Historical vs non-historical TE

[Constantine]

A discussion I had with Glenn inspired me to make this post. That and out of the last 12 new threads 11 were from Jack and we need some variety.

Some debate has arisen around this topic. Should we completely view Genesis in parable fashion and not try to match it up to history or should we use something similar to Glenns approach of a non-literal but historical interpretation? Which fits better with the text and theology?

Right now I am in favor of a non-literal but historical view. I am open to change with a few exceptions. To be consistent with my Catholic faith I must maintain that the universe had a begining and was created by God, Adam and Eve were historical people and that there was a historical fall and that God specially created human souls (the first soul endowd people were obviously Adam and Eve). So I want to warn you I will be a bit biased toward keeping Adam and Eve historical. That doesn't mean that the Garden must be historical just that there really was a Fall starting with our first parents.

I hold the Framework view of Genesis 1 and I believe that Genesis 2 is a symbolic account of an actual event. I believe that the Garden is symbolic of what Paradise and the Fall were really like. I hold to this symbolic but historical view mainly because the order in Genesis 1 and 2 are inconsistent. The author of Genesis obviously would have noticed so he must not have meant them literally.

There are people who know alot more about the original Hebrew than me and I would appreciate their input. Because there seems to be this historical vs ahistorical split among theistic evolutionists it causes problems when talking to creationists. If we can come to some kind of understanding or agreement it would be very helpful for apologetics.

This thread is intended for discussion about TE under the presumpion that TE itself is correct. I do not want creationists coming in here to bash evolution nor do I want any, um, unorthodox theology regarding TE. If you can't prove it with the Scripture you ain't really helping.

With that said let the discussion begin!

[George Murphy]

A discussion I had with Glenn inspired me to make this post. That and out of the last 12 new threads 11 were from Jack and we need some variety.

Some debate has arisen around this topic. Should we completely view Genesis in parable fashion and not try to match it up to history or should we use something similar to Glenns approach of a non-literal but historical interpretation? Which fits better with the text and theology?

Right now I am in favor of a non-literal but historical view. I am open to change with a few exceptions. To be consistent with my Catholic faith I must maintain that the universe had a begining and was created by God, Adam and Eve were historical people and that there was a historical fall and that God specially created human souls (the first soul endowd people were obviously Adam and Eve). So I want to warn you I will be a bit biased toward keeping Adam and Eve historical. That doesn't mean that the Garden must be historical just that there really was a Fall starting with our first parents.

I hold the Framework view of Genesis 1 and I believe that Genesis 2 is a symbolic account of an actual event. I believe that the Garden is symbolic of what Paradise and the Fall were really like. I hold to this symbolic but historical view mainly because the order in Genesis 1 and 2 are inconsistent. The author of Genesis obviously would have noticed so he must not have meant them literally.

There are people who know alot more about the original Hebrew than me and I would appreciate their input. Because there seems to be this historical vs ahistorical split among theistic evolutionists it causes problems when talking to creationists. If we can come to some kind of understanding or agreement it would be very helpful for apologetics.

This thread is intended for discussion about TE under the presumpion that TE itself is correct. I do not want creationists coming in here to bash evolution nor do I want any, um, unorthodox theology regarding TE. If you can't prove it with the Scripture you ain't really helping.

With that said let the discussion begin!I'm a little hesitant to weigh in because Glenn & I have had extensive debates about these matters on the ASA list & I don't (& think Glenn doesn't) want to replay them again. So I'll keep any comments of mine brief.

1st we need to clarify what we mean by "Genesis"? The whole book? Chapters 1-11? 1-3? What?

I think there is undoubtedly historical material in Genesis, including the early chapters. OTOH there are also passages which are clearly not historical, such as 6:1-4. It's a mistake to insist that any given passage be forced into an historical mode or that some minimum amount of history be gotten out of it. If there's historical data there, fine. If not, fine, then we should try to understand what the text is about.

The fundamental purpose of Genesis is to talk about origins - of the world, life, humanity, sin, Israel - theologically. That means that what we do know of history (including what science tells us about evolution &c) should be placed in the context provided by scripture - including Genesis - to see its theological significance.

