Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Evolutionary Theory (more LiveJournal objections)

Forum Quick Jump

35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 7/7/2003 6:21 PM (GMT -6)

(Everybody - when I originally wrote this reply, I messed-up the formatting and, unable to figure out how to edit it, I just reposted the whole thing with the formatting correction. So I basically had the same long reply posted twice. DLW then clued me in on this Web site's edit/delete-reply feature ("doh", to quote Homer Simpson) - as you can see in DLW's reply after this one - so I just now deleted the original badly-formatted reply and added this comment to this one. Sorry for all the confusion and bandwidth consumption!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Keith,

I'll respond to the points you made, then sign off of this thread (unless someone later specifically requests a reply from me - which could happen, I suppose, since this post of mine ended up quite long - I'll keep watching for a few days).

First, just to make a general observation: I think the biggest disconnect you and I have is that you think of truth as a unity - whether the truth is purely with respect to material things (such as theories of science or reconstructions of history) or with respect to spiritual things (such as God's existence and our need for salvation), you seem to feel that these truths go hand-in-hand so that one cannot be compromised or subordinated for the sake of the other. This is the common presupposition to concordism and, for that matter, the formal doctrine of inerrancy. Thus, calling into question the mere mundane, material/physical truth of an account threatens its spiritual worth and value as well. Either all truth is unified and consistent, or nothing is trustworthy.

I must disagree. And I suspect you would too, if you thought of how often you drew moral and spiritual value from "fictional" accounts - be they Jesus' parables, John's apocalypse, or even secular literature like Lord of the Flies (to re-use another of my favorite examples). Something does not have to be literally true to have spiritual value; some things of spiritual value are in fact best communicated in ways that are not literally true; and whether the hearer incidentally additionally believes the account to be literally true is of no import in the big picture. If we were to just understand the Bible as divinely-inspired human literature, and thus understandable, when warranted, in this way, then all sorts of problems for inerrantists, and avenues of attack for skeptics, would disappear with that one simple explanation - problems/avenues ranging from the historicity of Genesis to internal discrepancies between the Gospels.

Turning to some of your specific comments:

quote:

quote:
Where I disagree is that any of these plain meanings are the teaching point.

Why? Because of scientific evidence that's to the contrary, or because when you first read these words (and as others have done for millenia now), you were led to believe that the plain meaning couldn't be what the author meant? I'd suspect it is the former that has influenced you, and that's all of a point I want to make at this juncture. In all honesty, you, Scott, have reached a conclusion having originally believed as a concordist (if I recall your prior post correctly), but after weighing the scientific evidence, you changed your thinking.

For what its worth, yes, the scientific consensus is a final deciding factor in my case. But if that's all there were in favor of my position, it would be insufficient. It is because that consensus is consistent with the findings I've outlined here before, purely from internal biblical considerations, which suggest that the Bible is not always to be taken literally, that I am pushed over the threshold.

As far as why I started as a concordist of the old-earth variety - it is simply because I began with the rather naive view that it was a good compromise between the extremes of atheistic science and young-earth literalism. It seemed to make sense at the time, but I think now that, for me, it was mostly a politically-grounded stance I took, not one informed by investigation (which almost goes without saying, of course, it being my initial stance).

Finally, I sense a continued misunderstanding on your part of the position I'm presenting. You say I was led to believe that "that the plain meaning couldn't be what the author meant". But I do agree that the plain meaning of Genesis 1-11 is probably part of what the human author meant and understood it himself to mean. After all, it is the nature of the genre of legend that the teller generally believes in the legend's historicity as much as the hearer. I just don't believe that was what God meant to teach, because God is not interested in passing-on scientific knowledge but spiritual knowledge, and he is willing to accommodate that knowledge to the culture and time and pass it on using a genre in which it may be best received by people. So too, for example, with the Bible's repeated references to the waters above the sky: in all likelihood, part of what the human author understood and meant from such references is that the sky is a solid-like ceiling above us, and above that is a vast sea. Yet that is not what God meant to teach. It is just an artifact of the pedagogical framework which God condescended to use in order that what he really wanted to teach would be passed on. As I've said before, this is similar to what we do ourselves when teaching our youngest children.

And what is God meaning to teach in these cases, then, if not the literal plain meaning? I'll address that further below.

quote:

I don't believe it has anything to do with condescension. It is clear that there are Near East traditions, legends and myths that are similar to the Genesis account. I, myself, have already agreed to this. What I don't agree with is that those legends and myths, as recorded by the surrounding Near East cultures, are necessarily the pure and accurate record of truth as is the "plain meaning" of Genesis; God, as we understand it, gave this to Moses. That a surrounding nation has a legend of similar content is only to confirm something of the original, though distorted.

At first glance, it is plausible that the similarities between Genesis 1-11 and other ancient Near Eastern legends are due to a common real historical event that Genesis 1-11 records more faithfully than neighboring sources do. And indeed modern scholarship would agree that Genesis 1-11 does not come entirely from other legends, but rather shares common traditions and sources with them for some of its concrete story elements. So it is reasonable to ask: could there be a common real historical event - a literal 6-day creation and worldwide flood, for example - in back of all that?

