Anthony Russo’s recent post about theistic evolution has been an active thread – the discussion of origins strikes a note in us. I am taking my break pretty seriously, so I won’t write one of my normal tomes here, just a few observations and questions about the subject.
I am assuming here that this is a discussion between those who have the highest view of scripture, who believe that the Bible is God’s Word to us without mixture of error and is our absolute guide and rule for all things. Obviously, those who hold a lower view of scripture will not be inclined to think these kind of questions as worthy of discussion.
Here it is. I have a hard time seeing how we can read the text of Genesis 1 and escape the conclusion that the intent of the author was to present a six-day special creation. This idea seems to be assumed throughout the rest of scripture as well, but OT authors, by Jesus and by the Apostles. I have some questions about the hermeneutics and exegesis of those who hold a high view of scripture but also advocate an old earth.
So, here are some comments and questions I would like to address to you good folks.
1) Don’t sound hermeneutics lead us toward creationism and away from old-earth theories?
I remember my very liberal OT/Hebrew professor being asked a question about Genesis 1 – what did the author intend to teach? He said there was little doubt that the author of Genesis 1 was intending to convey the idea that the earth was created by divine fiat in six normal days relatively recently. Because he had a low view of the scriptures, he was not bound by its meaning and intent. But he said that it is clear that this is what the author meant.
“When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
Isn’t the plain sense of Genesis 1 a special-creation model unaided by evolutionary processes and ages of time? Isn’t the simplest, most natural interpretation of this passage the creationist interpretation?
2) Aren’t old-earth theories rooted in scientific theory instead of biblical exegesis?
Would anyone ever come up with day-age or theistic evolutionary theories simply from reading the text? Don’t you arrive at those conclusions from other sources (ie. the pronouncements of Darwinists) and then go back and read them into the text? Would exegesis alone lead you to those conclusions?
I understand that this is a quandary – fitting the biblical text into a scientific framework. But it seems to me that the plain meaning of the Biblical text is in contradistinction to the dictates of science here. You simply do not get day-age, old-earth or theistic evolution from the text. Significantly, did anyone ever advance these old-earth theories before Darwin and the spread of evolutionary theory? Science advanced a new understanding of human beginnings and people looked to find a way to fit that theory into the scriptures. Isn’t that pretty much what happened?
The history of the church is replete with examples that demonstrate the dangers of forcing the scriptures to align with current thought.
3) What textual clues do you find in Genesis 1 that indicate the passage of great eons of time?
I know many have appealed to the figurative use of the Hebrew word “day.” Yes, it could refer to an epoch, in certain contexts. But whenever the word appears matched to a number (such as “the third day”) it always refers to a normal day. In context, the word in Genesis 1 gives little support to the idea of the passage of time.
So, is there any exegetical or textual indication that Genesis 1 is referring to great epochs of time and not regular days?
4) Don’t old-earth theories create some significant theological problems?
My biggest problem with the old-earth or theistic evolution positions is theological. Old-earth scenarios by definition include death long before Adam and Eve. But the Bible seems to present a different scenario. God created a paradise in which death did not reign. Then, sin entered God’s world and brought death as a consequence. In Genesis 2:17, death is presented as a penalty for sin.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Romans 5:12
How do you account for Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 (and other verses in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere) if death was an ever-present reality even before the entrance of sin? Why do scriptures present the entrance of death into the world as a result of sin if death was already present for millions and billions of years prior to death and the curse?
5) Isn’t the effort to combine these views in vain?
I remember something I heard a long time ago.
“God does not need evolution and evolution doesn’t need God.”
Seems to make sense to me. Evolution is based on natural processes that work without divine intervention. The God of Heaven could create a universe in an instant and has no need of millions of years of gradual change. He doesn’t need evolution’s help. It just seems to me that theism renders evolution unnecessary and evolution does the same to theism. Theistic evolution and to a lesser extent other old-earth theories seem like a fruitless and pointless attempt to keep God involved an essentially naturalistic process.
Either God made the world or it is a process of evolution.
I’m not trying to insult anyone. But I think the special creation is an important issue – crucial even to our gospel.
Talk amongst yourselves. Be excellent to each other.
No
Yes
None
No
No
Try not to be so word next time.
I’m exhausted from the last TE discussion. 😉
For me, the issue is very simple. (a) Were Adam and Eve literal people, the first human beings, and the only human beings created by God? (b) Was life on Earth directly created by God out of nothing?
I wouldn’t cooperate with someone in any gospel endevor who answered “no” to either of those questions.
The only time Joe sees people he’s willing to cooperate with is when he looks in the mirror, and even then he’s not so sure.
Nice try Bill. There’s a pretty short list of what I consider essentials. And the old earth/young earth debate ain’t on that list as long as the old earther acknowledges Adam and Eve as the first human beings and the only human beings created by God and the creation of the Universe out of nothing by God speaking it into existance. I would think a pretty good majority of oe’s, even those that interpret Genesis 1 as just poetry rather than describing an actual historical event would be able to agree with both of those points.
When it comes to death before the fall, I would suspect that OE’s would say that the particular death the Scriptures are referring to [in Rom. 5 for example] is the death of humans, not animals.
I would lean towards the idea that they are right about that.
However, I still think that animals did not die before the fall–though I might have a hard time proving this. The only Scripture that might shed some light on this, that I know of, is Isaiah 11:6-9 (see below).
Also, in relation to animals, I think it is interesting to observe that after the flood, God did bring about a change in the animal world in that God placed the fear of people in animals (Gen. 9:2).
Before this change by God, we see animals having a town house meeting with Adam and experiencing cooperative Baptist Fellowship with Noah.
So, I don’t think we need to assume that what we observe among the animal world in the present is necessarily what we would have observed in the past.
And in Isaiah 11:6-9 there seems to be a prophesy indicating some kind of reversal of the Fundamentalist tensions between different kinds of animals and between animals and humans in the future.
Accordingly, I’m looking forward to that time when we can understand one another better. I know Christiane is too.
🙂
I think Isaiah 11:6-9 might give us some sense as to what those relationships were/would have been like before the fall.
I would say that ‘sound hermenutics’ leads us to the conclusion that the Genesis creation accounts are primarially about who created the earth and how it was made. Genesis declares Yahweh as creator–not Baal, not Marduk, not any of the members of the Canaanite or Egyptian pantheons. Genesis declares that God made the world with a plan and with a purpose, that humanity was made by God with dignity and a purpose. In my opinion, ‘when’ is not really even a relevant question to the texts. “Sound hermenutical principles” would also call into questions some of the assertions of YEC’ers–such that we can date the earth based on the Genesis genealogies, or that we can identify dinosuaurs in Job, for example.
I absolutely affirm God as creator, affirm that Adam and Eve were real, literal people. But I take issue with the insistence on the part of some YEC’ers that their interepretation is the only way to read the Bible literally.
As far as death before the fall, I would generally agree with Benji’s post above, though I would agree that is probably the greatest weakness of the OEC position from a theological standpoint.
Generally, I think that trying to use Genesis to prove the age of the earth–from either direction–is a futile exercise because that is not the main thrust of the text. I lean more toward an OEC standpoint, but I have no problem cooperating with YECers :-). In teaching the passage I prefer to focus on the questions of what the text says about God and what it says about humanity and our relationship to God and our world. I think these are the primary questions.
If you do actually “prefer to focus on the questions of what the text says about God and what it says about humanity and our relationship to God and our world,” then it would seem you must believe God created all existence in six days and that the first eleven chapters of the Genesis account are literally true as recorded in Scripture.
CB–only the first 11 chapters? Why, I thought you believed Abraham and Isaac were historical figures. I am shocked sir, seriously shocked. 🙂
Seriously–what do you want to know exactly? Real Tower of Babel? Yep. Real Noah, complete with boat, animals and flood? Sure. Real Cain and Abel? Yes. (You should have heard our middle-schoolers’ reaction to that story the other night, btw.) Adam and Eve? You betcha. Did God really create the world ex nihilo? Absolutely. I just don’t think the text mandates that he did it in six twenty-four hour days 6000 years ago. Possible? Sure. But I think there is ample room for a day-age reading or gap theory. And I also think that the geneologies include some condensing or teloscoping of generations–as do other ANE geneologies, and most of the other biblical geneologies. And as I said above, I think the core issue is that God did it, not when it happened.
Lydia,
Only you would catch the implication there. 🙂 Back in the days of the CR we used to ask guys if they believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis were literally true when we were interviewing them to serve as trustees on one of the boards, institutions, or agencies of the SBC.
If they even batted an eyelid before they said, “Absolutely” we would not allow their names to be submitted. They were considered to be either liberals or to clueless to serve.
So I guess you caught my mental slip back into the past. 🙂
The Gap Theory was always interesting. Is it still in the footnotes of the current edition of the Scofield Study Bible?
Leigh,
I just noticed my mistake. I apologize for addressing you as I would Lydia. Lydia and I have communicated on blogs for a few years now and know a little about each other’s views.
Nonetheless, you did catch the slip-up and I tip my hat to you. 🙂
I think you make a good point as to what the main thrust of the text is trying to get across. However, I do believe the text along with others strongly point to a literal 6 days creation period. Can we get so caught up in this discussion that we lose focus of other crucial elements in this passage? You bet!
Even though I am a YEC I can easily work with OEC within reason. I still think they need to jump through far to many hoops to reach their conclusions though. I have actually heard some OECers go so far to the point that they claim Jesus lies when he discusses elements in Genesis as being literal. I’m not silly enough to believe all OECers are that way though.
