Hank Jumps the Shark
Hank Hanegraff and the Days of Creation
I reproduce the transcript of the call Ken Ham posts in his blog article (note my emphasis):
His last point is amazing. So on one hand Genesis is not meant to be taken chronological, which in my mind means historical. I mean, the concept of "chronology" is tied to history, right? Yet on the other hand, the story of man's fall and Christ's redemption of man is meant to be historically real?
Caller Theresa: Hi! I wanted to ask you if you believe that God created the earth and all in it in seven literal days, or if you kind of translate it into thousands of years or . . . ?
HH: Well, that’s an interesting question. I think that one of the things that we have to recognize is that the book of Genesis is a literary, artistic masterpiece in a lot of different ways.
Uh, first you have a mnemonic device by which you can remember the creative prowess of God every single day of the week so that you have two triads which are memorable, which correspond to one another in alliterated fashion that you can remember as a mnemonic device each day of the week. I think that in itself is profound. [huh?]
Secondly, I think that you have to recognize that all of Genesis is written in such a way that you can remember it with ten fingers of your hand. So that the genealogical construction and the people mentioned are mentioned in such a way that you can remember God’s creative prowess as well as the foundation of the entire biblical text out of which comes an ongoing plan of redemption culminating in a new heaven and a new earth where indwells righteousness.
My point here is to say that I do not think that Genesis chapter one is designed to give you a chronology of creation, but rather to give you a hierarchy of creation—uh, ultimately culminating in a new creation so I, I think if you want to answer the age question, you’re better off going to God’s other book, which is the book of nature. I don’t think that Genesis is intended to give you a timeframe.
Caller Theresa: So you don’t think we should look at nature and use the Genesis account as a starting point and interpret nature based on the Genesis account—you think we should use nature to interpret Genesis?
HH: No, no, I wouldn’t say that at all. I think that you have to employ the art and science of biblical interpretation to rightly interpret the Genesis account of creation. You need to be able to read the Bible for all its worth. For example, when you get to Genesis chapter three and you see that the serpent is tempting Eve and then later you see how the serpent suffers as a result of his temptation, and how Christ forever puts enmity between the seed of the woman, you see immediately how powerful the text is and you don’t want to minimize the power of the text by supposing that, that Jesus Christ crushed the power of the evil one by stepping on the head of a snake. You want to take the text and read it in the sense in which it’s intended, and so I don’t in any way say that you want to take ah, some kind of minimalist approach to the interpretation of the book of Genesis. No, you need to learn to read it for all its worth.
Caller Theresa: OK, thank you.
I just don't get it. And this is a clear reason why I have Hank listed under "muddled theology."