I am opening this thread in response to the oft used accusation that people that read Genesis 1 in a less literal way in response to what we see in science as regards the age of the Earth are 'distorting' the scripture only to accommodate or yield to 'the wisdom of men'.
Now, this is in Nat Sci because this is the forum where the reconciliation of science and faith is at the forefront, and where most of the accusations are made.
So I am going to put forward an example from scripture where the core issue finds its way obviously to the surface. And that is the story of the temptation in the Garden.
God tells Adam and Eve:
Now. It says 'in the day' in terms of when they will die if they eat. This is in fact בְּ ים be-yom, pefix 'be' meaning 'in' and 'yom' the word almost anyone that has frequented this forum long would know is 'day'. So that is literally what God said. Straight forward, to the point. No reason looking at how it was said or from any element of context to think it means anything other than 'in the day'. And that would mean, taking it straight up, just like it says, they would be physically dead before an 'evening and a morning' had passed after eating. In fact, 'in the day' has a sense of immediacy to it, so one might be tempted to think it might even mean a good deal less than a day, like immediately.
But notice something else. Some modern translations leave out 'in the day' and just say something like ' for when'. And they do that as a kind of mitigation against the obvious conflict I will now discuss. (And I personally find that kind of translation hack job offensive)
Proceeding through the story, we see that part of what Satan tempts eve with is a challenge to the 'in the day'. Satan says:
And indeed, the women does heed the serpents deception and eats, and then not dying, she gives it to adam, and he eats, and he does not die either, well certainly not immediately, and in reality, physcially, not for many many more years to come!
So here is the Big Deal here as it relates to 'interpretation'. What God said to Adam was not true if taken absolutely literally and physically. They ate the fruit, and they did not die (physically) that day.
It's that simple. It's there in plain black and white. God's word did not mean exacty what it appeared to mean if taken literally and physically. And there are no clues in how it was said that would make them, or us, think otherwise.
Indeed, this is how Satan could get the upper hand. If Eve had died on the spot, Adam could not have been tempted. So the way God worded this actually sort of left the door open for doubt. Because hey, if you took it literally and physically, you don't really get what God was telling them, you get something else that leads to doubt when it doesn't come true. Eve standing there holding the fruit with a big bite taken out of it made Adam think - she didn't die! But God said she would!
So the precedent is there. Sometimes what God says to is ISN'T straight up obvious in terms of what it seems like it ought to mean. And sometimes He doesn't give us any ready clues in the text that let us know that is, in fact, the case.
But was what God said to Adam and Eve FALSE?
Well, if look at Eve standing there fruit in hand, and you don't ask yourself if God could possibly have meant something else, then the only conclusion is God wasn't telling you the truth, just like Satan claimed.
But if the statement wasn't false, then what did it mean. Well, first of all, in terms of 'in - the -day', it meant spiritual death, not physical. And it meant they would be blocked access to the Tree -of- Life, which meant eventually they would also physically die. So it wasn't false at all - but neither did they correctly understand what it really meant, and neither was it worded so they could (based on the words alone) understand what it really meant.
Why? Why do you suppose God would do that? Honestly, I don't really know. But He did, and so the precedent is set.
And today, as a Christian, I look at what we understand about the age of the Earth and the evolution of life, and I look at what Genesis says in chapters 1,2 and 3, and I see a parallel. I see that I could look at those things and do like Adam, I could wonder if God was telling the truth. But I also have the benefit of hindsight looking at the whole story, and I can see that, just like in how God told them about the fruit, the text just might mean something a little less obvious, but that if read in the less obvious way, it remains, in fact, true. Something more symbolic or perhaps metaphorical (like immediate spiritual death instead of immediate physical death).
And in light of the simple fact of the situation in the story above, I would argue that looking at what the possible other meaning of Genesis 1 might be in light of what we know from science is not distorting God's word, but rather a proper and faithful response, just as it could have been for Adam had he, upon seeing Eve standing there not dead but having eaten the fruit, asked himself what other things could God have meant in His warning to them, rather than listening to the Serpent tell him what he was seeing meant what God said was not true.
Jim
ETA: There is a third option I suppose. Adam could have stood there looking at Eve with the fruit and refused to ponder what else God might have meant, believing instead his eyes were deceiving him and that Eve must, in fact, be dead.
Now, this is in Nat Sci because this is the forum where the reconciliation of science and faith is at the forefront, and where most of the accusations are made.
So I am going to put forward an example from scripture where the core issue finds its way obviously to the surface. And that is the story of the temptation in the Garden.
God tells Adam and Eve:
Now. It says 'in the day' in terms of when they will die if they eat. This is in fact בְּ ים be-yom, pefix 'be' meaning 'in' and 'yom' the word almost anyone that has frequented this forum long would know is 'day'. So that is literally what God said. Straight forward, to the point. No reason looking at how it was said or from any element of context to think it means anything other than 'in the day'. And that would mean, taking it straight up, just like it says, they would be physically dead before an 'evening and a morning' had passed after eating. In fact, 'in the day' has a sense of immediacy to it, so one might be tempted to think it might even mean a good deal less than a day, like immediately.
But notice something else. Some modern translations leave out 'in the day' and just say something like ' for when'. And they do that as a kind of mitigation against the obvious conflict I will now discuss. (And I personally find that kind of translation hack job offensive)
Proceeding through the story, we see that part of what Satan tempts eve with is a challenge to the 'in the day'. Satan says:
And indeed, the women does heed the serpents deception and eats, and then not dying, she gives it to adam, and he eats, and he does not die either, well certainly not immediately, and in reality, physcially, not for many many more years to come!
So here is the Big Deal here as it relates to 'interpretation'. What God said to Adam was not true if taken absolutely literally and physically. They ate the fruit, and they did not die (physically) that day.
It's that simple. It's there in plain black and white. God's word did not mean exacty what it appeared to mean if taken literally and physically. And there are no clues in how it was said that would make them, or us, think otherwise.
Indeed, this is how Satan could get the upper hand. If Eve had died on the spot, Adam could not have been tempted. So the way God worded this actually sort of left the door open for doubt. Because hey, if you took it literally and physically, you don't really get what God was telling them, you get something else that leads to doubt when it doesn't come true. Eve standing there holding the fruit with a big bite taken out of it made Adam think - she didn't die! But God said she would!
So the precedent is there. Sometimes what God says to is ISN'T straight up obvious in terms of what it seems like it ought to mean. And sometimes He doesn't give us any ready clues in the text that let us know that is, in fact, the case.
But was what God said to Adam and Eve FALSE?
Well, if look at Eve standing there fruit in hand, and you don't ask yourself if God could possibly have meant something else, then the only conclusion is God wasn't telling you the truth, just like Satan claimed.
But if the statement wasn't false, then what did it mean. Well, first of all, in terms of 'in - the -day', it meant spiritual death, not physical. And it meant they would be blocked access to the Tree -of- Life, which meant eventually they would also physically die. So it wasn't false at all - but neither did they correctly understand what it really meant, and neither was it worded so they could (based on the words alone) understand what it really meant.
Why? Why do you suppose God would do that? Honestly, I don't really know. But He did, and so the precedent is set.
And today, as a Christian, I look at what we understand about the age of the Earth and the evolution of life, and I look at what Genesis says in chapters 1,2 and 3, and I see a parallel. I see that I could look at those things and do like Adam, I could wonder if God was telling the truth. But I also have the benefit of hindsight looking at the whole story, and I can see that, just like in how God told them about the fruit, the text just might mean something a little less obvious, but that if read in the less obvious way, it remains, in fact, true. Something more symbolic or perhaps metaphorical (like immediate spiritual death instead of immediate physical death).
And in light of the simple fact of the situation in the story above, I would argue that looking at what the possible other meaning of Genesis 1 might be in light of what we know from science is not distorting God's word, but rather a proper and faithful response, just as it could have been for Adam had he, upon seeing Eve standing there not dead but having eaten the fruit, asked himself what other things could God have meant in His warning to them, rather than listening to the Serpent tell him what he was seeing meant what God said was not true.
Jim
ETA: There is a third option I suppose. Adam could have stood there looking at Eve with the fruit and refused to ponder what else God might have meant, believing instead his eyes were deceiving him and that Eve must, in fact, be dead.
Comment