bro Heavyside demonstrating the inconsistent approach of literalists

Bro Heavyside objects to Gen 1-2 not being taken as historical literal events, 24 hour creation from nothing style.  He quotes from Psa 104 and Psa 148 to connect a literal Genesis  1 & 2 with an ongoing basis to worship God.  But these psalms should be avoided by literalists – let’s take a look.

Bro Heavside quotes from the two palms with the following comments:

In drawing on this detail, the psalmist evidently handles it as an event that actually took place:
    “You [the Lord] cause the grass to grow [smh] for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth” (Ps. 104:14)
    “[The Lord] covers the heavens with clouds; he prepares rain [mtr] for the earth; he makes grass grow [smh] on the hills” (Ps. 147:8)
These psalms speak of the ongoing sustenance of creation by God and declare the continuation of that which he commenced in Genesis 2:5. This continuing creative care, which is described by picking up the language of Genesis 2, makes no sense without the latter’s historicity. If God performs the things that are described in these two psalms then it follows he also performed the things described in Genesis 2:5
Yet here is the problem with literalists using these palms.  Does God make grass grow today?  The passages quoted by by Heavyside say so.  Consistency demands he and other literalists should decry any ‘theistic grass grower’ who claims grass grows by natural processes established by God to bring about His will.
Psa 104 clearly is reflecting on creation.  This provides us with an excellent insight into how Scripture talks about creation.  It does so in ways which are NOT what we would recognise as literal – but this is how the first audience thought.  Psa 104:20-21 says
You make it dark and night comes, during which all the beasts of the forest prowl around.  21 The lions roar for prey, seeking their food from God
Does God make it dark each day?  Or does the earth spin on its axis?  Does God provide predators with their nightly kill?  No young or old earth creationist would say so – even as they use the psalm to advocate for a literal creation.  However the psalm speaks directly against the kind of literal approach these anti evolutionary creation books/brethren employ.  They are inconsistent.  You can’t reject God using evolution if you reject the literal meaning of Psalm 104:30:
When you send your life-giving breath, they are created, and you replenish the surface of the ground
Ongoing natural processes are spoken of as direct Divine action.
Psa 147 is the same.  God directly causes grass to grow and weather to come (rain and snow).  Will theistic weather forecasters be next inline for literalist attack?  Nope.  The literalists have an inconsistent approach to Scripture. Yet they attack evolutionary creationists.  Sad.
[1] Heavyside, P. (2018). Genesis 1-2:a harmonised and historical reading. Ascent Publications.


1 thought on “bro Heavyside demonstrating the inconsistent approach of literalists

  1. Roger Evans

    Psalm 139 For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Your works, and I know this very well.…



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s