Melissa Travis is the creator of the brand-new apologetics blog, Hard-Core Christianity. She is a current student in apologetics at Biola University. I had the privilege of meeting her, along with other students in the modular program, at my lecture this summer.
She has allowed me the honor of posting one of her first blogs here on Confident Christianity. I know my readers will welcome her and, of course, discuss the arguments with her!
Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution by Melissa Travis of Hard-Core Christianity If you have spent time around small children, it’s likely that you are familiar with the shape-sorting toys that consist of a container, a lid with different shaped holes, and an assortment of blocks in the various shapes. Perhaps you’ve also witnessed the frustration of a toddler trying fruitlessly to shove the round block through the hole meant for the square blocks, or a star-shaped block through the triangular hole. Try as he might, it just won’t fit.This is an appropriate analogy for attempts to reconcile the belief of the Creator revealed in the Bible with Darwinian evolution. There are fundamental incongruities between them, and the only way to make them fit together is to compromise one or the other to the point that integrity is lost. If you file down the corners of the triangular block so that it will pass through the round hole, you will be successful in accomplishing your end-goal, but the block is no longer a triangle. Similarly, proponents of theistic evolution (TE) consider the theory a diplomatic solution to the debate between naturalistic, neo-Darwinian evolution and the existence of a Divine Creator. However, this involves theological compromises that contradict essential tenets of Christianity. “Christians who are theistic evolutionists are in a cruel bind,” says Dr. Paul Nelson, philosopher of science. These TE proponents adhere to current consensus science, but with great detriment to the legitimacy of their faith.There are several variations of the theory of TE, but for this post, I will use the following definition: TE = matter + evolutionary factors + very long time periods + GOD To clarify, TE makes the claim that the modern plant and animal kingdoms were derived, by God’s providence, through chemical evolution (inorganic material changing to organic due to natural forces) and then biological evolution (random genetic mutation combined with natural selection) over enormous periods of time. Theistic evolutionist Howard Van Till uses the phrase “fully gifted creation.” In other words, he believes that the originally created physical matter had all of the necessary qualities and capabilities built into it originally in such a way that nature, using its unguided processes and laws, could bring about the grand diversity and intricacy of life we witness today. God is thrown in as the “gap-filler” in explanation of where this gifted matter originated. One of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith is that God directly and purposefully created mankind in His own image. Genesis says, “Then the Lord God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being” (2:7) and “So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (1:27). How do theistic evolutionists handle scriptures like these? They relegate them to the genre of myth or allegory. In other words, they do not consider Adam and Eve to be, literally, the first man and first woman directly created by God. They are simply mythological figures conceived in the minds of ancient Jews. Theistic evolutionist George Murphy describes them as “theological representations of all humans.” He says, just because “Judaism of the time… thought of Adam as a historical figure does not mean that we must.” This view is supported by the writings of some highly respected biblical form critics. In his work, The Legends of Genesis, the late Hermann Gunkel calls the account of Genesis a myth derived from primitive legends that “come from a period of Israel’s history when the childlike belief of the people had not yet fully arrived at the conception of a divinity whose operations are shrouded in mystery.” In other words, the purported legends were conceived by an uneducated, unenlightened people to explain man’s origin, his mortality, and the circumstances under which he lives.This allegorical approach to the Genesis creation account sharply contradicts the principle of authority and divine inspiration of scripture. There are ramifications that reach well beyond Genesis and into the New Testament. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 when he said: “He who created them in the beginning made them male and female.” Obviously, Jesus did not consider the special creation of man to be a myth. Thus, when TE supporters dismiss the Genesis creation account as allegory, subsequent passages are discounted and doubt is cast on the reliability of the NT teachings and the text as a whole.This brings us to perhaps the most serious theological problem for TE: the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ. If man evolved gradually from primate ancestors, where does sin enter the picture? Theistic evolutionists again attempt to utilize the scapegoat of allegory to explain away this predicament and seriously downplay the relationship between original sin and the Atonement. George Murphy says, “The Christian claim is that a savior is needed because all people are sinners. It is that simple. Why all people are sinners in an important question but an answer to it is not required in order to recognize the need for salvation.” Yet, Paul obviously believed in the original sin of Adam and its direct association with the redemptive work of Christ: “So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience they many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19) It is easy to recognize that this is another instance of TE supporters compromising on the authority and accuracy of scripture in order to adhere to the scientific paradigm.In his book, Saving Darwin, theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson rejects the idea of original sin, choosing instead to adopt the idea that mankind never experienced an initial, innocent state, but instead was imperfect, sinful from the beginning. Many of his TE peers agree with this view, going as far as claiming that the Bible says nothing about mankind being created sinless at the start. Giberson and others in the TE camp apparently choose to ignore scripture such as Ecclesiastes 7:29: “Only see this: I have discovered that God made people upright, but they pursued many schemes.”If the very creation of mankind was accomplished through gradual evolution with its intrinsic violence, selfishness, and other sinful behavior, wherein is the need for a redeemer? The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is only understood as rational and imperative when we recognize that it’s the remedy for intentional disobedience by a previously innocent being endowed with free will, an individual from which all human sin perpetuated. The God of the Bible is a just God (Deut. 32:4). He created an innocent man in his own image that had the opportunity to live in obedience but chose rebellion instead.Evolution, as a supposed method of creation, is utterly contrary to the nature of our Divine Creator. It’s a process that directly depends upon natural selection, which is driven by competition for resources, suffering, and death. The members of a population that manage to survive longer than the others (by fighting for and winning the larger share of resources, mates, and/or territory) are the ones that go on to be more prolific in reproduction, making a larger contribution to the gene pool of that population. According to TE theory, the genetic mutations that made those individuals “fitter” for survival and allowed them to procreate more are the very source of the gradual genetic change that brings about biological diversity of species from common ancestry.In contrast, 1 John lists the following fundamental aspects of God’s nature: God is love (1 John 4:16) God is light (1 John 1:5) [and] God is life (1 John 1:1-2). Would the God of the Bible, the one described as love, light, and life, use such a horrific method of creation? In addition, the Genesis account certainly doesn’t allow for this idea: “So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kind. And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25).An indispensable element of the theory of evolution is the frequent occurrence of genetic mutations (mistakes) in the duplication of DNA during reproduction. These mistakes are considered to be responsible for the theoretical progression of life from simple to highly complex. Beneficial mutations are preserved through natural selection, while harmful or benign ones are not. It is a process filled with dead-end, extinct species and wastefulness of life. It is impossible to reconcile this cruel, inefficient trial and error scenario with God’s character, which is so eloquently described in Psalms 145:17: “The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all his works.”Theistic evolution is the fateful outcome of philosophically and theologically naïve Christians seeking common ground in the hostile, intimidating territory where faith and the current science paradigm clash. The issue at stake is not just argument over an allegorical versus literal reading of Genesis, but also a stark misrepresentation of God’s nature. It conflicts with the biblical perspectives on the nature of man, original sin, and the necessity of Christ’s redemptive action in salvation history. If one but listens with a practiced ear, it is not harmony produced by the theory of theistic evolution, but a piercingly sour note.
