Epistemology, apologetics, "feel-good religion," and evolutionary creationism

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Daniel_Mann

I must take issue with you here. When God finished creating, He pronounced His creation “very good.” How so? He had created the animal kingdom as herbivores. There was absolutely no indication of animal death. Adam and Eve were so comfortable and sinless that they were able to go naked without any shame. Death only came after they had sinned (Gen. 3) for the first time, in their rebellion against God. At this point, the world also sustained the effects of the Fall.

First of all, I entirely affirm that God made things “very good.” But very good is not “perfect.” It is entirely valid to and within the bounds of Scripture to believe that the perfection of heaven will be better than the initial creation.

We even see clues to this in Genesis, first in the fact that God repeats his “good” statement, and then continues to add to creation. If it is perfect (which it wasn’t) why did he continue to add to it? Also, if Gods ultimate goal was Eden, why did he ask them to go multiply and fill the Earth? It is impossible for me to see Eden as an image of God’s final plan for earth.

Also, I agree that all creation sustains negatives effects because of the Fall. We even see this in our world today in the horrible effect humans have on the world because of sin. I just disagree that “physical death” is the best way to describe this. And I am not unique in my interpretatio. Many YEC think this too (see St. Augustine) and old-earth creationists too (see Hugh Ross). As I have pointed out, I your inference that God only made “herbivores” is not in the text itself, but it is your inference, your interpretation.

More importantly, I am not bound by your word here. I am committed to Scripture.

And this really has nothing to do with evolution, but has been clearly worked out already as Christians studied the text (see Augustine) and encountered the overwhelming evidence for an old earth (see Hugh Ross). Disagree if you must, but understand this has nothing to do uniquely with evolution.

@Daniel_Mann

Scripture later informs us about the great hope - the restoration of all things. But to what? The survival of the fittest? Certainly not, but to the Edenic peace.

So I have the same hope as you in the Restoration of all things. However, I think Restoration will be BETTER than what we see in Eden. Once again, we see evidence of this in Revelations. For example, people are worshiping the Lamb from every tribe, and tongue, and nation. This brilliant diversity gives great glory to God. We see nothing resembling this in Eden. The image I see in Revelation is so much greater.

And about “survival of the fittest.” I am not a Darwinist. I do not describe evolution in these terms, so this has no relevance to me. Even if I did, the fact that the world works on way now (or the past) does not tell us about the Restoration. In the end, we believe that God will enabling something much greater than what is possible now. Evolution is not my hope, and never has been. My hope in Jesus.

I will, therefore, point out your claim that the Restoration of all things is to the “Edenic peace” is an entirely extra-biblical claim, and appears to contradict Revelations. Even if we overlook this contradiction with Revelations, I can affirm that some creative speculation has value. But why should I trust your speculation over what Scripture tells me? I do not trust man’s word more than God’s.

[Bill_II]

@Daniel_Mann

Bill-II, If we cannot trust the history of the Bible, I don’t see how we can trust the theology of the Bible, especially in light of the fact that it is often based on the history.

You still don’t realize that you are bringing a sense of history to the Bible that didn’t exist when it was written. If you want to impose a strict meaning to what is history then you have to throw out the four Gospels. They do not agree with each other in chronological order and historical details and since they are supposedly history we therefore can not trust them. You may or may not be aware of the many historical problems that exist in the Bible and yet you appear to not have any problem with them. Why is Genesis different?

@Daniel_Mann

Unfortunately, too many TEs do not regard the Bible as maximally authoritative and therefore judge it from what they do regard as maximally authoritative - secular histories and the ToE.

As has been pointed out before, making statements about what someone else thinks or believes is against the forum guidelines. You have no idea what TEs think. I for one am an EC that accepts the Bible as maximally authoritative. The difference between you and me lies in our fallible human interpretation of Scripture. Are you so sure you are the one who got it right?

@Daniel_Mann

Does this preference demonstrate our “first love,” conveying where our treasure truly lies?

No it doesn’t. You saying it does does not make it so.

[Lynn_Munter]

@Daniel_Mann

Consequently, I have often observed that Biologos and its followers are very reluctant to witness to the many professedly non-believers who feel very at home with their blogs.

Oh hey, I think that’s me. I’m interested in the intersection of faith and science and like having discussions about it. If there’s anything you’re hankering to say to me, I may disagree but I won’t bite!

In fact, let me start off with a topic I notice Christians tend not to like to emphasize: According to the Bible itself, Genesis was written by Moses, who was many generations removed from the events of it. It was (presumably) passed down as oral history through at least 22 generations and then God inspired Moses to record all the Hebrews’ history and laws. Maybe there was some additional oral history at that point that wasn’t very reliable or important, and God didn’t inspire Moses to record that stuff.

But anybody who spends a cursory amount of time studying anything knows that the farther back in time you go, the less certain the details become. It’s human nature to lose things along the way, and it’s nature’s nature, too: rocks from the first billion years of earth history are much rarer than rocks from the last billion.

There is an unquestioned assumption I see a lot that being “Inspired” or “God-breathed” is an automatic dispensation from this rule. In fact, a lot of people don’t seem to distinguish meaningfully between “God inspired this to be written” and “God wrote this personally without regard to a human intermediary.”

Does this match what scripture says? Do we see the earliest chapters of Genesis looking more like other examples of ancient oral history than it looks like the more recently recorded examples of history throughout the Old Testament? There are certain qualities a story gains as it’s told and retold, to make it more engaging and easier to remember for the next generation. Exaggeration is probably the foremost example, followed by repetitive structural elements.

But just because you see these elements in a story doesn’t mean it’s made up. There’s a core of truth it’s built around, and if there weren’t, it wouldn’t have been God-inspired and Christians would not have to care about what that core is.

[AdCaelumEo (Jay Nelsestuen)]

@Jay313

For instance, in regard to the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the inspired authors of Scripture make it obvious that this is their purpose.

Meanwhile, the Genesis account is absent of any such declarations. Further, it was not written by an eyewitness like Matthew and John, or a close friend of an eyewitness like Mark, or one who carefully interviewed eyewitnesses and researched thoroughly like Luke. So it is not as clear.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Daniel_Mann

Would you say the same thing to doubting Thomas who had been persuaded by the evidence?

Again, there is a difference between being persuaded by evidence that one’s doubts are unfounded and placing one’s faith in an experience. Are you arguing that Thomas put his faith in the empirical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, and that saved him? That is theologically problematic. We don’t put our faith in evidence, we put our faith in Christ. I don’t have a problem with evidence. I have a problem with evidence being the foundation or object of faith.

@Daniel_Mann

Without having a sound cognitive basis to believe, the Christian will live a very truncated, uncertain, and defensive life, one that will remain highly vulnerable to attack, for example the false assertion that our four Gospels found their way into our Bible because of Constantine.

You are projecting. I work with an isolated indigenous people group, many of whom have never heard any arguments for the historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible. They don’t know who William Lane Craig or Richard Dawkins or Constantine are. They do know that Jesus changes lives and they see people stop getting drunk and beating their wives and selling their daughters. They stop having nightmares and they stop fearing the brujeria of their neighbors. Many of them are healed of sicknesses and what I would call demonic oppression. What is all this? It is not the result of wise and persuasive words, it is a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. The Christians are very confident that the gospel is true, and they go hike to villages six hours away with no road access every Sunday to share their testimonies and talk about the Bible with those who haven’t heard. Are you going to claim they have a truncated, uncertain, and defensive faith because they are oblivious to the intellectual arguments you are aware of? That is just silly.

@Daniel_Mann

I have often observed that Biologos and its followers are very reluctant to witness to the many professedly non-believers who feel very at home with their blogs.

You aren’t paying very close attention then. And maybe people from all different persuasions are “at home” here because we insist people play nice and not be jerks.

@Daniel_Mann

However, the Bible does refer to these chapters as history,

You keep saying that, but you have never once ventured an argument that demonstrates convincingly that this is true. I can refer to Bilbo Baggins to make a spiritual point. That doesn’t make the Lord of the Rings history and it doesn’t tell you one way or the other whether I think Bilbo Baggins is a historical figure or not.

I can believe that God historically judged people without insisting that every detail in the accounts of those judgments is an objective report of a historical fact. People tell histories and give prophesies differently. Can you name one feature of Jewish apocalyptic imagery?

@Daniel_Mann

If this argument does not rely on actual history, then there is no reason to believe that a future judgment will also be actual.

You keep saying this but what you really mean is “I wouldn’t argue that way because I have my expectations about how the Bible should be written” You weren’t inspired to write Scripture and the actual authors weren’t taking into consideration your expectations.

@Daniel_Mann

By separating the Bible from its history, Peter’s argument collapses entirely.

You have shown no evidence that you are familiar with Jewish rhetorical style. I don’t think you are in a position to evaluate how Peter’s argument would have been received by his original audience.

@Daniel_Mann

Would you (or anyone else) care to comment on same-sex marriage?

We’ve been through this before. Public debate of politically charged topics like same sex marriage is not allowed on these boards. If you are truly that interested in my opinion, you can PM me.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Daniel_Mann

I think you will find that the OT also makes its claims on history and eyewitness accounts:

Deuteronomy 4:32-35

Yes, you are exactly right about Deuteronomy. You are exactly wrong about Genesis.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Daniel_Mann

When God finished creating, He pronounced His creation “very good.” How so? He had created the animal kingdom as herbivores.

This from the man who insists on an evidentiary basis for faith …

Which came first in your life of faith: the cart or the horse?

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

It gets pretty sticky when you look at it. Maybe Moses wrote some of the original texts, but the final version we have is pretty well documented to have been written during the post exile period about 1500 years after the events described. ( here is an article discussing it: When Was Genesis Written … And Why? (RJS) | RJS )

[AdCaelumEo (Jay Nelsestuen)]

You would make a good Christian, I think, Lynn.

[AdCaelumEo (Jay Nelsestuen)]

Speaking of carts and horses:

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it’s an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies, “I think not!” POOF! The horse disappears.

This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of “cogito, ergo sum,” or I think, therefore I am.

But to explain that concept beforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.

(We need a little humor here and there. )

[sfmatheson]

@AdCaelumEo

But to explain that concept beforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.

[Daniel_Mann]

@Bill_II

You still don’t realize that you are bringing a sense of history to the Bible that didn’t exist when it was written. If you want to impose a strict meaning to what is history then you have to throw out the four Gospels. They do not agree with each other in chronological order and historical details and since they are supposedly history we therefore can not trust them. You may or may not be aware of the many historical problems that exist in the Bible and yet you appear to not have any problem with them. Why is Genesis different?

Did the writers of the Bible have a different understanding of history than we do? Was it so different that the history of the Bible cannot be trusted? This is what some, especially theistic evolutionists (TEs) allege.

However, I do not see any basis for such an allegation. For the Biblical writer, writing about history was a matter of truth or falsehood as it is for us. Writing falsely about history was a matter of bearing false witness, something that is uniformly condemned by the Bible. Let’s start with the Ten Commandments:

• Exodus 20:16 (ESV) “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Lying in general had been proscribed:

• Leviticus 19:11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.”

• Psalm 5:6 You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

• Psalm 12:2-4 Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak. May the LORD cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is master over us?”

Falsehood was understood as the opposite of faithfulness:

• Psalm 119:29-30 Put false ways far from me and graciously teach me your law! I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.

• Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law.

There is no reason to believe that the recording of Biblical history would be exempt from such prohibitions. Instead, truth was the ideal, especially when it came to the Scriptures:

• Proverbs 3:3 Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart.

• Proverbs 12:17-19 Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit. There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.

• Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

This is why Isaiah had warned that the Word alone was the model of truth:

• Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

It is pointless to go further. The uniform testimony of Scripture favors truth over falsehood in all areas of life, even in the inscribing of history. Consequently, we find that the Hebrew scribes were meticulous in copying their Scriptures. Evidently, they had been fanatical about getting it right, even when they didn’t like what they had been copying, and their Scriptures said many demeaning things about the Jewish people.

While there are areas where it appears that the Gospels do not agree, it is without basis to conclude that the writers regarded history in a different way. Perhaps instead these “discrepancies” result from a copiest error or a mistranslation.

[Daniel_Mann]

@Lynn_Munter

But just because you see these elements in a story doesn’t mean it’s made up. There’s a core of truth it’s built around, and if there weren’t, it wouldn’t have been God-inspired and Christians would not have to care about what that core is.

If you are correct, then Scripture is almost worthless as such. It means that we have to sit above Scripture and determine which parts are trustworthy and which aren’t. Inevitably, our faith will come to be indistinguishable from our cultural situation.

Instead, Scripture is to judge us as the entire Bible proclaims.

[Lynn_Munter]

@Daniel_Mann

If you are correct, then Scripture is almost worthless as such. It means that we have to sit above Scripture and determine which parts are trustworthy and which aren’t.

I don’t think it’s worthless. I just think it’s not license to put everything in child’s terms and stop thinking about it. We still have to be adults, think critically, and choose wisely.

You get into far more trouble when you decide facts are irrelevant, and you will not convince me that any biblical interpretation that says that is the right way to go.

And just while we’re talking, I notice a tendency on the part of YEC to monopolize the term ‘historical,’ as though ‘historical’ means ‘correct in every detail as interpreted by us.’ Pretty much everybody except the hardest skeptics believes that there was a real flood recorded by the Noah’s ark story. What is debated is merely the size of the flood. To call one side historical and the other side not is an attempt to stack the deck, especially since those who devote their lives to the actual study of history mostly don’t side with the YEC position.

@Daniel_Mann

Instead, Scripture is to judge us as the entire Bible proclaims.

I thought that was supposed to be God…?

[Lynn_Munter]

@AdCaelumEo

You would make a good Christian, I think, Lynn.

But I’ve barely made it through chapter one!

It seems an awfully big commitment to do it properly.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Daniel_Mann

Did the writers of the Bible have a different understanding of history than we do? Was it so different that the history of the Bible cannot be trusted? This is what some, especially theistic evolutionists (TEs) allege.

However, I do not see any basis for such an allegation. For the Biblical writer, writing about history was a matter of truth or falsehood as it is for us. Writing falsely about history was a matter of bearing false witness, something that is uniformly condemned by the Bible.

You just made this up based on what you think makes sense. What Bible scholar, after studying the textual genres and cultural contexts of the ANE, would agree with you that this is a fact?

[Lynn_Munter]

@jpm

Maybe Moses wrote some of the original texts, but the final version we have is pretty well documented to have been written during the post exile period about 1500 years after the events described.

Thanks for the link! I was somewhat aware of this, but figured it probably wouldn’t go over well and I could make my point without trying to sell the documentary hypothesis into the bargain. The fact is that it was written down a long time after Adam’s day.

[Daniel_Mann]

@Lynn_Munter

You get into far more trouble when you decide facts are irrelevant, and you will not convince me that any biblical interpretation that says that is the right way to go.

It is not a matter of deciding that certain facts are irrelevant but that certain facts are more trustworthy and authoritative. I am convinced that the Bible is maximally authoritative because it all comes from God, and I think that there are many substantial reasons to conclude so.

[Daniel_Mann]

@Christy

You just made this up based on what you think makes sense. What Bible scholar, after studying the textual genres and cultural contexts of the ANE, would agree with you that this is a fact?

You place too much hope in the “experts” and not enough in the direct evidences.

[Daniel_Mann]

@jpm

It gets pretty sticky when you look at it. Maybe Moses wrote some of the original texts, but the final version we have is pretty well documented to have been written during the post exile period about 1500 years after the events described. ( here is an article discussing it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/01/31/when-was-genesis-written-and-why-rjs/ )

You will not find a single Biblical verse questioning Mosaic authorship. You question it based upon outside sources which you evidently regard more highly than the Biblical affirmations.

BTW, How do you get away with using links, while I am censured for doing the same thing?