the cornerstone,
from him the tent peg,

- The biblical authors were far (far) more interested in the One who made the earth than in the earth itself. Humanism is basically preferring the creature to the creator, and scientism is the sad result.

'That it should not be removed for ever: for though it may be shaken by earthquakes, yet not removed; nor will it be until the dissolution of all things, when it shall flee away before the face of the Judge, and a new earth shall succeed, Revelation 20:11. - Gill

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
'In a second decastich the poet speaks of the restraining of the lower waters and the establishing of the land standing out of the water. The suffix, referring back to ארץ, is intended to say that the earth hanging free in space (Job 26:7) has its internal supports.

p. 16. He quotes 1 Chron 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.''

- The author is making a contrast between men who will be shaken and moved (e.g. into apostasy) and God who will not be 'moved.' i.e. who will not become unjust or unrighteous or unholy. i.e. man changes but god changes not; this is the picture being drawn. There is no attempt to teach science here; the author isn't speaking about planetary geology but about God.

'Young's Literal Translation
''Be pained before Him, all the earth:

- We note that the word translated by some as 'moved' has the meaning of; to totter, shake, slip. There is no reference to not moving (travelling) through space.

If we go on to verse 31 we read; ''Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
The author is celebrating God's power and holiness not giving a lesson in cosmology. It is illegitimate to claim these verse are teaching that the earth is immovable or that it doesn't hang in space.

Job 26:7
''He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.''
Why doesn't Lennox quote this verse for us?

'Over the empty place - על־תהוּ ‛al-tôhû, "Upon emptiness, or nothing." That is, without anything to support it. The word used here (תהוּ tôhû) is one of those employed Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was wlthout form and void." But it seems here to mean emptiness, nothing. - Barnes

p. 17. '...the bible seemed equally clearly to say that the sun moved. [reference Eccl 1:5]

- Lennox is surely aware that the bible is written in phenomenological language. It was written to be spoken to the people, and so written in a phenomenological manner. (These arguements of his are as old as the hills... there's nothing modern about them.) They've all been dealt with numerous times; though he makes no mention of this.

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.''

- Solomon is speaking in these early verses about vanity, about the monotonous 'circularity' of life, the regularities of things. i.e. the fact things never change. e.g. the rain cycle, etc. The language is clearly meant to be figurative. Does anyone imagine S. really thought of the sun as a runner, panting and gasping as he makes his way to the finish line? Does anyone think he thought of the sun as a person? He's not talking about planetary bodies, but about human beings who seemingly labor in vain.

Young's literal translation;
"Also, the sun hath risen, and the sun hath gone in, and unto its place panting it is rising there.
- does anyone imagine S. thought the sun was panting?

p. 17. He tells us Martin Luther dismissed heliocentrism as false; but what does this tell us? Theologians are often wrong about things but this doesn't tell us anything about what the bible teaches.

He quotes ML as saying the bible tells us Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. (I confess I don't know what that incident involved; but suspect it's another case of figurative language... or perhaps phenomenological language.)

p. 18. 'Jean Calvin on the other hand clearly believed the earth was fixed.

- This is understandable as that's the way it looks; but no one is infallible, not even the best theologian the church has ever had. We need to stress here that Calvin acquired this opinion not from his study of scripture but from his 'naive' experience of the world.

p. 18. He refers to the 'Galileo incident' as an iconic example of the conflict between religion and science.

- I don't like his continued use of religion when he's talking about Christianity. i.e. there is no such thing as generic religion or generic science. e.g. if you mean C. say C. and if you mean materialist science say so... don't just say science. There is no such thing as generic science, as all 'scientific' models are built upon philosophical foundations. i.e. basic unproven, and unprovable assumptions. There is no such thing as science without presuppositional beliefs. All science is done in terms of a worldview.

p 19. 'But now we need to face an important question; why do Christians accept this new interpretation, and not still insist on a 'literal' understanding of the ''pillars of the earth?'' Is it really because we have made scripture subservient to science?'

- This is the main (if not only) point of the chapter. Lennox is responding to the charge that old earth creationists like himself have made 'science' the ultimate authority in the world and have replaced the bible with the textbook. I find the chapter unconvincing. There's nothing original in it, and he ignores ye creationists and their responses to all these old charges.

This is a poor argument. He says why don't Christians still insist on a literal understanding of the pillars of the earth. I've pointed out (at length) that this was figurative language; it was never meant to be taken 'literally' by its author/s. It's absurd to say we should insist on a literal interpretation of a figurative statement! That makes no sense to me John.
This example means nothing, and demonstrates nothing. He's given us a misinterpretation of the text and then set it up as a straw man to knock down.

Summary;
- In chapter 1. Lennox is unconvincing in his attempt to persuade us we should abandon the bible as a source of truth about the universe we live in and about our history on the earth.

- Mike Johnson [frfarer@gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Seven days that divide the world - John Lennox
2. Commentary quote come from bible.cc
3. - Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat?
- an article discussing figurative language in the bible, and pertinent to this review. e.g.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
'In both cases we are dealing with a situation that is charged with poetic indications (pillars that can be "astonished"?) and we are obliged not to read things too literally.
4. Basic Literary Forms I
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basic-literary-forms-i/
- 'Phenomenological Language. Much of the Bible comes to us with language that describes the way things appear to the naked eye. The language used is descriptive of the ways things look from our perspective and is not necessarily asserting precise scientific fact. An example of this is the description of the sun rising. Unless we understand the use of phenomenological language, we might think that the Bible teaches that the earth is at the center of the universe. When we realize that the Bible describes things according to appearance, we see that the Bible is not really saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Rather, it is merely saying that the sun rises because, to our naked eye, it looks like the sun moves and the earth does not. This use of language is still current. The meterologist gives us the time of sunrise, but nobody assumes he is teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. - Ligonier ministries
5. It's revealing that he must go back 400 years for his example instead of engaging with modern day creationists.
- As far as I can see he only makes reference to YEC once; and that's a short book that presents 3 different creationist models, one of which is YE. i.e. 'The Genesis Debate; three views on the days of creation' Neither J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall who defend the YE view is a scientist. Lennox just ignores all the PHDs who accept a YE model. (He also mentions an essay written by two YECs; Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds. Of the two only Nelson could be called a scientist.)
- Lennox seems to quote (and reference) himself more than anyone else. Is he unaware of the hundreds of books published by YE creationists? He mainly appears to be shadow boxing with himself.
6. For those people who think a YE position can't be rationally defended they might want to reference an article called 'Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- the article makes brief points and then provides a link to one or more articles that defend that particular reason in detail. I've gone through the whole list (including reading all the articles linked to) and I find the case for a YE convincing. (I don't think you can prove a young earth, but you can give a good case why it could be true, or even is likely to be true. I don't believe you can prove an old earth either, but I imagine Lennox would disagree.)
- As far as I can see Lennox never tells us what research he did in preparation for the book, but I see little evidence he did much. (In his defense he's not much interested in speaking to YE creationists but is directing his arguments to people who find a YE position absurd. On p.12 he talks about a woman who thought the Genesis account of creation was a 'very silly story'.) I personally haven't seen much (if any) evidence people reject Christianity because of Genesis 1. (This isn't the Bible's account of things, as it claims men reject God because of natural depravity and rebellion.)