Please read the article of THE 'DEATH' IN THE LAST DAYS writen by Pastor Rudyanto Lay at http://www.worldsaltandlight.co.cc/2010/07/death-in-last-days.html
Thank u, GBU and family always!
Excellent post, with good sources. I wrote on this topic on my old blog, which I haven't had time to move all the posts over to my new blog yet. But my post was here:
http://humblesmith.xanga.com/689698914/evolution–christianity/
The website & group over at biologos.org are trying hard to build a case for theistic evolution, following the path of Francis Collins. As I understand it, they punt when it comes to the hard question of what to do with Adam. As you have pointed out, while Genesis is an issue, the much more important issue is the New Testament, specifically Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15. Turning Adam into a myth ends up with full pelagianism, which was declared a heresy and excommunicated from the church in the early centuries. The theistic evolutioniists that I have seen don't deal with this, although I'm told Collins' book has a few pages on Adam which I have not yet had time to research.
From a church history point of view, the church in past centuries is littered with people who try to meld the popular view of the day with Christianity. While thinking they are helping, in the long run they do more damage than they help. I hope the current wave of TE does not do this, but so far it does not look good.
Glenn Smith
World Salt Light:
I do not wish to assume the worst, because you appear to be a fellow ministry in Christ. However, you are not posting any comments, instead you continue to spam all of our posts on Confident Christianity with advertisements of your blog. Please stop.
You are welcome to post comments and link to articles relevant to the posted subject.
Thank you,
MJ
Glenn, thanks so much for your comments. I believe you are right-on.
@Melissa Travis
Hi Melissa, You cited Paul Nelson whom I've known for many years. He's a YEC who bleieves in "flood geology." His uncle wrote. The Deluge Story in Stone. Paul's beliefs have been set in stone as well, being a YEC legacy. He's argued (in Three Views on Creation and Evolution) that any God who can raise the dead can create a young cosmos that appears old; so if you believe in the resurrection it should be easy to believe in YECism and "flood geology" as well. Only trouble is, it's not.
Creationist "Flood Geology" Vs Common Sense-Or Reasons why "Flood Geology" was abandoned in the mid-1800s by Christian men of science
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
Lastly, Did you know that April 7was Paul Nelson Day (the anniversary of Nelson’s so far unfulfilled promise to provide a detailed exposition of “ontogenetic depth”).
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/04/paul-nelson-day.html
By the way, I'm an ex-young earth creationist and also author of a recent chapter titled, "The Cosmology of the Bible" in The Christian Delusion. You might be able to read my chapter online via amazon.com's "Look Inside" feature, or read my chapter while at a Barnes and Noble. Please get back to me if you do. The extensive endnotes cover some common YEC misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Bible and Science.
@Melissa Travis
@Mary Jo Sharp
Have either of you had the pleasure of meeting Rachel Held Evans, author of Evolving in Monkeytown? She's a long time resident of that YEC capital in the U.S., but started to ask more questions than her neighbors. Several chapters of her book are online, and she runs a popular blog, quite popular in fact. She also has a marvelous attitude toward all, rather like Mary Jo's.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog
Hi Mary Jo–
I appreciate the thoughtfully written article. Well done. Now, if you'll allow me, I have a few responses to some of the points you brought up (quotes are in italics):
God is thrown in as the “gap-filler” in explanation of where this gifted matter originated.
I'm not sure this is really a "gap-filler" explanation, at least not in the sense that the mantra of "God of the gaps" is generally used. Rather, I think Van Til–like all orthodox theists–is simply affirming that matter, the universe, etc. are not unoriginate, as if their ontology is self-derived from all eternity. Moreover, this issue is not really a point of "doctrine" in theories of biological and cosmological theories of evolution. These theories of evolution are about explaining, classifying, and predicting phenomena based upon observation and measurement, not providing philosophical arguments for how it "all" came into being.
One of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith is that God directly and purposefully created mankind in His own image…How do theistic evolutionists handle scriptures like these?
I think they would handle them in the same way that any other interpreter would. That is, I'm not sure that there is a necessary link between the method of creation and human imaging of God. Rather, I would argue that the image of God is realized in relationality and rationality. As these things can be accounted for within a evolutionary framework, I think a picture of a human evolved from stardust is as robust as a human created materially by God in regards to the nature of the creature's "imaging" of the creator.
And in the same vein of this, I agree with your assessment of the prejorative views of "myth" and "allegory" which modern critics have applied to the ancient texts of Scripture. However, my agreement is not so much that I don't think that the accounts are mythological (I do think they are), but rather that the rough assessment by modern historical criticism is, to a large extent, simply a symptom of Western prejudices regarding its own philosophical understanding of the nature and value of "history."
In modern historical methodologies, only the verifiable and demonstrable aspects of history are "meaningful" (notwithstanding the fact that the question is still begged how such demonstration is objectively established…), while the mythological is brushed off as the product of weak minds (read "not minds in agreement with the prejudices of Western epistemology). But what such a short-sighted methodology fails to recognize is that perhaps peoples in different eras and worldviews held much different ideas about the role of "metaphor" and "narrative" within their valuation of history and reality. That is, perhaps the writers of the Scriptures fully understood that what they were writing "did not really happen," but that the meaning of the story they told transcended the historical phenomenon.
So then, we must be careful, IMO, to not fall into the same traps. The assumptions of Western epistemology flow naturally through our veins, and it is incredibly easy to allow these prejudices to force us into particular interpretations. The modernist critics brush off the Genesis accounts as meaningless because they are mythological. And because many Christians share these critics' fundamental valuation of history (e.g., the verifiable and quantifiable), they are tacitly forced into defending a particular "literalist" interpretation of Scripture. However, because the motivations for such interpretations are ultimately philosophically motivated (e.g., the defense of the "literality" of Scripture against its modernist detractors), I think they do much violence to the text.
This allegorical approach to the Genesis creation account sharply contradicts the principle of authority and divine inspiration of scripture.
I'm not so sure that it does. One has to have a prejudice against the allegorical interpretation of Genesis in order to arrive at this conclusion. Apart from such an assumption, I see nothing contradictory whatsoever. Moreover, the "allegorical" interpretation of Scripture might, in fact, be the way that the original writers intended it to be interpreted. If this is so, would such an allegorical interpretation not actually be the "literal" interpretation?
As I mentioned before, the subject of interpretation is so mired in philosophical obfuscation that it's difficult, even in terms of how we speak about interpretation, to separate the act of interpretation from the assumptions which underlie the practice itself.
This brings us to perhaps the most serious theological problem for TE: the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ.
Like Giberson, I reject the notion of original sin. However, unlike him, I do not think that humans were sinful from the beginning. Rather, I believe that as consciousness arose within the species and the peculiar aspect of will developed, sin became a possibility. As humans began consciously and willfully beginning to relate to themselves and others, sin found a foothold in the many opportunities for the elevation of self-will over and against that of God and others.
While it's not a perfect solution, I think it meshes nicely with an evolutionary model of human development. And from my perspective, it has dozens less issues than the doctrine of original sin does.
