Part IV-Does interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as figurative in some sense destroy the very foundation of Christianity (as expressed by Answers in Genesis and many individual believers)?
First, it should be made clear that interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as ages or eras is just as literal as interpreting them as 24 hr days. The Hebrew word (yom) can mean either an era or an age or a 24 hr day. In Genesis 2:5, it clearly means the era or age of creation, not a 24 hr day for all creation. It has been suggested by AiG that the word yom preceded by a numerical descriptor always refers to a 24 hr day. I doubt anyone has scoured all Hebrew writings from that era to determine if this is true, but it certainly is not true of other references to periods of time in the Bible. For example, the 70 weeks of Daniel, which is thought by most interpreters to refer to 70 weeks of years (1 day = 1 year) for a total of 490 years. In this case a unit of time preceded by a number is clearly symbolic and not literal. Thus, suggesting that there was enough time during the biblical creation account to accommodate the extreme age of the earth indicated by multiple lines of scientific evidence can be done without compromising a believe in biblical inerrancy and without compromising a generally literal interpretation of scripture.
The concern expressed by AiG and other is that if one begins to accept parts of the creation accounts as anything but absolutely literal, the whole foundation of the Bible falls like a house of cards. For example, Marty Duren posted a comment wondering whether I believed that Adam and Eve were literal or representative. I responded that I see no reason from scripture of otherwise to think this was not literal, so I accept it as literal. Although I do not need or even want scientific evidence for every claim of scripture, there is support for this particular literal interpretation. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that all human beings alive today are descended from a single woman (the scientists ever called her Eve). I believe the Fall was literal and spiritual. I think the biblical statement that there was no death before the Fall indicated spiritual death. Death is used in many passages in this way, and it is obvious that the basis of the Fall was disobedience to God, pride, and greed: all of these are spiritual flaws; so it would be reasonable that the punishment would be spiritual. Is the reference to all animals eating plants and not other animals literal? I do not know, and it seems to me that it doesn’t matter. However, if this is literal, it does not necessarily contradict evolutionary theory. Under that theory, herbivores developed before carnivores, otherwise the carnivores would have had nothing to eat. One can believe that Genesis is mostly intended literally and believe that every word is true and still accept a limited version of evolution. It is not a compromise to do so.
Insisting on a literal interpretation forces us to deny many many lines of evidence all of which support the validity of evolution. Even the chief proponent and inventor of Intelligent Design theory (Michael Behe) believes in a limited version of evolution. The evidence is truly overwhelming and denying it places us in the realm of irrationality or lack of integrity. Does this mean I value the authority of science over the authority of scripture? Not at all; heaven forbid. In cases where the meaning of scripture is absolutely clear and not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, I accept scripture as true, whether or not science agrees or not. Science is always accepted on a provisional basis and is always subject to revision.
However, the Bible itself notes that nature can tell us something about God (e.g., Psalms 19:1). Almost all of us use this principle in the interpretation of passages like, “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30). Other passages in Psalms express the same idea. The literal interpretation would be that the earth is literally still in space and does not move. However, I do not know any biblical inerrantists who believe this. They accept what we know about science as an indication that this is not the correct interpretation of these passages. The AiG web site addresses this issue using a convoluted argument indicating that the Catholic church had adopted the previous secular scientific view of an earth centered universe and this is the reason the church objected to the writings of Galileo in support of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Of course, no direct documentary evidence can be provided to support this speculation. Even it is true, the most literal interpretation of this passage would still indicate that the earth does not move, and because of our understanding of nature, we do not believe this. This is analogous to the situation with evolution.
Although the evidence for evolution may not be as utterly compelling as the evidence for heliocentrism, it is very strong. The great age of the earth is indicated by multiple types of isotope dating methods, which agree quite well. Cosmology adds evidence for great age by the observation of objects in space which are billions of light years distant (as measured by many different methods). Because the speed of light is constant, light reaching earth from that distance must have been created billions of years ago. Some have argued that God created the universe with an appearance of age as a test or trial. Think for a moment about the implications of this idea. First, the Bible clearly states that no temptation comes from God. Tests and trials may be permitted or actively implemented by God, but are there any examples from the Bible that any of them involved deception on the part of God? How can we possibly think that God would provide valid evidence of great age just to fool us? This would directly contradict other passages on the integrity of God and it would be contrary to His statement that He desires that no one should perish but all should be saved. It is difficult to understand how the idea that God created the universe with an appearance of age could be taken seriously.