On one specific point: There are serious theological questions about "the fall" that aren't resolved just by deciding whether or not the events spoken of in Gen.3 really took place in history.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

Good thread.

I have read some of both Glennn's and George's ideas on the literalism of the scriptural account of origins. I'm a rank amateur in theology and philosophy, although I have read the Bible numerous times and do earnestly seek truth and a honest dialogue in the science-faith issues. So, take my comments with a very large crystal of halite.

George puts forth a theological interpretation of Genesis which then encompasses all of scripture in the Theology of the Cross, which I find very satisfying philosophically and spiritually in that it answers much of the anti-evolutionists accusations of theodicy in the TE view. In many ways for me, George's view is quite sufficient, with his asserton that Genesis 1-11 is theologically true, but perhaps not historical. At the moment, I'm reading George's book The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross, in which he explains how the Theology of the Cross can tie together Christian faith with evolution and other sciences in a consistent manner.

I agree with some of Glennn's views. He insists that Genesis 1-11 be (at least somewhat) historical. "Obviously" Ge. 1:1 is "historical". There was a beginning and God created -- ex nihilo. Beyond that I can see, for example how Genesis 1:9, 11-12, 24 are to read as God commanding the water (v.9) and Earth (v.11,12, 24) to do the creating, which could be metaphor for an evolutionary process. I have no problem with that at all -- it seems to be an "historical metaphor" -- it really happened that the waters and Earth brought forth life, and exactly "how" that happened is amenable to study in this present age. I don't think George would disagree with this view.

I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but can't some references be both metaphorical and historical? Ge. 2:7 for example just says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life." This is historical in that God creates man (Adam) using Earth materials, yet it has clear metaphorical qualities -- how does God breathe into Adam's nostrils? Does God have lungs?

The real theological issue with TE is the historicity of Adam. A literal evolved Adam who becomes a nephesh (living soul) in Ge. 2:7 generates an issue about Adam's physical parents, and appears to me to create another theodicy problem. Also, a specially-created Adam on an old Earth would generate the same problem. George holds a view from the NT that all creation will be redeemed through Christ, which is interesting and heartening to me.

Overall, I will take the cop out that the fullness of the spiritual issues involved in the creation of humanity are clothed in mystery, and that for the Christian the important spiritual focus should be Christ, not Adam (figurative or literal.)

I hope my post wasn't just rambling screed. Anyway, consider it just my zwei pfennig.

R

[grmorton]

I'm a little hesitant to weigh in because Glenn & I have had extensive debates about these matters on the ASA list & I don't (& think Glenn doesn't) want to replay them again. So I'll keep any comments of mine brief.

I will not comment much substantively. George is right, that he and I have had more than our share of debate. I do want to make clear that I do deeply respect George and even after our vehement debating, we were both able to get a paper published together. Debate doesn't prohibit friendship--even sharp disagreement.

All I will say substantively, is that if there is no historical part to Genesis 1, and by that I mean something which could be verified by normal historical processes and procedures, then we don't have the correct God to worship. to me, my stand is based upon the "which is the correct religion" question, not merely an internal issue to Christianity.

[grmorton]

I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but can't some references be both metaphorical and historical? Ge. 2:7 for example just says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life." This is historical in that God creates man (Adam) using Earth materials, yet it has clear metaphorical qualities -- how does God breathe into Adam's nostrils? Does God have lungs?

This is a position which I do find to be true. There is both historicity and metaphorics in much of Scripture, not just with the creation account. I am concerned that if we go totally metaphorical, we give the atheists a huge hammer with which to beat us up. Without historicity we have nothing real other than subjective words like truth, justice, beauty, etc. The historical sciences don't work off of metaphor ONLY. Yes some say that science creates metaphors for their theories but those theories are also posited as matching some reality out there. If we yield this real territory of history to the atheist, imo, we have lost it all. We give them reality and we keep unreality--our subjective feelings of God, which some have said is nothing more than oxygen starvation to the brain.

The real theological issue with TE is the historicity of Adam. A literal evolved Adam who becomes a nephesh (living soul) in Ge. 2:7 generates an issue about Adam's physical parents, and appears to me to create another theodicy problem. Also, a specially-created Adam on an old Earth would generate the same problem. George holds a view from the NT that all creation will be redeemed through Christ, which is interesting and heartening to me.