As to the "need" of a redeemer, I think limiting the Incarnation of Christ to only the domain of the "sin problem" is a bit too narrow of a focus. There is a rich tradition within historic Christian theology of the idea of Christ as the "recapitulation" of the human race, the "finisher" of God's work in creation. In this perspective, we could see the advent of Christ in a role of evolutionary completion, bringing to fruition within humanity the full measure of creation that God intended from eternity. And because the reality of Christ's work is trans-chronological, it has meaningfulness and redemptive power at all stages in human evolutionary history, from the first sparks of consciousness to the final consummation of history.
Evolution, as a supposed method of creation, is utterly contrary to the nature of our Divine Creator. It’s a process that directly depends upon natural selection, which is driven by competition for resources, suffering, and death….An indispensable element of the theory of evolution is the frequent occurrence of genetic mutations (mistakes) in the duplication of DNA during reproduction…t is impossible to reconcile this cruel, inefficient trial and error scenario with God’s character
I think you've gone a little far in the rhetoric on this point. In an evolutionary model, the cessation of biological processes (death), the mutation of genes, etc. are moral-neutral phenomena. There is nothing "good" or "bad" about death, and in fact, without death it would be impossible for "life" to happen whatsoever (consider what would happen if your cells never died…). I would argue, then, that these phenomena are not only NOT contrary to the nature of God, but would further argue that the pejorative connotations which we attach to them are simply a symptom of our sinfulness and separation from God.
If we lived in union with God and creation, the "way that the universe is" would not cause us so much existential anxiety. We would find peace in our place within it. However, since we are–by our sinfulness–now antagonistically related to both God and creation, the way that the universe is takes on a very scary nature. We fear death, loathe it, and speak ill of it not because it is somehow "alien" to the way the universe is, but because it reminds us of our rebellion against and separation from God.
Theistic evolution is the fateful outcome of philosophically and theologically naïve Christians seeking common ground in the hostile, intimidating territory where faith and the current science paradigm clash.
I don't think this is an accurate conclusion. There are many thoughtful Christians (I would like to consider myself among their number) that lean in the TE direction, not because of a felt need to be "in" with science, but rather because it truly resonates with how we interpret Scripture and the world in which we live. Disagree if you will, I assure you that it is not because of naivety…
Ah, my apologies. Just realized that Melissa wrote this, not Mary Jo…sorry!
This is excellent! I agree with Melissa completely! A while back I wrote about this on my blog, but Melissa has inspired me to do a follow up: http://bit.ly/dwGftL I'm very encouraged to see people speaking the truth on this topic!
P.S. Mary, you have been such an inspiration to me. I'm an amateur apologist, and I've been very encouraged by your ministry (though this is my first time commenting on your blog). Thank you for all you do. To show my appreciation, I have awarded your blog: http://bit.ly/9WIqew Hope you like it! 😀
God bless,
Miss S.
Very good article. Theistic evolution is not compatible with the Bible text, and those who accept it must relegate the Bible's creation account and Christ's statements about it as allegorical. This is about choosing who to trust, God, who was the only eyewitness to the events, or speculations of men who weren't there.
Theistic evolution and accompanying long ages of creation are a relatively recent phenomenon to justify evolutionary philosophy. Although I never believed in theistic evolution, I used to believe day-age and/or gap models were credible, until I realized they had a number of linguistic and logical problems, and that my view was not based on the Bible’s language or historical views, but simply to accommodate long age concepts.
These models were constructed in the nineteenth century in an attempt to harmonize evolutionary dogma with the Biblical text. Long ages were touted as ‘proven’ by science, and therefore it seemed necessary to force the Bible’s language to conform to this supposed scientific fact even if this created linguistic, logical and historical inconsistencies.
I am unable to find any credible reference to a theologian prior to the 19th century who specifically suggested that the Genesis day was longer than 24 hours, or that the creation week was longer than seven days. It wasn’t until Darwinism took hold that this phenomenon occurred.
Christians are commanded to guard that which we have been entrusted with, and turn aside from oppositions (Gr. antithesis) of science "falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). Long age interpretations of Genesis 1–11 are not exegetically defensible and such hermeneutics in Genesis 1–11 cannot be consistently applied to the rest of Scripture without seriously damaging or destroying the Bible's teaching. The literal creation week interpretation is the overwhelmingly dominant view in the history of Christendom.
General evolution is not Biblical, logical or scientific, see Miracles of God, Evolution or False Prophets?. Moreover, an increasingly large percentage of today's leading scientists believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and this is now an established one way trend. To understand this recent turn of events, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design.
When we see the Lord, I'm afraid many are going to wonder they doubted His clear eyewitness testimony based on wild and unfounded speculations of men who weren't there.
Hi Miracles–
Theistic evolution is not compatible with the Bible text, and those who accept it must relegate the Bible's creation account and Christ's statements about it as allegorical.
What is the problem with interpreting the creation account as allegorical (I would argue with this description, but I'll save that for another time…)? To insist that it must be interpreted "literally" not only betrays an underlying, modernistic presumption about the valuation of history, but additionally begs the question of how you know that this is how the original writers meant the text to be interpreted?
And even if one could somehow establish that such a an interpretive paradigm is necessary in relation to this text, whose definition of "literality" are we to use? That is, while modern conceptions of literality might specify certain characteristics about the nature of particular historical events, as well as their oral and written transmission, can we honestly assume that the same vision of literality was shared by someone who lived thousands of years ago and is separated from us by dozens of cultural, philosophical, religious, societal, and political shifts?
This is about choosing who to trust, God, who was the only eyewitness to the events, or speculations of men who weren't there.
This is something of a non-sequitur. None of us–not even those who assume that the creation narratives should be interpreted "literally"–were there to witness the creation. Therefore, ANY position on the matter is ultimately speculation, as the kind of evidence that would establish the idea objectively is not accessible to human epistemology. We are all in the same boat of trusting "this" or "that" interpretation, and simply asserting the necessity of literal interpretation does not establish your position as the "default" against which all other perspectives should be judged.
Theistic evolution and accompanying long ages of creation are a relatively recent phenomenon to justify evolutionary philosophy.
Yes, of course it is–it was a theological response to changes in thinking about the way in which we understand the nature and history of the universe. However, it should also be noted that the "creationism" of today is from the same movement of thought, serving as an antithetical argument for what some perceive to be "attacks" from science and philosophy on the Christian faith.
But there is nothing particularly unusual about these developments. Theology is a constantly shifting and evolving discipline, for it is ultimately based in human epistemology which is itself inevitably influenced by the ever-changing paradigms of philosophy that evolve from generation to generation. In fact, if such an evolution in thought did not not occur, one would be inclined to suggest that the movement from which it should supposedly arise had died or was in its final death throes, for a theology that does not engage the mind and experience of the current day and age is a theology that will soon be dead.