A positive consequence of an old earth and involvement of evolution is that the apparent discrepancies between the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is reconciled by dropping the insistence that they are both literal, chronological accounts. I believe they describe real events, but they are intended to be primarily a description of the spiritual origins of man and his relationship with God. I am not ashamed at all of the involvement of supernatural intervention in the creation process. There is no reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life from non-living molecules. I believe God did this in a supernatural manner. When God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve, this was by necessity a supernatural act, because the soul is a supernatural entity. Supernatural intervention cannot be excluded by scientific methods, and there is nothing irrational about the biblical position that God created. However, the best indication from nature and the Bible is that God used both supernatural and natural mechanisms (which He also invented) to create.
Evolution is not inherently atheistic. It, like all other scientific theories and pursuits is materialistic. Yet Christians have never rejected science, per se. They have recognized that this materialistic approach to nature is effective and serves the good of man, and in fact allows us to fulfill God’s command to subdue the earth. The materialist character of science is not the result of some grand conspiracy among atheists of the world, it is the inevitable result of the limitations of science. The methods of science are only effective in dealing with nature, not the supernatural. This does not mean that science necessitates denying the supernatural. It simply is not useful in distinguishing the will of God, for example. Many writers (including Francis Schaeffer) believed that Christianity with our belief in a rational, predictable, consistent God allowed the development of science. I agree with that idea, and even now, Christians virtually all act as though only natural events occur in day to day life. Otherwise we would not hesitate to walk in front of a speeding care while praying for God to make an exception to the laws of physics for His own glory.
It was probably inevitable that there would be animosity between proponents of evolution and believers, when the first outspoken supporter of evolution (Huxley) was also vehemently opposed to religion. However, the Bible is not inherently incompatible with this theory. For example, one of the writers of the series of pamphlets from which the term fundamentalist is derived (The Fundamentals, A testimony to the Truth), pointed out that the Bible did not exclude the possibility of evolution (Science and Christian Faith, by James Orr). I have already pointed out that a prominent Southern Baptist theologian, though not necessarily supporting evolution, believes there are ample reasons to believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended as a strictly chronological, historical document. In reality, believing that Genesis 1 and 2 are entirely figurative would not necessarily change anything that the average Southern Baptist believes about God and man. There are many passages to which this applies. Does it matter whether the flood of Noah was world wide or whether the world in scripture meant the known world? I cannot see how it would matter. The message is the same. So long as we are not proposing figurative interpretations because we deny the supernatural characteristics of God or because we regard the Bible to be just another book (with errors), such interpretations generally would not change matters of faith and practice or lead to doubts about the Bible or serve as a slippery slope to a higher critical approach to scripture. None of that has happened to me, and I am not the only one. When I taught at a Southeastern Conference public university, several of my faculty colleagues and I attended the First Baptist Church in our town. All of us accepted on a provisional basis a limited version of the theory of evolution, because it is the only sound scientific interpretation proposed to date for the evidence available. We all were active and had positions of service in the church (two were deacons) and we were as firm on inerrancy as anyone. Insisting that Genesis 1 and 2 must be interpreted as a literal chronological history with 24 hr days is keeping and will keep many people from seriously considering the gospel. If we correctly understand the Bible and science, they will never conflict, because the Author of both is God. I would suggest that the apparent and obvious internal conflicts in Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g., plants growing before the sun was created and the differences in sequence in chapter 1 and 2) are there purposely to indicate that it is not intended as literal chronological history. Are the proponents of an historical, chronological, and 24 hr day creation sure enough of that interpretation to risk the souls of people who have been well trained in science and who accept a provisional (scientific) version of evolution? Or is it possible that as Christians we simply do not value or care about all those “liberals” that we continually speak and think hatefully about? Even if this is the case, it is not necessary to be liberal to accept a provisional version of evolution. There are many conservative Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible who do. Most of us do not insist that everyone accept our opinion, but we would prefer that others did not purposely stir up animosity between science and believers and thereby decrease the opportunities to reach our science oriented generation for Christ.
