Adam, Evolution & Me
“Do you think one day we’ll look back on evolution as a cultural myth, something people thought was true? You know, the way we study Greeks and their gods?” This is what Christians talk about on road trips. Two friends—a blogger and a biochemist—driving through the Salt Flats at dusk.
“I don’t know,” he said. “I think there’s evidence that points to evolution being true.”
Jaw. Officially. Dropped.
Was he really “coming out” as one of those crazies who believe the world is billions of years old? Does he actually think we evolved from sea gunk? There I was, a hardcore creationist, trapped in a Honda Civic with a theistic evolutionist behind the wheel and a hundred miles to go.
Growing up, I was a self-proclaimed young-earth creationist, convinced the earth was no more than 10,000 years old, and even more convinced that Darwin was the devil. I went to Answers in Genesis seminars, visited the Creation Museum, and read books about the lie of evolution. By the end of grad school, I was open to the concept of an old earth, but evolution was off the table. Synonymous with atheism, evolution aimed to destroy the truth of God’s Word and (as I’d been taught) the gospel itself.
Then, in that final stretch of desert on the Great Road Trip of 2010, my friend explained the theory of evolution from a Christian perspective, noting how curious and beautiful it is for God to start the redemption story billions of years ago, sovereignly guiding the evolutionary process from beginning to end. Yes, he was leaning toward belief in evolution. And yet, somehow, he still loved Jesus. And contrary to what I’d been told about those Scripture-twisting evolutionists, he actually treasured God’s Word.
Other friends came forward, too, confessing interest in theistic evolution. Not only that, renowned pastors, such as Tim Keller, were exploring ways to harmonize evolution and the Bible. Now I had a terrifying obligation to investigate these things. Believe me, I didn’t want to. I’d rather write poems about Adam and go on believing the way I did. But I decided to start small with two books: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (2011) by C. John Collins and The Evolution of Adam (2012) by Peter Enns. Although both authors are Christian, they take different sides on the most heated issue in the church’s ongoing debate on evolution: the historical Adam.
For Collins, the best way to interpret the Bible (and the human experience) is to accept the historical Adam. He acknowledges that Genesis 1-11 contains literary elements that do not require a literalistic reading, but that doesn’t mean the story isn’t based on true events. The biblical writers portray Adam as a real person, as does Second Temple Jewish literature and today’s church at large. An historical Adam not only fits the “big picture” of Scripture, complementing its overarching theme of fall and redemption, but also speaks to the problem of sin and death today. That is, understanding Adam helps us “make sense of the world.” Collins critiques various attempts to “marry” modern science and the Bible, citing everyone from Karl Barth to C.S. Lewis, but maintains that the only theories worth considering include some variation of a literal Adam.
Enns, on the other hand, believes we’re better off abandoning the traditional view. The Evolution of Adam is split into two parts: the Pentateuch and Paul. The big takeaway from part one is rethinking what modern-day readers have the right to expect from the Pentateuch, and in particular, Genesis. That is, it wasn’t intended to be a historical or scientific play-by-play on the origins of the universe, or even the human race. Instead, it’s a theological statement of Israel’s self-identity as the people of God. The stories are structured after other creation myths from the Ancient Near East but are “corrected” to prove Israel’s God is the true God. Enns posits the Pentateuch being completed during the postexilic period, after centuries of polishing and perfecting. The completed stories now retell Israel’s “history” in light of their return from exile.
Similarly, part two asks us to rethink what we have the right to expect from Paul, especially his treatment of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Simply put, Paul uses the Adam story to convey what he knows to be true in light of the death and resurrection of Christ: that all humans are affected by the universal reality of sin and death, and all have need of a Savior. Paul is a product of his time and culture, and as such, he believed in an historical Adam. But we need not follow suit, Enns says. Whether or not he really existed, Adam serves Paul’s purpose: to remind both Jews and Gentiles of our common ground in Adam (as sinners) and in Christ, the second Adam (as God’s people).
Two books down… and my brain had already blown a fuse. What am I supposed to do now? Make a decision? Shout my verdict from the rooftops? A few weeks ago, we read Psalm 131 at church—the same day I’d been struggling most with the question of evolution:
My heart is not proud, Lord, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content. Israel, put your hope in the Lord both now and forevermore.
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! (Or distant cousin.) Was this psalm an excuse to stop worrying about evolution? Maybe. Was it permission to stop? Definitely! Don’t get me wrong; I like to be right. But when it comes to where I stand on evolution, I just don’t know. Frankly, my heart breaks a little when I think of Adam as a metaphor and not as a man, and some of the “evidence” the world offers for evolution is downright funny to me. Then there are times when the universe hints at its old age, be it stars or fossils, and I find myself in the middle again, clinging to a psalm. Call it ignorant bliss. But I can tell you this: I understand both perspectives and believe there are godly people on both sides of the debate. I guess that’s a kind of evolution. At least, it’s the kind I’m content with for now.
UPDATE: After reading your comments and talking to friends and church leaders, I realize the biggest concern in this debate is not evolution itself, but the inerrancy, inspiration and interpretation of Scripture. I should note that I didn’t know much about either author before reading their books (Amazon recommended them based on my search history and I chose them almost at random). This blog shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement of the authors or the books, but rather, an exploration and summary of their ideas. Like many people, I have concerns about Enns’ approach to Scripture, not to mention frustrations with Collins’ book, the more “conservative” of the two. (You might be interested in Enns’ review of Collins and Collins’ review of Enns.) The Two Cities team looks forward to addressing some of your comments regarding Scripture’s authority in future posts. In the meantime, our readers have started a good conversation below and we look forward to hearing more from you.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: Genre, Image of God, Inerrancy, Inspiration, Interpretation, Liberalism, Literalism, New Perspective on Paul, NT use of OT, Original Sin, Sola Scriptura
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Bryan. I have, at times, considered the validity of evolution as well, and struggled with the possibility of it being true. It is romantic to think of God working for billions of years to bring about the creation of mankind, and it’s salvation, but the implications of such an idea are far reaching, and the questions that arise are difficult, such as:
If death was part of the creation process, why was Jesus sacrificed in order to save us from it?