Long age interpretations of Genesis 1–11 are not exegetically defensible…
I actually agree with you on the basis of hermeneutics. I do not think the writers were encoding "yom" with some secret, non-day meaning of "day". By the same token, however, I do not think that they were trying to describe in a scientifically precise way how the universe came into being. In my reading, they were applying an established Sabbath paradigm to a creation myth (which were common in ANE literature) in order to reaffirm religious praxis and theistic fidelity. In other words, it is a narrative, constructed of understood religious concepts (e.g., the Sabbath cycle) and common narrative elements (creation mythos) to achieve a desired religious end.
The literal creation week interpretation is the overwhelmingly dominant view in the history of Christendom.
But what does this mean, exactly? Most of the "history of Christendom" was not beholden to the parameters of Western, modern ideas about historicity, verifiablity, proof. So while they might have understood the words as meaning "24 hours," this does not necessarily mean that their interpretations of the passage carried with it the same valuations that modern, historical-critical methods require of the same interpretation.
That is, to the modern interpreter, a "literal" interpretation requires that in order for the narrative to have "meaning" and be reflective of "truth," it has to be capable of verification and proof. Because of these assumptions, we see people of varying motivations doing all they can to compile and communicate such "proofs" in order to satisfy the requirements of historical-critical methodologies regarding the valuation of history.
But the question is, did these same assumptions about the nature and valuation of history exist for the writers of the texts? Or even for the early church fathers? Given how the modern assumptions of historicity are inextricably tied to the prejudices of Western philosophical paradigms, I can hardly see that such would be the case. Therefore, I do not think we can blindly assume that our understanding of truth, reality, and history have a 1-to-1 correlation with either those of the original authors, nor of their later interpreters.
Dear Exist-Dissolve,
Thank you for your detailed analysis of my comments. I could say many things, but perhaps the most important would be some recorded statements of Christ Himself.
For those who believe the Bible is the inspired "God-breathed" Word of God, and that He meant it to be understood for all men of all ages, consider the following statement of Christ:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
This phrase “from the beginning of the creation” (Gr. apo arche ktisis) is also used in exactly the same form in Mark 13:19 and II Peter 3:4, so Jesus Christ (who was there as a participant/eyewitness) indicated God made Adam and Eve at the beginning of His creation, not billions of years after the beginning, as many modern scientists (who were not there) would have us believe.
Luke 11:50 refers to "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world." That is, God's prophets have been suffering bloody persecution since the very foundation of the world, not just starting billions of years after the beginning.
In Mark 13:19, Christ also told of a coming period of "affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created." He was implying that there had been many lesser afflictions on God's people in the world ever since the beginning.
To accommodate long ages, then, one must not only reject God's clear language in Genesis (and specific confirmation in Exodus 20:11), but also twist and distort (i.e. reject) the words of Jesus Christ Himself, effectively calling Him a liar.
Logically, the Scriptures stand or fall together, and were apparently designed that way. Only if one is willing to abandon reason can harmony of the Bible, long ages and evolution be believed. If God is the author of reason and His Word is to edify us, His message is crystal clear to those willing to accept it.
Thank you for your detailed analysis of my comments. I could say many things, but perhaps the most important would be some recorded statements of Christ Himself.
Sure thing. If you have the opportunity, I would be interested in your responses to my other points.
Regarding your usage of the phrases "from the beginning of creation" and "from the foundation of the world," I would argue that it is a bit presumptuous to suggest that these can be used as proof-texts for arguing for a particular view of nature and mechanisms of the divine acts of creation. After all, are we really to suggest that the writers had in mind the categories that you and I are discussing in this exchange? Did they consciously use these words to show that "the universe is only a few thousand years old" and that "God literally created everything in 6 24-hour periods?"
I would argue that we cannot assume that, and moreover that to suggest such is a serious mishandling of the text, for it imposes categories of thinking that could not have possibly been on the minds of the original authors.
Rather, if we look at each passage you quoted, we find that the usage of these phrases are not used as arguments for the relative age of creation, but rather as theological "markers" for how certain ideas and realities are to be understood within the meta-narrative of God's creative acts.
So with the example of "male and female," Jesus' point is not that God created the dual-gendered humans at some specific "time" in creation, but rather that their identity as "male and female" is the fundamental reality of who they are ("from the beginning"). It is something coded into who humans are as the imagers of God, an understanding which denounces the idea that one is lesser or "alien" to the other as the Pharisees misled the people to believe. In this way, the female's identity is not something to be bought and sold on the whim of a male, but to the contrary is that which itself defines who both are as imagers of God ("they are no longer one").
Regarding the example of the blood of prophets, we see a similar meaning rise to the surface here, as well. That is, Jesus is again not arguing for a specific "dating" of the relative age of creation, but is rather hyperbolizing the violence and sinfulness of his antagonists, showing that their animosity toward God and God's people is ancient and everlasting, reaching back "to the beginning." The point of citing "the beginning", however, is not to educate Jesus' detractors that the world is only X number of years old, but rather to argue that their sinfulness is from time immemorial. It is not something new, but something that can be traced back "to the beginning."
And finally, we see the same principles emerge in the Mark 13 passage. The point of the citation of "beginning of creation", again, is not to articulate a view of the relative age of the creation, but to denote the full sweep of creation history, from "the beginning" to the "end of days."
To accommodate long ages, then, one must not only reject God's clear language in Genesis (and specific confirmation in Exodus 20:11), but also twist and distort (i.e. reject) the words of Jesus Christ Himself, effectively calling Him a liar.
I actually agree with you that the "days" of creation should be understood as more or less 24-hour periods. Where I would radically diverge, however, is that I do not think the writers of the creation narratives shared modern assumptions about history and literality. That is, I do not think the mythos of the creation narrative was, in their minds, to be taken in the "historical" sense that modern ideas of historicity would require. Rather, based on the Sabbath cultus within Jewish religious life, I believe they molded elements of common creation narratives that were common in ANE literature around the complex of Sabbath worship, providing a theological and religious structure for teaching the people about the nature of God within a "template" of something they already understood.
Logically, the Scriptures stand or fall together, and were apparently designed that way. Only if one is willing to abandon reason can harmony of the Bible, long ages and evolution be believed.
I personally think that evolution is a relatively reasonable model for describing the observations of creation which we have made. At the same time, however, I do not see any contradictions between my affirmation of the broad principles of evolutionary thought and the "harmony" of the Scriptures–I don't find any particular contradictions that arise directly from such a perspective.
Therefore, I think the contradictions arise when one has particular prejudices for a particular philosophical understanding of history and, subsequently, imposes these upon the Scriptures (we all do it, btw). That is, if one accepts modernistic notions about the nature and "meaning" of history, this will directly impact how one interprets and evaluates "historical" events in the Scripture. However, given that the ancient writers probably did not hold to the same notions and prejudices about the nature and value of "historicity," we must raise the question as to whether the wholesale application of modernistic notions of critical history is leading us to the "truth" that the writers meant to communicate, or to something that meshes with our presuppositions about what we would find. Given the rift between "literalism" and historical/critical methodologies (which are, in fact, based in precisely the same prejudices about historical methodology), I think the latter is more likely.