Even though I disagree with some of your conclusions I really like that you brought up the points you did. It helps keep things in perspective for people like me 🙂
Leigh, you’ve hit the nail right on the head! What you’ve said nicely sums up the matter and your opinion is, I think, most sensible. What, after all, is the main thrust of the text, as you say? How does the document function for the Jews? We need to know how it spoke to them to know how it should speak to us today. The One God created all things perfectly. We fell away from him. The result is a plan that climaxes in Jesus and culminates in his return. I’m so glad you posted this. I could never say it the way you did! Thank you!
And we mustn’t force present-day concerns onto the text. We must accept the author’s intent and purpose, and the background to the text.
I think another important lesson from Gen. 1 is that human beings have worshiped pretty much all the things listed during the creation story. Genesis 1 is a corrective to that thinking. It is a direct refutation to some common pagan doctrines.
It is also pretty clear that it is an ancient call and response, not unusual for preserving oral traditions.
My personal view of Genesis 1-3 fits in with the overall typological view I have of the Bible.
Accordingly, the types (i.e. pictures foreshadowing greater realities–called antitypes) seem to be consistently literal.
Literal Jerusalem –> New Jerusalem (coming “down” out of the sky)
Literal wood on Isaac’s back –> Cross on Jesus’ back
Literal Temple –> Jesus’ body as the Temple
And so on…
So, the typological nature of the O.T. is what figures such as Adam and Eve are wrapped up in and thus I take them be literal (as well as everything else in Genesis 1-3).
Adam & Eve in paradise –> Christ & His bride in a greater paradise (Revelation 2:7)
Adam sleeps, side is wounded, wakes up –> Jesus dies, side is wounded, resurrects
I like some good typology myself. But typology should never undo the exegesis and meaning of the passage in its time and place. In other words, typology is not the primary meaning of an OT passage.
The rock Moses struck had a primary meaning to the people of Israel – God’s goodness and provision. That it had a secondary, typological meaning is also clear, but we cannot forget that the primary meaning was to the people to whom the book was originally written.
In other words, seeing the creation stories simply as typology is inadequate.
Yes Dave, thanks for highlighting that important point. Not to mention the fact that we often go beyond Scripture itself to introduce typology the N.T. writers never identified. One can draw false conclusions that way. In fact, the Roman Church developed at least some of their extra-biblical teaching through typology. I strongly suspect their Marian view arose from excessive typological thought, which eventually crystallized into dogma.
I understand that folks can fall into fanciful interpretations when seeking to interpret the Scriptures typologically. However, just because someone misuses a typological approach does not necessarily mean that it is not valid.
I think Dave’s approach and mine shows the difference between a dispensationalist approach vs. an NCT approach to the Scriptures (Our different methods of interpretation lead us to different conclusions). However, I think Dave wold have to agree that the dispensationalist method has not resulted in even dispensationalists always agreeing with each other.
Therefore, the practice of using their method has not always led to error free results itself. Consequently, would they argue that just because some people misuse their method does not necessarily mean that their method itself is wrong (i.e. same kind of argument I used for typology above)?
Could anyone point me to an error free method of interpretation of the Scriptures (if you know what I mean)?
Now aside from folks like Dave (who believe the Bible), I do think folks who are interested in undermining the Scriptures will not tolerate a typological approach to the Scriptures because it hits a little too close to home.
In other words, typology shows how the Scriptures amazingly fits together as a whole and so if they admitted this, then they would have to acknowledge the divine source of “the” Book.
They would have to admit that there is no way that mere humanity could have put the Scriptures together.
I disagree with this. Typology is no proof. I believe because of faith. Patristics may have tried to support the faith and Greeks do look for reason. But remember, we preach Christ crucified. God places his Spirit in us and by that we know we belong to him. I lean far more toward the New Covenant viewpoint than any other, though I’m aware of how paltry the best of our paradigms can be. I do think the NC view acknowledges that a very definite transition occured with the pivotal figure of Christ and that “law” has a new meaning in the Spirit. I reject Dispensationalism and Dominionism because both transfer former acts of the Christian story to the future. That people manage to overlook this continually astounds me. I don’t know why anyone would want to transplant something or have it recapitulate. I understand the story ‘recapitulates’ in that exiles recur, restorations, etc. But nothing is being transferred. It’s an idea, not a reality that repeats itself. But to see a literal return of Jerusalem’s ‘stuff’ or a repeat of O.T. civil law strikes me as comic in the least. I’m outraged that so little information circulates right now to counter all of this. The popular market continues to offer the same thing, and only scholars generally access anything better. So I certainly find the New Covenant view much more beneficial. But that has nothing to do with typology per se. Typology is there to teach us something, and we can expand on it. But that’s led to false doctrines such as the new view of Mary held by Rome, a view which gained ground throughout the Middle Ages and became dogmatized in the nineteenth century. Or the papal view. Or the understanding of the priest at the alter, robed in his persona, as cosmic link. All these things grow out of typology and go back to it for support. So I think it’s best we stick with the typology that’s obviously endorsed by the writers themselves and save our own bright ideas for personal devotion. I’m constantly made aware of the effects of typology whenever I visit a Roman church and sit in on a Mass, or attend an Episcopal church service that’s in high form. It’s one grand typological ladder from God to the insects. Each link relates to that above and that below it, and it all hangs together and has done so since the Lord presided over creation and the angels first sang for joy. It’s all lovely pageantry, but it makes for terrible doctrine. False ideas. Slavery. I’m wary of elaborate typology. You’ll soon find yourself caught in a web of relations that span time and space, a virtual medieval worldview, and the magic that ties it all together will tie you down to where you can no longer move outside your little box. This is what happened to the people who got caught up in the Oxford Movement during the nineteenth century. Cardinal Newman, for example, left the Church of England for Rome. And once you find your way into the medieval worldview and the history of the Roman church, you wander through it like a maze. You don’t come back out.
Hi SAL,
you have mentioned ‘The Oxford Movement’ and John Henry Newman. I wonder if you have observed any of the current activity surrounding the Anglicanorum Coetibus ?
Thoughts ?
Hi SAL,
The Western Church was not the only part of Christianity to develop the ‘theotokos’ concept for Mary with the formal title Mater Dei. The Eastern Church also shared in that and is very strong in its recognition of the Theotokos.
REASON: the whole Church was fighting against various heresies that challenged ‘Who Christ Was’, and the whole Church responded to confirm Him as God Incarnate and as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
If anything, it is the Eastern Christian Church that has the most profound recognition of the Incarnation and of the place of Mary in the Church.
So, the ‘Roman’ (meaning the ‘western’ Church, I assume) was united with the Eastern Church to express a solid rejection of heresies denying the divinity of Christ. We can date the title ‘theotokos’ from the battle with those early heresies.
If you want to think about ‘what was shared’ among the early Christians, remember that the Church began in Jerusalem and then it spread out to the places like Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, etc.
If some way of praying or way of speaking about the person of someone close to Christ shows up in the traditions of all of the descendents of those first Christian centers . . . it is likely that we can assume that they originated out of the early Church at Jerusalem, or they were jointly agreed upon at the early Councils, where the whole Church was called together to participate.
Yes, the effort at one point was to safeguard the doctrine of Christ. But patristic typology eventually developed toward a new vision of Mary that transcends the Bible’s assigned role.
Christiane, as for the Anglican situation, there have always been Anglicans / Anglo-Catholics who wish to move back to Rome. My interest in the Episcopal Church in America related to the ‘Evangelical Wing.’ Basically, that’s high worship, but not nosebleed high, if that makes sense. I find the Prayer Book in its original form deeply moving and thoroughly inspiring. And the liturgy kept the service flowing nicely. Even if worship went well over an hour, it went by fast because it seemed kairotic. There’s a rythm to it that one can enter into and enjoy: I felt myself transported to sacred time and space, joining the heavenly liturgy in cosmic unison. The most glorious worship ever.
That doesn’t solve the problem. The Bible may have been carefully crafted in this way by an Author who wanted to teach us something through such artistry. Again, the issue for me is not literal versus non-literal. Neither is it inerrancy. It is about putting my faith in a God who tells a story and who is no liar. The truth he conveys is truth indeed, regardless of how it’s framed.
Sal,
I don’t see what the problem with typology is. Your trying to connect typological interpretation to Marcion makes no sense to me.
Why?
Because when Marcion did away with the O.T., he did away with the types in the O.T.
No O.T. = No typology
The Bible may have been carefully crafted in this way by an Author who wanted to teach us something through such artistry.
Please show me one artist who has written about types grounded in real history which prefigure later antitypes.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. By using the term artistry I referenced God’s creativity. I think types in the O.T. foreshadow later antitypes, mostly in the N.T. Typology is authentic wherever N.T. writers acknowledge it. I would not take it upon myself to identify my own types and corresponding antitypes. I may be wrong in doing so. I don’t want to go beyond Scripture. It’s true that in personal devotion we may come across some personal insight and suppose it might be typological. But I would not want to be dogmatic about it or teach it as authoritative or as a normative interpretation. That would be silly. When people do that we consider them quaks.
No. That’s not what I’m saying. Typology was employed by writers in the New Testament. I just think we need to excercise care in doing that. As for Marcion, I don’t know what you mean. I haven’t thought about him in years. I know he rejected the O.T. while preferring the N.T. Other than that, I don’t recall anything he said. Why bring him up? He has nothing to do with what I’m saying. I only want us to excercise care in the use of typology. But that’s generally a different matter from the old earth theory and one’s take on the creation story, except that someone related the two.