If our “flesh”(and by extension, our sin) is part of this same creation process, would that not mean God created sin?
How can God be good if He is the creator of sin and death, especially in light of what scripture?
And on and on, until our relationship and belief in God unravel before our very eyes. For this reason, I do not see how evolution and theology can ever coexist, except in the minds of those who want to embrace both the world and God, desiring the comfort of religion, and the legitimacy of science. Again, thanks for the thought provoking post.
Jed, you’ve asked three of the most critical questions in this whole discussion! They’re concerns the authors address, but unfortunately, not at length. Probably because the “solutions” offered up are so diverse. You might consider checking out the Q&A section at http://www.biologos.org for an introduction to some of them. I’d like to hear more from theistic evolutionists (especially the ones who don’t believe in the special creation of Adam) about how they deal with the problem of sin, which is not a result of an historical fall, but of simply being created. Any takers?
Well Bryan, if you had just asked you would’ve known that I am an Old Earther. I can’t go so far as to say that the popular theory of evolution is completely true. I DO believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If man were on earth when God created it then Genesis 1 describes it accurately. The Bible has always been written from Man’s perspective.
I agree with you on how awe-inspiring it is to think about how sovereign God was throughout of the creation of our world. I think that’s part of what makes it so elegant.
I tend to agree with Hugh Ross on a lot this stuff.
Thanks, Amy! I’ll have to check out his stuff. Soon as I recover from this information overload!
Supposing evolution were true, I still can’t get over the idea of God using stories that are not only literally untrue, but also point people away from the literal truth if taken at face value, in order to teach truisms about himself.
All false religions (including their creation myths) are only perversions of the original truth. What does it say about God if he merely retools the perversions rather than destroying them in the face of the literal truth? Can God’s people really not understand him except through an idolatrous framework?
It also smacks of things like Joseph Smith claiming no one had the truth until 1830. Now no one had the truth until 1859? (I realize that’s an oversimplification)
Enns anticipates your concerns. Allow me to lump several quotes together: “God condescends to where people are, speaks their language, and employs their ways of thinking. Having such a condescending God is crucial to the very heart of Christianity. What sets this God apart is his habit of coming down to our level. God speaks by means of the cultural idioms of the authors… we do not conclude this ‘ignominy’ is somehow unworthy of God. Quite the opposite: incarnation is God’s business.” He relates this concept to Philippians 2:6-8, which speaks of Christ’s incarnation. With that said, Christians should readily admit that Enns’ view of inspiration is not traditional (and he would, too). In fact, he wrote a book on the topic called Inspiration and Incarnation that got him into trouble with evangelicals, but I haven’t read it.
When it comes to using an idolatrous framework, Enns would tell you the biblical authors are actually destroying that framework, which includes multiple gods of questionable moral character, by telling the story of one Creator God who rules in righteousness. I’m not saying I agree, but if you’re looking for answers, those are the ones I assume he would give.
“…the idea of God using stories that are not only literally untrue, but also point people away from the literal truth if taken at face value, in order to teach truisms about himself.”
You mean like parables, songs, and prophecy?
I think we have to concede that biblical literature takes full advantage of genre and linguistic phenomenon, and that taking texts at ‘face value’ more often limits the meaning prematurely than elucidates the message. Genesis 1-3 is no exception. Even within the Bible, these chapters have been interpreted differently and applied to several different contexts. Whoever ‘the adam’ was, this story is told and bound up with the Pentateuch in a manner that identifies Israel as God’s humanity (first-born son even), commissioned to cultivate his garden until it covers the whole earth. Second-Temple Jews recalled the identify of Adam through genealogies and Midrash in a struggle to find their own. Matthew reinterprets and reapplies the principle to elucidate the work of Christ, while Paul interprets it to universalize the concept of sin and salvation in a manner that suits his message. Sometimes, the interpretation assumes that Adam was a single person in history; elsewhere, Adam is better read as a collective term (e.g. mankind). All this is to say that the story (and Scripture in general) is perhaps more dynamic than our Enlightenment-trained, analytical mentality would normally allow.
So why not just take it literally? If you think about it, the ‘literal’ or ‘face-value’ meaning of a text changes with time, because it requires us merely to import our own experience and categories onto the text, even subconsciously. The literal reading of Genesis 1-11 today is one that addresses the mysteries of astronomy, biology, geology, anthropology, and so forth, because these our the questions with which modern society obsesses. If we require from the outset that Genesis address these questions (because we demand that it fit our categories of history and etiology), then potentially we will 1) miss the intended application of the text for the edification of God’s people, and 2) embarrass the church and place a stumbling block at its door by challenging unnecessarily the findings of those who devote themselves to the study of God’s creation. Regarding the latter, I would suggest that using literature to formulate rigid scientific axioms is a dangerous endeavor, which has historically been tried and failed.
Bryan: Inspiration and Incarnation is…ok. He asks the questions publicly that most are afraid to ask, and says what needs to be said, though not always with the best examples. In any case, Peter Enns is not the first to describe God’s word as ‘incarnational’ so as to warn God’s people not to misuse Scripture against academia. Warfield, Calvin, and Augustine made the same point at length (though a bit more eloquently).
“What does it say about God if he merely retools the perversions rather than destroying them in the face of the literal truth?”
On the contrary, Genesis employs the most effective strategy that literature can: it takes the idolatrous world that Israel knows (in which they are immersed, at least) and turns it on its head by challenging every truth held sacred. “All texts are intertexts”, so to speak, and allude to literary and cultural traditions. Take a closer look at Genesis 1 and find that God brings light out of darkness and order from chaos (even if it means beginning the chapter with a allusions to Babylon). Paul employs the same strategy in Philippians 3:20, where he puts the gospel in Roman terms. Paul—a citizen of the Roman Empire, under the subjection of Lord Caesar, who is called savior and bringer of peace—identifies Christians as citizens of God’s kingdom and Christ as Lord and Savior. Why didn’t Paul (and God behind him) invent new terms to describe this wholly other kingdom? Because it’s not nearly as effective; that’s just not how language works.