Thanks again for your response. I am not trying to avoid any points, but must be selective for time and space considerations so ask for your understanding.
I agree Christ's statements as well as a number of other statements in the Bible are not primarily about the age of the creation etc. However, this does not discount that the Bible's words are precisely accurate regardless of what topic or subtopics are mentioned, including physical processes and phenomena. If God exists, He was the only eyewitness so would be the only one who knew by personal experience, and if the Bible is His revelation to man as claimed, then it would be the most reliable source we have. Of course, if you don't believe it is His revelation and is merely the thoughts of men as it seems you say, then this is another matter entirely, and we should be talking about whether the Bible is 'inspired' before we start dissecting the text.
Christ never showed any skepticism of the Old Testament Scriptures whether there were scientific implications or not, including His statements about the Creation and the Flood. Since He often distinguished exact meaning of Old Testament texts where meaning was dependent not only on the words, but even on verb mood or voice, I can't see how a dubious approach toward precise and complete perfection of His Word is consistent with the approach of our Lord Himself.
"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26).
Precise accuracy of what Christ said to His Apostles was not dependent on their human memories, but on the Holy Ghost, and the above verse emphasizes it included all He said to them. This leaves no room for diminishing God's full revelation through Christ based on human perspective or limitations.
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no (Gr. ou pas) prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:16-21).
The process mentioned for the Apostles is the same as for other Scripture writers. The verses here state that the Scriptures are an even more certain word of prophecy than God the Father's voice from heaven! We should therefore heed (often translated 'beware') all the Scriptures as a light clearly shining in a dark (literally squalid or dirty) place.
The purpose of the Bible is "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but it is also objectively true according to the testimony of God Himself. In these verses, the word ‘scripture’ refers to all Scriptural writing in the Bible, and ‘inspiration’ is literally “God-breathed.” So even though science is not the Bible's primary purpose, it must be accurate when it refers to physical processes or phenomena in our universe, including the Genesis Creation account where God was the only eyewitness. Science can explain how things presently operate according to established laws, but can never determine ultimate origins of those laws.
Moreover, Biblical wisdom is straightforward and right for those open to receiving it so men can understand it, not obscure (Prov. 8:7-9 II Peter 3:16). Prov. 8:7-9, personifying wisdom, says:
"For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness [is] an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth [are] in righteousness; [there is] nothing froward or perverse in them. They [are] all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge."
There may be great depth to God's words, but they are never intended to deceive the receptive hearer. Any deeper understanding should never contradict plain, face-value meaning of the Bible's words as they would be understood by a speaker of Hebrew or Greek in the time and place where they were first given to men.
There are never any valid contradictions to the Bible introduced as a result of atheistic pseudoscience, for example, and these should not be believed because of some currently popular teaching or model such as evolution. Anything else would lead to deception, which the Proverbs passage says is contrary to wisdom.
Straightforward reading of Scripture doesn't always mean 'literal'. One can read straightforwardly and still recognize obvious metaphors, not trying to force them into an unnatural meaning. But according to the Bible, we should always start with trying to understand the Scriptures as naturally and straightforwardly as possible. In the case of Genesis, for example, there is no question the style is a very specific historical record, and there is no Biblical or documentary justification possible for any part of it being allegorical.
The problem is when people impose biases on the text and try to force it into an unnatural meaning to confirm with their philosophy, typically because they have an a priori commitment to an extensive non-Biblical framework they want to justify. As I've mentioned, I know many cults who do just that in addition to evolutionary naturalists, twisting and wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction. I find it more than interesting that the verse about wresting the Scriptures in II Pet. 3:16 is right after Peter talks about uniformitarian scoffers in the last days who deny special creation and the Flood.
When we run into metaphors etc. or not, we are to compare Scripture with Scripture to clarify the meaning, according to the Bible itself (1 Cor. 2:13). I know you may say your natural reading of the text isn't necessarily my natural meaning of the text etc. but words have specific, objective meanings, and in the context of the Bible most of these words, chapters and books can be understood straightforwardly in their immediate context and in the context of the rest of the Bible.
It comes back to motives and biases. A lot of people want to twist the Bible's text around the axle any way necessary to conform to their view. We need to start with the Bible as the final authority, believe it with the faith of a child in their Heavenly Father, and see how tangible evidence supports it, not the other way around, where we start with worldly ideas about Bible-related topics and try to make the Bible conform to man's haughty ideas as preeminent, dishonoring God's Word as if it were just another piece of information or less. God says He has magnified His Word above all His name (Psa. 138:2b), so we should reverence Him personally and His Word, and nothing else. As the common saying goes, and as the verses I quoted in Proverbs agree "If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest you come up with nonsense."
From a documentary standpoint, the entire book of Genesis, including its initial chapters, is written as an historical account. The chapter breaks aren't even there in the original, so it is a single document. The only reason many people dismiss Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 1-11 or whatever as historical is because they choose to believe in today's popular opinions of men who weren't there, instead of the known truth of God, who was there.
Consistent with ancient Babylonian practice, successive tablets are keyed by a phrase that closes the previous account and opens the next one. The natural breaks in the book of Genesis are not by chapter, but by original author. Each eyewitness author closed their written account by the phrase "the generations of" (Heb. towledah), as 'written record of the origins of', not by chapter breaks (note Gen. 5:1, "book of the generations of". This phrase records the original authors testifying to their historical eyewitness accounts, which were apparently compiled and edited by Moses.
The original authors who 'signed' their historical testimonies are "the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 2:4), presumably dictated or written directly by God as the only eyewitness; Adam (Gen. 5:1), Noah (Gen. 6:9), the sons of Noah (Gen. 10:1), Shem (Gen. 11:10), Terah (11;27), Isaac (Gen. 25:19), Jacob (Gen. 37:2), and Jacob's immediate descendants. Moses uses a similar formula in Exodus, using the term "names of", which begins in Ex. 1:1 as "names of the children of Israel" to close the Genesis account while continuing the historical record.
There is no documentary basis for considering the early part of Genesis as poetry, allegory, or anything other than the historical account it is, just as the rest of Genesis.
If you choose to believe the Genesis text is undefinitive, ask yourself why you truly feel you must believe so, if not to accommodate long ages. And if to accommodate long ages, why do you give this concept credibility over the natural reading of the creation account? Do you believe the entire Bible, including the Genesis Creation account, is God's inspired Word as it claims to be, or not? Many professing Christians do not although they may profess otherwise. If you don't believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, then I fully understand why you wouldn't believe the accuracy of Genesis either. However, if you believe it is of God, why would He make it ambiguous, contrary to what He says about His Word, and how could have He expressed it more clearly? Would not God, the very Creator of language, find a way to make things clear to us, especially since He says the character of wisdom is straightforward? The fact is that the original language is crystal clear, which is why it was consistently understood that way as an historical account for millennia.
