Pages

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Fern-seed and evangelutionists

Thanks for the response.

Sorry I'm a bit rushed as it's Thanksgiving. But please don't mistake my curtness for rudeness. I'm just in a hurry.

I should also state at the outset that I see you've responded to Gene. But I've unfortunately not (yet) read your response to him. So, if you've already answered questions I raise here in your response to Gene, please let me know.

I think Wise is forgetting some of the major “terms of the text”; We have a “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. We have a “tree of life”. Both are *cosmic* in their scope and supernatural powers, which is unusual for an historical account of a tree.


1. I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic in their scope and supernatural powers." Do you mean that by eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve "died" and/or that "death" entered into the creation (cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 8:21)? Or do you have something greater in mind?

2. Yes, the tree is obviously unusual -- historically or in any other way -- since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not exactly your typical tree. Which the Genesis account duly affirms.

But this isn't a denial of the historicity of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life. Or an argument that it should be taken allegorically rather than literally.

It still fits perfectly in line with a reading of Gen. 1-3 as historical narrative.

And of course, we have a talking snake. In Numbers 22 we also have a talking animal, Balaam’s ass. But by verse 31 we have the angel of the LORD standing over Balaam, with sword in hand, and Balaam trembling, prostrate before him. Clearly to Balaam, and to us by the text, this was a miraculous intervention in animating the ass to rebuke Balaam. In the Genesis 3 account, Eve gives no indication of surprise to find herself being addressed by a snake. She is not laid prostrate by the angel of the LORD, we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked.


1. I don't understand why you draw parallels between the Balaam-donkey passage and the Eve-serpent passage. Why can't both be historical in their own right?

2. More specifically, it appears as though you're working with the premise that the Balaam-donkey story is historical. That's fine and I would agree.

But then you use the Balaam-donkey story as a contrast for the Eve-serpent story. And you indicate that the Eve-serpent story is not historical because it doesn't have certain elements which would mark themselves as historical narrative present in the Balaam-donkey story (e.g. there is a miraculous intervention in the Balaam-donkey story; Balaam is surprised whereas Eve is not; Balaam is laid prostrate whereas Eve is not).

Although I'm not sure why these particular elements would somehow indicate historicity in the one while not the other, in point of fact you've done no more than to describe the accounts as the Bible relates them. There's no argument for reading the texts as allegory or for not reading the texts as historical narrative (among other literary forms).

3. I'm also not sure what you mean by "we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked." What kind of historical resolution are you looking for? Why would it not be historical to simply say the serpent spoke just as it is apparently historical to say that Balaam's donkey spoke?

4. The way in which you write about Adam and Eve, the serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life appear to be more symbolic than allegorical.

On the other hand, it seems as though you take Balaam and his donkey literally.

Why the discrepancy?

At any rate, as far as I can tell, apart from drawing parallels between the Eve-serpent and Balaam-donkey stories (which are simply descriptive of the stories themselves and nothing more), there's no argument for why the Eve-serpent story should not be taken as historical narrative. Again, this is perhaps more problematic when it seems you believe the Balaam-donkey story should be read historically.

Way at the other end of the Bible, we find the red dragon speaking blaspheming the name of God (Rev 12). This is a dragon with seven heads and ten horns. I think it’s the rare exegete that considers Revelation historical narrative, so here again is another symbolic utilization of an animal speaking. Is it a historical account? Not in the sense Wise is using it, I suggest. Is it perfectly *true*? I believe it is. These are mythic elements, the talking serpent, the trees with supernatural capabilities. They are perfectly true in that convey a real history – the fall of man from the commission of sin. But the device used is figurative, and symbolic.


1. That's because Revelation is primarily considered apocalyptic or prophetic in genre. And yes, it does make use of symbols.

2. In the original quote I cited, Dr. Wise confined his argument to reading Genesis primarily as historical narrative. He made no mention of reading Revelation as historical narrative. So I'm not sure why you refer to Wise doing so, viz. "Not in the sense Wise is using it."

Unless you're disputing Wise's definition of "historical narrative" itself?

3. Speaking of which, you originally argued for treating Gen. 1-3 as allegory. But I should point out allegory is different than symbolism.

4. The mere fact that the Bible describes speaking animals (e.g. serpents, donkeys, dragons) in and of itself does nothing to argue for or against allegorizing certain portions of Scripture like Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11.

5. Of course, I have no problem reading certain parts of the Bible as allegory or seeing symbolic motifs or larger themes run throughout Scripture should the text warrant such a reading. For example, we see the story of redemption unfold through the Scriptures until its culmination and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ Himself. Thus there is a redemptive-historical theme in Scripture itself. E.g. Luke 24:25-27: "And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

6. As far as this question is concerned, what we need to ask ourselves is, where's the symbolic thread and how do we establish it? What's the basis for such and such a running theme? Does Scripture itself warrant it -- exegetically?

7. If you're allegorizing Gen. 1-3, and if you're claiming a theistic evolutionary worldview, what then would you make of a verse like Gen. 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel"?

On the one hand, I can read it as a historical event. God is actually and literally speaking to the serpent. Yet He is also making a specific promise that there will be enmity between the offspring or seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.