“It also smacks of things like Joseph Smith claiming no one had the truth until 1830. Now no one had the truth until 1859?”
To which truth are you referring: to the message of the gospel and identify of our God, or to the incidental details of history and science, to which scripture may or may not refer through symbols and alliterative prose? Again, you have to be very certain of language (which itself is quite ‘slippery’) to constrain in advance what empirical inquiry should be allowed to discover. If you are convinced that scripture precludes the concept of common descent, then I am very curious as to why all other forms of inquiry disagree so strongly. Before we turn people away from fellowship on the basis of their scientific persuasion (a seemingly inappropriate prerequisite for discipleship), this case needs to be made very strongly. Your take on scripture should be able to predict how the world looks and functions.
On the other hand, if scripture does not settle the question of common descent (I am convinced it does not), then how ought the question be settled? What’s wrong with scientific inquiry? This scientific revolution of 1859 came because nobody prior had thought to explain the biological/geological data thusly, not because a young, creative boy from New York had trouble deciding which church to join. Categorically, these claims are very different. However, we can attempt to falsify them in similar fashion—through the study of history. Smith’s claims do not explain the historical data from New York, the Christian church, or the early Americas. Despite many attempts to falsify the skeletal principles of common descent, however, the theory has greatly increased our knowledge in all relevant disciplines.
I’ll readily admit I’m not a traditional Christian in many respects. My thoughts on the history of the world and Adam have a lot to do with that. I tend to believe in a combination of what it sounds like those two books have offered up.
I think Genesis, and much of the Old Testament is written with a strong sense of symbolism, as well as from the point of view of an ancient people who were describing the reality of God and the world the way they comprehended it. That’s not to say God didn’t teach them of his truths, but how does one teach a child of the wonders of the world? Through symbolism and allegory. Since the beginning, little by little, the human race has been experiencing the world around them in greater detail. As we are ready, greater truths are revealed.
I think Adam was the turning point of the race of man, if evolution is to be considered. At some point, we became able to understand the truth of our origin, and when that time came, God took the greatest of men and told him what was going on, in a way he would understand. Over the ages, similar interactions occurred, and stories of those interactions written down and passed on for thousands of years.
In the end, the literal physical truth of the world isn’t as important as the principals taught in Christ’s gospel since the beginning. The truth was we needed to be redeemed, and a Savior was provided. We have an example of how to progress through this life and how to help others do the same. How our world works around all that is up to the individual to discover.
Just my point of view.
While I think it is good to discuss difficult topics, evolution is in no way biblical and to imply such greatly distorts all aspects of the bible and essentially paints God as…well not God but a mere concoction of man, an idol. When you replace the inerrancy of the bible with man’s ever changing views you erode the bible’s foundation. Death is a consequence of sin and in no way is it a good thing. Evolution requires death and vasts amount of time for things to evolve. Example over billions of years we evolved from simple cells to goo to some organism to some mammal creature to a primate then to humans. If God used evolution to bring about the universe and all that is in it through evolution opposed to Him speaking and it was so, then God used death, disease and decay and turns around and calls it perfect. That makes no sense. Why then would God tell Adam and eve that a consequence of their disobedience, sin, would be that they’d eventually die? Also Christ died for our sins but if God used evolution then we were designed originally with sin so technically we are functioning, living in sin, as we were designed so why again do we need salvation? Why did Jesus need to die? As Christians we need to recognize and hold to the inerrancy of the bible not be carried away by man’s ideas and.views. only one, evolution or creation, can be true. My trust is in God’s infallible Word.
Chris, I understand where you’re coming from, but this has nothing to do with innerancy. Genesis 1-3 and evolution are only in conflict if the author of Genesis intended to give us scientific descriptions of creation. Tim Keller, for one, is an evangelical who upholds innerancy as well as evolution. These are not in conflict. To persist on this point is rather to call for the innerancy of your interpretation of Genesis (and other passages). I’m not advocating evolution here, but I find your comment rubbing me the wrong way since it bifurcates approaches to science into “biblical” and “non-biblical” in a manner that can hurt our brothers and sisters who struggle with this issue, as well as hurt our apologetic efforts and mission to the world. Evolution must – in my opinion – be held open as a Christian option or else we run the risk of alienating, and potentially excluding, brothers and sisters from the faith.
Creation is not just a genesis 1-3 theme it permeates the whole bible. We should not compromise the bible to make fellow Christians and the world feel better. Through compromise of biblical of inerrancy, we open the door to allow for more and more reinterpretation. We should not be unloving in this but neither should we capitulate. Besides, if God can’t inspire writers to get genesis right how do you know that any other book or message is right?