Sal,
You seem to be saying that the New Testament has to be pretty “explicit” if something is going to pass for being a type in your view.
If so, I understand what you are saying. However, I think what you will allow for being a legitimate type is far too limiting. I think it is almost on the other extreme side of the opposite extreme of fanciful interpretations.
I would liken the “It’s got to be explicit” view to a husband who believes that his wife has to explicitly say “I WANT A BACKRUB” in order for her to really want a backrub.
He doesn’t allow for the possibility that when she says “I’ve got a knot in my back” that she might be throwing out a “hint”.
There was a gnostic belief that the O.T. creator lied. I think that’s what you’re referring to. I’m afraid you’ve confused my statement about typology with a line from Marcion. No, I ment nothing of the sort. I said God is no liar to underscore the total truthfulness of what’s said throughout the pages of Scripture.
I strongly suspect their Marian view arose from excessive typological thought, which eventually crystallized into dogma.
My fault. I did not read what you were saying carefully enough because I thought you said “Marcion” when you spoke above of the “Marion” view. Sorry about that.
Concerning typology, it seems like we might be talking past each other in that what you are referring to as typology does not seem to be on the radar screen of what I mean by typology.
For one thing, you seem to bring up some “high church” stuff whereas I think my ecclesiology is pretty low (I don’t even like being called “pastor Benji” even though I am a pastor, for example).
The N.T. writers acknowledged upfront that certain things are types with corresonding antitiypes. Consequently, we know that those are just that. Some others, I agree, are more subtle and perhaps not spoken of by the writers but ought to be assumed. The problem is in becoming dogmatic or relying overmuch on these things for proof and certainty of the divinity of scripture.
I still feel our faith should be in God. I think we need to believe God competant to communicate what he wishes, when and how. If we really believe in the only God, there is nothing to fear. We know his message. The Holy Spirit and the Bible obviously get that across. No flaw or change should be earth-shattering. I still don’t know why insecurity exists….I can only guess people feel everything is somehow bound up in a certain translation or doctrine of Scripture. What, really, is at stake here? I see nothing at stake (aside from favorite ideas).
Sal,
I do not believe it has a great deal to do with translation or doctrine. It has to do with the nature of God.
I read a comment you made earlier on another post. You affirmed that God is divine. You are correct, God is divine. He is perfect, both in His attributes and His decrees.
The Bible is His revelation to humanity. It stands to reason that a perfect, divine God, in the inspiration of His specific revelation to humanity, would insure its perfect composition. Would you not agree?
Hi C.B.
I would say the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s ultimate Revelation to humanity.
The sacred Scriptures are testaments to Lord Christ, Who is Himself the central figure of the Bible.
The Holy Spirit will point people ONLY to Christ.
So is the Bible, then, a vehicle? If it is, I think we can talk about inspiration and forget the discussion regarding inerrancy.
Sal,
I do not know for sure if your comment is in response to mine or not, so maybe I will be off base with this but….
If anyone would consider God’s revelation to humanity as a mere “vehicle” that would betray a low view of inspiration specifically and a low view of Scripture in general on one’s part. Would you not agree?
cb scott, I don’t know. I’m following in something C. S. Lewis said. I’m trying to figure this out and I think we all are. It’s difficult. What do you think about this? Can we focus so much upon God, Jesus as the Word, and the Holy Spirit as communicator that we see a Voice apart from and beyond the printed text yet entering into it sacramentally to speak to us? Is this Barthian? High-church? Lewis thinking too much about the nature of language, text, and the Word of God? You tell me. I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of this for the longest time and few have had this similar passion. The rest have typed on in other directions.
L’s,
When the writers of Scripture wrote, they were bearers of revelation from God and about God.
When Jesus came, it was God Himself revealing Himself.
You would agree that Christ is God the Son and was/is perfect, I am sure.
In His revelation through the use of the writers of Scripture, that revelation from Himself and about Himself would be no less perfect.
He was/is the perfect fulfillment of Scripture (Mt. 5:17-18). Therefore, the Scripture, as the revelation God, The Triune, perfectly unified Trinity, to humanity is perfect.
Would you not agree?
L’s. I left out an “of” That should be: …”as the revelation ‘of’ God…
So much for my perfection,in this life anyway. 🙂
Yes, that sounds right.
OK, Benji. But highly developed typological thought leads to something like we find in the high churches. That may not always translate into ritual and ceremony. But I think the overall picture that emerges is very similar. For example, I don’t see much of a difference between the sacred picture of Catholicism and the elaborated thought of some Orthodox Presbyterians. What keeps Presbyterians away from the ceremonial aspect is their regulatory principle of worship. The picture is quite similar, however.
Sal,
I suppose you would have to elaborate more on what you mean concerning typology. As an NCTer I would obviously have a number of disagreements with the OPC.
One of the joys I have found is seeing regular folks be in awe of the foreshadowing of Christ in the O.T. They come to see how the O.T. and the N.T. relate to one another and they are amazed.
I think they come to realize even more vividly that there really is no other book like the Bible.
Once again, I’m not referring to typology that’s acknowledged by the writers themselves. I’m talking about typologizing when one cannot prove by references by biblical writers themselves. Arbitrary typologizing. Of course we acknowledge as authentic the typology that’s clearly meant to be so by writers who indicate this within the text. If Paul says, now the Jerusalem which is above is free, then we have ourselves a type and antitype. But if someone tries to detect a similar pattern that’s not acknowledged upfront by any of the writers themselves within the text, it may not be typology.
Some others, I agree, are more subtle and perhaps not spoken of by the writers but ought to be assumed.
I think my only disagreement with you here is that I would substitute the word “Many” in the place of “Some”.
And in the light of the vast number of types (ranging from the explicit to the subtle), I would say that it pretty much screams that the Scriptures are God-breathed.
But is it normative?
I mean, is it a normative interpretation in each and every instance? Or is it insight arrived at personally? How would you prevent someone from trying to standardize that? Many of the false beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church emerged through patristic typology. The doctrines grew out of this pattern of thinking. E.g. Mary is the new Eve. Why? Because the old Eve brought death but the New Eve (Mary) introduced life! She is there the Queen of heaven since God is the King of heaven. And just as we intercede through Christ to God, so Mary the Mother of Christ is our intercessor too! Do you see where typology takes you? You can argue that yours doens’t amount to this. But that’s only because you ahve a PRotestant filter. Theirs is Catholic. So you see, We still have to have a rule for typology. The only other resolution I could imagine is to say that types and antitypes are insights we may arrive at personally, but must not be taught as normative interpretation. I can’t see how the problem could otherwise be dealt with.
We still have to knwo whether Scriptural intent is behind it or our imagination. The same holds true for allegory. Are we reading something into the text or does the Author of the text intend for that result? We must continually ask ourselves this question.
Sal,
I think if one’s typology contradicts clear N.T. teaching, then one has read their typology into the text.
What you said about Mary would be a clear instance of this since the N.T. teaches that only the [perfectly] righteous One, Jesus Christ, can intercede for the saints.
That is very different from taking figures such as Adam, Joseph, Moses, and David and seeing these figures as pointing forward to the Messiah in showing different facets of what He would be like.
Just as an Old Humanity came through Adam so a new humanity (Eph. –> one new man) would come through the Last Adam.
And so on with Joseph, etc.
Also, when it comes to having a “protestant filter”, I suppose that might be true to a certain extent.
However, I am not someone who joins the chorus in calling Christians back to the “Protestant Reformation”. I, instead, am someone who believes the Reformation needs to be Reformed.
Benji, I’m so glad you feel that way about the Reformation. Many people wish to abstact this period from history and use it as a standard. Others have wished to do so with the Roman Catholic Middle Ages. Others yet have found their high point in the patristic period. As a student of history I say we cannot return to the past.
That sounds agreeable. But a human process is involved. So what I’m saying is that if I were to copy a Bible for someone (assuming I could do that) and I made a mistake somewhere that a proofreader missed, I trust it will be inconsequential.
Sal,
I do not think I know one conservative, theologically sound person who would argue that scribal errors are not to be found in extant manuscripts.
The argument of inerrancy vs. errancy has always been in relation to the original documents. Of course, there are no extant originals. Therefore, the continual argument.
It is my opinion that also is an act of God in His sovereignty. Where there to be existence among humanity of the originals, fallen humanity would worship the documents rather than the Writer of the documents. Idolatry is an inherent human problem all the way back to mighty Nimrod. Who, BTW, literally existed.
🙂
I can imagine the original documents would have been without errors. But that’s unrelated to one’s interpretation of creation in Genesis.
Ultimately, in my opinion, one’s interpretation of Genesis 1-11 will hinge upon believing in absolute inerrancy of the Scripture.
BTW, it is my understanding, that the scribal errors of the extant manuscripts is so miniscule that we can rest assured that the Scripture as revealed and recorded to and by men of old is absolutely accurate and we can take it literally.
Even if it was inerrant form the start (and I think it was), that doesn’t settle the matter of interpretation. Remember, St. John didn’t refer to a literal dragon. He spoke of Satan and the cosmic drama.
Sal,
Interpretation and Inspiration are related, yet distinctly different as theological components to an understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Sal, I have enjoyed this exchange. Usually it is my desire to post comments only in jest with my friends or to speak of sports, but his has been interesting. I wish I come continue, but I have children to “tuck into bed” for the night and I hear them calling. I am going to read one more comment you made on another post and then go put the flock to roost. 🙂
I think it’s very related. Even now.