Which leads me to likewise read it symbolically. Other portions of Scripture talk about the symbol of the seed of the woman.

What's more, we see it play out as a theme, for instance, in God's promise to Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel and Leah. One commonality is that all these patriarchs and matriarchs were unable to bear children of their own accord. But God promised them offspring or seed. And thus they each gave birth to "children of promise" as it were. We see the final fulfillment of this in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ Himself.

That said, however, what I can't read Gen. 1-3 as is allegory, because if I did, then there would be no basis for a literal historical fulfillment. An allegorization of Gen. 1-3 let alone Gen. 1-11 would undercut the historical reality of the prophecy and its final fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

8. Again, I'm not disputing your argument that there are symbols in the Bible. Rather I'm disputing your reading of Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 primarily as allegory and that history properly begins in Gen. 4 or possibly Gen. 12. Therefore I should remind you (as well as myself) the original argument centered on these first few chapters of Genesis.

If you were to pick up a text that you were told was "true", but contained the account of trees with supernatural, cosmic powers, and a talking serpent along with a pair of humans, would you suppose that the truth was *scientific* in its telling, or moral/figurative?


1. I don't know why we have to limit ourselves to these two options.

2. But it would depend on the text.

3. As for the Bible, I'd primarily classify it as God's sole revelation or communication to mankind. In my view it's primary purpose is to reveal to us the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to teach us His redemptive plan. It is moral and it is figurative in parts and it is much more.

Also, Genesis is the “bootstrapping book”, the book that kicks of the written tradition, distilling what were previously oral narratives. While we can identify a lot of concrete history within it, but it’s manifestly *unlike* in its structure. If one is determined, fixed in a post-enlightenment reductionist frame, that Genesis must be completely historical-scientific, then one will simply see it all thus; There *is* no allegorical language that cannot be viewed as an historical account reified by an omnipotent God, if that is what is one is determined to do. All allegory capitulates to the powers of an omnipotent God. Could the red dragon be a red dragon in Rev 12? Could be, God could certainly ordain it thus. Is that the natural way to read Rev. 12? I don’t think so.


I don't hold to any of the positions you allege, viz. "a post-enlightenment reductionist frame, that Genesis must be completely historical-scientific...There *is* no allegorical language that cannot be viewed as an historical account reified by an omnipotent God."

Some parts of Genesis are decidedly historical. No doubt about it. I think this only represents a problem if one presumes that Genesis cannot and does not have historical and allegorical vectors. Does Wise identify Genesis as similar in form to other, competing cosmogonies of that time? Would he find similarities for the book of Nehemiah in Babylonian mythology as exist between Genesis and Enuma Elish, or the Gilgamesh epic? Those are manifestly mythic texts, and I can’t see that Wise would be unfamiliar with those comparisons. Would he characterize Gilgamesh as an historical account in form, if false in its actual historicity? I’m not setting up either the Enuma Elish or Gilgamesh as truths or peers to Genesis theologically, but one must purposely ignore them to omit them from comparisons to the literary style of Genesis.


Wise simply argues that Genesis should primarily be read as historical narrative. Nothing less, nothing more. He thus makes no mention let alone gives an opinion on other works like The Epic of Gilgamesh. So I don't think it's legitimate to impute to Wise anything else outside the scope of his argument.

"The historical texts in Genesis contrast with non-historical narrative. For the most part, seamless connections join the various Genesis accounts, including those widely accepted as historical. But the short, non-historical passages within the Genesis account -- for example, Adam's response at seeing Eve (Gen. 2:23) and the song of Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24) -- as well as poetic renditions of Genesis passages found in other places in Scripture (such as in Ps. 104) contrast sharply with the historical flavor of the Genesis text, including the creation account." [-- Dr. Kurt Wise]

This is Wise identifying for himself the historical flavor of Genesis text, “including the creation account”. This assumes its own conclusion. If everything else has a historical flavor but the parts he wants to except, well then it’s just historical by the definition of Kurt Wise.


On my reading, Wise is simply arguing that most of Genesis seems to primarily read as a continuous historical account. As such, the few sections of Genesis which do not flow in this continuum (e.g. the poetic sections) stand in stark contrast to the rest which do. If one reads the verses Wise does cite, it is evident they are poetic or at least not a historical account.

But he’s conspicuously omitting that the language of days is used in Gen. 1 prior to the creation of the earth – the object that anchors the idea of a ‘day’ (sunrise, sunset). Does that have a “historical flavor”? If one interprets the two creation accounts literally, they disagree in detail and sequence. Does Wise find this to be also demonstrative of historical flavor? These problems and more confound the man bent on rigid historical scientific readings of Genesis, but give way if they are simply regarded as perfectly true but *cosmogonic* in expression. The narrative has a strong compelling logic, but one that is cosmological and theological, not chronological or geological. So if Wise can read this as having “historical” flavor (Gen 1-3), I’d simply wonder how many historical complications he would have to identify before he might suppose he was approaching the text in a way it was never intended to be approached. An ancient Israelite learning the Pentateuch doesn’t have to be a scientific genius to understand the idea of days as sunrise/sunset cycles. When he reads that on the “first day”, with no earth or sun yet in the picture, the very things that came to define what a “day” was, there’s no need to appeal to some scientific knowledge base to understand that it doesn’t make sense in the literal reading. It was simply not an issue for him, he didn’t bring the burden of a commitment to identification of scientific mechanisms and chronologies that Wise apparently does here. Wise is projecting an anachronistic “worldview” onto the ancients, a perspective they would be mystified by. And probably amused by as well, I’d wager.