John, I apologize for the two part response, my first was on my phone. I am also not attacking you but trying to call you as well as others to stand firmly on the bible, regardless of the consequences; whether we be called unloving, bigots, ignorant, etc. I readily recognize the difficulty any person has in coming to Christ and that it is not a decision to be taken lightly nor are its consequences light. While not yet in this country, many countries you can and are readily killed being a Christian. That said, the Western Christian church has steadily sacrificed biblical authority in the name of being popular and under the guise of being loving. If by standing on biblical authority and inerrancy we “turn” brothers and sisters off toward Christ then they may not have truly grasped who Christ is. Christ is love but He is also truth. He did not come into this world to unify it but to divide it. He readily talks about how following Him will cause family and friend divisions. He talks about how His word will go out into the world, some grow quickly and then turn from Him, others reject Him, others hear but the message is quickly taken from them and finally others are what He calls “good ground”. His Word is truth and to twist, distort or add to it takes it from being truth to a lie. As a church we ask “what does the bible mean to me?” Instead we should be asking “what does God tell say through His Word apart from me?” Jesus did not come into this world to sacrifice His word to gain followers. Being Creator God in flesh, Jesus upheld Genesis which would make sense because He was there in Creation. The bible does not, as you say “bifurcates approaches to science”. There is nothing unscientific about the bible. What the bible does refute or dispute is man’s interpretation of historical science, not observational science. The difference being is observational science is science that can be observed, this is where we get computers, planes, medicine…technology. Historical science cannot be observed nor can it be recreated and origins science is historical science. Both creationists and evolutionists look at the SAME evidence and arrive at two completely different conclusions. If we have brothers and sisters that are turned off to the bible because of creation and the label of “anti-science”, then we as more mature Christians need to loving show them and teach them biblical authority, not sacrifice the bible to suit what they believe. The world does not need Christians to water down or distort the bible to make them feel better, it needs Christians to bring the Word of God and convict them of their need for a savior. This is in no way loving by the world’s definition, but this is the epitome of love according to God’s Word, because we are ultimately saving them from an eternal separation from God. A large part of the church has sacrificed biblical authority on morality, origins and life in the name of being loving, but look at Europe, this did not bring about more people to Christ it has instead weaken the church and made it almost insignificant. The same thing is happening here in America, we are sacrificing biblical authority and inerrancy to make people feel better and make Christ more “appealing”. This will have the same results here as it did in Europe. We already see it here where most people have grown up going to a Christian church but because of biblical sacrifice as they get older, late teens to young adults, they leave the church. I believe in Creation, not because that is how I interpret the bible, but because that is what the bible says. Without my input or my existence the bible still says God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days.
Chris,
Forgive me for picking at a minor point, but your distinction between ‘observational’ and ‘historical’ science is not justified. Both involve repeatable, ‘laboratory’ experimentation, though in the case of historical inquiries, ‘nature’ is our laboratory and the trials have already been run. Hypotheses regarding historical (or geological) events are testable so long as new observations and analyses can falsify the prevalent interpretation. In this way, they are repeatable, because we can use theories (like evolution) to predict phenomena in nature that were not previously considered.
The currently accepted age of the Earth (4.54 Ga), for example, is potentially falsifiable by 1) observations that demonstrate a unique origin of Earth relative to the rest of the solar system; 2) geochemical models that better explain how a Rb/Sr isochron built from ~7 dozen meteorite samples could have resulted from a phenomenon other than the passage of 4.54 billion years, or 3) evidence for the non-uniformity of laws governing subatomic particle behavior in the past.
You can choose to throw out scientific inquiry altogether, or deal with the prevalent interpretations. Besides, to support your interpretation of scripture, you will ultimately have to appeal to things like the grammar, vocabulary, and syntax of biblical Hebrew, or the transmission of the biblical text. These disciplines rest on the results of historical science. Are you willing to abandon them just to be skeptical of historical inquiries into biology?
Lastly, the claim that “both creationists and evolutionists look at the SAME evidence and arrive at two completely different conclusions” is a bit misleading. I’ve spent many years reading the ‘technical’ papers published by creationists of all brands. They are selective of the evidence (which means it’s not the same evidence, after all) and in many cases lie about the results. Andrew Snelling of Answers in Genesis is particularly well known for these dishonest tactics (which I can demonstrate if need be). Resorting to this sort of behavior is no better than ‘softening’ scriptural authority. It only adds confusion to an issue that needs to be discussed openly and honestly.
Jon, I am by no means a scientist so some of what you are referring to is above my head. That said, it is not possible to go back in time and determine whether it was evolution or it was creation that started everything. What we are left with is evidence from the past, which we then make educated guess as to what occurred based on that evidence. Both evolutionists and creationists do indeed use the SAME evidence to make educated guesses about the past, although I will say that evolutionists probably do not use the bible which creationists do use as a starting block. While creationists may not use all the evidence evolutionists use, as well as evolutionists not using all the evidence creationists use, both can still use the same evidence. The point I was trying to make was there is no evidence that is wholly evolutionary nor is there evidence that is wholly creation, the evidence is viewed and then interpreted based on the viewer/scientists world view. Many creation scientists openly utilize evolution themed technical papers and re-examine the evidence, not change the evidence and find how it fits into a 6 thousand year old earth. This is no different than an evolutionist taking evidence and trying to find how it fits into a 6 billion year old earth. While I sense a tad bit of dislike for AiG, particularly Dr. Snelling, no one is perfect and we all make mistakes. I would be happy to view his repeated abuses if you will provide. Aside from Dr. Snelling there are many other highly reputable creation scientists with AiG as well as the Institute for Creation Research. Another item I am confused by is your argument that I would have to forgo scriptural disciplines in my argument against evolutionary origins, due to my view on historical science. I do not follow. It would make sense that if genesis records a literal 6 day creation and an earth around 6 thousand years old then the rest of the bible would support creationism, which it does even when using textual/scriptural disciplines. It is only when man tries to take unbiblical ideas and mesh them into the bible do we get scriptural inaccuracies. To end, I may not be able to fully articulate arguments nor address any and all counterattacks, but I ask, who’s authority do you ultimately place your trust in: God’s or man’s?
As I’m reading this discussion, there are many points which have been stated and many on which to comment, from Bryan, Chris ,Jon and others, so please forgive me if I am simply restating what has already been said. This debate boils down to differing views on appropriate interpretation of God’s Word.
I appreciate the efforts on both parts to maintain a strict view of the inerrancy of Scripture, however logic dictates that of two opposing interpretations, only one can be correct – to state it logically: a AND ~(not)a cannot both be true. Because God is logical it is not in His nature to create and say something is one way, and another way at the same time. So, in order to know what God has specifically revealed to us regarding the Creation, we must dedicate ourselves to a careful study of His Word before we carefully study anything else.
In writing to Timothy, Paul gives instruction on how one should conduct himself to uphold Scripture as inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. He exhorts the Church in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 to “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” We as Christians must “endure sound doctrine” and know what the Word says and means when we study. In order to promote proper Bible study in all areas, especially the area of Creation, I’d like to mention some well accepted and logical study techniques.