That would depend on your understanding of inerrancy, I suppose.
And any scribal errors were not enough to change the message or content of the Bible. That is the miracle. That is God’s preserving of His words.
Hello Debbie Kaufman,
I trust you are ready to see the SOONERS take a hit today. I know I am. 🙂
I believe you to be correct, God did preserve the continuity of His Word, even in the extant manuscripts. See my comment #25 and you will see that we find common ground. Hey, that may be a miracle also, that you and I agree completely on something. Maybe the end of the earth is near. 🙂
Indeed. But that doesn’t answer the question as to how we should interpret Genesis. It merely tells us the original manuscripts were free of error. Now we have to think about the genre, the intent or purpose of the author(s) and Author, and what they and we are supposed to get out of it. What are we supposed to learn?
Sal,
While I would not advocate returning to any of those ages, I do want to say that I think there has been much good in past church history.
I appreciate the incredible theological mind of Augustine and the recovery of the gospel by the Reformers, for example.
So, I do not want to have a mindset that believes that humanity is progressing right along with the progression we see in technology.
I never thought that way. I have never been a believer in human ‘progress.’ This intellectual idea called progress is, I believe, a myth. A myth that results because people don’t recognize the impoverishment of the soul alongside certain visible results emerging from the sciences. A myth that ignores the unintended consequences resulting from advancement technologically. A myth because the scientific results emerged out of borrowed Christian capital. And a myth because the advancements began only after Christianity had had time to make its impact and prepare for this. And a myth because the advancements themselves are leaving us increasingly bankrupt spiritually as Christianity recedes. People will be forced to use technique just to manage human dysfunction that’s now been created; the task now is to reign in the ensuing chaos.
But the issue of the age of the earth centers on one’s interpretation of Genesis, not their acceptance or rejection of inerrancy. Indeed one can be an inerrantist and maintain the author used the popular near eastern creation myth to communicate it properly for Jews. St. John adapted a woman-child-dragon myth to convey God’s plan for his people through time, i.e. Israel, Christ, and the Church. I think we know the dragon is really Satan, that the woman and child are Jews and Jewisha nd Gentile Christians. So I think the serpent was Satan, too. And I think Adam and Eve were literal people. As to the mythic backdrop, I don’t know. Was it a literary device? I suppose that’s possible.
The way one might determine if John used near eastern creation myth or not is dependent on one’s view of inspiration.
If one adheres to Dynamic, verbal, plenary inspiration, one would reject John’s use of the creation myth and credit the characters used in the Revelation as John’s strict obedience to the directives of the Holy Spirit’s desire to use those specific characters in writing the Revelation.
Yes, and either way the myth was employed. There was no literal woman-child-dragon scenario. It refers to a literal drama.
That drama being God and his people and Satanic attack.
Sal,
How would you possibly know that John knew of any creation myth? You do not, nor does anyone, for that matter. To say he did is pure supposition.
To say he wrote according to the directives of the Holy Spirit in the use of signs and symbols is documented within the content of the Revelation itself.
Yes, did he fall into a trance-like state? Was it utter dictation? Or did he write while inspired in some other way? There’s the divine and the human element, and I’m not sure what that means in practice. Either way, the characters were employed and we know there was the mother-son-monster scenario. We know, too, that other creation myths have been around. So writers or the Holy Spirit, or both, use material and communicate something that is true. I don’t say factual, because no dragon existed. No dragon will arise. Only what the dragon represented, which I think was Satan. The serpent was also Satan, I believe. As for the seven day week, it’s a template. I don’t know that it’s literal. There was no sun at the start so time could not be told that way. But again, I don’t know. I suppose Genesis contains a mythic element. But this doesn’t change the truth that the Triune God created all things in the beginning and it doesn’t change his plan through the ages that, despite our fall, he restores his people and the world. The narrative is in no way disrupted by other viewpoints relating to Genesis. The story’s essential integrity remains.
The Holy Spirit could have put it into his mind to write that down. I don’t know. Either way, it’s not literal. It’s not an actual dragon. The woman and child can be Mary and Jesus at a literal level, but it’s symbolic yet, I think: Israel, Christ, the Church.
The Bible begins in Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void.” That is literal. Anything that contains God doing something, creating something, and also has Christ, the Holy Spirit creating something, doing something, that is to be taken literally and not as a myth. The creation of Adam, Eve, animals, plants. To be taken literally. It is not a myth. It is not using any myths or allegorical language. It is fact. Truth. Not a parable anymore than Christ’s death, birth, resurrection is not a parable but actual events.
Yes, I think Adam and Eve were real-life characters. I think the serpent was Satan. I believe that God created the world and the first humans and that they fell by disobedience. I see Christ as the answer to that. He Reconciles us to God. Creation, too, is restored.
As to the process of creation, I don’t know. And I don’t care. I see Genesis as employing a literary device. Either way the same truth is communicated. The facts are not necessarily knowable. Again, the central truth is: that God created us, we fell, and the stage was set for Christ to restore us.
But I think we can miss the point that myth can be true, or that it can convey truth without necessarily involving factual detail. In such an instance, the Genesis creation story would be the Myth of myths. The one that trumps all others, serving as it does to communicate the real story: that the monotheistic God of Israel created all things well, making humanity in his image, and allowing them to choose their path with its results. Here, the dichotomy is not between myth and truth, but between truth and fact as we ascertain it historically and scientifically in our own day.
Also, Israel had two eschatological visions. First, they envisioned a literal Israel where they reigned on the present earth. Then, they saw a new world, cosmic renewal, and a peaceable kingdom of all peoples. I think St. John adapts the former to the 1000 years and holds the latter for the new heaven and earth. So literary devices play a role in communicating spiritual truth.
I’m not saying the 1000 years are literal, either. What I find in Revelation is that numbers are symbolic. I suppose the 1000 years speak to the church victorious while the peaceable kingdom is the consummation of all things. I think that makes the most sense.
Just want to throw a fun wrinkle into the mix regarding the “no death before the fall” thing.
What about the human mouth, aka teeth? Did God only give us the meat-eating teeth after the fall? Or did he give us those teeth before the fall, knowing there would be a fall, and thus provided Adam/Eve with the right teeth to eat the nice and tasty animals.
What about animals that are carnivores such as canines, felines, ect? Did they starve before the fall?
Also does death refer just to animals or did plant’s not die as well? If that is the case then just what did Adam/eve and all the animals eat if they could not “kill” the plants?
Hehe…now that I have successfully stirred the pot, allow me to affirm that I do hold to a literal 6 day creation. And that “death” as refered to Adam and the fall was either talking exclusively about human death, and/or spiritual death.
I tried this argument in the last thread. Evidently sharks ate green beans and okra, and insects and bacteria were immortal before the fall. I suppose mosquitoes were ok since they don’t kill anyone, but probably mosquito bites didn’t itch before the fall.
Bill, prior to the fall, there was no curse on nature. I guess I do not know or understand everything that meant, but I think that teachings of scripture should be examined seriously, not sarcastically.
Sin brought death and a curse on nature.
I dont know if you were refering to both Bill and myself, but I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am serious. When I look at creation, I see a amazing and beautiful balence. Pagan earth worshipers call it the “Circle of life”, but I see God’s majestic planning in the way creation acts. Creation natrually functions according to God’s design (as the lion king puts it) “We (the lions) eat the antelope, and when we die our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass.” That is God’s plan, that is God’s awesome power working itself out. It is humanity who messes this process up. THAT is the curse, in my opinion. Creation suffers from its natural course because of the sin of man.
Again, however, humans and animals aside, if there was no physical death prior to the fall then what happened to the plants? Most plants dont survive when you eat them you know. Did Adam/Eve make bread? That kills the wheat plants you know. Carrots, potato, as in most starches are the root of the plant, digging them up to eat kills the plant.
Even more so, plants have cells too. Those cells when apart of the plant are “alive”. When you eat them, they “die”, they are destroyed as your (or an animals) body digests the food and turns it into nutrients and energy for the body. How does this fit into the “no physical death” thing?
Again, I bring up the types of teeth God gave us. Some of our teeth are exclusively designed for meat eating. Did we have these teeth before the fall? If so, then you have to ask why did God give us those teeth if His plan was to have Adam and Eve live in peace and non-meat eating sinless perfection for all of eternity.
For humanity our physical and spiritual death are tied together. Those who do not have Christ Jesus, die both physically and spiritually. Those who do have Christ Jesus, live spiritually, and again physically in new perfected bodies.
And that “death” as refered to Adam and the fall was either talking exclusively about human death, and/or spiritual death.
It was talking of both spiritual and physical death for Adam and Eve.
God promised Adam that he would die the very day he ate the fruit. He lived almost a millennium after that day.
Are you saying that God lied?
Or could it be that unlike some of “us,” God did not feel bound to take His words literally? Call it grace, call it that God is not hung up with the concept of time as are we and is Lord of time as well as everything else, the point is the same: Adam came to know there were ultimate consequeces for disobedience.
John
Well said, John. I think we’ll run into trouble if we play science at its own game. Their rules are not those of God.
As a parent speaks to a child, so God speaks to his people. He lovingly condescends to us. He informs us on a need-to-know basis. And this, to me, is why we musn’t take God literally in every instance. But we must always take him seriously!
I’m saying that demanding that we read Genesis 1 literally and then interpreting it non-literally is a double standard. Adam and Eve did not die physically when they ate of the fruit, therefore what God threatened them with was not physical death, but rather spiritual death. “Dead in trespasses and sin” “Let the dead bury their dead”, and so on.