Evolution is sold as scientific through today's educational system, but it is the opposite of true science, see Miracles of God, Evolution or False Prophets?. The age of the Earth or universe can't be determined according to science, since foundational uniformitarian assumptions by geologists such as Hutton and Lyell are unproven and unprovable, and moreover no one except God knows the original composition of the rocks. Many physical 'clocks' indicate a young earth, including the Earth's magnetic field, erosion of continents, helium in the atmosphere, and ocean salinity to name a few. However, long age evolutionists only selectively promote 'clocks' that generate long age timeframes, and then present results to unwitting 'students' as if they were established fact. Radioactive dating is most commonly cited as 'proof' of long ages, although actual results of this technique vary widely.
Physical death came by man, but evolution claims man came through death, and one can’t have it both ways. Death is and has always been a curse (Deut. 30:15,19; Ezek. 18:32; John 5:24; Rom. 5:12,17,21; 6:16,21,23; 8:2,6; I Cor. 15:21,26,54-56; Heb. 2:14, James 1:15, Rev. 1:18), but macroevolution, whether theistic or not, requires that God formed man through unimaginable suffering and death. Macroevolution therefore slanders God’s perfectly loving character for man and all the rest of His creation, since it would require God to curse the universe from the beginning. The truth is death has always been a curse, and our loving God has no pleasure in it. It is a bitter enemy as a direct result of spiritual condemnation of man's sin and not before, and one day this temporary curse will be graciously and permanently removed according to God's original creative intent (Rev. 20:14, 21:4-5).
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible's teaching about the cause of physical death, which is the sin of man; and it is also not compatible with God's loving character, original or eternal stated intent for His creation. If one believes in a God that formed life through death, it is not the God of the Bible.
…this does not discount that the Bible's words are precisely accurate regardless of what topic or subtopics are mentioned, including physical processes and phenomena.
That may be the case (not sure how one would establish the "precision of accuracy", but that's another matter…), but the question still remains one of context. This assertion can only be made if one has objectively identified those passages which seek to demonstrate the precision of accuracy of some physical phenomenon. My contention is that the writers of the Genesis creation narratives had no such intention; therefore, to presume the same from their writings is, IMO, gross eisegesis.
…and we should be talking about whether the Bible is 'inspired' before we start dissecting the text.
I believe the Scriptures are inspired. However, my arguments against your interpretive methodology still stand.
Christ never showed any skepticism of the Old Testament Scriptures whether there were scientific implications or not, including His statements about the Creation and the Flood.
No one is suggesting that one should be "skeptical" of the Scriptures. In fact, skepticism of the Scriptures is only really possible if one approaches it with a particular set of presuppositions that would invoke such a skepticism. Therefore, to deny that the Genesis accounts are "literal" history is not to "doubt" the Scriptures, but to call into question the interpretive methodologies that would require such an interpretation in the first place.
Precise accuracy of what Christ said to His Apostles was not dependent on their human memories, but on the Holy Ghost, and the above verse emphasizes it included all He said to them. This leaves no room for diminishing God's full revelation through Christ based on human perspective or limitations.
The application of this passage is a bit overreaching in your usage. After all, the apostles didn't write the Pentateuch…
The process mentioned for the Apostles is the same as for other Scripture writers. The verses here state that the Scriptures are an even more certain word of prophecy than God the Father's voice from heaven! We should therefore heed (often translated 'beware') all the Scriptures as a light clearly shining in a dark (literally squalid or dirty) place.
Again, I'm not necessarily arguing this point. My issue is with the philosophical presuppositions that lead each of us to make particular interpretations of the text. You "require" the literal interpretation of Genesis because, from what I can tell, you affirm the assumptions of modernism regarding the valuation of history and "truth" on the basis of verifiability and supposed "objectivity." In this way, then, the Genesis narrative can only be "true" to you if it can be linked up to something that, though not observable, is still able to be couched in the categories of modern historical criticism.
If you're like me, however, and don't necessarily affirm the legitimacy of the categories of modern historical criticism, then there is no "need" whatsoever to suss out a "literal" meaning from the Genesis narratives. Rather, the narrative and mythology of the passages can be embraced and understood within their form and function for the writers and hearers of the words as they were spoken, not as modern minds assume they must have been intended.
…but it is also objectively true according to the testimony of God Himself.
But what does "objectively true" mean? Objectivity is truth which is "independent of mind." So then, of what use is that to human epistemology? Surely you recognize that regardless of the assertions that we might make about the meaning of particular "truths," the moment we attempt to apprehend them they have been subjected to the subjectivity of mind, their objectivity rendered null for the purposes of human epistemology.
I suggest that object truth is only capable of assertion on the basis of faith; it cannot be an operative epistemological principle, for the moment that it becomes the same is the moment that self-deception and self-justifications begin to assert themselves.
So even though science is not the Bible's primary purpose, it must be accurate when it refers to physical processes or phenomena in our universe, including the Genesis Creation account where God was the only eyewitness.
Why must it be "scientifically accurate" (and what does that mean, anyway)? This assumes that the intention of the accounts in Scripture were that of scientific accuracy. But given that the categories and assumptions of scientific methodology (verifiability, objectivity, etc.) are only recent phenomenon, do you not think it is a bit presumptuous to read these categories back on to the intentions and communications of those who more than likely did not share the same perspective of the nature of the world and "truth?"
Moreover, I would argue strenuously that if we link the "truthfulness" of Scripture to ANY philosophical paradigm (modernism, post-modernism, etc.), we have inevitably done great damage to the Scriptures, for while these world-views might permeate our thought-processes, there can be no reasonable basis upon which to assert that the biblical writers were beholden to the same.
Any deeper understanding should never contradict plain, face-value meaning of the Bible's words as they would be understood by a speaker of Hebrew or Greek in the time and place where they were first given to men.
But how do we know what this is? The meaning of words, after all, are not fixed or somehow rooted explicitly and exclusively to the phenomenology of their occurrence in literature. Rather, meanings of words, phrases, etc. are influenced by myriad factors–political, philosophical, religious, etc. And besides this hurdle to trans-epoch communication, the interpreters and translators of these words are themselves influenced by an equal number of different factors that influence indelibly how they render particular words; how they communicate the "meaning" of an ancient phrase; and what values they place on the relationship of words to one another, both within the ancient context and the modern one.
Given these incredibly difficult impediments to understanding ancient ideas and literature, what does a "face-value" meaning of the biblical texts look like? How do we know when we've found it? Are we capable of suspending our modernistic presuppositions about the nature of the universe and our place within it to the step into the minds of those who held radically different ideas about the same?
Straightforward reading of Scripture doesn't always mean 'literal'. One can read straightforwardly and still recognize obvious metaphors, not trying to force them into an unnatural meaning.
Again, how do we determine what is "natural" and what is "unnatural." To the modern mind, the "natural" reading is that which corresponds to our assumptions about the nature and valuation of history. That which is verifiable, demonstrable, measurable–these are what constitute meaning to the modern mind. But were these the same assumptions shared by the ancients? Did they view history and its meaning in the same way?
Looking at the mythos of ancient literature (including the dramatica similarities to many sections of OT Scripture, I think the answer has to be that they had dramatically different ideas about what "history" was and what meaning it had in their lives, society, religion, etc. In this light, then, the most "natural" reading to the modern mind would, in fact, probably be that which was "unnatural" to the the ancient writers and hearers.
