Questions for theistic evolutionists

[greentwiga]

I'm a YEC-er but I'm no scientist so my while I do have some doubts about the scientific validity of the general theory of evolution, my stance is mostly fuelled by my faith in Scripture. That said, I'm interested to see just how much of a live option theistic evolution is for a someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy as I do so I'd like to ask some questions relating to how certain passages can be understood from a theistic evolution perspective. I tend to find most discussions focus on the Genesis 1 text but I do not think Genesis 1 alone would demand a young earth. I am personally persuaded by the view put forward by John H. Walton in 'The Lost World of Genesis One' that Genesis 1 describes functional origins not material origins.

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11



Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

Well, the Temple is only a representation of something in heaven. There is no literally identical thing in heaven (Heb 8:5,9:23) In the same way, there is no reason for the heavenly concept of day to be a literal day. God rested for a day. What is a day to him? It isn't 24 hours.

[nightbringer]

Addressing two issues together:

Certain interpretations may not reflect that sort of logic, but I don't think we can put that back on the text. The example with the Lord's Supper is indeed instructive. Many Christians would not read that as symbolic the way you do -- many think there is something more literal in the wording. Now, I agree with you on the symbolism in how the Lord's Supper is equated with Jesus' body, but I do so for the same reason that I see symbolism in how the six days are equated with God's work in creation, and the Sabbath is equated with God's rest. As Walton's book states (though I've only read his Genesis commentary, not the one you mentioned), and as Hebrews 3-4 alludes to, God's rest is much more than a literal day. I don't think we can press the previous six days to be more literal than the last one.

Even if the Lord's supper is not symbolic I still don't think it's particular illuminating with regard to how we should treat the Exodus passage.

Let's say a man uses a metaphor to express the beauty of his wife's eyes. He says "her eyes are diamonds." Diamonds are beautiful and it is that property of them that he is drawing upon to express how beautiful this woman's eyes are. There are many properties of the diamond that he is overlooking in his description. He does not intend to say, for example, that his wife's eyes are hard like a diamond.

Now imagine that this married couple have children and the husband instructs the children not to poke sticks in their eyes saying "you are to have diamonds for eyes like their mother". While a little unusual to hear, this command makes sense - he is aiming to preserve the beauty of their children's eyes. But imagine instead that the husband says to his children "you must pour cement into your eyes for you are to have diamonds for eyes like your mother." This second command doesn't make sense because hardness is not a property that the diamond metaphor seeks to express.

If we take the creation days to be metaphorical or symbolic in some way then Exodus 20:8-11 displays similarly warped logic. Obviously under this metaphorical view, the creation days do not intend to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in 24 hour periods. '24-hourness' is not the property that the day metaphor is seeking to express. Rather the days would convey non-descript periods of time or something to that effect. But it is precisely the 24-hourness of the days that the Exodus passage uses as the justification for a command. So it seems clear that whatever the creation days express, they do express 24-hourness. This doesn't in itself necessitate that God materially created the whole world in seven 24 hour days. Genesis 1 might be talking about something other than material creation as John Walton argues (and I'm sure he's not alone). Either way, we need to preserve the 24-hourness.

Now, I do agree that the days are presented as literal in Genesis 1. However, this is no different to how the bowls of Revelation 16 are presented as literal. Within the account, God's wrath is a liquid of some sort that is contained in these bowls and can be poured out onto the earth. Within Genesis 1, the seven days encapsulate God's creation and rest just as later the seven bowls encapsulate God's wrath. So, I don't think we need to try and stretch the days to ages or the bowls to cisterns, because within the accounts they do refer to days and bowls. But, the whole framework is used to tangibly describe something that physical terminology really can't do justice to. God is condescending to speak, and thank God for that, because otherwise we'd have no revelation at all!

The revelation passages just aren't comparable. These are metaphors true enough, but nothing is being based on some actual property the object being used as a symbol has.

God commanded the Israelites to rest and be refreshed because he himself rested and was refreshed. Yet, neither of us takes that refreshment literally for God, even though I assume we think the Israelites were supposed to literally be refreshed (whatever else the Sabbath included, it's clear it included rest and refreshment).