I don't understand your theodicy problem. Doing what I do with Adam (which may be disgusting) but it does explain Adam and Eve's parents and our genetic connection with the apes, maintaining some form of historicity for the first parents. yeah no one likes it but likeability has not often been a substantive criterion for a theory--matching the facts is.

I hope my post wasn't just rambling screed. Anyway, consider it just my zwei pfennig.

R

never screed from you my friend.

[rogero]

I will not comment much substantively. George is right, that he and I have had more than our share of debate. I do want to make clear that I do deeply respect George and even after our vehement debating, we were both able to get a paper published together. Debate doesn't prohibit friendship--even sharp disagreement.

Amen! This is a great example for many of us here who seem to lack this respect of others opinions... something of which I am not innocent. :blush:

If you keep this up, I may have to add a fourth "n".



All I will say substantively, is that if there is no historical part to Genesis 1, and by that I mean something which could be verified by normal historical processes and procedures, then we don't have the correct God to worship. to me, my stand is based upon the "which is the correct religion" question, not merely an internal issue to Christianity. But how much "history" do you require, Glennn? As I said in post #3, God using the waters and Earth to create life certainly could be interpreted as a metaphor for biological evolution. But then it's more than pure metaphor, it does contain history, although not in a detailed manner. Actually, I don't see how any Judeo-Christian TE would disagree with your view of Genesis chapter 1. (Apart from your adherence to the Days of Proclamation view which is necessitated by the obvious incorrect historical ordering of the creation week activities.)

The real sticky wicket concerns the questions of who "Adam" is, what is "the Fall" (toss in the Garden of Eden if you like), and later, what level of historicity is meant to be applied to the Noah story?

And perhaps a broader issue is how significant is Genesis 1-11 when compared to the rest of Scripture? Does it really warrant such a fine-toothed comb analysis in view of the obligatory theological truth one can obtain from the text?

R

[grmorton]

But how much "history" do you require, Glennn? As I said in post #3, God using the waters and Earth to create life certainly could be interpreted as a metaphor for biological evolution. But then it's more than pure metaphor, it does contain history, although not in a detailed manner. Actually, I don't see how any Judeo-Christian TE would disagree with your view of Genesis chapter 1. (Apart from your adherence to the Days of Proclamation view which is necessitated by the obvious incorrect historical ordering of the creation week activities.)

How much history? As much as I can get. I would disagree that my reading of Genesis is 'metaphor'. On the most broad view, the scientific view of life would say that the earth and water brought forth life. As I have often pointed out, one can have true history without having every single detail of that history outlined. Indeed, it is impossible to have every single detail of history outlined in any account of anything. I often use the analogy of a red car hitting a blue car in an auto accident. The statement that the red car hit the blue car, at the highest level is absolutely true historically. One doesn't have to go into intermolecular forces, momentum, or kinetic energy to have a true account of the event. This is the way I see Genesis 1 teaching evolution--at the highest level, not in the details.

As to the days being out of order, the Hebrew rabbi's say the construction of their language is such that one should not read it as being in the proper order.

This is from a 12th century Rabbi citing a 1st century Rabbi

“The difficulty which Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] had which led him to the above interpretation is, as he said: For if Scripture intended to teach the order in which the acts of creation took place, it should have written barishona [instead of Bereshith], since wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture it is in the construct state.”

The Hebrew writers also read this differently than the YECs regarding what is first in the universe. Rashi says:

Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring from the beginning the end," and it does not explicitly state, "Declaring from the beginning of a thing the end of a thing" -- and if it is so (that you assert that this verse intends to point out that heaven and earth were created first), you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for lo, it is written, "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters," and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place -- consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and the earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (esh) and water (mayim), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. (5) Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of creation.
* * * * *
1. English translation from M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silberman, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's Commentary, Translated into English and Annotated (London: Shapiro, Vallentine and Co., 1946), vol. 1, pp. 2-3.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rashi.html
accessed 12-30-04




The real sticky wicket concerns the questions of who "Adam" is, what is "the Fall" (toss in the Garden of Eden if you like), and later, what level of historicity is meant to be applied to the Noah story?