In the case of Genesis, for example, there is no question the style is a very specific historical record, and there is no Biblical or documentary justification possible for any part of it being allegorical.
How is Genesis "a very specific historical record." On the basis of modern historical criticism, it has been shown to be decidedly non-historical, assuming the character rather of something more like a narrative or religious mythological construction. What are the "historical" marks of the passages? What are the "proofs" of the events? How is the event "verified" in the text?
Mr. Babinski,
Yes, I know Paul as well. He is one of my lecturing professors at Biola. I’m very excited about the monograph he’s FINALLY releasing—the case against common descent. The lectures he gave two weeks ago about his case were phenomenal. My other degree is in biology, and my career background is genetic research, so I really love scientific apologetics. I do not consider myself YEC, although I do have a great deal of respect for Dr. Nelson’s point of view. Thank you for your comments.
Exist-Dissolve:
I apologize for the delay in responding. I haven't had the chance to check in here in a couple of days…I wish I had lots of time to type out responses to everyone and every point, but the fact is I'm swamped with school! 🙂
You said: "One has to have a prejudice against the allegorical interpretation of Genesis in order to arrive at this conclusion. "
Well, I wouldn't call it a prejudice. I am completely comfortable with allegory in the Bible where allegory was intended. Based on what I've read over the years concerning ancient Hebrew literature and the scholarly views on the true genre of Genesis, I am comfortable with my belief that the Genesis account was not intended allegory. That doesn't mean that I don't think that some literary devices were employed in the Genesis account of history. I believe they were to an extent. However, based on the New Testament treatment of the Creation account, I believe pushing it into the realm of allegory or myth is a mistake.
From a documentary standpoint, the entire book of Genesis, including its initial chapters, is written as an historical account. The chapter breaks aren't even there in the original, so it is a single document. The only reason many people dismiss Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 1-11 or whatever as historical is because they choose to believe in today's popular opinions of men who weren't there, instead of the known truth of God, who was there.
I would be interested in seeing your sources that support this assertion. Rhetoric about "opinions of men" aside, from a literary perspective, the book of Genesis is hardly homogeneous.
This phrase records the original authors testifying to their historical eyewitness accounts, which were apparently compiled and edited by Moses.
Or, as I would suspect is more likely, this was the convention adopted by the later editor(s) who compiled a much larger and less unified collection of oral and written tradition.
There is no documentary basis for considering the early part of Genesis as poetry, allegory, or anything other than the historical account it is, just as the rest of Genesis.
As before, your usage of the idea of "historical" simply betrays the modernistic assumptions about "history" which you hold. If you studied ANE literature, you would see that myth, legend, and story-telling played important socio-religious roles within the life of the various cultures and civilizations of the ancient world. While some of the stories referred to protagonists understood by the hearers as "real", historical figures, there was also a rich tradition of fictional invention and elaboration for the purpose of religious/social/political instruction and propaganda. Moreover, we see an interesting "sharing" of common mythologies and protagonists across the literature, even within the Hebrew Scriptures. While some of this may refer to figures understood to many cultures at the time, much of it was simply a reflection of the general cosmological outlook that the ancients held.
For example, in a Mesopotamian account that predates the writing of Genesis, we see a rendering of "the flood" that bears striking similarities to that found in Genesis. In fact, in this account, we see the deity of Istar donning a colored necklace as a reminder to never again send a flood. This is obviously a very tantalizing similarity to the rainbow of the Noahaic account and the promise that accompanied it.
So does the appearance of this parallel story in both the Mesopotamian and Hebraic literature mean that this flood really happened and that both were witnesses to the dictates of the deity who proclaimed, by a colorful symbol, that a flood would never again be visited upon the earth? Or do we find, rather, the retrofitting of a shared set of stories and legends that were re-purposed by each for particular religious and societal ends? I would argue that the appearance of this mythological account in Genesis represents the Hebrews "demythologizing" of a shared, ancient story for the purpose of relating their unique understanding of Yahweh's purposes within creation and God's unique relationship with the Hebrew people.
If you choose to believe the Genesis text is undefinitive, ask yourself why you truly feel you must believe so, if not to accommodate long ages.
I never said it was indefinite. I think the writers had very specific purposes for writing what they did, and that their writings fit quite precisely into the socio-religious instruction and development of Hebrew society and cultus of worship. I'm just suggesting that their "purposes" were not "historical" in the way that the modern mind would think of "history."
And if to accommodate long ages, why do you give this concept credibility over the natural reading of the creation account?
As I've already mentioned, I'm not trying to accomodate "long ages" into this text. My opinions about "theistic evolution" are not based on the meaning of "days" in the Genesis creation myths.
Do you believe the entire Bible, including the Genesis Creation account, is God's inspired Word as it claims to be, or not?
I do believe that the Scriptures are inspired. My idea of "inspiration," of course, does not necessarily mean that I think every word of Scripture should be interpreted "literally" (read "by the categories of modern thinking), however.
Many professing Christians do not although they may profess otherwise. If you don't believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, then I fully understand why you wouldn't believe the accuracy of Genesis either.
I never called into question the "accuracy" of Genesis. As I've already alluded, such a question is only engendered when one insists that the Genesis account "must" be speaking of something demonstrable on the basis of modernistic assumptions about historicity and "truth." Since I impose no such ideas on Genesis, the "accuracy" of the text is not called into question whatsoever.
Would not God, the very Creator of language, find a way to make things clear to us, especially since He says the character of wisdom is straightforward? The fact is that the original language is crystal clear, which is why it was consistently understood that way as an historical account for millennia.
Obviously, the language is "crystal clear" based on one's philosophical presuppositions about the nature and purpose of the text. I think that my rendering of the text is imminently "clear", although you would clearly disagree. So who's right? Have I not the Spirit of God as well?
We'll have to agree to disagree on the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Personally, I think there is convincing evidence to point to evolutionary theory as a reasonably useful model for understanding the nature and processes that occur within the universe. Of course, I have no interest really in arguing for or against the "truth" of evolution, for like every other element of knowledge, it is subject to change with shifts in philosophical paradigms and socio-political structures.
…but macroevolution, whether theistic or not, requires that God formed man through unimaginable suffering and death.
Hmm, I think this is a bit too dramatic of a "sell." Our very biology is rooted in the cessation of biological processes (imagine what would happen if your cells never "died")–to attempt to diminish the same as a "curse", I think, is to slander God's mode of creation. The notion of "suffering", moreover, I think can be traced to our sinfulness (separation from God); it is this existential rift with the creator that makes biology and the prospect of death so difficult and terrifying.
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible's teaching about the cause of physical death, which is the sin of man; and it is also not compatible with God's loving character, original or eternal stated intent for His creation. If one believes in a God that formed life through death, it is not the God of the Bible.