This would be a more persuasive argument however Walton (yeah I sure am blowing his trumpet in this thread) argues that the rest terminology doesn't refer to disengagement as recooperation and refreshment like we immediately think it does.

"What does divine rest entail? Most of us think of rest as disengagement from the cares, worries and tasks of life. What comes to mind is sleeping in or taking an afternoon nap. But in the ancient world rest is what results whena crisis has been resolved or when stability has been achieved, when things have "settled down." Consequently normal routines can be established and enjoyed. For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities." - John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 2009: 72-73.

Our modern sense of rest which expresses a recooperative action (which God would obviously not need to do) is not what is being described of God here so it isn't symbolic in that sense and so is not an adequate comparison to the 24-hourness of the creation days.

[nightbringer]

Hi nightbringer, thanks for asking these questions!

Thanks for trying to answer them!

I don't have too much to add except that even Scripture itself seems to shy away from the idea that we are privy to know the exact details of God's creation. For example, the wise Solomon reflected this in Ecclesiastes 3:11

"He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

I agree that it is pretty unlikely that we will find out all the details of God's creative acts. But God has revealed some information about this in his Word. I'm not looking for full information on the creative acts, I'm looking to see whether what information God gives us in Scripture is compatible with evolution. I certainly don't think God would include falsehoods in his own revelation.

I certainly understand the desire to keep the simplicity of the text, but Scripture continually paints a picture of a God who's thoughts and actions are much higher than our own. This, of course, applies both ways, no matter how you view the text .

Absolutely God's thoughts are higher than our own, but if he has revealed some of his thoughts in Scripture, then we are not over-stepping the line by examining whether those Scriptures are true.

[nightbringer]

It would be helpful if you stated exactly what you mean by biblical inerrancy. Because most TE's do not believe that scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man in any way. As such any scientific inaccuracies in scripture are simply a reflection of the cultural period and so do not affect Biblical inerrancy.

To put it simply I believe the Bible is inerrant in that it teaches no falsehood in what it intends to teach. I too do not believe that Scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man. But I do expect that when it intends to convey messages relevant to science, it teaches no falsehood.

Lot's of commentators believe God works within the culture and beliefs of the people. If we understand the creation stories as inspired retellings of creations stories common to the area then God is just again reusing an inspired cultural artifact for an inspired purpose (establishing a work rest schedule for man). The literalism of the account is simply not an issue since that was never the purpose of the creation story anyway.

Blessings

Certainly God uses a culture's literary genres, phrases of expression etc to convey his message but I have a problem with the idea that God actually supports the false ideas of a given culture. If he does this for a culture's science, why not a culture's theology? I can't believe in a God who lies.

[nightbringer]

Well, the Temple is only a representation of something in heaven. There is no literally identical thing in heaven (Heb 8:5,9:23) In the same way, there is no reason for the heavenly concept of day to be a literal day. God rested for a day. What is a day to him? It isn't 24 hours.

I agree there is no fully identical thing in heaven. But this isn't relevant to my point. My point is that it is fuzzy logic for God to reason for a command based on a property that a metaphor doesn't intend to express.

[nightbringer]

It seems to me that the text primarily has in mind a curse on Satan, and perhaps on the one particular serpent (indwelled by Satan) involved in the Fall. Does this apply to all other serpents as well? I don't see that the text clarifies this, and it is dangerous to go beyond the text.

I think your interpretation is possible. I know that some YEC'ers argue that because the passage says "cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field" that implies that the other animals are cursed as well. But I think it could also just be emphasising the cursed status of the serpent/satan. A dip into the original Hebrew is probably in order to clarify the issue.

Likewise, when the ground is cursed, it is in relation to man's productivity and livelihood, somewhat analogous to the curse on woman's productivity in childbearing. I don't see that this implies any sort of wholesale change to the rest of the created order, such as the rocks and the stars and the animals.

Yeah I can buy this.

[Marshall Janzen]

Welcome back nightbringer! Hope you had a good trip.