And perhaps a broader issue is how significant is Genesis 1-11 when compared to the rest of Scripture? Does it really warrant such a fine-toothed comb analysis in view of the obligatory theological truth one can obtain from the text?

R

Epistemologically I find it to be very important. If God didn't know what happened at creation, I can't figure out how he can be God instead of a Fraud.

For instance, you mentioned Ge 1:1 being historical. I agree with you, but IF Hoyle's cosmology, the steady state was the one which best matched reality, wouldn't there then be a problem with Ge 1:1 being historical? wouldn't that rule Yahweh out of the candidates for being the true God?
Would you agree with that statement? If the steady-state cosmology were true, would Genesis 1:1 be false and thus not worth listening to?

Love these high stakes games, I think it is why I love the oil business where a billion dollars are bet on a field being big enough.

(remember, this issue is involved in my mind about the question of 'which deity is the real deity or, 'will the real deity please stand up!')

[rogero]

How much history? As much as I can get. I would disagree that my reading of Genesis is 'metaphor'. On the most broad view, the scientific view of life would say that the earth and water brought forth life. As I have often pointed out, one can have true history without having every single detail of that history outlined. Indeed, it is impossible to have every single detail of history outlined in any account of anything. I often use the analogy of a red car hitting a blue car in an auto accident. The statement that the red car hit the blue car, at the highest level is absolutely true historically. One doesn't have to go into intermolecular forces, momentum, or kinetic energy to have a true account of the event. This is the way I see Genesis 1 teaching evolution--at the highest level, not in the details.

I guess any historical narrative contains some degree of legend, and even metaphor. The question in my mind is how much history needs to be attributed to the Genesis account in order to appease not only the Biblical inerrantists but the skeptics as well ?

My surmise is that for most of the latter, no amount of inferred textual historicity will do the trick. They have made up their minds, and any insight into the existence of the God of Judeo-Christianity, in particular the Logos of John 1:1, will have to come by inspiration and seeing God in the lives and deeds of other people.



As to the days being out of order, the Hebrew rabbi's say the construction of their language is such that one should not read it as being in the proper order.

This is from a 12th century Rabbi citing a 1st century Rabbi

“The difficulty which Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] had which led him to the above interpretation is, as he said: For if Scripture intended to teach the order in which the acts of creation took place, it should have written barishona [instead of Bereshith], since wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture it is in the construct state.”

The Hebrew writers also read this differently than the YECs regarding what is first in the universe. Rashi says:

Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring from the beginning the end," and it does not explicitly state, "Declaring from the beginning of a thing the end of a thing" -- and if it is so (that you assert that this verse intends to point out that heaven and earth were created first), you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for lo, it is written, "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters," and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place -- consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and the earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (esh) and water (mayim), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. (5) Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of creation.
* * * * *
1. English translation from M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silberman, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's Commentary, Translated into English and Annotated (London: Shapiro, Vallentine and Co., 1946), vol. 1, pp. 2-3.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rashi.html
accessed 12-30-04


Well, that's a very interesting piece of information to which all of the YECs and other Biblical literalist Fundamentalists should take note. I wonder what Jack777 thinks of this information?



Epistemologically I find it to be very important. If God didn't know what happened at creation, I can't figure out how he can be God instead of a Fraud.

Just a quick comment before we go any further -- what about the concept of accomodation? That seems very logical to me, since I (like you) have had children? Perhaps another thread could be started on that topic. I think RmWilliams (sp?) could contribute effectively to that issue.



For instance, you mentioned Ge 1:1 being historical. I agree with you, but IF Hoyle's cosmology, the steady state was the one which best matched reality, wouldn't there then be a problem with Ge 1:1 being historical? wouldn't that rule Yahweh out of the candidates for being the true God?
Would you agree with that statement? If the steady-state cosmology were true, would Genesis 1:1 be false and thus not worth listening to?

Love these high stakes games, I think it is why I love the oil business where a billion dollars are bet on a field being big enough.