1. I don't have the time to go into detail about how best to intepret Gen. 1.

2. Also, I don't have the time to try and explain the apparent discrepancies between the two creation accounts.

3. But suffice it to say that Wise never argues that it should merely be looked at chronologically or geologically. Or rigidly historical and scientific. Or even that it should not be looked at cosmologically and theologically. Certainly not in the quote to which you responded. My point is that you should stick closely to his actual argument rather than to assume he argues for things which he may or may not argue based on a preconceived or perhaps stereotypical notion of what a YEC may or may not argue.

4. In this vein, no one said that we are not to view Gen. 1-3 as an ancient Israelite or Hebrew (or, actually, as someone in the time of Moses if we believe Moses mainly transcribed the Torah) viewed it. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

5. I think by historical flavor you mean something which is far more restrictive than what Wise means. As I read him, Wise merely means an account of literal, historical events. But as I understand you, it seems as though you're creating false dichotomies. Why read Genesis as solely "cosmological and theological"? That is, I don't see why we cannot read Gen. 1-3, say, as a literal, historical account of events as well as receive theological instruction from it? There doesn't need to be a dichotomy between the two.

"Scripture itself refers to Genesis as historical. The remainder of Scripture (Exod. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Acts 17:22-29) and Jesus Himself (Matt. 19:4-6) speak of Genesis -- including the creation account -- as if it were to be taken as history. Likewise, most of the Jews and Christians through time have understood the Genesis account to be historical. Since the Genesis account is historical narrative and reliable, its clear claim of a six-day creation should be taken seriously." [-- Dr. Kurt Wise]

It *is* historical in a very real sense. God *create* the heavens and the earth. The allegorical elements in Genesis don’t change the fact that God did in fact create all there is, that Adam sinned and caused the Fall. There is no clear claim of six solar days in Genesis 1 – anyone aware of ‘day-age’ exegesis is familiar with that treatment. And it’s not something invented by Darwinists. Does Wise suppose Augustine and Origen were trying to serve the evolutionary agenda in their exegeses? I’m happy to respond to items you request, but it’s a telling sign when I see Wise beg the question like this --- the clear claim of six day creation. If Wise isn’t aware of day-age exegeses.


1. It seems that you have a proclivity for putting words into the mouths of others or attributing to them positions they have never clearly defined themselves.

2. How do you know Wise is not aware of day-age exegesis? Is it something you suppose Wise is unaware of simply because he is a YEC?

3. In his quote, Wise certainly didn't argue that we should only see "six solar days" in Gen. 1. I would presume he holds to a similar or related position, but he doesn't make that evident here.

4. Nevertheless, looking at it from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew, what do you suppose he would think of when he reads, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day..."? And so on.

At a minimum, he would understand the passage of time defined in terms such as "evening," "morning," and "day." He would understand that "evening and morning" somehow equal "one day." This "one day" may not be an exact 24-hour day as we understand it, but the ancients understood when, for example, it was evening and when it was no longer evening, and when it was morning and when it was no longer morning.

Moreover, since we believe Moses wrote the Torah, he would've been speaking from the perspective of a Jew educated in the arts and sciences of Egypt. The Egyptians had sophisticated ways to keep track of time. They understood what a day was even if by our modern standards their measurements of time don't quite compare.

So did the Jews. The Jews had a detailed lunar calendar for their festivals, which they still celebrate today. In fact, up until the modern era, the Jews had always maintained a way to track the Sabbath on Friday evening. If I recall, one way was simply to look for the first star in the sky to appear Friday evening to commence the Sabbath.

The ancients were not unfamiliar with the concept of a day, or at least the passage of an evening and a morning equating to a day, even if they did not have atomic clocks by which to measure time.

OK, those are my “engagements” of Wise. Another YEC who assumes his consequent.


Again, it'd be more helpful if you didn't assume what the other side argues based on some preconceived notion you might have of their position.

Or better yet, it'd be helpful if you could likewise make a consistent case for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should not primarily be read as historical narrative and why it should primarily be read as allegory rather than falling back on long diatribes against imaginary opponents.

Thanks.

4 comments:

  1. BTW, I should also like to add:

    As has already been affirmed, Touchstone is a theistic evolutionist and in favor of interpreting Gen. 1-3 allegorically. He also believes that God chose either a single male and female proto-human or possibly a collective group of male and female proto-humans and breathed a soul or spirit into them. As I understand him, this is his "Adam and Eve."

    However, Gen. 3 (among other places in the Bible such as Rom. 8:20-22) appears to teach that death and decay did not enter into the creation until after the Fall.

    Given this, I asked Touchstone how he would respond to the existence of things like death, decay, decomposition, and disease prior to the Fall, since these things are assumed in order for evolution to take place.