Adam and Eve were not necessarily designed to live forever. In fact, God assured their physical death, not by changing their physical nature after the fall, but by banishing them from the Garden and thus from eating of the tree of life. Since there was only one tree of life, it seems unreasonable to assume that all creatures worldwide would come to eat of the tree. They were not immortal. Whether lions and tigers and bears ate vegetables or not, they weren’t going to live forever.
And the story of creation is inspired. It tells us that God created all things and that they were good. He doesn’t begrudge creation its own existence. Creation was not the Fall. The Fall came later as a result of sin. Christ came to Reconcile the world. To Restore it to himself. St. John saw the marriage of heaven and earth: there’s a garden, now a city, and it’s sanctified by God. He never again departs. Creation continues forever. Again, I don’t know if the days were literal or if they represent aions. I know, however, that God’s story’s the same either way. I really don’t care about the concrete particulars.
Question for those saying that those holding to old earth are holding to faulty hermeneutic which stands against literal, common sense interpretation:
How do we define a day? Typically, it is by a twenty-four rotation of the earth as the earth slowly rotates around the sun. However, in Genesis you have the author saying what God did on the first day, even though he has not yet created essential elements of how we define a day: namely, the sun and moon isn’t created until day four. In other words, how do you have a “day” without the defining markers of a “day” existing yet?
I’m not saying the old earth proponents are right, only that there are hermeneutical difficulties with both views.
At the end of the day, perhaps we must say that God isn’t trying to telling us how long creation took, but instead that the point of Genesis 1 is not scientific, but theological. Perhaps there is not enough authorical intent in Genesis 1 to accurately assume an age of the earth.
With that, I am not…
Peter
A few hours after my comment, I felt my attempt at humor would probably not be recognized for what it was, so I would like to clarify that I am not in any way making fun of Peter Lumpkins’ ideas or ministry, only his tagline at the end of posts/comments.
Dave:
You posed the question: “Significantly, did anyone ever advance these old-earth theories before Darwin and the spread of evolutionary theory?”
You might be interested to read Philip Gosse’s Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot (1857). It was actually published two years before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), at a time when many were trying to reconcile the rapidly-developing and, (for lack of a better word), evolving scientific views of the natural world with traditional Christian beliefs.
Although Darwin’s Origins had not yet been published, early forms of evolutionary thinking were already pervasive in the scientific community, and Gosse provides a caveat that he directly rejects those views as a starting point. For Gosse, the accepted starting position is a literal interpretation of scripture, to which scientific understanding must be reconciled, and not the other way around.
In short, Gosse argues the general position that God created an old world, with the appearance of age. (E.g., God created a world with geologically formed mountains and streams, fully-grown trees with rings, layers of sedimentary rock, fully-grown animals, and, ultimately, Adam and Eve with belly buttons, hence the name of the book.)
It’s definitely a dense read—I’ll admit that I may have glossed over some of the geological and botanical history lessons—but it provides an interesting contrast from one of Darwin’s contemporaries.
Interesting.
My point is this – I am suspicious of any biblical interpretation which only arose in history after a sociological or scientific movement.
Suddenly when evolutionary theory arises, voila, we find ages in the scriptures.
Very convenient. Suspiciously convenient to me.
I often feel as you do. Oswald Spengler held that evolution was a western projection. It arose among the Greeks, but it didn’t seem to catch on with them. We seem enamoured with it. But I still say we must acknowledge that the creation story in Genesis is that: a story. Through it God communicates his truth to us. Notwithstanding deep time and evolution, the story concerns itself with truth. Not facts per se. And many people miss this. I think it’s because we live in a scientific age. And we’re trying to prove ourselves using the techniques of the opponent. But it’s not necessary. Again, I think you’re right. I suspect we’re projecting the idea of evolution onto our world. We’ve constructed a picture and our imaginations have played an integral role in that. What we possess in the way of certainty, I think, is God’s truth that he created all things well, we in his image, and that we fell. And the story goes on from there.
Honestly, I’m not sure where I stand on the issue….but you have to be careful thinking like this. The primary view of the church was geocentric for a very, very long time…once heliocentric theory was proven, that changed, and rightly so.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that anything related to this discussion has been proven to that extent.
I understand, and commend, a conservative attitude towards scientific discovery, but we have to remember that it IS possible for the Church to interpret the Bible incorrectly for 1000’s of years (although it doesn’t happen often.) Revelation, if true, must be heeded, regardless of whether it is general or special.
Excellent assessment. Both the church and science could be wrong and are both subject to change. How humbling this is. I think of something Barth said, and I paraphrase: There is God and his creation. And then there is the understanding we assume concerning it all.
If it’s a hoax, it’s the grandest one of the modern era. I think we have to respond to science whether or not it’s correct in each of its theories or hypotheses. We have the dinosaurs and records. We have bone fragments. So we should do something with these things. We don’t have to accept the idea of macro-evolution. But I would like to know where their supposed findings fit in or don’t fit in for that matter. Christian thought has not gone far enough in addressing that, obviously, since so much confusion and uncertainty remain.
I’m sort of like Bill Mac here, tired from the previous discussion.
I believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis completely. I am also an Ole Earther. This is not a contradiction though, because I do not interpret those 11 chapters the same way most of you do. Call it an allegorical interpretation, whatever, I’m not hung up on names. I do not believe that either God or Moses or whomever was trying to give us a blow-by-blow description of creation. If Genesis contailed the solution of the Schrodiger equation (dealing with the conversion between matter & energy, including Einstein’s e=mc2) no one 2000, 3000, etc. years ago would have had a clue what it was saying. God phrased it in such a way that pre-scientific people could understand the message of God Almight as creator once-and-for-all, not that Ba’al (or whoever) had to re-create life every spring, and had to be bribed into doing that by appropriate sacrifices. The literalistic understanding of the Bible I think came only much later (possibly in the Reformation/beginnings of the “Age of Reason”) when people started to view the Bible as a philosophical source-book on which to build elaborate theologies of things beyond the scope of classical theology–and not ever “literalists” take everything in the Bible as literal, as Sal points out. For that matter, the New Testament, taken to its logical conclusion in literality, denies the germ theory of illness and insists sickness is caused by demons. In other words, to me the Bible, especially Genesis, was written to tell us “Why?” whereas science tries to answer the “How?” question. So then: even if there was death before Adam & Eve, but they had no consciousness of it (much as do animals), was it real to them? Seems “no” to me. And if homonids or carnivores ate meat before the Garden, but had no consciousness of perfection/God, were they really human? I think not. If a flood destroyed Noah’s world, does it matter if his world was what we recognize as the world or a rather smaller place? God’s point is the same. Interestingly though, I could answer Joe’s question, “Was there a literal Adam and Eve?” with a yes, though I do not know for sure those were their names, since the Hebrew account refers to them as “the Adam” and “the Eve,” as thugh they were titles not names. And guess what? If I remember my Hebrew correctly, “Adam” means “man who came from earth” and “Eve” as “mother of mankind” or something of the sort. But either way, there had to be a first couple with whom God communicated and thus were completely and really human.
So to directrly answer Dave:
#1: no
#2: yes
#3: few, but no more than any other system
#4: no
#5: no
John
This is an obscure doctrinal position held by Spanish bullfighters.
Excellent. LOL. Thank you Bill Mac. That line jump started my day.
🙂
Yeah, well, I try to make people’s days.
John
John,
Have you given much though as to what kind of service weapon the OE police carried. 🙂
John, it has been a while since we had a blog set-to. I trust you and your family are in well health and prospering in our Lord Jesus. Next time you get to Birmingham, give me a call. I would like to visit with you.
No, I haven’t. In the absence of Col. Colt & brothers Smith & Wesson, they must have been pretty well naked.
Would love to. Thought I was getting down in last Spring, but that didn’t happen. Then I thought September, early October at the latest. Those passed too. Maybe this coming Spring. Need to find my old boss, Clyde Wolfe, in Shelby County too.
John
Well put. Yes, since the Reformation or Age of Reason, thereabouts, we’ve gone past the concerns of classical theology. We’ve gotten literal and scientific. We’re still trying to do what Sir ISaac Newton did, predicting the second coming, and we remain children of Archbishop Unger, trying to set the date of God’s original creation. Hence, we’re tied up in this literal understanding of the text, as we’ve hijacked it for scientific and historical purposes. The BIble obviously would ‘touch on’ science and hsitory. But to try to match them up seems simple-minded. I think we should accept the purpose for which the documents were written (and God-breathed).
And this opens up a new avenue for thought: how can we return to viewing the Bible in the way it was classically seen by people like St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, and so on (without accepting any theological leanings to which they held)? How do we reclaim the classical heritage–that Great Tradition–which constitutes the mainstream of thought, indeed the best of Christian thought? What questions did they ask? What kind of answers did they reach? By what process? What kind of hermeneutics did they employ, in other words? What presuppositions did they bring to the Bible or the texts prior to canonization? How did they preach or homilize? I wish to know how they brought theiir understanding to bear on their context, to interpret it for their own day. I have the strange and unnerving sense that we’re missing something important. That the wool has been pulled over our eyes. That this has all happened within the past several centuries. Yes, the church has been wrong before, and for a very long period. Has it happened on a smaller scale more recently on the historical scene? THese are all thoughts to ponder.
I have a question in regards to Genesis 1 and 2 for those who want to take Genesis 1 as the literal creation account rather than as an ANE poem or verse emphasizing God’s sovereignity over all creation and as the source of all that is and all that ever will be.