(remember, this issue is involved in my mind about the question of 'which deity is the real deity or, 'will the real deity please stand up!')
I am starting to see what you mean, Glennn. That the (current) Universe has a beginning (at least a singularity in space-time) is the majority opinion among the scientific community. The "Big Bang" (a pejorative term coined by Fred Hoyle) was opposed philosophically by many folks who didn't like the concept of an actual beginning of spacetime.

In the same sense, any particular anti-theist faction could oppose the historical Adam or a Noahic flood on philosophical grounds, regardless of the empirical evidence. My not-so-humble opinion is "who cares about the anti-theists." We as Christian science folks (not the Mary Baker Eddy kind :wink:) need to look at the best science and the best Biblical scholarship. It depends a lot on whether one allows nature as an interpretative vehicle for scripture. You and George have no problem with using nature as an interpretative tool, unlike (to their shame) some of the YEC and hyperliteralist OECs that have posted here.

Wow, that last paragraph was rambling screed! Anyway, the upshot is that I keep seeking the truth. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that the Cosmos and Earth are billions of years old, and that there has been continuity and change in the biosphere over the last 3.8 Ga. The spiritual evidence I have is that Truth cannot contradict Truth and that God has been real in my life (not just occasional bouts of dyspepsia :blush:) and that there is something beyond a physical existence that I cannot "prove", but in which I have hope and which gives purpose to my life. Specifically, the NT message of the gospel of Jesus Christ makes the most sense to me, and I leaning more and more towards the Theology of the Cross as the most sensible theological statement of this intangible feeling.

Perhaps this is more than y'all wanted to hear from grumpy old Rogero? :wink:

R

[rogero]

This is a position which I do find to be true. There is both historicity and metaphorics in much of Scripture, not just with the creation account. I am concerned that if we go totally metaphorical, we give the atheists a huge hammer with which to beat us up. Without historicity we have nothing real other than subjective words like truth, justice, beauty, etc. The historical sciences don't work off of metaphor ONLY. Yes some say that science creates metaphors for their theories but those theories are also posited as matching some reality out there. If we yield this real territory of history to the atheist, imo, we have lost it all. We give them reality and we keep unreality--our subjective feelings of God, which some have said is nothing more than oxygen starvation to the brain.


Those are good points. Metaphor is clearly allowable in any narrative, to the chagrin of the hyperliteralists, who want want to read every verse as a diary entry. I thought I could do that when I was eight years old, but alas, it doesn't work now at fifty. That's why I have such a hard time understanding Jack777 and Lion and WILLOWTREE and Jorge and some other fundamentalists here. Maybe I don't have enough faith.

I do agree that the narrative has to relate in some way to reality. It seems that that clear(?) reading of the waters and Earth bringing forth life fill that bill. Also that God creates Adam using the materials of Earth.

Your view on the Noahic flood is interesting. There certain was a massive local flood with the filling of the Mediterranean circa 5.5Ma. It's interesting how you try to tie this to a particular hominine ancestor is clever. I'm concerned that you might make the historical verification of such event a condition of faith. Would the negation of literal Noah (not necessarily in the Homo or even Australopithecus genus) be a severe blow to the foundation of your faith? I hope and pray not! :wink:



I don't understand your theodicy problem. Doing what I do with Adam (which may be disgusting) but it does explain Adam and Eve's parents and our genetic connection with the apes, maintaining some form of historicity for the first parents. yeah no one likes it but likeability has not often been a substantive criterion for a theory--matching the facts is.


If the literal Adam is the first spiritual human, the first creature gifted with an immortal soul and God-likeness, then his parents were souless animals and died like dogs. There would be no appreciable genetic difference between Mr. Adam and his parents. Why would God give his likeness to Sonny-Boy but not Mommy and Daddy? I realize I'm thinking as a finite pea-brained mortal, but this sure seems like a theodicy problem to me. Perhaps, dying like dogs ain't so bad from a non-theistic/naturalist point of view, since such beings would contribute nutrients via scavengers and decomposing bacteria and fungi to the maintenance of the biosphere. But Adam and his Frau wouldn't have the hope of seeing their parents again.

Now I know this is silly screed, but to me this is the crux of the issue with TE (OEs have a similar problem with very similarly advanced evolved hominines existing at the same time as the specially-created Adam.)

Sorry to stir the pot, but I feel this is the real issue.



never screed from you my friend.
I appreciate the expression of confidence, Bro. I wish I had the same confidence in myself!

R

[grmorton]

Well, that's a very interesting piece of information to which all of the YECs and other Biblical literalist Fundamentalists should take note. I wonder what Jack777 thinks of this information?

Probably not much.

Just a quick comment before we go any further -- what about the concept of accomodation? That seems very logical to me, since I (like you) have had children? Perhaps another thread could be started on that topic. I think RmWilliams (sp?) could contribute effectively to that issue.

Paul Seely is probably the biggest proponent of accomodation. I read his book, Inerrant Wisdom. I nearly became an atheist after reading it. Paul himself was surprised at my reaction to his ideas. In my opinion, if he is correct, there is absolutely nothing we can trust about what God says. Paul has god accomodating not only the science but also the theology. If we let God accomodate theology, then we can't trust anything he says about how to obtain salvation.

I am starting to see what you mean, Glennn. That the (current) Universe has a beginning (at least a singularity in space-time) is the majority opinion among the scientific community. The "Big Bang" (a pejorative term coined by Fred Hoyle) was opposed philosophically by many folks who didn't like the concept of an actual beginning of spacetime.

Yeah, part of their rejection of theism was based upon the universe being eternal and they didn't like it having a starting point.

In the same sense, any particular anti-theist faction could oppose the historical Adam or a Noahic flood on philosophical grounds, regardless of the empirical evidence. My not-so-humble opinion is "who cares about the anti-theists." We as Christian science folks (not the Mary Baker Eddy kind :wink:) need to look at the best science and the best Biblical scholarship. It depends a lot on whether one allows nature as an interpretative vehicle for scripture. You and George have no problem with using nature as an interpretative tool, unlike (to their shame) some of the YEC and hyperliteralist OECs that have posted here.

Clearly George and I differ on how to solve the problem. Neither of us can go the direction the other guy goes. But I do care about the anti-theists. We can not a priori rule out their viewpoint and then claim that we have a rational faith. We must provide some reason for rejecting their world view. If all we have is "I believe what I believe" what is different between that and the Islamacists who 'believe what they believe" and then act upon it?

Wow, that last paragraph was rambling screed! Anyway, the upshot is that I keep seeking the truth. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that the Cosmos and Earth are billions of years old, and that there has been continuity and change in the biosphere over the last 3.8 Ga. The spiritual evidence I have is that Truth cannot contradict Truth and that God has been real in my life (not just occasional bouts of dyspepsia :blush:) and that there is something beyond a physical existence that I cannot "prove", but in which I have hope and which gives purpose to my life. Specifically, the NT message of the gospel of Jesus Christ makes the most sense to me, and I leaning more and more towards the Theology of the Cross as the most sensible theological statement of this intangible feeling.

Yeah the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is billions of years old--something the YECs must do mental backflips to avoid. But as you say, truth can not contradict truth, which is a whole 'nuther' reason for me to want history in Genesis, and not make it totally metaphorical and to not make it YEC which clearly does have truth contradicting truth.

Perhaps this is more than y'all wanted to hear from grumpy old Rogero? :wink:

R

I will withdraw from this thread because I don't want to get into it with George or anyone else.

BTW, I think you are the first TE who has acknowledged seeing my point about the bible being wrong if the Steady State theory were true. At least you are not artificially protecting the Bible from being wrong by making any factually false statement metaphorical. Thank you very much for that.

[rogero]

Probably not much.



Paul Seely is probably the biggest proponent of accomodation. I read his book, Inerrant Wisdom. I nearly became an atheist after reading it. Paul himself was surprised at my reaction to his ideas. In my opinion, if he is correct, there is absolutely nothing we can trust about what God says. Paul has god accomodating not only the science but also the theology. If we let God accomodate theology, then we can't trust anything he says about how to obtain salvation.


That is a shame, and I don't know anything of Seely's work, but it seems completely reasonable to me that the Supernatural is lots smarter than us mortals, and would at least have to speak in language we could understand -- kinda like a mommy or daddy speaking about dinosaurs or cancer or death to a three-year old.