    He replied:

    "Patrick, I'm just taking the last paragraph here of this section of yours which I understand to be related to the same question. In Genesis, there is a "Tree of Life". The name it's given should suggest to you the answer I will give. Man could partake of the "Tree of Life" in Eden, and it is this that provided ongoing vitality -- immortality so long as the Tree of Life was available to him. When Adam sinned, God sent him out of the Garden of Eden and away from the Tree of Life - the life sustaining resource for him. As a consequence of Adam's sin, this life-preserving resoure was withdrawn, and Adam was forced to go without, and to die a physical death one day, as is appointed to each of us who came after."

    My next question was, wouldn't this indicate that he believes in a literal tree of life? If so, then I wonder why he would interpret the rest of Genesis 3 allegorically?

    And now he seems to have switched gears. In this above post, Touchstone writes:

    "I think Wise is forgetting some of the major 'terms of the text'; We have a 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'. We have a 'tree of life'. Both are *cosmic* in their scope and supernatural powers, which is unusual for an historical account of a tree."

    Now he argues for a "cosmic" tree of life and tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So it's no longer a literal tree, but a "cosmic" one?

    Or is it still a literal tree with a "cosmic" reach? (I presume by "cosmic" he means something along the lines of "universal"?) But then if it's still literal tree, then this would no longer be allegorical, right?

    I wonder if he might please explain these seeming discrepancies?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the response.

    Sorry I'm a bit rushed as it's Thanksgiving. But please don't mistake my curtness for rudeness. I'm just in a hurry.

    Yikes, I don’t think I’d want to take on one of your posts when you have plenty of time then. This is pretty long.
    Happy Thanksgiving to you!

    1. I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic in their scope and supernatural powers." Do you mean that by eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve "died" and/or that "death" entered into the creation (cf. Gen. 2:17; Rom. 8:21)? Or do you have something greater in mind?

    Yes, cosmic, as in universal in scope. Death entered into creation – all of it. You have it.

    2. Yes, the tree is obviously unusual -- historically or in any other way -- since the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not exactly your typical tree. Which the Genesis account duly affirms.

    But this isn't a denial of the historicity of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life. Or an argument that it should be taken allegorically rather than
    literally.

    I get the feeling that unless the Hebrew contained markers like [allegory], [symbol], and [mythopoeic] that you would find it perfectly historical. You affirm we have a magical pair of trees and a talking snake, engaging in a story of cosmic (universal) proportions, on both the physical and metaphysical plane. Then you tell me this is not a denial of historicity. Patrick, unless you want XML tags in the old Hebrew that flag it, I don’t know what more you would expect to see to flag it as a figurative account. It relates something quite historical and perefectly real in the scientific sense, but it relates it in symbolic and mythic terms.

    If *that* doesn’t strike you as symbolic, and symbolic in such a way as to make it foolish to use *that* account as your “scientific record”, I don’t know what it would take. Maybe you might compose a few lines of a completely hypothetical Genesis opening that you would say: now *that* I see as symbolic and non-historical/scientific. Would you agree that the myths of Enuma Elish and the epic of Gilgamesh are mythic in form? Or would you read that as “clear history”?


    It still fits perfectly in line with a reading of Gen. 1-3 as historical narrative.

    So does Revelation then. If you disagree, tell me what *cannot* be fit into a literal narrative in Revelation. If God can reify a talking snake – and I’m sure he can – then he can reify a red dragon with many heads and horns. It’s pointless to suggest that a storyline *can’t* be historical, as if you’ve got an omnipotent God to invoke – and we do – then one is very hard pressed to develop a storyline, no matter how fantastic that can’t be “made literal” by an omnipotent God.

    I’m amazed you feel comfortable saying “perfectly”, though. I can anticipate your saying: “it’s not obviously non-historical” or something like that (which I would still take issue with), but “perfectly”? You don’t see trees with cosmic magical trees and a talking snake in a story about the spiritual fate of all mankind to be even *somewhat* of a bell going off in your head about the natural historical claims the text is making? I’m incredulous.

    1. I don't understand why you draw parallels between the Balaam-donkey passage and the Eve-serpent passage. Why can't both be historical in their own right?

    They *can* be, in a world created and ruled by an omnipotent, involved God. The question is whether they both are. I see Balaam’s ass talking as perfectly miraculous, as evinced by the appearance of the angel of the LORD and Balaam scared witless, trembling on the ground. That has the definite ring of a historical record of a miracle. If my dog rebuked me in English and the angel of the LORD appeared with a sword in hand before me, I’d be trembling, prostrate as well. Intuitively, that narrative sounds to my scientific ears *precisely* how a miracle would play out.

    Now, Eve is quite a contrast in my view. There’s no trembling or incredulity because of a snake talking to her. All cues that this is an unusual phenomenon are conspicuously absent. A very good argument for the symbolic nature of the exchange between Eve and the serpent is that is presented in such a matter-of-fact manner. It’s so matter of fact, that it strongly suggest a *non-real* context, like a dream. Or a fable. Or an allegory.