For the record, to deal with the inevitable attacks, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe in a literal temptation and a literal Fall. I believe that creation was cursed because of the Fall and that death of humanity entered the world as a result of the Fall- immediate spiritual death (separation from God) and imminent physical death. That’s a lot of caveats…what have we become?
Now to my question, Genesis 1 lists a very specific order of creation- going by days- with no real space for deviation. Genesis 2 has a very DIFFERENT creation order, most specifically when God created man. How do those who take Genesis 1 as a literal account of creation reconcile these differences. I am honestly interested because I have never heard a good explanation that dealt with this serious hole in the Genesis 1 as literal discussion.
I what way is the order different in chapter 1 than in chapter 2? The only difference is that God homes in on His creation of man in chapter 2 with greater detail. I guess I can’t see what you’re talking about.
Pardon me I meant *”In what way”
In Genesis 2 man is created before anything other than the earth itself. Verse 7 says that man was created. Then in verse 8 God creates a Garden and then vegetation. Then God takes man out of the wilderness outside the Garden and places him in the Garden. Then God creates all the animals and has Adam name them. This is a significant difference in the order of creation from Genesis 1.
The vegetation issue is in reference to the garden, not the whole earth. As far as the animals verse 19 says that God “had” formed every beast of the field etc…(ESV) It’s in the imperfect tense in Hebrew which denotes something begun in the past. They were already created, God simply brought them to Adam to name. There is not a different order given only everything as it relates to the creation of man.
Ummm…
That is not what the text says. Look at verse 5: 5When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up (ESV) There was no plants life before man was formed according to this passage.
Second, according to the footnoting of the ESV and my Hebrew prof the translation of v19 is debatable. Look at the footnote located here : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%202&version=ESV (footnote F for your convenience)
I agree with you that the creation story in Genesis 2 is Man-centric. That still does not solve the problem of the changed order. Which one is literal? Which one am I to read as figurative?
Let’s deal with the second issue first, I agree the translation of vs. 19 is debatable, but what we do know is that it is in the imperfect tense and thus is usually rendered in the past tense so it would still indicate that these animals already existed. But in any event you and I both agree that there is room for disagreement on the verse, therefore it’s basically a wash at best.
As to verse 5 the word translated “land” is translated “earth” in many verses but it also means region, district, territory, country or nation. An example would be Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. (ESV) God was talking about the land (same Hebrew word as vs. 19) of Canaan, a specific region. It would appear to me that God is referring to the area in which God eventually planted the garden of Eden. Although I admit there is room for debate on this interpretation as well.
I think Ryan presents an important point. I had a professor whose sole issue with biblical creation was the difference in the two accounts. We must not, like him, put the Bible to scientific tests and modern-day histoical standards. The story communicates the truth we need. Whether the details are literal or part of a technique to communicate something foundational is ultimately of no concern to our faith. The truth is that God created all things well, and that we fell, and that Christ comes as Redeemer and Restorer.
Yes, I think the setting shifts to convey something new. I think each account gives us a different snapshot. And the framework has to be seen then from a functional perspective. The author (and the Holy Spirit) are trying to convey different things throughout the accounts. That’s my take on this.
In fact, that’s my take on the book of Revelation. That it offers snapshots of eschatological reality unfolding. Now on earth, now in heaven, from this angle and that. No linear chronology but a kaliedescopic view. Dizzying, but appropriate within the genre. In fact I think Revelation chapter 20 is a view of the saints victorious following death. The one-thousand years I take as symbolic for this triumphant reign throughout the church era. The Jews initially envisioned a time when Israel’s political supremacy would be restored, and I think St. John adapted that vision to this reality. It’s as if he’s saying: You wanted to know when the kingdom would be restored. Well, here it is. We have the church and the martyrs live on. Israel’s later vision was universal and cosmic; the peaceable kingdom where all nations live in a new world. I think that St. John would have said, I showed you the kingdom as it is now in chapter 20. Read forward to the final chapters to see what the kingdom looks like in its consummation. A new heaven and a new earth reveal the promise of that later, global vision.
I am a YE, having moved from an OE and DE through TE to YE. The thing that threw me off OE, DE, and TE was the scientific method. Having studied Intellectual History and wrestled with the problem of a thesis with a two-sided concept or a concept with two parts which appeared to contradict each other and how to to make this fit the scientific method in which you have the hypothesis and the experiment and the null hpyothesis raised all sorts of issues, problems, perplexities, difficulties, yech. The truth of the matter is that we need a more synthetical method, instead of the old one which leads to the paralysis of analysis. Besides DE is not scientific, regardless of the claims to the contrary, due to the fact that it is not a laboratory experiment in which one can control all the factors. In fact, it is an extrapolation of rationalization from some quasi-experimental ideas and practices to an application of long involved processes which admit of no way to cross-check them. That is why I am impressed by the scientific works supporting the Deluge written in the 1600s and 1700s by scientists at Oxford and Cambridge. Just consider the bone evidence of animals found near summits of hills and mountains which points to a flood catastrophe and that is just a small amount of information with which the scholars and scientists of thsoe days wrestled with in considering human and earth origins. Add to that the inverted layers lying conformably, that is, old earth strata overlying young earth strata without any evidence of fracturing or faulting, some of it amounting to hundreds of thousands of square miles, e.g., Montana, parts of British Columbia, and some of our other Western States (vide, Morris and Whitcomb, citing from memory of notes taken 45 years ago), and you have evidence that is mind boggling. Also add the info. re: Darwin’s Black Box which the author wound up mealy mouthing about on the witnessing stand, when he should have been prepared for the sharp lawyer who was sent there to make him look like an idiot. Also add the invitation of Gentry to scientists to falsify his finds on haloes in basaltic rocks which point to creationistic origins and how they drummed him out of grants at Oakridge, not the slightest bit of interest in wrestling with the evidence, onlys in maintaining the status quo, the aim of the financial backers for nefarious purposes of their own. Wake up you folks and start doing research, years of research and reading and note taking and scientific experiments, and you will find that the Book has the best answers yet, and that our real problem is that it is so clear. Yes, biblical clarity or perspicuity as the scholar called it who made the remark is the problem. We see it, we are sure we understand it, and the real problem is the we are looking in another medium, the depth of which evades our lack of ability to perceive depths in a medium that is really unfamiliar to us. We are afflicted by a bunch of nauseous conformists who can’t and won’t think for themselves, because the fallacy of peer reviewers and their criticisms might drive one out of the ranks of the scientific acceptable, forgetting that the establishment in medicine, for example, stuck the fellow in an Insane Asylum who demanded that medical personnel should wash their hands before and after examining patients. It took a hundred years to get that established, and it is still a problem. Our problem with our science is that it is, for all of its pretensions, not very scientific, and not the least of which is that its methodology is wanting in dealing with complex realities. It wants as I have said before and say again, a more synthetical method.
bapticus hereticus on Dave’s five questions.
On 1: If one’s hermeneutical system states that this is that, then anything not affirming this as that will not be considered sound. Thus it seems to follow that if one does not follow Dave’s hermeneutical system, in the main, one will not likely conclude this is that as does Dave and not conclude this is that for the same reasons as does Dave.
I do not start with scripture being authoritative in matters of science. Thus given my hermeneutical system, Dave will not consider any conclusion based on such as being sound, although I do, given the internal consistency of my argument and its ability to account for observable, verifiable facts. That evolutionary theory as originally conceived is not fully accounted for is not disputed, even among those that do research in this area, but no theory, even coupled with undisputed evidence, has ever shown r = 1. Such is not necessary, however, for theory to be validated, its utility affirmed, and have policy based on such.
On 2: Rightly, “OE” is based on science, for such questions are scientific in nature. Having said that, I am not raising conflict between the insights of science and religion, for there is too much Whitehead, Kaufman, and scripture in me to do that. Scripture read from different lenses will lead one to other insights that some might not consider orthodox. But let us recall that a good bit of orthodox conceptualizations, while themselves creative constructions to explain the unexplainable, were and have always been tempered with and propagated by political behavior.
On 3: The question assumes scripture is to be used as science. I do not accept the question. But I accept the chapter as a tremendously creative account that points us to a belief in a creative and loving God.
On 4: The beginnings of the universe, our observable reality, reality itself, are still open questions that beg greater scientific investigation. If I am open to truth, I am not concerned where it is found, nor do I (intellectually) fear it, for I do believe that truth ultimately manifests itself in greater freedom and responsibility.
On 5: Again, after scriptures, Whitehead, Kaufman, and others, I do not hold to either science or religion being the enemy of the other. I see in scriptures a developing understanding of God and how humanity is to relate to itself, the world, and God. In scripture, I see an unfolding of understanding about God and how it has influenced humanity. Scripture itself reveals an attribute of science: progression of knowledge. It also reveals, like science, that its insights can be used for good or for evil. Each field has its limits, of course, given differing epistemological frameworks that are not always or completely congruent. Science will take us far. Ultimately, there is mystery; could anything else be considered God?
Yes, all this brings us back to the matter of presuppositions. We begin reading the text with a backdrop of our own, recognized or unrecognized. It’s there. We interpret the text accordingly. We will remain talking past each other until we acknowledge each other’s premises. When I approach the creation story, I’m not looking to see the process involved in creation, or the ‘how’ of it. I don’t even think that’s possible. What I go to Genesis to see is a mythic expression of what occurred. That God created all things well. That he made us in his image. That we fell. That prepares us for the rest of Scripture, the remaining story. We really need to stop this business of trying to pin some process down. To be literal, precise, exact, and factual. We need to concern ourselves with the truth being communicated. If we miss that, nothing else will matter anyway. If we catch the truth, we have everything that really matters.
Sal,
It’s good to hear someone mention “presuppositions.” I have been saying it on this (and a few other) blogs for several years now, only to have it ignored, overlooked, or criticized. But I remain adament that it is important. When I have mentioed it, I have had several resondants, to my right theologically, say, “I have no pesuppositions except that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.” Well, they do. They presuppose that it is not only inerrant in the autographs, buit also in the version in their hands; they presuppose that it is a philosophical source book of propositional truth, such that each and every thought represented in it can be taken literally according to other presuppositions they have and used to build elaborate theologies which occasionally end up far, far away from anything the Bible actually says; and they often presuppose that these “logical” conclusions and interpretations are just as valid and just as true as anything that is actually in the Sacred Text. It also, in my opinion, tends to blind people to some significant issues the Bible writers were actually trying to communicate. Some, for instance, are so intent on reading geology into Genesis 1 & 2 that they fail to see that the creation account was (partly) written as a counter to the ancient prevailing notion that creation had to take place anew every spring, and that the “gods” had to be bribed into it, sometimes through human sacrifice. That is more significant to me than arguing against the prevailing weight of science in the 21st Century. Thanks, Sal.
John
Exactly. The purposes for which these books were written are very far from many of our contemporary concerns. What’s important is what God is telling all of us. Truth is infinitely more vital than facts. The creation research enterprise is complicated because the relationship between science and Christianity is bound up in an epistemological web that involves two areas speaking a different language for quite different purposes. While the pieces may be theoretically capable of being put together from both sides to solve the puzzle, I’m not sure it is manageable in practice because of what you said for example. And we do well to remember that God requires our faith. Somehow, somewhere, we must need faith. We must be forced at some point to hope against all hope, notwithstanding the best worldview education and apologetics. Call me a fidiest. I don’t care.
We’re going about it all wrong. We’re supposed to go to the Bible looking to see what God has to say to us. We need to let the Holy Spirit illuminate us. In Genesis we learn what we need to. Not what we’re curious about. Not what relates to our current mindset, thought patterns, or categories. Not what fits within our backdrop. What we need, we will get. But remember the Jewish mindset, and what it all would have meant to them. How they would have read it. What they would have gotten from it. How it functioned for them. The story is certainly true. I persist in my distinction between fact and truth because we need to knwo the truth. I don’t think we need to know the facts involved in that truth. My hope is that we will realize this distinction. The distinction between truth and fact. Of course facts surrounded the truth. But I want the story to convey the truth. I don’t think it has to tell us the facts involved.
But what remains central to me is the Incarnation. That God became man to restore us. Creation waits for us to find itself again. So life is worth it. All of our pain, suffering, grief, and loss are taken up into the cross and transformed. We are reborn.
Regarding the authority of the Bible on scientific matters, I know that it is often said in so many words that the Bible is not intended to be a scientific textbook. I have this observation:
1) The Bible is authoritative across ideological categories. While it is focused primarily on theology, that focus is grounded in a very real history.
2) Science is an ideological category that is not found in the Bible.
3) Since the bible is authoritative across ideological categories, it is factually true within a good hermeneutical system.
4) Therefore, the Bible is true with regards to any facts that can be categorized as scientific. It is not intended to be comprehensively scientific according to our present-day ideological sensibilities. But it is accurate in what it says.
5) Good hermeneutics are founded in the same apologetic that informs our faith. Good hermeneutics, and subsequently apologetics, are not determined by a priori conclusions that we have derived from our environmental (culture, sociological, etc) sensibilities and philosophies.
6) There are good reasons to conclude by observation that parts of this world may be very old. There are also good reasons, even outside the Bible, to doubt these observations. Therefore, scientific conclusions are not binding and not authoritative.
7) Therefore, scientific conclusions are not sufficient basis to re-interpret the Bible.
You leave one thing out. The way Scripture spoke of nature and creation in particular may be true without being factual. This distinction is still not being realized. We keep assuming that because the Bible is totally true (and the original manuscripts inerrant in some sense) that therefore we can connect science and the Word of God like a puzzle. We’re not allowing for the fact that genres are used for their various effects. I’m not saying the Word of God communicates anything less than perfect truth. But it’s addressing people in a certain way that makes the quest of the modern creation researcher problematic.
Obviously we are to take genres into account. But why would we think that the first few chapters of Genesis are particularly a different genre than the rest of Genesis given that Moses who spoke to God face-to-face set the words down as such? There is no good reason to do so.
I would say it CAN be possible. Here’s why: while later events are archtypal, such as the flood, Babel and the dispersion, etc., creation is the arch-archtypal event. It’s the most foundational, most elemental event that preceded all others, the one that may be the most difficult to relate, and the one that may yield itself most to mythic / poetic expression. Also, an event that was already expressed falsely by surrounding peoples, and one that needed to be clarified. I can see where myth could be an excellent vehicle for this. A grand Myth of myths or Myth to bust all others would point people to the one, all-powerful, and good God. I could also see where a few other events of significance early on in God’s story might lend themselves to mythic expression. But we must remember that these events really happened, which of course involved factual detail (which you really wouldn’t want to know because those details are unimportant for the story’s purpose).
Afraid to stand up to the scientific establishment which is a facade, a charade backed by money buying some one’s way to control. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Scientism wants you to buy its pretensions and never do the hard sweaty nitty gritty work of years of experiments, research, et.al., needed to refute a 100 years of baloney. Just treat the Scopes trial to a scathing examination, and you will find as I did some very interesting but little known facts. E.g., the man with the education was William Jennings Bryan – not Clarence Darrow. In fact, I have never forgotten the shocked expression on the professor’s face, when my paper revealed that William Jennings Bryan had three earned degrees, a bachelor’s, a master’s, and a bachelor of laws, total of 8-9 years of formal training. Also when Bryan was confronted with the tooth from Nebraska man, He replied, “For all I know, it could be a pig’s tooth.” Many years later, it was shown to be the tooth of an early form of the peccary or, in other words, a pig. Science, especially, scientism which is not science at all but a philosophical view point, a form of naturalism, has become the establishment, and establishments are especially noted for their blindness.
Or take the case of the ark on Ararat and the Armenian youth circa 1900 witnessed two British men curse and scream and deny what they saw. They even tried their best to destroy the fossilized vehicle. That is a most unusual testimony, and it is its uniqueness that bespeaks something out of the ordinary, something remarkable, about the matter involved. Why is it we had such little training in independent thought, in analytical, critical, and synthetical types of thinking? Why can’t we think for ourselves, and investigate on our own, suspending judgment until we have accumulated enough information and evidence to establish the true nature/structure of the situation we are seeking to understand? Afraid to believe the Book that claims to be inspired of God, even the very breathings of God? And when do we treat our skepticism to a bath in its own carping and scathing methods…like the student at SEBTS back in the early seventies who used the historical critical to prove that we did not have one word of the model prayer from Jesus except, perhaps, mabe, the word Father, and we could not be sure of that. The professor was so distressed (a German theologue by the way), he wrote on the student’s paper in red, “Matthew and Luke believed it, why can’t you?” The student said, “The professor is quoting the Bible to me.” I think the professor saw for the first time the real effect of the historical critical approach carried to its logical conclusions, a reality now apparent in Norman Perrins words, “We have in the New Testament the merest whisper of Jesus’ voice.” And, of course, there is Ehrman at UNC-Chapel Hill who has utterly given up all belief in the Christian Faith due to his use of the historical critical method and yet recommending that it be used. Why use the approach of the aliens of the Enlightenment to understand the scripture? Why let God’s enemies determine how you study the Bible? And if Christian doctrine was behind the development of the Scientific Method, why let the secularists have it and cry foul when you see the rather plain words about creation as describing a more recent origin? Intimidation is one of the techniques of propaganda, of brainwashing. Our government and much of our science these days use brainwashing to get and maintain the upper hand in the lives of citizens and minions, in other words, to maintain power over others.
Dr. Willingham, you always bring such impoortant insights to the discussion. You have a great deal of learning and experience behind you. I tremble at the thought that I might know more than you. I of course agree, as with Spengler, that evolution seems a Western projection. Still, that doesn’t resolve the problem of interpreting Genesis. I consider it functioned to present the Grand Myth that busts all myths. The one that communicates true truth. As for the facts, I don’t think they’re important. I don’t think the text goes there, so to speak.
Yes, the scientific establishment plays its games. Kuhn, in his book The Nature of Scientific Paradigms, explains what he sees as the sociological role involved. We know there are economic, psychological, spiritual and other ones.
It’s true that Bryan was very learned. The media twisted the story. And by the twenties, the rural side was losing to the intelligensia.
Someone raised an interesting remark about geneologies. Were these “telescoped” or “condensed” as part of a technique to illustrate broader truth and to tie it all together, so to speak? If so, my faith is in no way shaken by this. It merely underscores God’s creative story-telling ability, that he would inspire each writer and gather together the documents to form one canon. And that that canon would come to constitute the grandest literary production ever. A divine, cosmic drama that embraces everyone, intersecting all our hearts and minds at their deepest level. I stand amazed!
The more I ponder things, the more I’m convinced that we must hold to the basic storyline. This is what we believe: that God created all things; that he made us in his image; that we fell away; and that Christ came to reconcile us and to restore creation. We must believe in all that this implies. When we do, we find our place in the story and play out our role as people of God. This is conversion.
Sorry, Sal, but I do not think of my self as being so learned and that no one else has anything to contribute. On the contrary, I look on the most unpromising of people, those lacking in many areas, as definitely having a contribution to make, one that all of the rest of us can’t do without. I never ever look on anyone as inferior nor as superior….only as equals. I love the Bible and believe one had better take it as read….now there are parts that are metaphorical, allegorical, etc. But when we deal with straightforward reporting, we had better go with that rather than take refuge in mythological language, especially as Peter tells us that we have not followed cunningly devised myths. There is reason to fear offending the Just God, calling Him a liar to His face. Having been an atheist and a stupid fool, arrogant as the day is long, and then finding out how blind I was, I regard my quest for knowledge as unending in this world while respecting the word of God written as I respect the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ who is known by Holy Scripture. Besides the great problem of our education is that we learn more about less and less, to the point that we become unable to communicate with others who had done the same on other subjects. We are in desperate need for metatheoretical and metapractical methods of comprehending diverse fields of knowledge; we need a unifying field theory like that which caused Einstein despair. I have thought for over forty years on this issue and I think (stress on think…not meaning know) the answer lies in a synthetical approach that takes apparently contradictory ideas on the same matter as constituting the truth which provides for believers to be balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant or enduring. Any one who looks at the biblical theology will find presentations that are indicative of such reality, e.g., trinity/unity, divine sovereignty/human responsibility, preservation/perseverance, formal/informal, inspiration -divine/human confluence. I once made a list of such polar fields, listing perhaps thirty or more, a diaelectric idea according to a friend of mine in that area, crisnatological or crisontological, as I have termed it (uniting Christ and dissonance from Paul Halmos’s theory of creative dissonance in his The Faith of Counsellors). I have found that two poles of a belief system are the most healthy, while polarization on one of the other of the two poles is a sore progress to insanity. In ’74 I discussed what my researches in church history had revealed with the chairman of a psychology dept. at a nearby state university. He said, “I am doing work in that area right now. Come and do your ma and phd under me.” I said to my wife, “I already have two masters. I just want to preach. I’ll go over the SEBTS and get my D.Min.” She said, “You’ll be sorry.” One time I should have listened…because later on I had to go back and get another master’s…one in counseling. Like it or not we have to live in a society in which the stress is now and perhaps will be even more and more on information, education, and knowlege. Above all, we shall need to be able to think, reason, reflect, think inside and outside the box. We also have to make changes accordingly…without violating the spirit and essence of the biblical faith, a challenge without equal in any day or clime or situation. To the folks who think the Bible is primitive, I say the work reflects an intellectualism that is commensurate with what it claims for its origin, that is, inspired by the Omniscient God. In other words, an intellectualism so deep, so far ranging, so comprehensive, so lucidly complex, so transcendent in simplicity, so defiant of our feeble understandings in its utmost perspicuity and clarity, the Book stands as the Divine confrontation of the mind of mankind to grasp what an infinite wisdom is spoke to us all: “Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?” A man read that book in Arkansas and his life was changed and his home was changed and his family was changed…even though his grasp of the work was painfully and pitifully lacking. Still he had that one little crumb of God-given faith, and his family called him blessed…and thanked God for the visitation into that home.
Dr. Willingham,
Thank you so much for your candid words. I believe that the reasons that people believe such things as theistic evolution is that they have succumbed to intellectual intimidation. They’re afraid that someone may think they’re a fool or less than intellectual and so they buy into what they think is the intelligent position. Most of the time it’s not the arrogant intellectual that God invests the wisdom of the ages, it’s the simple believer. God has indeed hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes! (Mt. 11:25) The masses would know nothing of Hebrew poetic literary devices or creation myths, these are those to whom the Bible was addressed not the Duke Divinity School PhD student who studies everything but the Bible and winds up an unbelieving skeptic. How would the masses, the uneducated, the less than erudite understand the message? That question is more on track than asking how the German higher critic would understand the message.
Thank you again, with deepest respect.
Dr. Willingham,
I would love more information on the account of the Armenian youth witnessing the British men destroying evidence. Thanks
Yes, we lack a synthetic approach. Metatheoretical and metapractical methods in relation to diverse fields of knowledge. We shouldn’t collapse one side of a polarity into the other. Profound insights. But diverse fields and opposing paradigms will I think remain very real. And I consider a creation Myth of myths to be something only a Divine Author could and would provide. A glorious thing transcending a mere report. I don’t think God gave us a Puritan account for the Royal Society. I think he gave us the Grand Myth, and I’m stunned! But I’ve admittedly read Madeliene L’Engle who has taught me to recognize the difference between Truth and factual detail.
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God? How are we to understand this? I don’t know that I have the answer. But I don’t want oft repeated phrases that satisfy surface curiosity.
“These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards way in broad daylight.” C.S. Lewis Fern Seeds and Elephants
There is enough to master in this blessed book without having such a bent for the esoteric. Brother, the scriptures bring light, they don’t bring obscurity.
Thanks for the Lewis quote. Yes, the Bible is meant to offer revelation to the Spirit-illumined mind. But remember, since the seventeenth century, we’ve brought a literal, fact-loving curiosity to the Bible that the ‘masses’ of yore did not possess. Lewis brought this to his readers’ attention on many occassions. So it is we who try to be sophisticated about Genesis when we, like Sir Isaac Newton and Archbishop Ussher, go crazy wtih the Bible. I think divinity programs sometimes try to educate people back out of that. Sometimes you have to be educated to peel away the layers and return to simplicity. Education does this when it ‘knocks down idols.’ It’s ironic that sometimes you have to get smart to get dumb!
1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
No you’re wrong, God has chosen to reveal things to the simple believer. Your education has caused you to ask more questions than you answer, but God’s word brings light not darkness. Quit looking for fern seeds when there is an elephant in the room. I’m sorry I’m not trying to be disrepectful or offensive but your intelletualism has led you down the wrong path.
I don’t know what you disagree with. Are you saying C. S. Lewis was wrong, someone who sold millions of copies of his writings and brought countless people to Christ? I just don’t understand this. I don’t know how you can feel that way if that’s what you’re saying. I must be misunderstanding you.
Sal,
I’m saying Lewis was right, he was describing the intellectual Bible critic. He was saying that they we looking for the fern seeds and missing the elephants. He was saying that they were mistaken because they were always trying to read between the lines and failing to read the lines themselves. He was actually criticizing the esoteric in support of the more concrete or literal. I’m saying read the lines themselves, Sal, stop with all the esoteric stuff and then you will know what you believe. The Bible brings certainty not doubt.
You misquoted C. S. Lewis. He was referring to critics, not pepole who understand the creation story as Myth. Lewis himself cautioned us about reading the Genesis story literally. He strongly felt that would make no sense.
I didn’t misquote Lewis, I said “Bible critic” in the above quote, but what I’m talking about are your comments not only on Genesis but about any scriptures. (see 139) You have a bent for the esoteric, and it causes you to not know what you believe. Quit trying to read between the lines and read the lines themselves. I’m not trying to be offensive but quit relying so much on human wisdom and embrace the simplicity of the scriptures.
Just because I want to see Genesis as the Israelites saw it as opposed to how we’ve seen it since the days of the Royal Society? Hmmnn….I think you’re so modern you can’t remove yourself from such a reaeding. I think you need to consider what a classical reading of Genesis would have been. There was a time when people were not concerned with literal facts. They did not necessarily look for a double or hidden meaning, or an esoteric one as you say. They read the story knowing it had a mythic element.
Everything I’m finding indicates that the classical rabbinic view (although some did hold to allegory) was that Genesis was to be taken literally. So I think the literal view is not outside the mainstream of how the Israelites saw it. My view has nothing to do with being modern or the Royal Society.
Hi JOHN WYLIE,
here’s a good reference to help you as it mentions a wide range of view points and gives sources . . .
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html
I think you’re thinking in terms of absolute myth or a literal account like we’d write today for a historical or scientific journal. I thought I made clear what I meant when I used the term myth. And I thought I clarified what I meant by literal with reference to the Puritan writings and the increasing bent toward literal / puritan-plain speech, to quote Lincoln. THe style used for treatises that circulated for hte Royal Society. Check out Owen Barfield’s Poetic Diction, something that C. S. Lewis said changed his thought on language. Also, see the critic Harold Bloom for his comments on Barfield. I don’t think you see what i’ve been saying. The way you write back to me seems to indicate you haven’t. Let’s take a look at Barfield and examine Lewis on language further than you have. Then let me know what you think.
I’m not esoteric. I don’t see typology or allegory where it doesn’t exist. i want to know how the original authors intended the reader to read the book. Was it literally? Was it metaphorically? Was it poetically? That’s not esoteric. That’s recognizing the genres and expecting from the books no more and no less than what they offer.
Go back and read quote 139 (your quote) and tell me you’re not esoteric. The Bible was written to the masses not the intellectual. I’m not talking about your Genesis views, I’m talking about every statement you make. You have a penchant for the obscure, the uncertain. God’s word brings light not darkness.
I don’t find that at all esoteric. It’s thinking about the nature of the Bible.
You say “Significantly, did anyone ever advance these old-earth theories before Darwin and the spread of evolutionary theory?”
Augustine, for one. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1
In a recent discussion I had with someone, I was confronted with a possible resolution to the supposed problem of the two creation accounts of Genesis: in the second account, vegetation existed because God put it there, but it hadn’t yet grown naturally. So it was watered by the dew. This would resolve the apparent discrepancy between the first account where vegetation exists before Adam, and the second account where the vegetation seems to come afterwards.