Again, I think you're speaking a bit too presumptuously. The accounts of sin and death in Genesis, IMO, are a "meta" discussion of the problem of human sinfulness, not a theologically precise exposition of the fundamental nature of biology and its relationship to human sinfulness. I see no need for such dramatic propositions about the "evil" of evolution when the point you are trying to establish cannot even be articulated in any specific degree on the basis of Scripture alone.
I think the key factor here is that our views of 'inspiration' are very different. According to the verses I provided, the entire Bible, including Genesis, is 'God breathed' and not dependent on human views or limitations of the Scripture writers.
However, you consistently refer to intent of the writer(s) of Genesis, and comparing it to other writings of non-inspired ancient texts. According to the Scriptures, OT and NT writers didn't always fully understand what they were writing, but they wrote it because they were directed to write precisely what the Holy Spirit guided them to write, nothing more or less.
If God, the only eyewitness to Creation, ensured Genesis was exactly what He wanted to communicate, as the Bible internally confirms, and as Christ treated it as well as other OT Scriptures, your view of Genesis as a 'myth' is inconsistent with Christ's view of Genesis as well as the Bible's definition of 'inspiration'.
You may choose to view Genesis as a myth, but this is because you have chosen to trust supposed modern scientific opinions above God's Word, though you may attempt to rationalize otherwise.
There is sound science that supports the Genesis creation account as being historical and not allegorical, as the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch. However, this can only be believed if you are willing to take God's Word at face value and not give priority to man's so-called 'wisdom', which is foolishness with God.
According to the verses I provided, the entire Bible, including Genesis, is 'God breathed' and not dependent on human views or limitations of the Scripture writers.
But even if you assert this, there is still the inevitable problem of interpretation. You might posit a particular understanding about the "inspiration" of Scripture–but you still have to interpret it. And unless you are willing to suggest that you are capable of infallibly interpreting the Scriptures, I'm not sure I see how the inevitable conclusion you must reach is radically different from the one that I espouse upfront.
However, you consistently refer to intent of the writer(s) of Genesis, and comparing it to other writings of non-inspired ancient texts. According to the Scriptures, OT and NT writers didn't always fully understand what they were writing, but they wrote it because they were directed to write precisely what the Holy Spirit guided them to write, nothing more or less.
This may be your opinion, but upon reading the Scriptures, there are clear indications of "intent" by the authors. In fact, there are numerous instances where this intent is clearly expressed from the viewpoint of the author (e.g., "I write these things…"). If they did not understand what they were writing, why would they speak as if they not only understood it, but in fact were writing it for specific, personal reasons?
If God, the only eyewitness to Creation, ensured Genesis was exactly what He wanted to communicate, as the Bible internally confirms…
This doesn't lend any support to the argument that the Genesis narratives should be interpreted as a scientific description of the nature and evolution of the cosmos.
For the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that what Genesis says is precisely what "God wanted it to say." Even if this is so, how do we get from that assumption to the necessary rendering of this text as a treatise on the biological and cosmological processes that demarcate the origin and evolution of the universe? The only way to bridge that gap is through an a-priori assumption that the text is actually saying this, which brings us back to the entire problem of interpretation that I have been pointing out all along. That is, even if the Genesis account is exactly what God "wanted it to be," we still have to make assumptions about how this text should be interpreted in order to get from the phenomenology of the text to the "literal" interpretation of it.
According to the verses I provided, the entire Bible, including Genesis, is 'God breathed' and not dependent on human views or limitations of the Scripture writers.
But even if you assert this, there is still the inevitable problem of interpretation. You might posit a particular understanding about the "inspiration" of Scripture–but you still have to interpret it. And unless you are willing to suggest that you are capable of infallibly interpreting the Scriptures, I'm not sure I see how the inevitable conclusion you must reach is radically different from the one that I espouse upfront.
However, you consistently refer to intent of the writer(s) of Genesis, and comparing it to other writings of non-inspired ancient texts. According to the Scriptures, OT and NT writers didn't always fully understand what they were writing, but they wrote it because they were directed to write precisely what the Holy Spirit guided them to write, nothing more or less.
This may be your opinion, but upon reading the Scriptures, there are clear indications of "intent" by the authors. In fact, there are numerous instances where this intent is clearly expressed from the viewpoint of the author (e.g., "I write these things…"). If they did not understand what they were writing, why would they speak as if they not only understood it, but in fact were writing it for specific, personal reasons?
If God, the only eyewitness to Creation, ensured Genesis was exactly what He wanted to communicate, as the Bible internally confirms…
This doesn't lend any support to the argument that the Genesis narratives should be interpreted as a scientific description of the nature and evolution of the cosmos.
For the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that what Genesis says is precisely what "God wanted it to say." Even if this is so, how do we get from that assumption to the necessary rendering of this text as a treatise on the biological and cosmological processes that demarcate the origin and evolution of the universe? The only way to bridge that gap is through an a-priori assumption that the text is actually saying this, which brings us back to the entire problem of interpretation that I have been pointing out all along. That is, even if the Genesis account is exactly what God "wanted it to be," we still have to make assumptions about how this text should be interpreted in order to get from the phenomenology of the text to the "literal" interpretation of it.
…and as Christ treated it as well as other OT Scriptures…
As with the prior argument, this doesn't establish your point. You still have to make a philosophical apriori assumption about the nature and meaning of the text in order to get from Christ's quotation and handling of the text to the meanings which you find necessitated within the text.
…your view of Genesis as a 'myth' is inconsistent with Christ's view of Genesis as well as the Bible's definition of 'inspiration'.
How do you know that? Like me, you are approaching the Scriptures with specific philosophical assumptions and motivations. As neither of us were alive at the time of Christ, and as neither of us are a first-century Jew, it's difficult to see how we can bridge such an immense philosophical and cultural hurdle to arrive at the level of propositionalism which you assert.
I don't doubt that Christ didn't think of the Genesis narratives along the lines of the modernistic category of "mythology". However, I also do not assume that Christ thought about the passages in categories of modern assumptions of "literality," either.
You may choose to view Genesis as a myth, but this is because you have chosen to trust supposed modern scientific opinions above God's Word…
This is not a compelling argument. You have now left off intellectual debate and have ventured into the domain of personal attack and slander. You attempt to denigrate my position by associating it with philosophical positions which you know many who read this blog are antagonistic towards.
Moreover, if this is route the discussion is to proceed, I hardly see how your position is immune from the same criticisms.
There is sound science that supports the Genesis creation account as being historical and not allegorical, as the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch. However, this can only be believed if you are willing to take God's Word at face value and not give priority to man's so-called 'wisdom', which is foolishness with God.
You reveal in these personal slights that your argument inevitably boils down to a form of quasi-gnosticism. You wish to assert the "logic" of your position in regards to Scripture and interpretation, but when challenged, you resort to an appeal to a circular, self-justifying knowledge that is only available to those who are "in," while the antagonism of your detractors serves conveniently to "support" your presupposition.
But if this is truly the way things are, what is the point of apologetics? Why bother with the tools of the logicians when the "knowledge" you seek to espouse is not capable of expression within their domain? If any counter-argument to your position is merely the machinations of those who have been blinded by the evils of "modern, scientific opinions," what is the point of discussion?