    2. More specifically, it appears as though you're working with the premise that the Balaam-donkey story is historical. That's fine and I would agree.

    Check.

    But then you use the Balaam-donkey story as a contrast for the Eve-serpent story. And you indicate that the Eve-serpent story is not historical because it doesn't have certain elements which would mark themselves as historical narrative present in the Balaam-donkey story (e.g. there is a miraculous intervention in the Balaam-donkey story; Balaam is surprised whereas Eve is not; Balaam is laid prostrate whereas Eve is not).

    Although I'm not sure why these particular elements would somehow indicate historicity in the one while not the other, in point of fact you've done no more than to describe the accounts as the Bible relates them. There's no argument for reading the texts as allegory or for not reading the texts as historical narrative (among other literary forms).

    See above. When it reads like myth, fable, or dream, or something quite apart from a historical account, even a historical account with miracles, it’s time to consider a different interpretation. For instance, do you suppose the serpent was just a serpent, albeit a more clever one than the other herpetological creatures all around? Or is the serpent a symbol? Is it a real serpent *and* a symbol of the Devil? Or maybe just a symbol for the devil, allegorical language for an actual eve’s temptation inside her head?

    3. I'm also not sure what you mean by "we do not see a historical resolution testifying to extraordinary nature of the snake that talked." What kind of historical resolution are you looking for? Why would it not be historical to simply say the serpent spoke just as it is apparently historical to say that Balaam's donkey spoke?

    We don’t find Eve eventually saying or doing something that reflectd the miraculous nature of a talking serpent, like *wow* what just happened?? We do see that with Balaam, as he is promptly on the business end of a sword wielded by the angel of the LORD. I can’t think of a more clear signal of divine/miraculous intervention than an appearance by the angel of the LORD.

    4. The way in which you write about Adam and Eve, the serpent, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life appear to be more symbolic than allegorical.

    On the other hand, it seems as though you take Balaam and his donkey literally.

    Why the discrepancy?

    See above, Patrick. I think I’ve answered this in three or four difference shades above. The text for Balaam’s

    At any rate, as far as I can tell, apart from drawing parallels between the Eve-serpent and Balaam-donkey stories (which are simply descriptive of the stories themselves and nothing more), there's no argument for why the Eve-serpent story should not be taken as historical narrative. Again, this is perhaps more problematic when it seems you believe the Balaam-donkey story should be read historically.

    No, not at all. Miracles don’t require allegory, else they aren’t miracles, or at least the same kind of miracle. In Genesis 3 you have, again, the magic trees, a talking snake, the fall of mankind, the spiritual fate of all men to come at stake. This is the most epic kind of stuff possible. How you can observe these things and say there is ‘no argument’ is beyond me. I would demand that it’s overwhelmingly obvious the other way, as allegorical or mythopoeic. Rather, it’s just natural. But ‘no argument’… ???


    1. That's because Revelation is primarily considered apocalyptic or prophetic in genre. And yes, it does make use of symbols.

    2. In the original quote I cited, Dr. Wise confined his argument to reading Genesis primarily as historical narrative. He made no mention of reading Revelation as historical narrative. So I'm not sure why you refer to Wise doing so, viz. "Not in the sense Wise is using it."

    I mean as a scientific description of facts and events, there. I see allegory and symbolism (and hymns!) in Gen 1-3, so much of it is manifestly *allegorical* and/or *symbolic* that it should be seen as perfectly true, but non-scientific.

    Unless you're disputing Wise's definition of "historical narrative" itself?

    I believe so, yes.

    3. Speaking of which, you originally argued for treating Gen. 1-3 as allegory. But I should point out allegory is different than symbolism.

    No you shouldn’t point that out, because it’s either false or pedantic, or both.

    Here’s Webster:
    1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
    2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM

    Not all symbolism is allegory, but all allegory is symbolic.

    4. The mere fact that the Bible describes speaking animals (e.g. serpents, donkeys, dragons) in and of itself does nothing to argue for or against allegorizing certain portions of Scripture like Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11.

    I believe it does. It’s not exhaustive proof for it – there is no exhaustive proof in this application – but it certainly *does* argue for it. If I handed you a copy of Animal Farm and had you check it out, would you be able to point to the allegory in the story? It’s actually allegorical on multiple levels. But if I asked you to identify specifically where the allegorical language is, what would you point to. Well, according to professors I’ve had in English Lit and philosophy, the feature of talking animals is the first attribute of the text that is pulled out in support of the identification of allegory.

    If you look at how we identify allegory, it maps right nicely against Gen 3. As I hear you, you are going to fail to see anything in Animal Farm that demands allegory, and conclude it must be historical account. If not, then I’m interested to see you identify in the text of Animal Farm the elements that establish its allegorical nature.

    5. Of course, I have no problem reading certain parts of the Bible as allegory or seeing symbolic motifs or larger themes run throughout Scripture should the text warrant such a reading. For example, we see the story of redemption unfold through the Scriptures until its culmination and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ Himself. Thus there is a redemptive-historical theme in Scripture itself. E.g. Luke 24:25-27: "And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

    Right with you here.