If we take the creation days to be metaphorical or symbolic in some way then Exodus 20:8-11 displays similarly warped logic. Obviously under this metaphorical view, the creation days do not intend to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in 24 hour periods. '24-hourness' is not the property that the day metaphor is seeking to express.

I think you misunderstood my view. I do think the creation days in Genesis 1 are intended to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in literal days. That is the whole reason for including this highly structured template of days here while all the other creation accounts in Scripture lack it. However, the point isn't to contradict the other accounts, such as by declaring that God's creation of animals was confined to two days unlike Psalm 104 that sees these activities as ongoing. The point is to take God's indescribable creative work and present it in a physical template that we as human beings can follow. This is why the only places the days show up outside Genesis 1 is when they are connected with this template for humans to follow (Exodus 20:8-11, 31:12-17).

The true nature of God's work (which Jesus alludes to in John 5:16-17) and the true nature of God's rest (as glimpsed in Hebrews 4) goes well beyond what we can literally imitate and is not bound to a certain number of physical days.

But it is precisely the 24-hourness of the days that the Exodus passage uses as the justification for a command.

That is your way of reading it. A number of us have presented a different way. If you applied your method to the Lord's Supper, then it is precisely the fact that the bread was literally Jesus' body that Jesus uses as the justification for commanding them to eat it. In that case, you probably recognize that it may be the other way around: Jesus said it was his body to reveal the meaning of the symbol, rather than telling them to eat the bread because of what it already was. I'm saying it can be the other way around in the case of the work week and Sabbath as well. God's creative work and rest was described in a template of six days and a seventh for our benefit, rather than the Israelite work week and Sabbath merely being a reflection of the literal way God worked and rested.

The revelation passages just aren't comparable.

Can you think of any part of Scripture that is written more similarly to Genesis 1:1-2:3 than the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation? Aside from the obvious difference of language (Hebrew versus Greek), they seem to me to have a lot in common. They all use highly structured accounts of seven items (days, seals, trumpets, bowls). There is a repeated refrain, with only subtle differences, in each item. The last item is set off as special. In each case, the account describes how God's activity in his realm directly affects earth. There also appears to be anthropomorphism and/or symbolism in how God's activity is described in physical terms (e.g. creative daily speech or liquid wrath in bowls). All the accounts give us a glimpse of scenes that no human could have naturally witnessed.

These are metaphors true enough, but nothing is being based on some actual property the object being used as a symbol has.

The destruction of the earth is based on God's wrath being a liquid that can be placed into and poured out of bowls! At least, that's the case if one reduces these accounts to the face value, ignoring the way the activity of God that transcends the physical is being represented in physical terms we can identify with. (And, in the case of the days, also in terms that we can imitate.)

Our modern sense of rest which expresses a recooperative action (which God would obviously not need to do) is not what is being described of God here so it isn't symbolic in that sense and so is not an adequate comparison to the 24-hourness of the creation days.

It isn't merely our modern sense. The other times the Hebrew word for "refreshed" shows up in Scripture, it expresses that recuperative action. Yet, this word is also applied to God. I agree with Walton that God's rest is much more than this. However, God condescends to being described like a weary labourer so that the Israelites would have a template to follow -- a template that included being quite literally recuperated after a hard week's work. We can't imitate the full nature of God's rest, but God allowed it to be described in a more physical and human way that we can imitate.

We are also called to enter God's rest in a deeper way (again, Hebrews 4), sharing in his shalom that continues to this day, even as his creative and sustaining work also continues.

[greentwiga]

I agree there is no fully identical thing in heaven. But this isn't relevant to my point. My point is that it is fuzzy logic for God to reason for a command based on a property that a metaphor doesn't intend to express.

We agree that there is some entity in heaven called day. There is no reason to suppose that heaven's day is 24 hours long. Just as God had a temple built on earth that in some earthly way represented the one in heaven, the day and the seven days in some way represent the ones in heaven. I believe the heavenly day is far more real than the earthly one.