I don't see why this general concept would be offensive to anyone, although Paul may have taken it too far. I need to read his book sometime,

Yeah, part of their rejection of theism was based upon the universe being eternal and they didn't like it having a starting point.




Clearly George and I differ on how to solve the problem. Neither of us can go the direction the other guy goes. But I do care about the anti-theists. We can not a priori rule out their viewpoint and then claim that we have a rational faith. We must provide some reason for rejecting their world view. If all we have is "I believe what I believe" what is different between that and the Islamacists who 'believe what they believe" and then act upon it?


The basic question I have is about the existence of non-physical means of obtaining truth. Are empirical observation of nature and literal historical readings of text the only ways of getting knowledge? I don't see how theological metaphor together with spiritual revelation through holy writings, and especially the witness of Jesus of Nazareth can be discounted in the pursuit of truth.




Yeah the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is billions of years old--something the YECs must do mental backflips to avoid. But as you say, truth can not contradict truth, which is a whole 'nuther' reason for me to want history in Genesis, and not make it totally metaphorical and to not make it YEC which clearly does have truth contradicting truth.


But I (and I think George) agree that Genesis 1-11 is not "totally" metaphorical. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God commands the waters and Earth to create life. Man (Adam) was made in God's image (text doesn't say how). I think we all agree on that. What more do you need?



I will withdraw from this thread because I don't want to get into it with George or anyone else.

BTW, I think you are the first TE who has acknowledged seeing my point about the bible being wrong if the Steady State theory were true. At least you are not artificially protecting the Bible from being wrong by making any factually false statement metaphorical. Thank you very much for that.
Withdraw if you wish, but I believe your knowledge and wisdom are esssential to the kind of discussion that Constantine wants and folks like dear old Jack777 need.

I agree that we need some historicity in Genesis 1-11. We need you to help us understand how much of this is needed. That should be the crux of the this most necessary and potentially fruitful discussion. Otherwise, the Cosmogony forum will devolve into "liberal heretics" like me engaging a poop-flinging contest with hard-nosed fundamentalists liike lovable ol' Jack.

In God's Peace,

Roger

[kofh2u]

Interesting.

The devil hate cowards, they say. But, half way measures at least open the door.

Rev. 4:1 After this, (having shown me the sociological development of the seven church stages), I looked, and, behold, a door (of understanding) was opened in heaven (within my mind): and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things, (various insights), which must be hereafter, (after the formation of the seventh church, Laodicea, in the Age of Information yet to come).

[George Murphy]

That is a shame, and I don't know anything of Seely's work, but it seems completely reasonable to me that the Supernatural is lots smarter than us mortals, and would at least have to speak in language we could understand -- kinda like a mommy or daddy speaking about dinosaurs or cancer or death to a three-year old.

I don't see why this general concept would be offensive to anyone, although Paul may have taken it too far. I need to read his book sometime,
I'm leaving soon for a clergy retreat so won't be on again for a bit. In any case, as I noted earlier, don't want to replay a lot of old tapes. Furthermore, I don't endorse everything Paul S says. But the basic idea of accomodation even of theology shouldn't be so surprising or disturbing. Theology is a human attempt to understand & express what God has revealed & is not to be confused with Christian faith itself. In that sense it parallels the natural sciences as attempts to understand the world. & there is not a unique theology in the Bible, or even in the NT. E.g., the ways in which Matthew & Paul speak about Christ, law, righteousness &c are different. I may have mentioned previously my article on "theological covariance" which deals with this. I'll be glad to send it to anyone snailmail. (It's pre-word processor.)

E.g., there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the OT. (Which is not to say that there are no ideas which are later used by Christians in explicating that doctrine. & no, the plurality of 'elohim, "Let us make" &c don't indicate a trinitarian concept.) We can even see that a trinitarian concept of God would have caused problems for ancient Israel, having trouble enough to maintain the shema` in a polytheistic climate. & from a later Christian standpoint we can't just say that a non-trinitarian view of God is incomplete. It's wrong. (See "unitarianism.")

As another example, there is no concept of the resurrection of the body in the earliest strata of Israelite religion: That doesn't come in until quite late in the OT, quite likely with Persian influence. (& that latter comment shouldn't bend anyone out of shape. There's no reason why God couldn't have made use of the Persians to introduce this concept to Israel.)

Shalom,
George

[markporter]

Cool thread guys - George/Glenn, would it be possible to have a link to your debates on the ASA lists? and also, would it be possible to have a brief synopsis of George's view here, as I know what Glenn's position is but not sure about George's.

[grmorton]

Cool thread guys - George/Glenn, would it be possible to have a link to your debates on the ASA lists? and also, would it be possible to have a brief synopsis of George's view here, as I know what Glenn's position is but not sure about George's.


That would be really hard to do. And there are some posts I wish I could recall or erase, but, alas, even if I did that, it would still be contained in the General Relativistic space-time manifold and God could still find them.

The problem is that we had so many over so many years, mostly chasing the same issues around the tree. I think we finally decided going in circles wasn't useful somewhere in 2001 or 2002. I can't recall.

[Constantine]

Wow, thanks for all the responses.

Oh for the record Glenn I do believe I asked you about the Steady State Theory in another thread, though it was in a different context (just nit picking). Speaking of which the Steady State theory has been bothering me. If we were having this debate in 1925 instead of 2005 would Glenn and I be atheists? At that time the evidence was in favor of the SST. If I had been alive would I have thrown away my faith and my theism because of it?

I don't know, and that is what really bothers me. Where do we draw the line when science does and does not have say over faith? What if tomarrow we find out that there is new evidence that there is really an eternal cycle of big bangs and the universe is eternal? Will you throw away your Christianity? Will you find some way to fit it into theology or will you reject it out of hand like the YECs do the rest of science?

Right now I can say that I probably would keep my faith. But is that rational? I'm digressing so back to the topic.

For a historical Adam how do we solve the problem of his, and Eve's parents? Genesis doesn't talk about them but God does refer to mankind as being His children. Perhaps that is a suggestion that Adam was adopted by God because he was an orphan. Adam and Eve's parents could have been killed when they were children so Adam and Eve would have no recollection of them and thus not really miss them. But that is all hypothetical.

I agree with Rogero that the real crux of the matter is dealing with a historical Adam. I believe in the historical Adam because I believe it to be necessary for the theology, so I am very interested in finding the answer. It is too bad that George and Glenn are bowing out, but I do understand your reasons.

[Raptor]

Cool thread guys - George/Glenn, would it be possible to have a link to your debates on the ASA lists? and also, would it be possible to have a brief synopsis of George's view here, as I know what Glenn's position is but not sure about George's.
:yes:

And I'm lurking too.

:lurk:

[cbro]

A discussion I had with Glenn inspired me to make this post. That and out of the last 12 new threads 11 were from Jack and we need some variety.

Some debate has arisen around this topic. Should we completely view Genesis in parable fashion and not try to match it up to history or should we use something similar to Glenns approach of a non-literal but historical interpretation? Which fits better with the text and theology?

Right now I am in favor of a non-literal but historical view. I am open to change with a few exceptions. To be consistent with my Catholic faith I must maintain that the universe had a begining and was created by God, Adam and Eve were historical people and that there was a historical fall and that God specially created human souls (the first soul endowd people were obviously Adam and Eve). So I want to warn you I will be a bit biased toward keeping Adam and Eve historical. That doesn't mean that the Garden must be historical just that there really was a Fall starting with our first parents.

I hold the Framework view of Genesis 1 and I believe that Genesis 2 is a symbolic account of an actual event. I believe that the Garden is symbolic of what Paradise and the Fall were really like. I hold to this symbolic but historical view mainly because the order in Genesis 1 and 2 are inconsistent. The author of Genesis obviously would have noticed so he must not have meant them literally.

There are people who know alot more about the original Hebrew than me and I would appreciate their input. Because there seems to be this historical vs ahistorical split among theistic evolutionists it causes problems when talking to creationists. If we can come to some kind of understanding or agreement it would be very helpful for apologetics.

This thread is intended for discussion about TE under the presumpion that TE itself is correct. I do not want creationists coming in here to bash evolution nor do I want any, um, unorthodox theology regarding TE. If you can't prove it with the Scripture you ain't really helping.

With that said let the discussion begin!
sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3)—it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)

What do you think of this idea from Bible.org NET Bible notes?