    6. As far as this question is concerned, what we need to ask ourselves is, where's the symbolic thread and how do we establish it? What's the basis for such and such a running theme? Does Scripture itself warrant it -- exegetically?

    Sure. No doubt about it.

    7. If you're allegorizing Gen. 1-3, and if you're claiming a theistic evolutionary worldview, what then would you make of a verse like Gen. 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel"?

    A prophecy of Jesus. The woman prefigures Mary, her offspring Jesus. Jesus is *hurt* (bruised heel), but victorious over Satan (the serpent, whose head is crushed).

    That’s about as short and sweet as I can make it.

    On the one hand, I can read it as a historical event. God is actually and literally speaking to the serpent. Yet He is also making a specific promise that there will be enmity between the offspring or seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.

    Which leads me to likewise read it symbolically. Other portions of Scripture talk about the symbol of the seed of the woman.

    Yes, symbolically this is of *huge* import; it is speaking in cosmic terms. The “enmity” is universal, the destruction of Satan final.

    What's more, we see it play out as a theme, for instance, in God's promise to Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel and Leah. One commonality is that all these patriarchs and matriarchs were unable to bear children of their own accord. But God promised them offspring or seed. And thus they each gave birth to "children of promise" as it were. We see the final fulfillment of this in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ Himself.

    Sure, concur with this fully.

    That said, however, what I can't read Gen. 1-3 as is allegory, because if I did, then there would be no basis for a literal historical fulfillment. An allegorization of Gen. 1-3 let alone Gen. 1-11 would undercut the historical reality of the prophecy and its final fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

    A symbol doesn’t not deny the referent Patrick. If Gen 1-3 is symbolic, it doesn’t deny the real history and actual existence of Adam, or the group that is collective known as “Adam”. And it doesn’t deny the reality and present consequences of his actions, his sin. The underlying actors and events are every bit as real as you suppose your literally-reified version is, they are just related in scripture in symbolic terms. If I’m writing about a deceptive, manipulative leader and I say “the emperor has no clothes”, I’m using symbolic language, but I’m talking about a real leader, and the very real fact that this leader is misleading and manipulating his followers. So, here you are hung up thinking that since the Bible says something like “the emperor has no clothes”, that there is no real leader behind that. I’m saying there *is* a very real Adam behind the symbolic language, and the effects and consequences of his story are perfectly real.

    8. Again, I'm not disputing your argument that there are symbols in the Bible. Rather I'm disputing your reading of Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 primarily as allegory and that history properly begins in Gen. 4 or possibly Gen. 12. Therefore I should remind you (as well as myself) the original argument centered on these first few chapters of Genesis.

    You’ll have to clarify what you mean here. I thought the “original argument” at hand was Wise’s claims about the entire book of Genesis being viewed as “historical”.

    1. I don't know why we have to limit ourselves to these two options.

    We don’t.

    2. But it would depend on the text.

    3. As for the Bible, I'd primarily classify it as God's sole revelation or communication to mankind. In my view it's primary purpose is to reveal to us the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to teach us His redemptive plan. It is moral and it is figurative in parts and it is much more.

    OK, with you on this here, too. This is good.

    I don't hold to any of the positions you allege, viz. "a post-enlightenment reductionist frame, that Genesis must be completely historical-scientific...There *is* no allegorical language that cannot be viewed as an historical account reified by an omnipotent God."

    I’m happy to be corrected, then. However, I believe you’re resistance to the allegory and broader symbolism in God’s word is likely tied to the culture context of contemporary conservative evangelical Christianity. You’re exegetical assumptions are perfectly reductionist, so far as I can see – would you endorse a systematic theology for the Bible? Post-enlightenment? I think you are approaching the bible from a post-enlightenment cultural context? Do you say you are not? These are artifacts of the Protestant Reformation. If you would consider yourself “Reformed”, then you’re very much approaching this from that angle, I suggest. But no matter, I don’t know if you subscribe to Reformed theology/exegesis or not. You haven’t said, or if you did, I missed it.

    However, the “no argument”, “can’t be”, “perfectly lines up” clues are definitely there, as I see it, that you bring a set of expectations to scripture that are reductive, exhaustive, and systematic. That’s no more perjorative than saying you’re “Reformed”. That’s not an epithet at all to Reformed people.

    Wise simply argues that Genesis should primarily be read as historical narrative. Nothing less, nothing more. He thus makes no mention let alone gives an opinion on other works like The Epic of Gilgamesh. So I don't think it's legitimate to impute to Wise anything else outside the scope of his argument.

    You asked for my critique of Wise. I objected that “primarily” anything is a demand that isn’t warranted in the first place. You say you are not approaching this from a reductionist perspective. Well, if you affirm the idea that Genesis must be classifiable that way, then I’d suggest you are suppose the text can be broken down and *reduced* in such a way as to make that kind of classification warranted. The text may give rise to such a classification. But it may not. Demanding that it must fit into a presupposed taxonomy is placing unwarranted reductive demands on scripture. This is a particularly egregious requirement for Genesis. But Wise proceeds nonetheless. He’s begging with this argument to substantially misunderstand the text.