1) The Word of God demands proper study. Before studying anything in the Word, there are two main questions we ask ourselves: 1) “What can I say about this text?” and 2) “What does this text say?” The focus of the first question is me, what I can say and how I can say it (naturally this leads to me interpreting God’s word based on my authority – aka “this is true because I’m saying it about God’s Word”). The focus of the second question is God, what He has said and how He has said it (naturally this leads to authority arising from God – aka “this is true because this is what God says”). Again, I will appeal to logic – because we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, we must believe that God is the ultimate authority on His own words – not me, you or anyone else. Therefore, the only way I can truly know what God has written in His Word is to study it directly from the text with as little intervention from my own sinful authority as possible.
2) It is commonly understood that when studying the Bible, we should take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate CONTEXT indicate otherwise. In regards to the specific passages of Genesis 1-3, the CONTEXT is the creation of the universe and the fall of man. I am not a scholar of Hebrew, however I have studied enough to know that in Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for “day” = “yom” = literal 24 hour day, not to mention the following of each day with a seemingly very clear statement that “there was evening and there was morning, the (first, second, third…) day.
In terms of context, Psalm 131 as a reason to stop questioning and searching the Word for the truth of Creation is not a contextual support for this issue. Psalm 131 is David’s testimony that He will trust God for what He says, not for what his proud and rebellious heart or anyone else says.
3) When studying the Word, the historical context, setting, and circumstances in which the words of Scripture were written, must be taken into account. Genesis was written by Moses sometime after the Exodus, before Israel entered the promised land. The Israelites were preparing to enter the land of Canaan, a land with foreign gods. Israel was not well known for worshiping God alone. They often fell away and worshiped false idols. In context, the message of Genesis 1:1-11ish fits best with the knowledge that God was revealing the origins of the universe and many of the firsts in human experience. Basically providing the written history of our origin and clear explanation of why He is the one true God.
4) Another important aspect of Bible study, is the idea of synergy. If the Bible is God’s Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of Scripture can contradict any other part – if so, God would not be a God of logic, therefore not God. As far as I have studied, there are no places in the Bible that contradict the creation account as literally written (6 days), rather there are many that support it.
I understand and apologize that I have not delved deeply at all into all that is involved in proper Bible study. There is much more to be said, and the little I have said could be stated much better. However, my point is this, God’s Word, when interpreted literally, contextually and synergetically is clear on the origin of the universe. As for the authors Keller and Enns, I would like to ask them on whose authority do they start their Bible study? If the Word of God makes perfect sense, why are we seeking any other sense? Logically speaking, to do so outside of those elements of good study, is heresy. Regardless of how this makes people feel, God’s Word is truth and if we are to preach the truth of our need for a Savior and God fulfilling that through the sacrifice of His Son, we have to take God at His word. The fact that this “alternate interpretation” of the creation account is even an issue implies that the inerrancy of the Bible is in question. To waver or compromise on one aspect logically leads to destruction of the authority of the whole. Why take God at His word that there is no other Name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) if we cannot take Him at His word from the very beginning to the end?
Amy,
I appreciate your effort to clear up the discussion, but I think you have oversimplified it and ignored much of what has already been said. Nobody here disagrees that we ought to dedicate ourselves to careful study and respect the authority of God’s word. Prefacing your guidelines with this admonition, therefore, only serves to imply that those who disagree have not done their homework and/or do not respect God’s authority. Both perceptions are demonstrably false.
I remember well what it is like to be so convinced of your interpretation of Genesis that any opposite conclusion seemed not like a competing hypothesis, but a direct challenge to God himself. In stating that “Bible study…outside of those elements of good study [meaning, after the method that leads you to your conclusions], is heresy”, you have embodied this attitude and shut down rational discussion before it begins.
With respect to (1), you seem to have ignored the comments on human language (its ambiguity, dynamics, and dialogic). The prose of Genesis employs double meaning and wordplay, alliteration, rhyme, literal symmetry, and cultural and lexical allusions. This complicates your two-question approach immensely.
Furthermore, you draw a dichotomy between “focusing on the text” and influence from “our sinful authority”. Ostensibly, this sounds like an appeal to honest exegesis, but in practice (according to your comments that follow), it means taking only the surface meaning of a biblical text without appeal to other disciplines. I struggle to understand why we should grant deeper thought to works like “Chronicles of Narnia” than Holy Scripture, seemingly just for the sake of upholding a (sort of) traditional interpretation.
With regard to (2), it is the context that determines the primary and literal meanings of words. However, Genesis 1-3 fits multiple canonical contexts simultaneously, so the meaning is more dynamic and does not fit your a and ~a model. You have chosen one context that seems obvious to you, but it is not the only one offered by careful readers/scholars. In addition, you have made a logical leap from “the context is creation” to “this is a basic story about the first days of Earth’s existence”. Prerequisite to this leap is your subconscious decision regarding how a creation story should function (i.e. like a history book)–a view not shared by the original audience. Your approach to focusing on the text, therefore, reveals much more about what you think than it does about the author’s message. You have used the text to read yourself, in a sense.
Briefly, the dispute in Genesis 1-3 is over genre, not word study. Nobody here (myself included) has suggested ‘yom’ be read as anything but a normal day that spans one morning to the next. We do dispute the relationship, however, between that word and Earth history.
“Genesis was written by Moses sometime after the Exodus, before Israel entered the promised land.”
Most would disagree with this statement. There is no direct textual support that Moses authored Genesis, and much to suggest that no one man did. I am not offering one position or the other here; I just want to note that this historical position complicates our study of Genesis further.
Either way, you have used the position that Moses authored the text to offer a conclusion that does not logically follow. One could just as easily argue that to keep the Israelites from straying into idolatry in Canaan, Moses authored cultural myths that critiqued Canaanite stories and identified the Lord as the one true God, who triumphs over chaos. This explanation (not my own position, but a possible one) better accords with 1) the culture concerns of ancient Israel, and 2) the genre and literary aspects of Genesis. Lastly, it would explain the intertextual relationship between Genesis and contemporary literature in the ancient Near East (something your position does not address).
“As for the authors Keller and Enns, I would like to ask them on whose authority do they start their Bible study?”
You already know the answer to this question. There is no need to cast doubt on the sincerity of their claims that a view to the glory of God guides their study.
“The fact that this “alternate interpretation” of the creation account is even an issue implies that the inerrancy of the Bible is in question”
No, it tells us that studious Christians have thought to question cultural traditions that guided our exegesis in the past. They have sought to diminish the influence of our pretended authority in an effort to determine what God is saying to us through this text. The inerrancy of Scripture really comes into question when our interpretation demands a world that simply does not exist (i.e. one that is 6,000 years old and where living organisms do not share a common ancestor).
We use the same senses and logic to study the world as the Word. If you want to take Him at His word from beginning to end, this should not be left off the table.
I am confused on your last paragraph. The world is full of evidence that points to a 6000 year old world. And this evidence points not to a common organism that we evolved from but from a common designer or creator. You may choose to trust in men claiming the evidence supports evolution and in turn try to fit evolution into the bible but by doing so you need to recognize that the bible is not your ultimate authority no matter how eloquent and articulate your argument to the contrary is.
Chris, you shared previously that you were not a scientist and did not understand the discussion of evidence. When you claim that there is evidence for a young Earth, therefore, I know you are repeating the conclusions of YEC’s that claim also to be capable scientists (whether from Answers in Genesis or elsewhere). As easy as it should be to take them at their word, since they claim their work begins with the authority of God’s word, they are well known for employing dishonest tactics and reporting dubious results (I’ve spent much time myself documenting these tactics on my own blog: http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com). In my opinion, it only undermines the authority of God’s word when we lie to fellow believers just to give them confidence in their interpretation of Scripture. It is worse when we use our professional credentials to accomplish the task.
“You may choose to trust in men claiming the evidence supports evolution…”
Why do you portray my acceptance of evolution as a simple trust in men, over against a trust in God? Do you really believe it’s that simple, or do you simply want to dismiss all that I say without having to address it? You preclude the most important possibility–that my acceptance of evolution results from a trust in God’s word, from which I was able to trust the evidence before me, despite my preconceived notions of how it should look. Besides, I am one of those men claiming the evidence supports evolution because I’ve dug up some of that evidence myself.
I won’t dismiss your position simply because it appeals to men, who claim the biblical evidence supports a young Earth and special creation. Please don’t dismiss mine for analogous reasons. If you really think the evidence supports a young Earth, then share a concrete example, and we can discuss that instead.
As I’ve said before the evidence is the same for evolutionists and creationists, it is the starting point that differs. If you believe in creation you will attempt to hypothesize how the evidence supports creation and the same goes for evolution. Any evidence I cite will most often have an evolutionary counterpoint and any evidence you cite will most likely have a creationist counterpoint. This is why I keep trying to bring the discussion back to the starting point in interpreting the evidence. As a young earth creationist I start with a literal interpretation of the Bible as do most yec’s and yes I do use AIG as well as other resources. While there are many websites that attempt to discredit them they have a highly respected and highly educated staff that researches and publishes technically competent papers that support God’s Word. I would find it strange if they weren’t attacked for their position as the world despises the Light and Truth of the Bible. I don’t use evolutionary resources in much the same reason that I don’t use atheistic or non- christian resources to grow my relationship and understanding of who God is and what He has done for mankind. Just because the majority of scientists support evolution does not in turn make it a fact. I’m sure the majority would also deny Christ being God incarnate or even existing. Does that make Christ irrelevant and what the Bible says about Christ wrong? I’m not against looking at or exploring other resources but I weigh them against the Bible and if the don’t match I throw them out and keep the Bible. Also I don’t take AIG’s or other yec writings to be “gospel” and recognize that they being sinful men could produce unbiblical material, as they have in the past which they’ve admitted and corrected.
Since I am unable (for both time and intellectual constraints) to put my thoughts into better words than Jon Baker, I’d simply like to say I agree with everything he has said in this thread. If also like to point out that “Chris” and I are not the same person. Making this distinction is not meant as a slight, but our views are pretty different and I just wanted to make that clear.
Thanks, Chris K. I am comforted to know that other believers share this perspective and that not all will try to alienate me from the faith for sharing my thoughts.
Obviously I am a young earth creationist and take the Genesis record to mean what it literally says. I have a couple issues, aside from considering theistic evolution as heresy, dealing with intermingling the Genesis account and evolution. First, evolution is defined at its fundamental level as the change from a single, less complex organism to another more complex organism through mutations that require the addition of information. This has NEVER been observed, it has however been highly hypothesized as it is the bedrock of evolution. What we observe in our world today are mutations, some of which are beneficial, that result from a LOSS of information. This is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, an observable fact in our universe. Quick side note, both evolution and creation are theories and probably more accurately called hypotheses as neither are observable since they are historical events.
Second, the selection process involved in evolution requires survival which logically requires death at some point. Evolutionists will readily agree that death is a natural and paramount element for the advance of life. When one recognizes that death is a fundamental requirement of evolution and has occurred all throughout the evolutionary process, how does one reconcile the obvious contrast between a world built on death and decay (evolution) vs. the perfect world described in Genesis 1-3? As Christians we understand that the “wages of sin is death”, Romans 6:23 and “just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”, Romans 5:12. The main consequence of Adam’s rebellion (sin) was that “he [would] surely die”, Genesis 2:17 and to recognize that while this could be viewed as different types of separations, ie. spiritual, eternal and physical, God makes it clear in 3:19 and 5:5 that Adam would physically die – return to the dust. Summed up, death did not exist in the world prior to Adam sinning; however, introducing evolution as the means of creation requires billions, roughly 5.4, years of death. Again, how does one reconcile this blatant discrepancy? Since God said a consequence of sin is death, then how is God not lying if evolution was the process in which all that exists was created?
Third, while one may or may not recognize this, by trying to incorporate evolution into the Bible he/she is taking extra-biblical content, such as historical non-observable science, and giving it the same weight as Scripture. This is exactly what the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Harold Camping, etc have done – they have given god-like authority to fallible human beings. This implies that God’s Word, in and of itself, is not enough. We must have something else. It also shows arrogance as one infers that by not having this “special” revelation from human wisdom that one is somehow ignorant of higher thinking or a lower class, simple Christian.
Please know that I am sincerely asking the questions contained above as I cannot logically reconcile both evolution and God’s Word. It is not my intention to attack, rather to understand. As a Christian I am resolved to stay planted on His Word, not on man’s or my own ever changing ideas, beliefs or hypotheses. As Christians, we are encouraged to study everything like the Bereans, Acts 17:11, these Jews “examined the scriptures daily” to verify any supposed revelation from God. When I see fellow brothers and sisters in Christ following after false doctrine, my heart aches and I do not want to be guilty of the same nor do I want to allow my brother or sister to continue following false doctrine. While I am not an articulate writer and I know there are small issues with my comments, please do not expand upon these issues while ignoring the more pertinent matter contained in my comments. Again I ask, who’s authority does one ULTIMATELY trust, man’s or God’s? And to insinuate both distorts the truth, rendering it as a lie. Evolution and the Bible are not compatible, it is one or the other.
Dear Chris,
A few thoughts on some of your comments (your comments in quotes):
1.) “First, evolution is defined at its fundamental level as the change from a single, less complex organism to another more complex organism through mutations that require the addition of information. This has NEVER been observed, it has however been highly hypothesized as it is the bedrock of evolution. What we observe in our world today are mutations, some of which are beneficial, that result from a LOSS of information.”
Evolution is probably best broadly defined in one sentence as “descent with modification”. This can go in either direction, either a more “simple” organism becoming more “complex”, or a more “complex” organism becoming more “simple”. There are plenty of examples in the literature of each. While YECs often claim that the gain of information is something that is never observed, the methods of information gain are well documented and studied (e.g., gene duplication followed by divergence, horizontal gene transfer (through a plethora of mechanisms), gene fusions and the shuffling of protein domains, and epigenetic changes which modify how existing information is used, just to name a few). They are demonstrable in the laboratory. In fact, many modern tools of molecular biology rely on some of these mechanisms.
2.) “When one recognizes that death is a fundamental requirement of evolution and has occurred all throughout the evolutionary process, how does one reconcile the obvious contrast between a world built on death and decay (evolution) vs. the perfect world described in Genesis 1-3?”
While many Christians cherish the view that all animal death is a consequence of sin, it is evil, and did not occur in God’s perfect world, the Bible itself seems to not present such a black-and-white view. For example, when it comes to predation in the animal kingdom, the OT doesn’t argue that this is an evil consequence of the fall, but instead describes it as the good order that God has set up for creation and extols him for his wisdom (e.g., Job 38:41ff, Psalm 104:19-23).
3.) “Third, while one may or may not recognize this, by trying to incorporate evolution into the Bible he/she is taking extra-biblical content, such as historical non-observable science, and giving it the same weight as Scripture.”
I don’t think anybody is trying to incorporate evolution into the Bible. The Bible doesn’t talk about evolution at all, and I don’t think anybody wants it to or is trying to argue that it does. The question is whether Genesis 1-2 is trying to communicate historical information about space-time events which occurred circa 6000 years ago over the space of 6 days, or whether Genesis 1-2 is trying to do something else. This is a question of genre and interpretation, subjects about which evolutionary biology can’t help with very much. Seems to me what Jon is arguing is that there are better interpretations of Genesis than those offered by YECs, and that he has come to these conclusions via study of Genesis in its historical/literary/canonical contexts. His interpretations are further strengthened by the fact that they do not conflict in a major way with other forms of human knowledge, specifically the core hypotheses of geology, biology, and astronomy.
As a side note, using extra-biblical material to constrain which interpretations are most plausible is something that everybody does, not just “evolutionists”. Just about every biblical commentary, study note, sermon, bible study, or book that I have read that deals with the Bible incorporates a huge deal of extra-biblical historical, linguistic, philosophical, and textual information to aid in interpretation and understanding of the text (e.g., historical details the Roman empire and life therein, and how someone in that audience would have heard say, a particular parable of Jesus). In fact, if you are reading the Bible in English, the textual critics and translation committees have already done a good deal of this for you, relying on extra-biblical materials to give you the best translation. It is unavoidable.
What’s more, the Bible itself often makes illusions to extra-biblical material which the original audience would have recognized, and was supposed to recognize. Thus, the Bible (like just about every other piece of literature) requires using outside materials to aid in the formation of meaning. The cry of Christians should be, as it has been, SOLA scriptura – that the Bible alone is our rule for faith and practice, not SOLO scriptura – that we try to read the Bible as a hermetically sealed book, without any outside help or influence. The former is laudable, the latter is absolutely impossible. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply blind to the fact that they have been influenced by books, friends, pastors, church traditions, bible translations, their native language, etc. which have incorporated into their theologies not simply the words from the Bible, but many forms of human knowledge. This is just how human knowing works.
We need to stop saying “well I just trust God and read the Bible like it’s supposed to be read, and those yahoos are twisting scripture based on the traditions of men” and say “which interpretation do I think is most consistent with the way the text is meant to be read, and why do I think that?” and “what factors contribute to differences in interpretation between Christians?” If the broader church would focus on these latter questions, we might have a civil conversation and learn something. I’m not denying that people do twist scripture to their own ends, but I also recognize that many evangelicals use the “who do you trust, God or man?” question as a club to beat those with whom they disagree, rather than getting their hands dirty with the difficult work of actually arguing for one’s interpretive method.
My response to your inquiry is fairly simple. I simply do not and cannot take the bible to be as literal in every account as you do. I did at one point, and as I got older found that point of view to in fact conflict greatly with my What i believed. Many things in Christ’s gospel as I saw it did not make sense to me from that point of view, thus explanations such as the ones Jon Baker has described reconciled the gospel and the world around me. If that makes me a bad/false Christian I’m your eyes or by some other subjective definition (which you have already insinuated by basically declaring my Mormon faith as heresy) then so be it. I might also point out my point of view is not universal with the entire Mormon faith, as I know Mormons who believe in the bible and see evolution in the exact way you do. But this is how I justify my faith. It’s not a matter of choosing God or man to me, it’s a matter of making sense of the physical connection of God and man. Otherwise, I simply can’t believe it. I suppose in that way, you are right. To me, I believe in God this way, or I don’t believe in God at all if your way.
Also, just to be clear, I hope my response doesn’t sound confrontational, Chris. I was not offended by your inquiry and have no intention of creating conflict, simply trying answer your question.
And please forgive my phone typos : )
Thank you for your response and I find it a poor attitude to correct or focus on typos instead of what is being said. And auto correct is no friend
Hey, Brian.
I am a debater, sometimes to a fault. This is one topic to which I have devoted several years of my life simply because of my love for logic and science.
That being said, you should read “Creation: Facts of Life” by Dr. Gary Parker.
Dr. Parker is a personal friend of mine who was a staunch “preacher” of evolution. So hard-core that he was often reprimanded by his college board for making Christian students leave his class in tears.
His salvation testimony is not only funny, but intellectually satisfying as he explains the evolution of a creationist. One of the more interesting quotes from his book is when he explains that everyone knows how Evolution and Creation are not compatible in any way (he being a well-versed expert in both fields now), and that the only people who can’t seem to grasp this fact are the Christians.
Evolution is a story of Time, Chance, Struggle, and Death. He preached this so much that his students reduced it to TCSD just to save space in their notes! Then look at the Bible. Time isn’t God’s tool. Chance isn’t God’s method. Struggle isn’t God’s plan. And Death is the Enemy!
Humility isn’t my strongest point, which I guess is why debating suites me so well. Nevertheless, I can factually state that I have never lost a debate on this topic for one reason: I attack the presuppositions. Forget the bio-mumbo-jumbo, I go straight for the jugular and people are stunned to discover the faulty presuppositions that lie behind both Evolution and Theistic Evolution alike.
Grab his book. It’s an easy and very interesting read. If you like logic, “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle is another fantastic, intellectually stimulating book.
God bless!
~ Josh
Jon,
“Inspiration and Incarnation is…ok. He asks the questions publicly that most are afraid to ask, and says what needs to be said, though not always with the best examples. In any case, Peter Enns is not the first to describe God’s word as ‘incarnational’ so as to warn God’s people not to misuse Scripture against academia. Warfield, Calvin, and Augustine made the same point at length (though a bit more eloquently).”
Let me submit that you have either fundamentally misunderstood Enns or Warfield, Calvin, and Augustine. As someone who has read Enns, and loads of Calvin, Augustine, and Warfield I would like to know how it is you find these two in the same stream of thought. Yes, they all speak about accommodation, but there is no way Warfield would be comfortable with the conclusions Enns draws. I think this is at least anecdotally hinted at by the fact that those who would self-consciously identify themselves as the heirs of Princetonian theology(i.e. G.K. Beale, Carson, et. al.) have reacted strongly against Enns’ work. Also, I find the statement, “[Enns] asks…publically what most are afraid to ask” simply wrong. Enns’ is not the first person to deal with these issues. I wrestled with these issues at one of the most conservative seminaries in the world and I was not introduced to these things by Peter Enns. Likewise a trip to ETS will show that many folks are wrestling with these issues, and not just folks who were prompted to do so because Enns finally had the guts to bring this stuff out into the public arena. The only reason people think Enns’ book is a big deal and that he is wrestling with something new is because he stirred the pot at WTS and got some press over this issue. But there is nothing new or courageous about what Enns has done.
“There is no direct textual support that Moses authored Genesis, and much to suggest that no one man did.”
I find this statement a tad bit absurd. Since this blogpost is not about the authorship of the Pentateuch I won’t go into this issue here. However, let me say that we need to further discuss this issue (perhaps skype or via phone). If you think there is no evidence to suggest that Genesis was written by one man in the 15th century BC then your study of these issues must be severely one-sided.
Finally, can I make a plea for exegesis! For those of us who believe in verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy (which I am assuming is most folks who are posting comments) then let’s actually act in accord with our theological convictions and let’s do some exegesis
It’s common today for people to just throw out “Genesis isn’t narrative, it’s poetry, look at its sophisticated literary forms, therefore it’s not concerned with having any sense of historical referentiality. It’s ‘Mytho-poetic’ (or insert favorite new faddish term from folks at SBL)” I would appreciate it if someone would point out (in Hebrew, preferably) how the textual data of Genesis 1 itself leads us to believe that we ought to read Genesis 1 differently from, say, Genesis 47, 2 Samuel 3, or any other narrative text. As someone who has read Genesis 1-11 in Hebrew as well as large chunks of the Psalter, large chunks of prophetic poetry, and large chunks of narrative in Hebrew, I am not convinced by the argument that Genesis 1ff is as laden with immense amounts of poetic language that everyone seems to groundlessly indicate. Let’s go to the sources, not the scholars. The discourse markers, the use of verb-tense patterns, and other clues from within the text itself clearly flag to me a text that is concerned with the retelling of history; a theological retelling of history indeed, but history nonetheless. Genesis 1ff is, in terms of form, more similar to Joshua, Samuel, and Chronicles than the Song of Moses, the Psalms, and prophetic poetry. Seems to me like we are abandoning a very plausible reading of Genesis 1(i.e. the traditional reading) without seriously doing our exegetical homework.