[mostlyharmless]

To put it simply I believe the Bible is inerrant in that it teaches no falsehood in what it intends to teach. I too do not believe that Scripture was inspired to be a scientific guide for man. But I do expect that when it intends to convey messages relevant to science, it teaches no falsehood.

It can only be conveying a message relevant to science if that was the intention of the writing. You cannot take a metaphor and try to force scientific meaning out of it just because it uses natural objects to convey its meaning.

Certainly God uses a culture's literary genres, phrases of expression etc to convey his message but I have a problem with the idea that God actually supports the false ideas of a given culture. If he does this for a culture's science, why not a culture's theology? I can't believe in a God who lies.

Hidden within your paragraph is the assumption that the creation story was intended to be an accurate cosmology. That is the only way the story can be a scientific lie. Just as scriptural uses of metaphor cannot be lies, so the creation story cannot be a lie about science if it is not a scientific account.

In any case there is no scientific or historical genre of writing in those periods (in the modern sense).

[nightbringer]

Welcome back nightbringer! Hope you had a good trip.

Thanks I did, I helped in taking my church youth group to a Christian summer festival. It was a really good time and one of the guys who came recommitted his life to Christ :). Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, I had to go away again!

I think you misunderstood my view. I do think the creation days in Genesis 1 are intended to convey the idea that God performed his creative acts in literal days.

I think you're confusing the meaning of literal. If I said "I punched that guy's lights out" and I meant it literally, I would be saying that I actually punched out the bulbs of the lights he owns. If we say that Genesis intends to convey the idea that God created in 6 literal days then it means God actually created in 6 days. It is non-sensical to say that Genesis descibes a literal 6 day creation and still doesn't have to be interpreted so that God actually created in 6 24 hour days.

The true nature of God's work (which Jesus alludes to in John 5:16-17) and the true nature of God's rest (as glimpsed in Hebrews 4) goes well beyond what we can literally imitate and is not bound to a certain number of physical days.

Sure, we can't literally imitate God's work in its entirity, but we can imitate that which God has said we can, like he does in the Sabbath commandment in Exodus. I'm not sure how you would use the passages in John or Hebrews to counter this.

That is your way of reading it. A number of us have presented a different way.

I just don't think these alternative readings are true to the logic of the passage. To maintain the logic of the passage, you must hold that the duration of God's creative act was in some way actually comparable to 6 days. I suppose the actual 24-hourness of them might not be what is being compared. But you certainly need some transposable time frame for God's creative acts.

Can you think of any part of Scripture that is written more similarly to Genesis 1:1-2:3 than the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation? Aside from the obvious difference of language (Hebrew versus Greek), they seem to me to have a lot in common. They all use highly structured accounts of seven items (days, seals, trumpets, bowls). There is a repeated refrain, with only subtle differences, in each item. The last item is set off as special. In each case, the account describes how God's activity in his realm directly affects earth. There also appears to be anthropomorphism and/or symbolism in how God's activity is described in physical terms (e.g. creative daily speech or liquid wrath in bowls). All the accounts give us a glimpse of scenes that no human could have naturally witnessed.

The destruction of the earth is based on God's wrath being a liquid that can be placed into and poured out of bowls! At least, that's the case if one reduces these accounts to the face value, ignoring the way the activity of God that transcends the physical is being represented in physical terms we can identify with. (And, in the case of the days, also in terms that we can imitate.)

Sure, Genesis and Revelation have thematic similarities. But I can't see any true comparison between the Revelation metaphors and the way the creation days are being used in the Exodus passage. For instance there is no command for us to pour liquid out of bowls because God's wrath is descirbed like that. That would be bad logic given the metaphorical nature of the bowl language. The metaphors serve an illustrative point, but (given the logic of the Exodus Sabbath passage) I cannot conclude that the creation days are similarly metaphorical.

It isn't merely our modern sense. The other times the Hebrew word for "refreshed" shows up in Scripture, it expresses that recuperative action. Yet, this word is also applied to God. I agree with Walton that God's rest is much more than this. However, God condescends to being described like a weary labourer so that the Israelites would have a template to follow -- a template that included being quite literally recuperated after a hard week's work. We can't imitate the full nature of God's rest, but God allowed it to be described in a more physical and human way that we can imitate.

I would have to be shown specific passages that show a model of literal recuperative action being based on God's non-literal recuperatibe action to agree with this.

We are also called to enter God's rest in a deeper way (again, Hebrews 4), sharing in his shalom that continues to this day, even as his creative and sustaining work also continues.

I agree that his sustaining work continues to day, but his creative work is finished as I believe Hebrews 4:3 says.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on the nature of the days. I can't see myself changing my mind on the Exodus passage. But as I said earlier, it's not really an issue for me in accepting evolution as I take Walton's view of the creation days.

[nightbringer]

We agree that there is some entity in heaven called day. There is no reason to suppose that heaven's day is 24 hours long. Just as God had a temple built on earth that in some earthly way represented the one in heaven, the day and the seven days in some way represent the ones in heaven. I believe the heavenly day is far more real than the earthly one.

I think there might be some plausibility here.

[nightbringer]

It can only be conveying a message relevant to science if that was the intention of the writing. You cannot take a metaphor and try to force scientific meaning out of it just because it uses natural objects to convey its meaning.

I agree.

Hidden within your paragraph is the assumption that the creation story was intended to be an accurate cosmology.

I believe the creation story intends to convey some literal truth about cosmology based on the Exodus passage's logic.

That is the only way the story can be a scientific lie. Just as scriptural uses of metaphor cannot be lies, so the creation story cannot be a lie about science if it is not a scientific account.

I agree.

In any case there is no scientific or historical genre of writing in those periods (in the modern sense).

So, because there wasn't any of what we would call historical or scientific writings, the ancients were incapable of writing things that they intended to convey as literal truth when it comes to how the universe came about? I don't have to write a science textbook to write something that intends to convey truths about the material world. Consideration of literary genres are important but there isn't a black and white line between the kind of truths that can be expressed in scientific/historical writings and whatever else.

[capnkrik]

Amen to your post. Why do people put God in a box? From my research of rabbinical views, the Creation Story is just that, a story.

[justsumguy]

My first question is about Exodus 20:8-11

Here God is telling the Israelites to adhere to a literal seven day week with one day for rest. God's reason for this takes into account his own seven day creation activity. Would it make sense for God to base his reasons for a literal seven day week on a non-literal seven day creation activity? Isn't this text a good 'proof-text' for a literal seven day creation?

I'd appreciate any thoughtful responses to this question. Thanks in advance!

My answer to both questions would be no. It doesn't make sense to me. When it comes to human literal interpretation of anything, we are talking about an "attempt" to do something. There is no such thing as humans literally interpreting anything. Try walking around with another human for two hours and literally interpreting what each of you say to one another. Our entire effort to communicate with one another is all about "interpretation". Claiming literal interpretation of the Bible is simple arrogance. It is simply saying, "I know what the Bible is saying because I am interpreting it correctly" or "I am interpreting it closer to how it should be interpreted". It is in defiance of first having to deal with literal translation which again, cannot be done without interpretation because we humans do not communicate in a literal fashion. Once we get to the point where droids are writing books, then we can hold to a literal interpretation.

Anyway, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be on this planet. The theory of evolution has to do with how life evolved once life came to be on this planet. Abiogenesis is one thing that deal's with how life came to be on the planet.

Absolute is simply something that so far is not attainable by humans in this physical universe. A couple examples would be absolute zero temperature and absolute literal interpretation.

[justsumguy]

KJV Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I don't see alot of people who claim to hold to literal interpretation insisting that God created evil.
In fact, I don't see any person who claims to hold to literal interpretation holding to literal interpretation of any verse in the Bible that is offered up as argument to one of their literally interpretated verses.
The creation order is interesting...
Life in the sea.
Life in the air.
Life on land.
Humans.

There are schools of thought within the scientific community that lean to that order of evolution. I'm just saying that's an interesting coincidence with regards to when Genesis 1 was supposedly written.