Q&A: Creation of the World — the Torah’s Description According to Its Plain Meaning
Creation of the World — the Torah’s Description According to Its Plain Meaning
Question
As I understand it, God can create a world that, from a research/scientific perspective, appears as though, if it had not been created ex nihilo, it would be millions of years old, or would reflect the development of species and dinosaurs, etc. He created in six days a mature world, and likewise the creation of man — and Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning. I would appreciate your opinion.
Answer
Indeed, He can. He can plant within it fossils and manuscripts and works made by creatures from millions of years ago. The question is whether it is reasonable to think that this is in fact what He did.
By the way, there are other explanations for the gap between scientific dating and the Torah’s dating besides this one. These ideas have been around for a long time. a0
Discussion on Answer
In my humble opinion, it is not possible to understand the “plain meaning of Scripture” either according to the time the Torah was given (about 3,300 years ago) or according to the time the Torah was finalized according to biblical “criticism” (about 2,100 years ago, at the beginning of the Second Temple period).
It fits neither the human knowledge and understanding of then nor the human knowledge and understanding of today.
Therefore, modern Torah commentators who see the Torah as a kind of product of Greek-Roman wisdom with Chaldean-Persian influence worked so hard to fit the musings of the Greeks and Romans into Genesis 1 so that it would suit “the period in which it was composed.”
The first verse is contradicted by the second, and so on. And it is amazing that those who notice contradictions point to a contradiction between Genesis 1 and chapter 2, but do not see the blatant contradiction, in the “plain meaning of Scripture,” between verse 1 and verse 2, and in general throughout the whole first passage (verses 1–5).
It seems to me that there is no description of creation more unclear than what appears in the biblical account. Not for nothing did gentiles and their admirers mock the Bible (until now) in this context. If so, the plain meaning of Scripture is a very problematic concept in this context.
Therefore, by its very nature this is called “the secret of the Work of Creation.” Within that framework, in what can and must be understood, some take the “literal” approach and some the “parabolic” approach.
That is what appears correct to me, in my humble opinion.
The fact that the order of the verses is unclear, and that it is not understood how they fit together, does not resolve the question of whether the Torah intended its plain meaning or not. Seemingly, one has to understand it from the content of the words themselves. (In my humble opinion, even the plain meaning can be reconciled with evolution, and Sforno already said something in that direction.)
What I wrote is what Torah-observant scientists say, and they are familiar with what you wrote. I assume it can be explained this way, and I’m in favor of the plain meaning of Scripture as much as possible.
Still, I understand that someone who explains it in other ways is not guilty of heresy.