First, it should be made clear that interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as ages or eras is just as literal as interpreting them as 24 hr days. The Hebrew word (yom) can mean either an era or an age or a 24 hr day. In Genesis 2:5, it clearly means the era or age of creation, not a 24 hr day for all creation. It has been suggested by AiG that the word yom preceded by a numerical descriptor always refers to a 24 hr day. I doubt anyone has scoured all Hebrew writings from that era to determine if this is true, but it certainly is not true of other references to periods of time in the Bible. For example, the 70 weeks of Daniel, which is thought by most interpreters to refer to 70 weeks of years (1 day = 1 year) for a total of 490 years. In this case a unit of time preceded by a number is clearly symbolic and not literal. Thus, suggesting that there was enough time during the biblical creation account to accommodate the extreme age of the earth indicated by multiple lines of scientific evidence can be done without compromising a believe in biblical inerrancy and without compromising a generally literal interpretation of scripture.
The concern expressed by AiG and other is that if one begins to accept parts of the creation accounts as anything but absolutely literal, the whole foundation of the Bible falls like a house of cards. For example, Marty Duren posted a comment wondering whether I believed that Adam and Eve were literal or representative. I responded that I see no reason from scripture of otherwise to think this was not literal, so I accept it as literal. Although I do not need or even want scientific evidence for every claim of scripture, there is support for this particular literal interpretation. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that all human beings alive today are descended from a single woman (the scientists ever called her Eve). I believe the Fall was literal and spiritual. I think the biblical statement that there was no death before the Fall indicated spiritual death. Death is used in many passages in this way, and it is obvious that the basis of the Fall was disobedience to God, pride, and greed: all of these are spiritual flaws; so it would be reasonable that the punishment would be spiritual. Is the reference to all animals eating plants and not other animals literal? I do not know, and it seems to me that it doesn’t matter. However, if this is literal, it does not necessarily contradict evolutionary theory. Under that theory, herbivores developed before carnivores, otherwise the carnivores would have had nothing to eat. One can believe that Genesis is mostly intended literally and believe that every word is true and still accept a limited version of evolution. It is not a compromise to do so.
Insisting on a literal interpretation forces us to deny many many lines of evidence all of which support the validity of evolution. Even the chief proponent and inventor of Intelligent Design theory (Michael Behe) believes in a limited version of evolution. The evidence is truly overwhelming and denying it places us in the realm of irrationality or lack of integrity. Does this mean I value the authority of science over the authority of scripture? Not at all; heaven forbid. In cases where the meaning of scripture is absolutely clear and not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, I accept scripture as true, whether or not science agrees or not. Science is always accepted on a provisional basis and is always subject to revision.
However, the Bible itself notes that nature can tell us something about God (e.g., Psalms 19:1). Almost all of us use this principle in the interpretation of passages like, “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30). Other passages in Psalms express the same idea. The literal interpretation would be that the earth is literally still in space and does not move. However, I do not know any biblical inerrantists who believe this. They accept what we know about science as an indication that this is not the correct interpretation of these passages. The AiG web site addresses this issue using a convoluted argument indicating that the Catholic church had adopted the previous secular scientific view of an earth centered universe and this is the reason the church objected to the writings of Galileo in support of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Of course, no direct documentary evidence can be provided to support this speculation. Even it is true, the most literal interpretation of this passage would still indicate that the earth does not move, and because of our understanding of nature, we do not believe this. This is analogous to the situation with evolution.
Although the evidence for evolution may not be as utterly compelling as the evidence for heliocentrism, it is very strong. The great age of the earth is indicated by multiple types of isotope dating methods, which agree quite well. Cosmology adds evidence for great age by the observation of objects in space which are billions of light years distant (as measured by many different methods). Because the speed of light is constant, light reaching earth from that distance must have been created billions of years ago. Some have argued that God created the universe with an appearance of age as a test or trial. Think for a moment about the implications of this idea. First, the Bible clearly states that no temptation comes from God. Tests and trials may be permitted or actively implemented by God, but are there any examples from the Bible that any of them involved deception on the part of God? How can we possibly think that God would provide valid evidence of great age just to fool us? This would directly contradict other passages on the integrity of God and it would be contrary to His statement that He desires that no one should perish but all should be saved. It is difficult to understand how the idea that God created the universe with an appearance of age could be taken seriously.
A positive consequence of an old earth and involvement of evolution is that the apparent discrepancies between the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is reconciled by dropping the insistence that they are both literal, chronological accounts. I believe they describe real events, but they are intended to be primarily a description of the spiritual origins of man and his relationship with God. I am not ashamed at all of the involvement of supernatural intervention in the creation process. There is no reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life from non-living molecules. I believe God did this in a supernatural manner. When God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve, this was by necessity a supernatural act, because the soul is a supernatural entity. Supernatural intervention cannot be excluded by scientific methods, and there is nothing irrational about the biblical position that God created. However, the best indication from nature and the Bible is that God used both supernatural and natural mechanisms (which He also invented) to create.
Evolution is not inherently atheistic. It, like all other scientific theories and pursuits is materialistic. Yet Christians have never rejected science, per se. They have recognized that this materialistic approach to nature is effective and serves the good of man, and in fact allows us to fulfill God’s command to subdue the earth. The materialist character of science is not the result of some grand conspiracy among atheists of the world, it is the inevitable result of the limitations of science. The methods of science are only effective in dealing with nature, not the supernatural. This does not mean that science necessitates denying the supernatural. It simply is not useful in distinguishing the will of God, for example. Many writers (including Francis Schaeffer) believed that Christianity with our belief in a rational, predictable, consistent God allowed the development of science. I agree with that idea, and even now, Christians virtually all act as though only natural events occur in day to day life. Otherwise we would not hesitate to walk in front of a speeding care while praying for God to make an exception to the laws of physics for His own glory.
It was probably inevitable that there would be animosity between proponents of evolution and believers, when the first outspoken supporter of evolution (Huxley) was also vehemently opposed to religion. However, the Bible is not inherently incompatible with this theory. For example, one of the writers of the series of pamphlets from which the term fundamentalist is derived (The Fundamentals, A testimony to the Truth), pointed out that the Bible did not exclude the possibility of evolution (Science and Christian Faith, by James Orr). I have already pointed out that a prominent Southern Baptist theologian, though not necessarily supporting evolution, believes there are ample reasons to believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended as a strictly chronological, historical document. In reality, believing that Genesis 1 and 2 are entirely figurative would not necessarily change anything that the average Southern Baptist believes about God and man. There are many passages to which this applies. Does it matter whether the flood of Noah was world wide or whether the world in scripture meant the known world? I cannot see how it would matter. The message is the same. So long as we are not proposing figurative interpretations because we deny the supernatural characteristics of God or because we regard the Bible to be just another book (with errors), such interpretations generally would not change matters of faith and practice or lead to doubts about the Bible or serve as a slippery slope to a higher critical approach to scripture. None of that has happened to me, and I am not the only one. When I taught at a Southeastern Conference public university, several of my faculty colleagues and I attended the First Baptist Church in our town. All of us accepted on a provisional basis a limited version of the theory of evolution, because it is the only sound scientific interpretation proposed to date for the evidence available. We all were active and had positions of service in the church (two were deacons) and we were as firm on inerrancy as anyone. Insisting that Genesis 1 and 2 must be interpreted as a literal chronological history with 24 hr days is keeping and will keep many people from seriously considering the gospel. If we correctly understand the Bible and science, they will never conflict, because the Author of both is God. I would suggest that the apparent and obvious internal conflicts in Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g., plants growing before the sun was created and the differences in sequence in chapter 1 and 2) are there purposely to indicate that it is not intended as literal chronological history. Are the proponents of an historical, chronological, and 24 hr day creation sure enough of that interpretation to risk the souls of people who have been well trained in science and who accept a provisional (scientific) version of evolution? Or is it possible that as Christians we simply do not value or care about all those “liberals” that we continually speak and think hatefully about? Even if this is the case, it is not necessary to be liberal to accept a provisional version of evolution. There are many conservative Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible who do. Most of us do not insist that everyone accept our opinion, but we would prefer that others did not purposely stir up animosity between science and believers and thereby decrease the opportunities to reach our science oriented generation for Christ.
posted by Stephen Pruett at 3:37 PM
2 Comments:
Stephen,
Interesting read. I believe theistic evolutionists can be Bible believing Christians (my brother-in-law is one), though it seems they have a lower view of scripture.
It is clearly the intent of the writer to indicate a day, rather than an age - hence the use of "evening" and "morning." At the very least, God has communicated to him an inaccurate picture of creation and at worst God has deceived him as to the true nature of creation.
What troubles me, admittedly as a non-scientist, is the arrogance I see in scientists. Is it not possible that there are many things beyond the ability of our observation and does science not presuppose that there is no supernatural cause? I understand that these are not things that can be scientifically observed, but the hubris to think that because evolution seems to fit the evidence best to my finite brain, I must do harm to the text to try to fit it in. Clearly Moses intended the reader to understand 7 literal days and who am I to argue with God.
Pastor Brad, Thanks for the comment and for your attitude (I appreciate that you did not call me a liberal). I can certainly understand your comment on scientific hubris, and I agree it does exist. Particularly, some scientists who write for popular consumption, like Stephen Jay Gould, have exhibited this to an amazing degree.
However, the same could be said for conservative Christians. Isn't it hubris to be certain that we have correctly interpreted the 1st two chapters of Genesis and that it cannot be reconciled, at least partially, with scientific accounts of creation. For example, you seem certain that days, not ages is intended in Genesis 1. However, the evening and morning mentioned for the first three days cannot be the same as our currently defined day, because our day is based on the sun, which was not created until the fourth day. Of course God knew human beings would very quickly figure out that plants cannot grow without the sun (the idea that some diffuse source of light created in verse 1 would be sufficient cannot be conclusively refuted, but is not supported by any scientific evidence). Therefore, He knew that this would force us to think carefully about the meaning of the creation account in Genesis 1. I believe the message He was sending was that this account was not intended to be a sequential, scientific account of creation. Otherwise, we must conclude that God purposely wanted to confuse us or give us cause to doubt Him or reason to reject Him. Of course, that is consistent with all other scripture.
Please understand, I believe that Genesis 1 contains some literal descriptions of creation. For example, the creation of light before the sun actually was fully formed is consistent with current cosomological theories about the formation of stars by condensation of gases and increasingly intense output of light and heat as the thermonuclear reactions reach a self-sustaining level.
Your comment that scientists have a preconcieved belief that supernatural causes were not involved at any point during creation. Some scientists believe this and have incorporated their philosophical religious beliefs (or lack thereof) into their scientific view of creation. However, the last polls I saw indicated that nearly half of scientists believe in God, and I would suppose that they allow for the possibility of supernatural intervention by God during creation. However, when scientists are working as scientists, they cannot assume the involvement of supernatural inverventions. This simply reflects a fundamental limitation of science. It cannot address issues that are beyond the rules of nature. I think you would agree that this formulation of science has been extraordinarily successful in allowing us to understand and manipulate our physical world. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that not considering supernatural explanations in the course of one's work as a scientist in no way excludes a belief in supernatural events and their importance in creation. However, this belief is held by faith, as affirmed by the Bible. It is not provable or even addressable through science.
Therfore, I am content to approach all scientific questions using scientific methods. There are plenty of specific occurrences during creation that probably will never be explained scientifically, and my personal belief is that these are some of the events that God performed supernaturally. I am confident that the same God who invented and created nature and evolution also had the Bible written just as He intended for it to be. Thus, science and the Bible, when both are properly understood, will never be in conflict.
I will readily admit that I am not certain that the current scientific understanding of evolution is correct in all of its details, but the evidence for at least a limited role for evolution in the development of life forms is so overwhelming that I would like to interpret scripture in a way that allows for it. However, I am aware that new scientific evidence could emerge that would call evolution into question, so my interpretation of Genesis does not seek to make the biblical creation accounts precisely match current scientific interpretations. I simply want to leave enough flexibiility in my interpretation to allow for the possibility of evolution.
Fortunately, a strong case can be made that a flexible interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is intended. My belief is that the Bible is precisely the way God intended for it to be. The origianl manuscripts contained no errors and the manuscripts we have now contain no errors that matter. Thus, the many apparent conflicts in Chapters one and two as well as the use of the same word in chapter two to refer to the entire era of creation as was used in Chapter 1 to refer to the days of creation are clear indications that these accounts are not intended to be sequential scientific accounts of creation. The only other conclusion I can see is that God is prone to mistakes or that the Bible contains errors. Neither of those options are acceptable to me.
As I am sure you have realized by now, I strongly disagree with your impression that I am doing harm to the biblical texts to make them fit my scientific views. I believe a reasonable interpretation based only on the biblical texts themselves leads to an understanding of scripture that can accommodate a limited version of evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home