Aside from all the mountainous scientific evidence against such literal global events, the purely literary answer is also, it seems to me, "unlikely". One reason is that among the available manuscripts, several non-Hebraic ancient Near Eastern accounts predate even traditional dates for Genesis considerably (Egyptian accounts from the 3rd millenium B.C. are known, for example). A more compelling reason, in my opinion, is that the Biblical accounts are not only similar to varying degrees with those of various other ancient Near Eastern cultures - they are dissimilar to varying degrees with the ancient accounts of other cultures worldwide. And the pattern formed (by the varying degrees of similarity-to-dissimilarity that Genesis 1-11 exhibits when compared to traditions worldwide) is exactly the same sort of pattern that would necessarily be expected if common Near Eastern traditions (or real but local events), not global ones, were the source. The further you go from the Near East, the more dissimilar the local traditions become in their historical and cosmological particulars. For example, flood accounts are commonplace in ancient traditions around the world (though not everywhere), but only in the Near East do the elements of a human hero, a boat, saving the animals, etc, all appear. The cosmological concept of waters-above-the-sky, as another example, appears only in the Near East. And again and again - the pattern of homology between Genesis 1-11 is one of relative local similarity and increasing dissimilarity over greater divides. Such a pattern would be expected if relatively recent, local sources were at the root of commonalities between the concrete story elements of Genesis and other ancient Near Eastern accounts; whereas if a primordial global event, common to all humans worldwide, were responsible, we would have no reason to expect such a pattern.

Finally, I should note that in talking about similarites/commonalities between Genesis 1-11 and other ancient Near Eastern accounts, I'm always only talking about similarities with respect to the concrete story elements and motifs employed: views on the physical cosmology of sky, earth, and sea; details of the flood account; etc. The themes of the Biblical narratives, in contrast, bear no resemblance at all to the themes of the other ancient Near Eastern traditions. It is in this marked dissimilarity that I see the superiority, and God's teaching points, in the Genesis narratives. More on this next below.

quote:

The Genesis record must be truth. It must convey truth ... of some sort, or it is not only a waste of time, but very deceptive, because there is no redeeming quality of the account otherwise.

Genesis certainly does convey truth, which stands out in stark highlight when the Genesis stories are compared with the other ancient Near Eastern accounts with which they share motifs. These truths may seem very basic to us now. But remember, those were the days in which God's light was first breaking in - into a culture continually surrounded, beseiged and oppressed by materially-superior civilizations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon) who affirmed none of these truths and constantly threatened them with cultural assimilation. What are the truths taught by Genesis which are especially obvious when Genesis is compared with its "competition"?

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, there is a multiplicity of Gods. Genesis teaches there is one God in stark contrast to that.

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, the gods are personifications of cosmological objects or forces: earth, sea, water, fertility, sun, moon, etc. Genesis teaches that all these things are subject creations of God, in stark contrast to that.

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, the gods are amoral or even immoral - in fact, they war, strife and are generally downright human and selfish. Genesis teaches, in stark contrast to this, that our God is moral.

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, the gods don't particularly care about human morality or behavior - they have codes of ritual, obeisance and observance they may impose on us, but no insistence on righteousness in general. Genesis teaches, in stark contrast to this, that our God expects righteousness.

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, the gods need humanity to serve, feed and house them - in the Babylonian Enuma elish, this is in fact the reason for humanity's creation. Genesis teaches, in stark contrast to this, that our God does not need human aid.

In other ancient Near Eastern accounts, humanity is a worthless afterthought, slaves to the gods, except for some men who are demi-godlike in stature, if not downright divine (heroes, kings). In stark contrast to this, Genesis teaches that all humanity, male and female, stand alike before God as unique bearers of his image and focal points of creation.

These are just some of the teaching points in Genesis 1-11 - enough to give you a sense, but there is more. See Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation, for example, for more. Note that none of these teaching points depend on the exacting literal historicity of Genesis 1-11 - and in fact, faced with these spiritual teaching points, questions of literal historicity pale in significance.

These and like things are the teaching points of Genesis, I have concluded.

quote:

This is where the creation story of Genesis departs from the Near East accounts...There is no illogical or mythological feel in its genre, and its straight-forwardness is impossible to miss.

If you mean that Genesis' concrete story elements (of creation days, ancient earth/sea/sky cosmology, flood, etc) have been purged of the polytheistic, animistic, and immoral themes that permeated ancient Near Eastern mythology, I agree. But I cannot agree that there are no traces of legendary and non-literal genres in Genesis 1-11, which I've mentioned in previous posts (the liturgical repetitions and literary framework of Genesis 1; the anthropomorphisms, wordplays, and etiologies of Genesis 2-3; etc).

quote:

I think there is tons of salvific and spiritual meaning behind the creation account. No, God doesn't come out and say to Adam, "You need to get saved," but He sure does address the need for the concept to be appreciated by clothing Adam with skins, and insuring Cain and Able's proper sacrifical system is kept in its integrity. Consider also the deep reflections about the seventh day concept the author of the book of Hebrews employs; the profound meaning of oneness between man and woman (and eventually children) as noted by Christ, which says something very significant about the oneness of God as Triune. It isn't that there isn't salvific and spiritual meaning in the account, it is only whether one's opinion is that there is no salvific or spiritual value.

I of course agree with this, and hope you didn't put forward those thoughts thinking they were contrary to my own.

quote:

I just don't believe God has time in Scripture to not say what He means. So, if God does employ legend, He does so with truth and accuracy of how it really was. It is not the Word of God otherwise. It is simply another good fantasy.

What God does not have time for in scripture, is to say things that aren't going to register with the widest audience. Addressing ancient Hebrews about the Big Things (worldviews, etc) in a style of literature (abstract/propositional discourse, such as what you and I are using now, and such as what we moderns use most of the time) that didn't exist for such a purpose in any culture for anywhere from a few hundred to 1,000 more years (depending on how you date Genesis) - would contravene that goal. So would communicating a type of information (objective/critical science/history) that didn't exist in any culture, nor was even valued in any culture, for a similar time frame. It is simply anachronistic and modernist-centric of us to project otherwise upon ancient peoples.

quote:

Kind of like the Bible's history (oh, how often the "scholars" were so sure that history proved the Bible unreliable!). Who needs history? There's a ton of other history books. But God's Word conveys accurate history for the sake of saying something accurately about relationship between Himself and us. Not a history book, but not inaccurate history.