    As far as omitting Enuma Elish and the epic of Gilgamesh, I don’t require that he include those treatments directly in his argument – he is obviously giving a fairly hy level synopsis of his arguments in the text you gave me. But his conclusions can’t be produced unless he is either ignorant of the form and history of the other creation myths, or determined that the don’t interfere with Genesis being of “historical flavor”. In either case, he’s messed it up. If it’s the latter, simply waving his hand at Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish, well then I consider that de facto proof that he’s not taking a serious look at this question.


    On my reading, Wise is simply arguing that most of Genesis seems to primarily read as a continuous historical account. As such, the few sections of Genesis which do not flow in this continuum (e.g. the poetic sections) stand in stark contrast to the rest which do. If one reads the verses Wise does cite, it is evident they are poetic or at least not a historical account.

    Right. And that’s the problem. Conspicuous by their absence are the magic cosmic trees, the talking snake, etc. – see above. The contradictions in the sequences, etc. The fact that he fails to identify the *important* signals toward broader symbology, myth and allegory means he’s simply not giving it a decent look. When I discuss this with academics – people who teach at Wheaton, for example – this isn’t ignored or passed over, even if their conclusion comes down as much more ‘historical’ than I would offer. It’s a complicated and rich problem, and it *confuses* and obfuscates the text to suggest that it’s “primarily” historical. I identify that as simply an affirmation of the conclusion being sought, over and in spite of all the other complicating factors. Factors he somehow misses, even when he *does* give a list.


    1. I don't have the time to go into detail about how best to intepret Gen. 1.

    That’s fine. I don’t either. We’re not agreeing but we are communicating on a high level. That alone is a success, given, uh, well you know.

    2. Also, I don't have the time to try and explain the apparent discrepancies between the two creation accounts.

    No need. My guess is you would resolve them in nearly identical fashion as I would.

    3. But suffice it to say that Wise never argues that it should merely be looked at chronologically or geologically. Or rigidly historical and scientific. Or even that it should not be looked at cosmologically and theologically. Certainly not in the quote to which you responded. My point is that you should stick closely to his actual argument rather than to assume he argues for things which he may or may not argue based on a preconceived or perhaps stereotypical notion of what a YEC may or may not argue.

    Well, I’ve read a lot of Kurt Wise. I’ve been debating YECs for almost ten years now, so it’s hard to avoid that guy. Not just him, but his singular position in the YEC community, at least in terms of science – the whole “It doesn’t matter *how* much evidence piles up against creationism, I will be a creationist uber alles” thing – you know the quote, surely, so I won’t even go bother to look it up. I’d say that’s reflected in his arguments here – a determination to affirm creationist interpretations, over all evidences and considerations. Am I thus tainted by that, here? Possibly. But I hereby disclose my familiarity, over a long period of time, with the word and ideas of Kurt Wise. He’s an honest, forthright guy on the science issue, and I give him credit for that – insofar as science wars with YEC, he’s perfectly prepared to divorce science. I think that’s a really really tragic stance to assume, but it *is* an honest one.

    Given that, yes, I’m at least familiar with a lot of Wise’s other writings and ideas. I’m sure I’ve forgotten plenty of what he’s said, but I retain a bunch, no less. It’s no doubt a factor, here.

    4. In this vein, no one said that we are not to view Gen. 1-3 as an ancient Israelite or Hebrew (or, actually, as someone in the time of Moses if we believe Moses mainly transcribed the Torah) viewed it. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

    I believe there is an assumption that Genesis should be “primarily something”. That’s unwarranted with respect to the ancients. Their understanding and theology, such as it was at the time, was not a product or catalyst for modern systematic theology. The approach I’m sensing here is one that is heavily *systematic*, although I’ll allow that perhaps much of that sense comes from my exchange with Gene (Jim’s not systematic so much as perfectly surreal, so far as I can tell). But to the extent you are bring forth a set of systematics, I think you are not doing justice to the ancient mind. If you believe I’m mistaken, and you aren’t bringing a systematized exegesis to bear on this, then I stand to be corrected, and am happy to amend my remarks.

    5. I think by historical flavor you mean something which is far more restrictive than what Wise means. As I read him, Wise merely means an account of literal, historical events. But as I understand you, it seems as though you're creating false dichotomies. Why read Genesis as solely "cosmological and theological"? That is, I don't see why we cannot read Gen. 1-3, say, as a literal, historical account of events as well as receive theological instruction from it? There doesn't need to be a dichotomy between the two.

    No, you’re right there. As I said to Gene, read in a vacuum, or on a desert island in the year 224ad, that would be a plausible approach. Perfectly legitimate. But the witness of God’s creation today is such that a “Wisian(?)” interpretation – a conventional YEC chronology – is totally rejected. The only *honest* reconciliation is a mystical view that offers up the idea of “mature creation”. Mature creation can’t be logically ruled out – we’re dealing with an omnipotent God here, after all. But that’s positively the *best* thing that can be said for that idea – it can’t be completely ruled out. If you aren’t beholden to a YEC interpretation of scripture, though, and you are OK with the idea that what appears real in the world *is* real – your hand in front of your face, the stars in the sky, then a historical overlay for Genesis is completely ridiculous. I don’t use that word lightly, but advisedly. It’s really, literally a ridiculous interpretation to maintain if you believe the God’s world is real, and basically is at it appears.

    And yes, I’m completely aware of the pedantry that gets invoked by Steve and other who find themselves clever hiding behind the idea that we can’t *prove* the world is as it appears. I don’t claim we *can* prove such, and don’t seek or need to. That’s just belly-button gazing, this is the real world.


    1. It seems that you have a proclivity for putting words into the mouths of others or attributing to them positions they have never clearly defined themselves.

    2. How do you know Wise is not aware of day-age exegesis? Is it something you suppose Wise is unaware of simply because he is a YEC?

    I presume that Wise *is* aware of. If we needed, I’d wager we could Google up some evidence for the idea, even. My operating assumption is that he is well versed in the controversy. His summation here doesn’t reflect a balanced or nuanced view of the controversy, though. It appears to be a case of simply deciding that the conclusion is important to affirm, complications or nuances notwithstanding. How else might I resolve the discrepancy between his familiarity with the arguments and the idenitification of “clear” “historical flavor”?

    3. In his quote, Wise certainly didn't argue that we should only see "six solar days" in Gen. 1. I would presume he holds to a similar or related position, but he doesn't make that evident here.

    Fine, I plead guilty to external familiarity prior to even reading this. If you read Kurt Wise’s personal page at AiG, you will see he clearly has rejected the “day-age” idea, the symbolic “day”, rather than the solar day. I’m completely aware of this, and a lot of Ken’s ideas not expressed here.

    4. Nevertheless, looking at it from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew, what do you suppose he would think of when he reads, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day..."? And so on.

    At a minimum, he would understand the passage of time defined in terms such as "evening," "morning," and "day." He would understand that "evening and morning" somehow equal "one day." This "one day" may not be an exact 24-hour day as we understand it, but the ancients understood when, for example, it was evening and when it was no longer evening, and when it was morning and when it was no longer morning.

    Sure, but you’re confirming the knowledge that argues against Gen 1. It takes *no* sophistication to read it and see that one the first “day”, that the very entities you know *define* that passage of time hadn’t been created by that point in the story.

    Moreover, since we believe Moses wrote the Torah, he would've been speaking from the perspective of a Jew educated in the arts and sciences of Egypt. The Egyptians had sophisticated ways to keep track of time. They understood what a day was even if by our modern standards their measurements of time don't quite compare.

    So did the Jews. The Jews had a detailed lunar calendar for their festivals, which they still celebrate today. In fact, up until the modern era, the Jews had always maintained a way to track the Sabbath on Friday evening. If I recall, one way was simply to look for the first star in the sky to appear Friday evening to commence the Sabbath.

    I’m quite sure they had plenty adequate knowledge of both solar days and lunar months. And solar years for that matter. I’m saying the ancient reader simply doesn’t demand a timetable like that for the creation myths that have been handed down from even more ancient oral traditions. And, if he simply thinks a minute about it, he will realize that, logically, the chronology is incoherent: the first day happens before the sun/earth are created which define a ‘day’ for him.

    Again, it'd be more helpful if you didn't assume what the other side argues based on some preconceived notion you might have of their position.

    Or better yet, it'd be helpful if you could likewise make a consistent case for why Gen. 1-3 or Gen. 1-11 should not primarily be read as historical narrative and why it should primarily be read as allegory rather than falling back on long diatribes against imaginary opponents.

    Thanks.

    Patrick, you can tell me where I’ve misconstrued Wise’s position. I’ve worked on Wise’s words many, many times – more on science/meta-science than Genesis exegesis, admittedly – and believe I understand Wise’s basic doctrine here. But if you want to correct me where I’ve misread him, I’m happy to adjust my words accordingly.

    Thanks,

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patrick,

    RE: the tree of life.

    I don't see a case either way as to whether the tree of life was primarily symbolic (described as a "tree" in scripture, but actually a kind of, I dunno... a special kind of crop with super life-giving grain?), or both symbolic and literal.

    In either case, the important truth is the symbolic, metaphysical one: eating of it had "cosmic consequences" - defiance of the natural decay and aging processes.

    It *could* have been an actual, literal tree, with fruit that had these properties.

    Or, the language could be symbolic, and the "tree" was a symbolic pointer to some other feature of Adam's existence that God provided, some resource that sustained life and held off death indefinitely.

    A crop? As I mused above? Something else? I'm not even comfortable speculating beyond that, simply because it's pure speculation what that resource might have been that was expressed symbolically as the "tree of life" in Genesis.

    But it hardly matters. What matters is that this resource *did* provide eternality as long as God allowed access to it -- whatever it was. And losing access to it due to Adam's sin was a dire, dire consequence to face, indeed.

    So, the tree of life defies death, miraculously and permanently (so long as it is available). Creation itself proceeds apace, however, and the physical laws that God ordained at the point of ex nihilo creation (the Big Bang in my view) remained in force throughout.

    So, decay, physical death, entropy, decomposition -- and all their opposites: generation, birth, and organization all existed as phenomena that proceed from the physical laws as God gave them in the beginning.

    This He called very good.

    Thanks, Patrick!

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete