I’m going to be commenting on a post by JD Walters:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-god-creates-is-everything-permitted.html
A charge frequently leveled at theistic evolutionists is that of the inconsistency between accepting both the uniformitarian geological and biological evidence for the age of the Earth and the miracles performed by Jesus and other biblical figures. In the latter presumably God acted by divine fiat, bypassing or overriding the usual creaturely processes by which objects are linked by cause and effect with other objects. Now if-so goes the objection-the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes involved the creation ex nihilo of fully formed loaves and fishes, presumably such that if a person were to examine them without knowledge of their miraculous origin they would seem to be completely normal loaves and fishes, how can we trust the appearance of age and the natural unfolding of Earth's long history that science presents? Can we indeed rule out the possibility, daringly put forward by Philip Gosse, that creation ex nihilo implies a similar scenario to the loves and fishes, except for the entire Universe? Perhaps this world is like a novel in God's mind, where we can enter the story in medias res right from the first chapter, with its world stretching back into the past and on into the future by projecting from the context of that chapter, but with that world only existing as the context of the actual story laid out in the pages of the novel, and nothing more.
That’s a pretty fair statement of the position he’s about to critique. And I’ll be revisiting this statement momentarily.
What, then, is the conclusion of the matter? And what does this have to do with the challenge of ex nihilo to theistic evolutionism? Simply this: although God is indeed all-powerful and can dispose of his creation as easily as we can blow out a candle, the Bible teaches that God is not fickle in his attitude towards creation: once God creates something, even if that something deviates from his purpose and obstructs his will, God does not simply toss it out and start over. This motif of God working with and through creation, together with God's promise that the rhythms of the world would no longer be disrupted as long as the world lasted, allows us to affirm a substantial amount of creaturely autonomy and uniformity. God does not create and destroy things in the blink of an eye, and creation is not just a story in God's mind. God has chosen to make creation both real and good. Even though he is omnipotent, God has chosen to give creation its own 'firmness' or 'solidity' over against his all-powerful will.
Several problems:
i) There is nothing in the theory of mature creation or full-blown Omphalism to suggest that God zeros out the status quo and starts over from scratch.
ii) JD commits a level-confusion. Mature creation and/or Omphalism don’t mean that creation is “just a story in God’s mind.” God embodies his concept of the world in real space and real time. To take JD’s own illustration, if Christ makes a miraculous fish, that fish is still a real fish, and not just an idea in God’s mind.
iii) There is also a direct contradiction between the way JD interprets his supporting material, and the interpretation he is laboring to defend. On the one hand, JD interprets Genesis pretty literally to make his case about God’s “commitment” to creation. On the other hand, JD is attempting to use the conclusion he derives from that interpretation to make room for theistic evolution. However, theistic evolution doesn’t interpret Genesis very literally (to put it mildly).
So JD is using the first hermeneutical approach to justify a second hermeneutical approach which contravenes the first hermeneutical approach. That’s like building the second story atop the first story, then zapping the first story. But in that event, the second story is now resting on thin air. What holds it up? Not the first story. Yet the first story was erected to support the second story.
And the motif does not stop there. In Genesis 3 we have a description of the first humans' disobedience, and God's plan for humans to be his viceroys on earth appears on the verge of collapsing. This would seem to be a good time for God to 'start the level again' in video game parlance, scrapping his creation as a faulty first draft and starting from scratch. After all, what could possibly be gained by continuing to invest in this flawed, disordered creation? Astonishingly, God does continue to invest in his creation and persists in using it to fulfill his purposes. Thus he sets a plan in motion to eventually crush the serpent who incited the first humans to disobedience and restore the humans to a right relationship with him. So much trouble, when God could have wiped everything out and started again! Again we are compelled to ask, why?
When one saves something, one does not destroy it and create something else in its place. Implicit in the very idea of salvation is that what is being saved is preserved. Precisely because of his love of and commitment to his creation, God wanted to save it, this very creation, not throw it away and start again.
Once again, it’s hard to see the relevance of this observation. There is nothing in mature creation or Omphalism to suggest that God is inclined to scrap his creation and go back to the drawing board. The question at issue is what comes before, not what come after. According to mature creation or Omphalism, once the status quo is in place, creation ordinarily continues to operate in cycles. And God ordinarily uses natural processes to work his will.
But the point for now is that the Biblical God is not the sort of God who would create an Omphalos-type world in which things only seem to be what they are, and the reliability of natural processes is constantly in doubt, constantly under siege by the ever-present threat of creation ex nihilo. If there is one thing we know about God from the Bible, it is that once he creates, he commits. Nothing about the creation forces him to commit to it: the initiative and the promise are entirely from the divine side of the relationship, an expression of God's perfect, undeserved love.
Once again, this seems to caricature of the position under review.
i) To use JD’s own example, a miraculous fish doesn’t merely “seem to be” what it is. It really is a fish.
ii) If what JD means is that a miraculous fish seems to be a normal fish, even though it was not the product of a normal process of origination, so what? After all, JD apparently accepts the historicity of that miracle.
iii) How would mature creation or even full-blown Omphalism cast constant doubt over the reliability of natural processes? On this view, creation ex nihilo initiates all of the periodic processes which we subsequently take for granted.
It’s like making a machine that can then make other machines of the same type. The machine-making machine was not, itself, the product of a prior machine. But once the machine-making machine is in place, every subsequent machine is the product of that mechanical process.
iv) JD’s objection also sounds like a sanctified version of Lewontin’s strictures about the “Divine Foot in the door”: “The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
v) I also don’t know how to square JD’s rather rigid commitment to the uniformity of nature with his personal experience. As he said on another occasion:
I was born into a missionary family with ministry in India and Bangladesh before moving East. My father had a powerful conversion experience on the beaches of Goa, India, in which he encountered Jesus asking him to be his disciple. From then on answered prayers, seemingly miraculous conversions and healings followed us wherever we went. To be sure, they didn't happen every day or even very often, but there were times when the experience was just too powerful to ignore.
Christians in China are heavily persecuted for their faith, but they seem to make up for it with an incredibly tally of reported healings, conversions, miraculous escapes, etc. Many people who experienced God's grace firsthand are still around, serving as Pastors and speakers around the world.
The same applies to Africa. Princeton alumni associated with Princeton Evangelical Fellowship often do missionary work there. Last year we had a couple, the husband an engineer and the wife a trained doctor, describe their experiences with spiritual warfare among the Masai people at a meeting. It was simply astonishing to see these well-educated, calm and collected people describe an exorcism as if it was the most common thing in the world. The exorcism had taken place a year ago, but there was no embellishment, no legendary expansion. They simply told it as it happened. They even showed a good-quality DVD recording of the exorcism, in which a person writhing on the ground in agony can be clearly seen, with people praying over him, until he settles down and becomes coherent again, after the attack. Needless to say the person cured became a Christian, as did the witch doctor who put the death curse on him.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/12/miracles-and-missionaries.html#c116598868211466936
vi) Apropos (v), I assume that when JD has a friend or family member who falls gravely ill, he does two things that most Christians do: (a) he recommends medical treatment; (b) he prays for them.
Now, his prayers can include more “mundane” petitions, viz. he prays to God to give the physician wisdom to correctly diagnose and treat the disease, &c.
However, I assume that, failing natural means, he will also pray to God to miraculously heal his sick friend or relative.
We can trust that creation, after careful and critical study and experimentation, will not deceive us about its character as creation.
Was the miracle at Cana “deceptive”? After all, the wedding guests didn’t see Jesus change the water into wine. So they were in no position to tell what “really” happened. To all appearances, this was normal wine. The product of a normal process.
We can trust the scientific evidence for uniformity and antiquity, because it coheres with the character of God as one who creates by the unfolding of his original creation, as opposed to bringing new things into existence every now and then.
What, exactly, would count as evidence for uniformity and antiquity? To use his own example, if the fish that Jesus multiplied appeared to be ordinary fish, then how do appearances point in one direction or another? Evidence of what? If miraculous fish are indistinguishable from ordinary fish, then what residual features indicate the true source of origin–whether natural or supernatural (as the case may be)? Put another way, if the cause is untraceable from the effect, then what does the effect evidence?
the Biblical God is not the sort of God who would create an Omphalos-type world in which things only seem to be what they are
ReplyDeleteNo, no, we can't have a god like that. That would make God deceptive!
Instead we have a God who wrote a book that only seems to teach a relatively young earth and special creation!
...Oh wait... Is it better to go with God the deceiver in Scripture than God the deceiver in nature?
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks as always for your thoughtful comments. Let me address them in order:
As for comments i) and ii): I'll grant that Omphalism does not necessarily have those implications. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the analogy with the Matrix and the world merely being an idea in the mind of God. I'll try to specify my theological objection to Omphalism a bit more precisely below.
About comment iii): Perhaps I should have made this clearer, but my hermeneutical method is to derive a theme or motif from Scripture, where I am dealing with it primarily as a literary text (in line with recent discussions by Sailhamer and Goldingay). The way I see it, the Bible tells various stories about God and how he acts. Some of these are historical, that is, the writers meant us to believe they actually took place in the past, whereas others are more parabolic in nature. But all, whether historical or parabolic, do give us truth about God. So I can read the stories of Genesis and attempt to extract their point about the nature of God, without taking them literally as things that actually happened. For example, I don't think that the creation of the woman happened just as Genesis 2 describes. Rather, I see that the point of the story was to show that God is committed to working through his creation step by step rather than directly bring about the perfect outcome.
Thus there is no inconsistency between the two hermeneutics. I can accept the truth conveyed by the Genesis stories without accepting them as a literal account of creation, just as I can accept the truth conveyed by the story of the prodigal son without assuming that somewhere at sometime it actually happened.
As for the second set of objections: again, I'll grant that Omphalism doesn't necessarily lead to the denial that a miraculous fish was a real fish, and it doesn't make God more prone to starting from scratch. I did indeed resort to caricature there and I didn't take the trouble to fully apprehend the implications of this view.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I can articulate my objection to Omphalism a little better, drawing upon my discussion of the Genesis and other texts: over and over in the Genesis creation accounts I see God refusing to make his creation exactly as he wanted it from the start. Rather than speaking the ordered world of the climax of Genesis 1 directly into existence, God first creates the primordial waters without form and with darkness on the face of the deep. He then works with and through that material to bring about the world of land, sea and sky that he wanted.
What this tells me is that the impression of development and accumulation that the world presents is no illusion. And here is where I find the Omphalist position troubling: the geological evidence presents a narrative, not merely of great age, but of development. We see layers of stratification in rock, with older layers on the bottom and younger layers on the top. We see landmasses that bear the marks of erosion due to wind and water, processes we know take a very, very long time. We see evidence from the tectonic plates that there was a time when the continents were squished together, and only separated over the course of millions of years.
Now what is the Omphalist's answer to this? That a landmass which bears the marks of erosion did not actually exist for the millions of years which would be required for the air and sand to eat away at it, but instead sprang into existence fully formed and already eroded? If so, then the evidence of the natural world is indeed quite misleading. It is like the difference between a house which actually deteriorated over 100 years, and a ruin of a house put together in a few days on a movie set. The builders of the set might have taken exquisite care to make the illusion convincing: they could coat the walls with layers of patina which would actually accumulate over the decades. They could oxidize the copper plumbing just as if it was really 100 years old. And to the casual eye there may be no difference. He or she would conclude that both houses were 100 years old. But in only one case do appearances tell the truth about the house's development.
So we have biblical reasons to take the appearance of the development we find in nature quite seriously as evidence that it actually did develop as it appears to have done. God did not start creation 'in medias res'. If nature appears to tell the story of its development from the primordial quark-gluon plasma to the gradual emergence of distinct elements to the formation of stars and supernovas to the formation of planetary bodies, etc. then we have good reason to think that it happened that way, and that God didn't just make it seem that way because he wanted a more authentic stage for his salvific drama. If so, why would the Bible not just say about creation that God said, "Let there be a fully formed world with plants, animals, people (both man and woman created at the very same time), lights in the heavens, etc. and it was so"? Why doesn't the Bible show God creating exactly what he wanted directly and without intermediate steps?
ReplyDeleteNow, what about that miraculous fish that looks just like an ordinary fish? Would that miraculous fish bear all the marks of the evolutionary history of its ancestor-fish? I think it would, but this is no reason to conclude that God created something ex nihilo. Remember, in my reading of Genesis, the potentiality of the primordial waters to produce dry land, and that of dry land to produce vegetation and land animals, was already inherent within it. It seems the Bible indicates that God created ex nihilo only the primordial raw material of creation, whatever that happens to be, and everything else after that results from the ordering and manipulating of that raw material. If that is the case, and if the fish that developed by the ordinary tempo of natural processes came from that raw material, there is no reason why the miraculous fish could not also as well, except at a much accelerated pace.
Now you will ask, if the miraculous fish could develop at such an accelerated pace, why not the rest of the natural world? Because as you have noted, God generally works according to the slow, steady rhythm we observe and which science studies. The miraculous fish are the exception which proves the rule.
But the real question might be, if someone were to examine the miraculous fish without knowledge of its miraculous origin, would that someone conclude that it had been conceived and developed according to the natural processes of fish reproduction, and at the ordinary pace? I would say yes, but notice that this inference presupposes that most other things actually do develop at the natural pace. If that were not so, the person would be in no position to say anything at all about where this fish came from and how long it took to get here. Unless the world does by and large develop by the rates which we observe now (we know it takes 9 months for a human baby to develop, etc.) knowledge of nature would be impossible.
Red Monkey,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, my reading of Genesis indicates that God only created the primordial raw material ex nihilo, 'specially' if you will. Everything else in the world resulted from God developing and forming that raw material. God did not create the waters ex nihilo, and then the dry land ex nihilo, and then vegetation ex nihilo, etc. Instead, from the primordial waters came dry land, from dry land came vegetation, etc.
Secondly, both options (God the deceiver in Scripture and God the deceiver in nature) are equally abominable. But I don't think the Bible meant to teach that the Earth is relatively young. In the Hebrew Bible there is rarely if ever a reference to the exact number of years since Creation. Instead, when the Israelites refer to God's mighty acts of taming the unruly waters and ordering his world, they say that these acts took place 'of old': not a certain number of years in the past, just 'of old', in the olden times.
First of all, my reading of Genesis indicates that God only created the primordial raw material ex nihilo, 'specially' if you will. Everything else in the world resulted from God developing and forming that raw material. God did not create the waters ex nihilo, and then the dry land ex nihilo, and then vegetation ex nihilo, etc. Instead, from the primordial waters came dry land, from dry land came vegetation, etc.
ReplyDeleteI didn't specify "specially" as meaning "ex nihilo." I had in mind God's creation of such things in an extraordinary way, unless you want to say that dry land and vegetation usually spring forth in a single day.
Most persons usually admit that the most straightforward reading of Genesis doesn't indicate vast periods of time and evolution… It looks like it wasn't until after geologists discovered that the earth was millions of years old that theologians discovered that this is what the Bible teaches too.
But in that case, Genesis is deceptive. It has had people hoodwinked for thousands of years.
Secondly, both options (God the deceiver in Scripture and God the deceiver in nature) are equally abominable. But I don't think the Bible meant to teach that the Earth is relatively young. In the Hebrew Bible there is rarely if ever a reference to the exact number of years since Creation. Instead, when the Israelites refer to God's mighty acts of taming the unruly waters and ordering his world, they say that these acts took place 'of old': not a certain number of years in the past, just 'of old', in the olden times.
Well you can say it's not meant to indicate a relatively young earth and, thereby, be deceptive, but then YECists can say the evidence is not meant to indicate a very old earth and evolution through natural processes.
So if that response allows you to get around the deceptive charge, then YECists can use it too.
OEC and TE like to bring out the "If the earth isn't millions of years old then God has deceived us in the book of nature" spiel. But it looks like that knife cuts both ways if it cuts at all. The YEC can simply point out that "If the earth is millions of years old and man is a product of evolution then God has deceived us in Scripture.
If you want to say that this is not the case, because your red Genesis as not teaching a young earth and special creation then the YEC can say this is not the case because he doesn't see the evidence as pointing to an OE or TE.
Red Monkey,
ReplyDelete"Most persons usually admit that the most straightforward reading of Genesis doesn't indicate vast periods of time and evolution… It looks like it wasn't until after geologists discovered that the earth was millions of years old that theologians discovered that this is what the Bible teaches too.
But in that case, Genesis is deceptive. It has had people hoodwinked for thousands of years."
First, can I take the above as an admission that geologists really have discovered that the earth is millions of years old?
Second, you're making a big assumption about how Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be read. As a matter of fact, views of how to interpret Genesis have varied greatly throughout Jewish and Christian history. Some, as you do, have read it as straightforward history. Others, such as Philo and Origen, argued for a less literal reading. If the proper way to read Genesis is 'straightforward', why this diversity? The truth is that even at the time of Jesus in Palestine, the original context of Genesis was long gone and Jewish interpreters were coming up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios and commentary to 'fill in the blanks'.
Genesis would have only been hoodwinking people if it was absolutely clear to all faithful interpreters throughout history that it meant one thing, while it actually meant something completely different. But that is not the case.
"Well you can say it's not meant to indicate a relatively young earth and, thereby, be deceptive, but then YECists can say the evidence is not meant to indicate a very old earth and evolution through natural processes.
So if that response allows you to get around the deceptive charge, then YECists can use it too. "
No, I do not think there is parity here. The evidence of science, painstakingly gathered over 200 years using the most accurate, powerful tools of observation at our disposal, is absolutely clear. Whatever uncertainties and disputes still exist among geologists and paleontologists, the age and long development of the Earth are not among them.
On the other hand, it is much less clear how Genesis is supposed to be read. It is a modern anachronism to think that prior to the advent of modern science 'everyone' (or at least every faithful believer) 'knew' that Genesis was to be read as a literal record of the beginning of geological history.
So God would indeed be deceptive if, despite the clearest verdict of modern science, the Earth did turn out to be only thousands of years old. But he would not be deceptive about Genesis, since there never was interpretive consensus on it anyway. There is no deception unless it is clearly apparent that a text should mean one thing when it actually means another.
First, can I take the above as an admission that geologists really have discovered that the earth is millions of years old?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Second, you're making a big assumption about how Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be read.
Then I might say you are making a big assumption about how the geological, cosmological, evolutionary evidence is supposed to be read.
As a matter of fact, views of how to interpret Genesis have varied greatly throughout Jewish and Christian history.
We're talking about the impression Genesis gives as to how long that creation process took and how long ago it took place.
Are you saying that there has always been a great variation in how long it took God to create and how long ago it took place?
Others, such as Philo and Origen, argued for a less literal reading.
Did they argue that Genesis taught creation over millions of years and through evolutionary processes? (Maybe they do, I wouldn't know.) If not, your appeal to them seems dishonest.
If the proper way to read Genesis is 'straightforward', why this diversity?
If the proper way to interpret the natural evidence is so 'straightforward' (as to make God deceptive if the earth isn't millions of years old), why this diversity (of organizations like AIG)?
The truth is that even at the time of Jesus in Palestine, the original context of Genesis was long gone and Jewish interpreters were coming up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios and commentary to 'fill in the blanks'.
Could you provide me with some references and specifics. Remember we are talking about the impression Genesis gives in relation to the age of the earth, how long it took God create, whether he used evolution etc.
Genesis would have only been hoodwinking people if it was absolutely clear to all faithful interpreters throughout history that it meant one thing, while it actually meant something completely different. But that is not the case.
Of course you are assuming that the various interpretations are due to ambiguity in the text rather than to outside factors like philosophical and cultural pressure to read it a certain way.
You're also assuming that all these various interpretations (I assume you think theistic evolutionary interpretation is included) are "faithful interpretations". But I don't buy that, so you would need to argue for it rather than assume it.
But you're point also only has validity of theistic evolution has been one of those "faithful interpretations" *throughout history*.
After all, the fact that some persons throughout history have interpreted the evidence of Christology as pointing to Arianism and others have taken it as pointing to Modalism and others have taken it as pointing to Trinitarianism doesn't mean I can throw in any sort of Christological interpretation and call that legitimate just because there is some apparent "ambiguity" from the historical debate. For example, I can't say the Bible actually teaches Christ is an alien from Mars and legitimize that by appealing to the fact that other persons have thought the evidence pointed to other conclusions.
I tried to post this and it gave me an error message. So I'm posting it again:
ReplyDeleteFirst, can I take the above as an admission that geologists really have discovered that the earth is millions of years old?
No.
Second, you're making a big assumption about how Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be read.
Then I might say you are making a big assumption about how the geological, cosmological, evolutionary evidence is supposed to be read.
As a matter of fact, views of how to interpret Genesis have varied greatly throughout Jewish and Christian history.
We're talking about the impression Genesis gives as to how long that creation process took and how long ago it took place.
Are you saying that there has always been a great variation in how long it took God to create and how long ago it took place?
Others, such as Philo and Origen, argued for a less literal reading.
Did they argue that Genesis taught creation over millions of years and through evolutionary processes? (Maybe they do, I wouldn't know.) If not, your appeal to them seems dishonest.
If the proper way to read Genesis is 'straightforward', why this diversity?
If the proper way to interpret the natural evidence is so 'straightforward' (as to make God deceptive if the earth isn't millions of years old), why this diversity (of organizations like AIG)?
The truth is that even at the time of Jesus in Palestine, the original context of Genesis was long gone and Jewish interpreters were coming up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios and commentary to 'fill in the blanks'.
Could you provide me with some references and specifics. Remember we are talking about the impression Genesis gives in relation to the age of the earth, how long it took God create, whether he used evolution etc.
Genesis would have only been hoodwinking people if it was absolutely clear to all faithful interpreters throughout history that it meant one thing, while it actually meant something completely different. But that is not the case.
Of course you are assuming that the various interpretations are due to ambiguity in the text rather than to outside factors like philosophical and cultural pressure to read it a certain way.
You're also assuming that all these various interpretations (I assume you think theistic evolutionary interpretation is included) are "faithful interpretations". But I don't buy that, so you would need to argue for it rather than assume it.
But you're point also only has validity of theistic evolution has been one of those "faithful interpretations" *throughout history*.
After all, the fact that some persons throughout history have interpreted the evidence of Christology as pointing to Arianism and others have taken it as pointing to Modalism and others have taken it as pointing to Trinitarianism doesn't mean I can throw in any sort of Christological interpretation and call that legitimate just because there is some apparent "ambiguity" from the historical debate. For example, I can't say the Bible actually teaches Christ is an alien from Mars and legitimize that by appealing to the fact that other persons have thought the evidence pointed to other conclusions.
No, I do not think there is parity here. The evidence of science, painstakingly gathered over 200 years using the most accurate, powerful tools of observation at our disposal, is absolutely clear. Whatever uncertainties and disputes still exist among geologists and paleontologists, the age and long development of the Earth are not among them.
ReplyDeleteOf course that you think the evidence for an old earth is clear is really irrelevant. The folks at AIG don't agree with that.
The "God is a deceiver if YEC is true" argument takes it for granted that the evidence is clearly in favor of an OEC or TE.
In that case, there is parity with the "God is a deceiver if OEC or TE is true" from the Genesis standpoint, because *in the same way that the OEC and TE assume the clarity of their evidence* I can assume the clarity of Genesis.
Now if you want to say "Then let's debate the evidence" fine, but you still have to drop the bad "God is a deceiver argument." You don't get to beg that question.
On the other hand, it is much less clear how Genesis is supposed to be read.
So says you...
It is a modern anachronism to think that prior to the advent of modern science 'everyone' (or at least every faithful believer) 'knew' that Genesis was to be read as a literal record of the beginning of geological history.
So which persons, prior to the advent of modern science, believed Genesis was teaching millions of years and an evolutionary process?
So God would indeed be deceptive if, despite the clearest verdict of modern science, the Earth did turn out to be only thousands of years old.
You're just assuming that the evidence clearly points to a very old earth. In which case, I can just assume the evidence of Genesis points to a very young earth.
But he would not be deceptive about Genesis, since there never was interpretive consensus on it anyway.
Then I can point to YEC scientists as evidence that there is no interpretive consensus here either. Thus, if the universe turns out to be thousands of years old, God isn't deceptive since there is no consensus.
Looks like only the second part of my response got posted. Here is the first part:
ReplyDeleteFirst, can I take the above as an admission that geologists really have discovered that the earth is millions of years old?
No.
Second, you're making a big assumption about how Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be read.
Then I might say you are making a big assumption about how the geological, cosmological, evolutionary evidence is supposed to be read.
As a matter of fact, views of how to interpret Genesis have varied greatly throughout Jewish and Christian history.
We're talking about the impression Genesis gives as to how long that creation process took and how long ago it took place.
Are you saying that there has always been a great variation in how long it took God to create and how long ago it took place?
Others, such as Philo and Origen, argued for a less literal reading.
Did they argue that Genesis taught creation over millions of years and through evolutionary processes? (Maybe they do, I wouldn't know.) If not, your appeal to them seems dishonest.
If the proper way to read Genesis is 'straightforward', why this diversity?
If the proper way to interpret the natural evidence is so 'straightforward' (as to make God deceptive if the earth isn't millions of years old), why this diversity (of organizations like AIG)?
The truth is that even at the time of Jesus in Palestine, the original context of Genesis was long gone and Jewish interpreters were coming up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios and commentary to 'fill in the blanks'.
Could you provide me with some references and specifics. Remember we are talking about the impression Genesis gives in relation to the age of the earth, how long it took God create, whether he used evolution etc.
Genesis would have only been hoodwinking people if it was absolutely clear to all faithful interpreters throughout history that it meant one thing, while it actually meant something completely different. But that is not the case.
Of course you are assuming that the various interpretations are due to ambiguity in the text rather than to outside factors like philosophical and cultural pressure to read it a certain way.
You're also assuming that all these various interpretations (I assume you think theistic evolutionary interpretation is included) are "faithful interpretations". But I don't buy that, so you would need to argue for it rather than assume it.
But you're point also only has validity of theistic evolution has been one of those "faithful interpretations" *throughout history*.
After all, the fact that some persons throughout history have interpreted the evidence of Christology as pointing to Arianism and others have taken it as pointing to Modalism and others have taken it as pointing to Trinitarianism doesn't mean I can throw in any sort of Christological interpretation and call that legitimate just because there is some apparent "ambiguity" from the historical debate. For example, I can't say the Bible actually teaches Christ is an alien from Mars and legitimize that by appealing to the fact that other persons have thought the evidence pointed to other conclusions.
Okay, the comboxes here are starting to really tick me off.
ReplyDeleteI just tried posting this... again... but got an error message... again... so we'll see if it works this time:
Looks like only the second part of my response got posted. Here is the first part:
First, can I take the above as an admission that geologists really have discovered that the earth is millions of years old?
No.
Second, you're making a big assumption about how Genesis 1 and 2 are supposed to be read.
Then I might say you are making a big assumption about how the geological, cosmological, evolutionary evidence is supposed to be read.
As a matter of fact, views of how to interpret Genesis have varied greatly throughout Jewish and Christian history.
We're talking about the impression Genesis gives as to how long that creation process took and how long ago it took place.
Are you saying that there has always been a great variation in how long it took God to create and how long ago it took place?
Others, such as Philo and Origen, argued for a less literal reading.
Did they argue that Genesis taught creation over millions of years and through evolutionary processes? (Maybe they do, I wouldn't know.) If not, your appeal to them seems dishonest.
If the proper way to read Genesis is 'straightforward', why this diversity?
If the proper way to interpret the natural evidence is so 'straightforward' (as to make God deceptive if the earth isn't millions of years old), why this diversity (of organizations like AIG)?
The truth is that even at the time of Jesus in Palestine, the original context of Genesis was long gone and Jewish interpreters were coming up with all sorts of fanciful scenarios and commentary to 'fill in the blanks'.
Could you provide me with some references and specifics. Remember we are talking about the impression Genesis gives in relation to the age of the earth, how long it took God create, whether he used evolution etc.
Genesis would have only been hoodwinking people if it was absolutely clear to all faithful interpreters throughout history that it meant one thing, while it actually meant something completely different. But that is not the case.
Of course you are assuming that the various interpretations are due to ambiguity in the text rather than to outside factors like philosophical and cultural pressure to read it a certain way.
You're also assuming that all these various interpretations (I assume you think theistic evolutionary interpretation is included) are "faithful interpretations". But I don't buy that, so you would need to argue for it rather than assume it.
But you're point also only has validity of theistic evolution has been one of those "faithful interpretations" *throughout history*.
After all, the fact that some persons throughout history have interpreted the evidence of Christology as pointing to Arianism and others have taken it as pointing to Modalism and others have taken it as pointing to Trinitarianism doesn't mean I can throw in any sort of Christological interpretation and call that legitimate just because there is some apparent "ambiguity" from the historical debate. For example, I can't say the Bible actually teaches Christ is an alien from Mars and legitimize that by appealing to the fact that other persons have thought the evidence pointed to other conclusions.