Neither a history book, nor inaccurate history, but a collection of literature of different genres, cultures, and times, each of which must be faithfully received and interpreted according to the standards extant at the place and time. That means, depending on the genre, cultural influence, and time, the Bible is composed of books (and passages within books) whose literal content ranges from legend, to excellent (by ancient standards) history, to parable, to poetry, to proverb, to apocalypse, to pastoral discourse, etc. Of course all of it is full of spiritual teaching and thus useful for equiping in righteousness (to paraphrase Paul to Timothy).

quote:

Over and over, it was "proved" that the Bible was mistaken about this and that. As it turned out, new evidence--be it archeological, scientific, or astronomical--constantly showed itself to give credence to the Word of God's accuracy.

I believe you will find, if you research objectively: that (a) the Bible is fairly reliable for what it is, and indeed has often included historical details (for example) which archaeology has confirmed to some degree (such as the Hittites); but that (b) the Bible has also included literal scientific/historical details for which no evidence has been found or for which strong, sometimes even overwhelming, contrary evidence has been found. I believe you will also find that there is a rough correlation between the literary genres employed for each book or passage, the cultural standards for accuracy/objectivity at the time, etc, and the degree to which scientific/historical details in each book/passage have been verified. For example, the Gospels are relatively reliable history compared to Genesis, and Daniel (for example) is somewhere in between.

quote:

As far as the apocalyptic, the plain meaning of, say, Revelation is NOT that it happened literally as read. THAT'S the difference. But reading the Genesis story (with no modern influences) leaves one to say, "Well, okay, God created the world in six days, rested (ceased) on the seventh. Cool." You can't possibly read Revelation, however, and say, "Okay, so somewhere out there in the sky is this seven-headed dragon, a beast that looks like a lion and a few other animals."

You can't? People have interpreted Revelation literally (to various degrees) all the time. The plain meaning of John's apocalypse is what it says: a ten-headed dragon, seven trumpets, bowls, and seals, two witnesses, stars falling from the sky, sea turning to blood, etc. There is nothing in the grammar of Revelation that makes its plain (ie literal) meaning any less apparent than Genesis; only our perplexity at all the bizarre story elements, versus our relative familiarity with Genesis, makes it seem so. For your view, I suppose, this might pose a problem; but in the view I've been presenting, it isn't necessary to insist that every literary genre employed be literally factually true unless it explicitly self-identifies otherwise.

quote:

Finally, nothing Jesus said was so "out there" that it wasn't recognized as circumambient to the common denominator of communication. His parables were clear, concise and so often times very literal. Even Lazarus and the rich man is not out of reach of meaning exactly what it says.

Yes, but were his parables all literally true? No, parables by definition are not literally true. So were they all self-identified by Jesus with disclaimers on the order of "What I am about to say is just a parable"? Again, no, not always - it was expected that from the content, the genre of parable could be induced by the hearer/reader. And if someone did end up anyway with the misconception that - say - the Good Samaritan story really did happen, would there be any harm done? Would Jesus have been untruthful or untrustworthy? Of course not. It was the themes of the parables that were the teaching points, and Jesus employed the genre of parable (even though it was not literally true) probably because that was both the custom of the culture and time, and a natural way to communicate truth in an attention-getting, memorable, accessible, and thought-provoking fashion.

Now, that's not to say that the themes of the parables were obtuse or full of mystical symbolism attainable only by the learned. Far from it - I agree that their themes are as plain as their literal meanings. But frankly the themes of Genesis 1-11 are just as plain. And if we need not insist on the literal factuality of the parables in order to judge their themes trustworthy, I do not see why we must insist it of Genesis - especially when Genesis already contains clues, and is surrounded by clues from other cultures and, yes, from science, that its genre is similarly not objectively/critically factual.

quote:

But taking the Genesis account in any other plain meaning than what it says, IS, in my opinion, to swing the door not only wide open but to remove it and the building it allows entrance to. There is simply nothing left to understand or believe as to what it means.

I hope the above has helped. Your post ends speaking about presuppositions. May I humbly suggest you consider looking into this further with a wide variety of authors and researchers both inside and outside the relatively particular confines of inerrantist conservative evangelical Christianity :-) I agree we all have presuppositions, but not all presuppositions are created equal.

Best regards. Again, this will be my last post unless sometime directly addresses me calling for a response (I'll keep watch for the next few days).

Scott

Edited by - scott_jorgenson on 07/08/2003 9:04:59 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/8/2003 11:12 AM (GMT -6)

Scott,
you can delete the first post and omit the extra blurb at the top to the second one.

Oh and your post was awesome.... I am going to forward it to my high school biology teacher with whom I have apologeticked some.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 7/8/2003 2:40 PM (GMT -6)

scott,

I've been reading the responses since my last post and understand your position a little better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are making the point first that the Bible is not always literal (agreed).

You then expand upon that saying given that people who wrote the Bible were probably also influenced by their culture, culture of others, personal viewpoints, etc. This I also agree with, since there are clearly literary "styles" and language associtated with different authors at different times and locations.

Finally, you reach a conclusion then that perhaps, just perhaps, God has revealed "truth" in more ways than the Bible. Now, this is where I get a bit confused. I'm sure it doesn't mean you are a Universalist (are you?). Meaning that within the context of a civilization which did not have scientific understanding that we have now, would relay things in a more "symbolic" manner. It would also explain partly why many different societies share similar theological/mythological type stories.

In other words, maybe God DID use evolution moreso than many Christians think, but people then wouldn't really "get it" so He used a more metaphorical approach. Again, I'm not saying you think EVERYTHING or even most things in the Bible are pure symbolisms and metaphors (including Christ's resurrection), but you just are saying that we can't always know "for sure". I agree with you there. I don't know if Revalation is meant to be literal, symbolic, or simply a nice story to get to the point that "God wins".

Here's the question then. The book of Genesis was not written until many years (at least 500) after the last event took place (Joseph and his family in Egypt). So when Moses wrote Genesis, did he A) Transcribe word-for-word what God was saying to Him directly, B) Rely primarily on "stories" and "legends" inserting God in there (the "inspired" viewpoint), or C) Moses didn't actually write Genesis and it was again some culmination of legend, etc. not leaving out God, but not giving us the literal timetable of events? Is this what you're talking about?

I reject C) for a number of reasons. One, it talks very specifically in terms of genealogies, and events. It plays a lot more like a historical account than just historical fiction. Others may disagree, but I think it's a valid point. Secondly, others much later refer to it as factual, not analogous. Both Peter and Jesus refer to the flood. Again, it could just be agreeing to the story's "principle", but often it was clear when Jesus was speaking in parable and when He was speaking literally.

B) Is certainly a possibility, but if indeed Moses did write it, I find it hard to believe that Moses would even include Genesis at all, or at least the accounts before Abraham. The remaining books of the Law were all very concise books of accounts or law (went here, did that, saw this, etc) and hardly symbolic. Why would Moses deem it even necessary to include a creation account, literal or legend? Say he did rely primarily on the passing down of stories, you run into the same problem that many later authors accepted the accounts of Genesis as fact (Luke giving an entire geneology, etc.). Some things may be symbolic (7 days), but certainly not all of it. Either then Moses made something up and it happened to be historically true (highly unlikely), or he took it from legend and basic facts were not true, yet all later authors of the Bible thought it was and thus we have an unreliable Bible (again, if Jesus was either lying or wrong then we're all in deep doo doo. Then again, He was the only one who was "there" [Before Abraham was, I AM]). Both choices don't seem to pan out.

So we are left with A). Maybe A)'s not right either. But consider that in the later "account books" (Exodus,...Deutorenomy), Moses wrote that God Himself talked regularly to Moses "as one would talk to a friend". So you certainly have the opportunity for direct transcription of things which you could not witness. But did this actually happen? Say that it didn't. Then since God was talking to Moses 1 on 1 up until his death, and Moses wrote Genesis (the 'B)' choice), if he wrote something inaccurate, don't you think God would say to him, "Hey Moses, you know that story about the rib thing. It actually didn't happen that way. I created Eve from dust just like Adam."?

Finally, it can be argued that what Moses wrote originaly was accurate, but the true story got skewed over time. Possible. It's an argument many use against the whole Bible. But considering the painstaking procedure of copying the scrolls, the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the integrity of the texts even over a long time, and the integrity of the New Testament which quotes the Old many times over, mistakes like that would have to be pretty early and pretty drastic (and archeology hasn't yet contradicted Genesis accounts).

So, is Genesis "literal"? Not necessarily in all cases. But is it "true"? Definitely. You seem to adhere to many of the "important" parts of Genesis. And could God reveal Himself in other ways to other people? Certainly. He did to Job who had no known relation to either Moses or Abraham. But should "science" be our litmus test for these questions? I think not. If anything, Jesus should be our litmus test.

I don't know if I addressed your point or totally missed the mark. But do you see my take on the historical vs. legend idea?

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 7/8/2003 4:09 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Scott,
you can delete the first post and omit the extra blurb at the top to the second one.

Thanks! Done. You know, I spent some 10 minutes last night wandering around this forum looking for an edit or delete feature...but didn't realize I needed to be logged-in to see those features, until now. Thanks for the tip. (At this point, I must admit, with some embarrassment, that Web application development is my profession - yes really :-)

Scott

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/8/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6)

I feel a round of lean on me coming on.

.

Lean on me, when your not strong, I'll be your friend. I'll help you carry on, for it won't be long til I'm gonna need somebody to lean on.

If you have a problem that I'll understand, give me a call.

we all need somebody to lean on.

lean on, lean on.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 7/8/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace,

I'll respond since you requested a reply.

quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are making the point first that the Bible is not always literal (agreed).

You then expand upon that saying given that people who wrote the Bible were probably also influenced by their culture, culture of others, personal viewpoints, etc. This I also agree with, since there are clearly literary "styles" and language associtated with different authors at different times and locations.

OK so far.

quote:

Finally, you reach a conclusion then that perhaps, just perhaps, God has revealed "truth" in more ways than the Bible. Now, this is where I get a bit confused. I'm sure it doesn't mean you are a Universalist (are you?).

If by "truth" you mean more than just spiritual revelation but also mundane truth about nature, history, etc, then yes - those mundanities are not taught as such in the Bible, which has a higher purpose. This is self-evident. But it has nothing to do with universalism (a theological/doctrinal position on the ultimate destiny of human beings - namely, that all are finally saved). So I am afraid we have had a Major Misunderstanding, for you to have connected those dots.

quote:

Meaning that within the context of a civilization which did not have scientific understanding that we have now...

Yes, revelation is given in a context that the receiving culture and time can comprehend, rather than contexts anachronistic to them.

quote:

...would relay things in a more "symbolic" manner.

Well, I would say "...would relay teachings in a manner to which the receiving culture and time was most accustomed." Symbology has nothing to do with it; I for one don't see any evidence that the ancients were more into intentional symbolism per-se than we are. Rather they were more into legend than we are, as the vehicle-of-choice for expressing worldviews. All the evidence shows this. There is not a single example of abstract propositional discourse (such as the genre you and I are engaging in right now) applied to Big Truth in the ancient record - not until the Greeks "flowered" in the first few centures B.C., and then trickling outward to Roman culture and etc. Instead what we see in use is legend - that is, what we would call "fanciful" history and cosmology. That was the medium of the day, and I see nothing but apriori assumption in deeming that while God would have used other literary genres - poetry, parable - where they likewise "fit", he wouldn't have touched legend, even where it "fit", with a 10 foot pole.

Continuing in this vein, I'd point out that the inerrantist presuppositions I'm arguing against are fundamentally anachronistic and extrabiblical because they are rooted in the modern era: that era of critical methodology (and widespread application thereof) that began with the Greeks and Romans and really matured only with the Enlightenment. We presuppose that any God worth his salt would agree with us: that critical methodology (and its widespread application) is the supreme value, and factually-accurate science and history are important things to "get right" with it. We then deduce from this that the Bible must therefore, in some way, fit this mold - for otherwise it would not be "true". You see this happening, in fact, in the syllogism presented by Starkman in an earlier post above. But what we mean by "true" in that syllogism is just a modern presupposition, and thus a very anachronistic one to impose on the Bible (of which the great majority was composed outside of the Greek/Roman proto-modern influence).

I'll explain further. And I'm sorry to sound so post-modern here, but the post-modernists really do have a point when it comes to this. The modern way of thinking is a historical contingency, and there's no biblical reason to believe that God considers it superior to premodern ways of thinking, let alone that God adopts it so much as his way of thinking that he imposes it on the ancients in the Bible.

Incidentally, what is this modern way of thinking I've been talking about? It is (a) rigorously-defined critical methodology and (b) application of that methodology to just about everything. Now, all humans always have had the rudiments of critical methodology built into us - it is part of our intelligence, perhaps part of the image-of-God gifted to us, and certainly essential for our survival. All humans have always used it in day-to-day living: to work out where to find water, how to obtain food, where to live, how to escape or defeat predators or enemies, etc. But what is unique to modernism is its fully-developed exposition of critical methodology (that's (a) above), and especially its application of that methodology to darn near every field of knowledge (that's (b) above). The ancients used such methodology in day-to-day living, but they didn't take it to the next level - using that methodology to investigate and learn about the inner workings of the natural world, let alone metaphysical questions. Modernism does.

Why not? I'm not sure anyone knows, but apparently it just isn't obvious to human beings to do so. That's certainly what the record shows, in any case. For example, most of Aristotle's physics was trivially wrong. And yet for over 1,000 years no-one questioned it, because no one thought (or cared, or both) to actually experiment! That is, no one thought (or cared, or both) to formalize the critical method they already used for practical things every day, and apply it to the deep questions of nature. Amazing, it seems to us - but we stand epistemologically on the shoulders of so many forebears, that who are we to judge how intrinsically obvious critical methodology and its application are?

So the lesson for us is: the evidence shows the ancients did not know how to use critical methodology to arrive at scientific, historical, or any kind of Big Truth; and furthermore they did not seem to know or care that, consequently, much of what they did believe in those areas (based on legendary tradition, deduction, etc) was wrong as far as literal fact went. They formed the literal story elements of their traditions from sources and principals that we would deem not factually reliable, but they didn't care (or know) this, even though at the same time they often treated them as if they were factually reliable. It was in this epistemological environment that much of the Bible, let alone Genesis, was written. If we are to be true to the historical/grammatical hermeneutic, seeking to understand scripture in its original context, we must acknowledge this.

And as a result, we are anachronistic to impose our modern "advances" in epistemology on the ancients. We are also presumptuous to impose them on God, who needed to ensure the ancients would best receive his revelation, by adopting ways of thinking with which they were familiar and comfortable, yet which did not inherently compromise what God is interested in teaching: spiritual truth. (Certainly legend inherently compromises any attempt to convey factual mundane scientific/historical truth, but that patently is not God's purpose in the Bible, so so-what.)

quote:

In other words, maybe God DID use evolution moreso than many Christians think, but people then wouldn't really "get it" so He used a more metaphorical approach.

Yes, I would agree with this, but with the following subtle caveat: God's purpose was not to reveal how the creation happened materially and physically. The genre of legend was not used because it was the next-best-alternative to communicating such scientific information, given that the people of the culture and time weren't ready for it; it was used because it was the most customary alternative for communicating religious worldview information to that culture and time. God wasn't interested in communicating scientific/historical details, but revelatory spiritual knowledge. Also, I hope it is clear now that I feel legend is the genre employed, not allegory, so calling the approach "metaphorical" - ie symbolic/representative of the actual physical events - is incorrect in my view, because the actual physical events aren't trying to be represented at all.

quote:

Here's the question then. The book of Genesis was not written until many years (at least 500) after the last event took place (Joseph and his family in Egypt). So when Moses wrote Genesis, did he A) Transcribe word-for-word what God was saying to Him directly, B) Rely primarily on "stories" and "legends" inserting God in there (the "inspired" viewpoint), or C) Moses didn't actually write Genesis and it was again some culmination of legend, etc. not leaving out God, but not giving us the literal timetable of events? Is this what you're talking about?

Actually any of these theories (and of course these are not the only options) work with what I am saying. Basically, your theories contrast different authorships and methods-of-inspiration, yet those questions are orthogonal to what I've been talking about (though interesting in their own right, to be sure).

The question of authorship, for example: whether Moses wrote Genesis all in one go, or whether author(s) - each one(s) deemed J, P, etc, per the documentary hypothesis - wrote Genesis collectively over time - either option is compatible with what I've been representing. If God has designed to use extant legendary concrete story elements in order to serve as a framework for his religious teaching, then he could have done so through one man or many.

And the question of method-of-inspiration: whether God inspired scripture verbally, or via inspired themes and concepts, either approach fits with the view I've been presenting. If God has designed to use extant legendary concrete story elements in order to serve as a framework for his religious teaching, then he could inspire it verbally just as well as conceptually.

So that's my take on your question. There's just a couple other things in your response I'd like to address:

quote:

Secondly, others much later refer to it as factual, not analogous. Both Peter and Jesus refer to the flood. Again, it could just be agreeing to the story's "principle", but often it was clear when Jesus was speaking in parable and when He was speaking literally.
...
Say he did rely primarily on the passing down of stories, you run into the same problem that many later authors accepted the accounts of Genesis as fact (Luke giving an entire geneology, etc.).

And other times it was not clear when Jesus was speaking literally or non-literally. Are we always to turn the other cheek to our enemy and give up our cloak as well (Matthew 5:38-42)? Does Jesus not overturn even the smallest letter of the Law (Matthew 5:18) while elsewhere evidently doing just that (as when he pronounced all foods clean, Mark 7:18-19)? By faith can we really throw mountains into the sea (Mark 11:29)? Jesus seems very often to not be a literal speaker, even when it is not immediately obvious, so it is far from plainly evident that when he speaks of Old Testament figures or events, he is actually endorsing their factual historicity. Indeed, if Jesus is God then God's designs are his, and if God so deems to communicate where appropriate through factually-legendary material - which is of course what is at question here - then it is far from surprising to see Jesus do the same.

So too with Paul's references to Adam, Peter's to the flood, and so on: these are not necessarily divine endorsements of the historicity of those things, but rather accepting of traditions at face value in order to leverage a spiritual teaching point. If God would do so in inspiring Genesis - which is of course what is at question here - then it is hardly surprising to see him do the same through the Apostles.

So these back-references from the New Testament (and Old, for that matter) which you bring up are not evidence one way or another against the view I'm presenting, it seems to me.

Finally:

quote:

Either then Moses made something up and it happened to be historically true (highly unlikely), or he took it from legend and basic facts were not true, yet all later authors of the Bible thought it was and thus we have an unreliable Bible (again, if Jesus was either lying or wrong then we're all in deep doo doo...

This brings us back where we started, which is as good a place as any to leave it. You do not seem to acknowledge that truth is more than a binary proposition. There are different domains of knowledge - spiritual and religious, versus material and physical, for example - and it is possible to subordinate one to the other and still arrive at truth. We ourselves do it all the time, in our scientific theories of heat and motion that don't refer to God (even implicitly deny God by the silence of omission), yet are "truth"; and in parables and poetry which teach "truth" of God using stories and images that never really happened. Absolute truth in everything upon which an account touches is unnecessary to have confidence in what the account seeks to teach. And that is my basic point which underlies the view I've been presenting of "reconciling" (or not so much "reconciling" as "differentiating") mainstream science and the Bible. It is also my fundamental disagreement with the doctrine of inerrancy.

Best regards,

Scott

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 7/9/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

scott,

A most interesting reply. Thank you for your clarifications. I'll just comment BRIEFLY (not inviting more debate since I've concluded that the realm of reason has done all it can for now).

"Truth tended to be more accepted than tested back then"
- Correct. In fact, up until recently, we as humans never really "tested" to see if God existed. We always ASSUMED such. Many other examples can be given in different facets of society (science, socialogy, etc.)

"Reason has its limitations"
Agreed. There are things which as of yet reason cannot find the answer to. And that God is not bound by reason and thus the methodology we apply to arrive at truth will only get us so far.

"We cannot always know for sure what is true, either absolutely or in its context."
- Meaning, those who were not actual witnesses to events or be the originator of that truth cannot know for certain 'This is the way it is/did happen'. Some may be symbolic/legend, some may be literal, but if the end conclusion/implication is the same, it should not be something to argue about. Truth about God can be found equally in the Bible, in a story that a heretic wrote, or in scientific discoveries.

Conclusion: "The Bible should not always be taken as absolutely true in the specifics"
It seems then you fall somewhere in between the philosophies of "It's just great literature" and "Everything it claims is absolutely true as what most interpret it as", arguing that the interpretation can be wrong (but we don't know for sure) and that it isn't important to argue it. Or, even if the Bible is "wrong" in some areas, it doesn't take away from the basic message.

My concern:

Once you spelled it out, I see where you are coming from. Just so you don't feel like a sheep among the wolves, your philosophies are not as uncommon as it may seem (I've known those who claim to be Christians [and don't see any reason to doubt otherwise] and yet hold very "liberal" views about the specifics of their faith).

Also it is clever that by weakening the validity of reason, you take away the primary weapon that can be used against you. It is a similar argument that in mathematics would invoke Goethe's Incompleteness Theorem. Since the "truth" cannot be truly known in a closed system such as ours, anything we "reason out" cannot be 100% reliable (inerrant). Assumptions matter the most. Your assumption is that absolute truth (the type we use to argue such things about the Bible) cannot be known. Most who defend the Bible as such say it can.

The only warning I can then give to you which adopts your line of thinking (not just with evolution, but with other religions, etc.) is that although we cannot know anything for sure, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Now before you say that I'm accusing you of blind faith and not using your noggin, let me clarify (It uses a wee bit of reason, but enough I think you'd be comfortable with). I agree that different "truths" can lead to the same conclusion (again, specifics not necessarily absolutely true). That is clear. But, this doesn't always happen. In fact, I propose it OFTEN doesn't happen. You and I both pointed out that wrong conclusions can arise from what we assume (in science mainly). But since you claim you aren't a Univeralist ("When the roll is called up yonder everyone will be there"), then it's also ABSOLUTELY true (it's one absolute truth you do seem to acknowledge) that not everyone will be with God after they die. Why? Because all these different religions have different assumptions and therefore, arrive at different conclusions about how their faith and how they live. Some of these are compatible with Christianity (indeed many religions share some of the same principles), but others (esp. the major ones) do not. The danger is that by undermining the Bible you are in essence putting it on a more level playing field with the other Holy Texts out there. One might say that although the Koran is not perfect either and has its flaws, it has "truth" in it. Maybe Jesus WASN'T God, or didn't REALLY rise from the dead (Koran claims He didn't even get crucified). Same with the Book of Mormon. This postion and discussion of "What is truth?" as Pilate mentioned does not remain in the coffeehouse. It has very tangible consequences on people's lives and ultimately their eternal destinies.

So is evolution worth arguing over? To a point, I think it is as in general the pursuit of truth is accepted by everyone as a good thing (though ethical boundries differ). But more importantly than that, I want to stress that everyone MUST accept something as true. And this is probably my harshest criticism of your line of thinking. This idea of super-agnosticism is a farce. One may NOT know something, but one MUST act on what they have. If your position is that "truth is not binary", then act on it. Which unfortunately means that you cannot with confidence say to a Muslim, Buddhist, etc. "Hey, you're position is wrong because the Bible says...". You claim that our discussion here and Universalism are not related. I say that they are. We as Christians KNOW about God, man, etc. through the Bible. If we put our faith in what is written in there simply because "Well, it just makes the most sense", or "It fits best with historical accounts" then we really have nothing uniquely different from all the other religions in the world. One can either arrive at the conlusion the Bible is true because of the external evidence, or assume the Bible is true and see the evidence fits it (your hangup it seems). But one cannot say that the Bible is "limited" in its truth and seriously expect to win others for Christ.

"Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so."

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/9/2003 9:27 AM (GMT -6)

It is interesting when a Mathematician and Biologist(right???) talk with each other.

quote:

Also it is clever that by weakening the validity of reason, you take away the primary weapon that can be used against you. It is a similar argument that in mathematics would invoke Goethe's Incompleteness Theorem. Since the "truth" cannot be truly known in a closed system such as ours, anything we "reason out" cannot be 100% reliable (inerrant). Assumptions matter the most. Your assumption is that absolute truth (the type we use to argue such things about the Bible) cannot be known. Most who defend the Bible as such say it can.

I think what you are both saying is that leaps of faith are required for all knowledge. Mathematics and hermeneutics.

quote:
The only warning I can then give to you which adopts your line of thinking (not just with evolution, but with other religions, etc.) is that although we cannot know anything for sure, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This seems overdone. Clearly Scott understands and applies the critical method to scripture. He just, in contrast to the modernistic liberal biblical scholars seeking to refute scriptures, allows for an inherent wider scope of ambiguity in our ability to know what historical events, the legends of scripture signified.

quote:
Now before you say that I'm accusing you of blind faith and not using your noggin, let me clarify (It uses a wee bit of reason, but enough I think you'd be comfortable with). I agree that different "truths" can lead to the same conclusion (again, specifics not necessarily absolutely true). That is clear. But, this doesn't always happen. In fact, I propose it OFTEN doesn't happen. You and I both pointed out that wrong conclusions can arise from what we assume (in science mainly). But since you claim you aren't a Univeralist ("When the roll is called up yonder everyone will be there"), then it's also ABSOLUTELY true (it's one absolute truth you do seem to acknowledge) that not everyone will be with God after they die. Why? Because all these different religions have different assumptions and therefore, arrive at different conclusions about how their faith and how they live.

One can believe that not all people go to heaven and that all religions are not just different paths as a consequence of your leap of faith into Christianity. But the former Truth-value follows from the latter and as a leap of faith, we can be absolutely sure that it is absolutely true.

quote:
Some of these are compatible with Christianity (indeed many religions share some of the same principles), but others (esp. the major ones) do not. The danger is that by undermining the Bible you are in essence putting it on a more level playing field with the other Holy Texts out there. One might say that although the Koran is not perfect either and has its flaws, it has "truth" in it. Maybe Jesus WASN'T God, or didn't REALLY rise from the dead (Koran claims He didn't even get crucified). Same with the Book of Mormon. This postion and discussion of "What is truth?" as Pilate mentioned does not remain in the coffeehouse. It has very tangible consequences on people's lives and ultimately their eternal destinies.

One can and should still apply the critical method to Islam and Mormonism. The results of doing so are quite telling, but not so much as to refute them. You can always spin a story reconciling seeming conflicts with a commitment to their Truth value. Scott's point is that understanding the Bible's creation account as legend helps to reconcile it with much of scientific research on evolution. The Gospel Accounts clearly are not legendary. We pay biblical researchers big bucks to help us distinguish between the different genres of the Bible and understand better how it would have been understood by its original audience.

quote:
So is evolution worth arguing over? To a point, I think it is as in general the pursuit of truth is accepted by everyone as a good thing (though ethical boundries differ).

Yes, we should discuss evolution, but debating whether it is true or false is deceptive since there is a fair amount of onto-theological diversity in how one can understand evolution, as I understand. As such, I think the imperative is to correct a creationism borne from an inadequate understanding of scripture and how it is meant to be interpreted.

quote:
But more importantly than that, I want to stress that everyone MUST accept something as true. And this is probably my harshest criticism of your line of thinking.

I'm sorry Laplace, but this line of reasoning seems quite trivial. Of course Scott accepts this. The point is acknowledging that we are making leaps of faith and that the evidence could, in fact, support a quite different interpretation. This does not deny the existence of absolutes, but acknowledges how we see but through a glass darkly.

I would suggest that the remainder of your reasoning would not prove helpful in reaching non-Christians with the Gospel. The goal is not to beat them on the top of the head with the Truths of the Bible, but to portray its radicality and reasonableness and the difference it can make in one's life.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 7/9/2003 2:25 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace,

I know you didn't invite my reply, but I'm going to reply anyway :-)

Based on most of your reply, I fear I may have gotten carried away and inadvertently communicated the misimpression that I fully endorse post-modernist epistemology - that, for example, I don't believe that reliable truth can be known about anything, or that I believe that all ways of discovering truth are equally valid.

However, my point was certainly not to be so nihilistic. For example, I am firmly convinced that for discovering natural knowledge (from science to history to mathematics to economics to etc), the critical method (experimentation, logic, induction, abstract discourse, free idea exchange) is blatantly and demonstrably superior to other alternatives. (I do believe that applying critical method to pure theology, and others of the most basic metaphysics - ie, things "not of this world" - is hazardous, as it takes a tool only proven effective in this world and applies it to the next, for which we have no warrant to assume its equal effectiveness. But that is another subject which didn't enter into my previous postings in this thread at all.)

Rather my point was simply to show that modernism is a contingent feature of our time. It is not something that has always come naturally to humans, and indeed it did not come at all to the ancient Near East. In other words, modernism is not normative throughout history and there is no reason to think that God would elevate it as such when revealing himself to premodern cultures. I made this point because it is key to seeing divine accommodation in scripture and thus explaining all the factual discrepancies, internal and external, which scripture exhibits, creation-evolution being only one set of them.

Of course, my point runs counter to the basic presupposition of inerrancy (and hence creationism and etc): that presupposition being that modernism's methods of investigation, discourse, and values are normative to God, if not to all peoples at all times, and thus that whenever God reveals himself he would use techniques (anachronistic to the culture and time though they may be) that future modernist thinkers like you and me would approve of. My point was that, if we are faithful and consistent to the longstanding precept of historical/grammatical interpretation, we will recognize in the Bible that God has not conducted himself this way, but rather has "become all things to all men", to paraphrase Paul, accommodating his revelation to the literary styles and natural knowledge of the place and time in order that it may be best received.

That laid to rest, there is only one other point in your post I'd like to address:

quote:

The danger is that by undermining the Bible you are in essence putting it on a more level playing field with the other Holy Texts out there. One might say that although the Koran is not perfect either and has its flaws, it has "truth" in it. Maybe Jesus WASN'T God, or didn't REALLY rise from the dead (Koran claims He didn't even get crucified). Same with the Book of Mormon.
...
If your position is that "truth is not binary", then act on it. Which unfortunately means that you cannot with confidence say to a Muslim, Buddhist, etc. "Hey, you're position is wrong because the Bible says...".
...
One can either arrive at the conlusion the Bible is true because of the external evidence, or assume the Bible is true and see the evidence fits it (your hangup it seems). But one cannot say that the Bible is "limited" in its truth and seriously expect to win others for Christ.

That is a problem, especially in the modern age, but it seems like something that God has deigned us to live with. What you are basically saying is, unless we can demonstrate according to critical method that our Bible is a miraculous product - eg, exhibiting startling accuracy in all its scientific and historical details, flawless internal consistency in its text, etc, despite having been a product of so many people in such ancient times - then our witness is undermined. I understand that concern, but suggest we focus on what is rather than what we deductively think ought to be in order to make faith easier. Extending your rationale further, for that matter, it could likewise be "complained" that God's withholding of undeniable miraculous signs today likewise complicates the spread of the Gospel: if God would just give a sign of Jesus clearly, unmistakably and personally to everyone, how much more effective our witness would be! I suspect that if we can theologically resolve the problem of why God doesn't do so, the same answer can be leveraged to address your concern.

That said, I will surmise that - even though the Bible may be self-limited in the extent over which its truth ranges - it still measures-up pretty well against other authoritative texts. For example, it is generally historically reliable: Egypt, Pharaoh, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, Nebuchednessar, Persia, Cyrus, Rome - all these civilizations and major historical figures are abundantly proven to have actually existed in more-or-less the form they are depicted biblically. (Compare with the Book of Mormon, for whose Meso-American "lost Jewish tribes" - a vast civilization - there is not a shred of evidence.) And it never claims to be verbatim from God, nor is it claimed to be by even most conservative interpreters - everyone acknowledges at best that it is divinely-inspired text by human authors. This means it is excused from having to pass the muster of obvious perfection that, say, the Koran must. So, while I do not see the Bible as flawless in all it touches upon, I do not think this has the effect necessarily of reducing it to the same par as the Book of Mormon or the Koran. I'm less familiar with other scriptures and claims made about them (the Bhagavad Gita and other Hindu scriptures, for example), so otherwise can't comment.

Hope this helps,

Scott

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/10/2003 3:28 AM (GMT -6)

Aul be bauck!

Starkman

35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual