Evolution, Critical studies, and the Canon

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Hello everyone again,

I was pondering how to take Pauline arguments in Romans or the author of Hebrews given a very different understanding.

How to reconcile evolution and Roman’s general argument (unless using sacred myth as the conversation point)?

Or the some inclusions in the list of heroes of the faith such as Noah surviving a flood that did not happen as written (and is morally suspect, I do appreciate @St.Roymond’s take on it being against a certain group of beings)

Or the Binding of Isaac story and how there are textual and other evidence of a very different ending.

Or the trend towards mysogny as the early Church progressed and the pastoral letters (and Paul’s later writing) tend to favour this dynamic and the roman concepts around pater familias.

It seems hard to reconcile.

2

I find the the story (Abraham sacking Isaac) one of the most impressive ones of the Bible. It’s prophetic. Compare the similarities Father God sacrificing His Son on the cross.

  1. Abraham is the father in the story, Isaac (like Jesus) the long awaited promised son.
  2. Like Jesus Isaac’s birth was supernatural.
  3. Abraham had to travel 3 days, his destination the mountain Moria which is Jerusalem.
  4. Like Jesus Isaac had to carry the wood that would kill him.

Difference, God did not want to have Isaac killed, He was testing Abraham meanwhile predicting the future.

1 Like
3

Christ in Matthew 24 said Noah was saved from a flood that killed everyone else…there is no Genre argument that can change Christs own statement that the disciple Matthew records. It does not matter how long after Christ Matthew wrote his gospel…Mathew like the rest of the bible cannon writers is accepted by Christianity to have faithfully recorded Christs words in his gospel.

We can verify the accuracy of Matthews gospel generally by comparing it with the other 3 gospels. It does not matter if some events are not included in all gospels. Its the consistency of the same events across the gospels that tells us Matthews record here is true.

I believe Christ came to this earth in order to provide an avenue for human salvation from the wages of sin is death (Romans 6.23)

Im trinitarian and believe that Christ has always been God. The bible tells us that “all things were created by Him and for Him”

Now heres the main point …

If Christ is God, and He created this earth, how do you.reconcile Christ telling us Noah was saved from a flood?

The notion Christ was telling a parable in this swction of matthew 24 doesnt address the dilemma…its bluntly obvious Christ was using an historical story that those around already knew, almlst certainly because of oral and written history, in order to explain that we should be ready for the second coming…“we know not the hour”!

Add to the above that the apostle Peter talks of the flood in literal terms, and claims he recieved his revelation from 3 sources 1. The writings of the prophets (moses was a prophet),
2. Christs ministry (christ talked of Noah in Matthew 24), and
3. God in heaven (God spoke with his prophets in vision regularly…so Moses didnt misunderstand Gods explanation of creation or the flood…its pretty hard for a man of agod to stuff up visual imagery. King Nebuchadnezzar did not understand his dreams because he was a heathen. God used a man of God (Daniel) to explain them to the king.)

No amount of naturalisms uniformatarian ideaology will change what a normal reading of language shows in the bible.

We know we can read the bible using normal language because that is what the bible itself tells us

2 Timothy 3.16
All.scripture is God breathed…"

Some answer the above by saying, the bible isnt a science textbook and doesnt teach science.

My answer, science doesnt teach God or salvation either!

So we have a bit of a mexican standoff.

Who wins?

If a person is seeking salvation, the winner is clearly 2 Timothy 3.16.

You should ask yourself a simple question…

If your science is wrong, will that stop you from being saved?

If your belief is wrong, will that affect your salvation?

I would argue that the safe ground is definately the belief one. Taking the bible literally and being wrong will in no way affect salvation, however, reducing the bible to a mYthical book of fairytales because one denies anything related to:

  1. creation,
  2. the flood,
  3. destruction of sodom and gomorah,
  4. Moses and the exodus

What is the point of the bible when all of the above are turned into fairytales?

If you think you need the bible for your morality, then you are delusional. Naturalism uses the very scientific evidence Biologos uses to show morality is a product of evolution.

If you then take out morality, what exactly is the point of Christ dying to make atonement for sin?

Finally, if Christ died only for confessed sin (because the Old Testament Sanctuary tells us that how this works), who saves primative hominids who didnt have that kind of brain capacity? Wouldnt that therefore mean that Christian salvation is intentionally racist (because unconfessed sinner is condemned?)

Ill stop there for now…A lot to think about.

4

Actually He did not say that. Christ did not say, the great tribulation will kill everyone. The message was, “be ready”, don’t be foolish like the people in the days of Noah.

1 Like
5

Oh but it does say EXACTLY that…

37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away.

If you believe that Christs comments there are for a localised event, good luck with salvation for anyone who lives outside of Israel.

The fact is, we know salvation is for everyone…so the localised argument fails.

6

I do think the NT authors believed in a historical Adam. But I don’t think it changes the point they were trying to make.

My focus is on what Paul is saying about Jesus by using Adam as an antitype. By using a literary example his listeners knew (Adam), Paul explained what Jesus accomplished.

Today Paul could use the example of Aslan in Narnia to make clear what Jesus did.

I think Genesis uses existing myths to tell truths about God. For example, God doesn’t unleash a flood because the humans make too much noise (as in the Mesopotamian stories). But because God hates evil.

Same with the NT’s use of the Flood story. The authors are using this story to communicate truths about God and us humans.

I suppose you are referring to the enigmatic ending:

6 As the two of them went on together …

19 Then Abraham returned to his servants

(Genesis 22:6,19; NIV)

Where is Isaac?

This is one explanation:

Summary

" After the test, it was as if Isaac had altogether vanished; the narrator apparently took an eraser and wiped out any mention of Isaac after the “sacrifice.” But there was a purpose behind this: the author was doing something with what he was saying (in this case, with what he failed to say, creating a striking gap in the narrative, but that, too, is to “say” something). No more would the account portray father and son speaking to each other or even being in one another’s presence until one of them dies (25:8–9). When one remembers that the test was actually an examination of Abraham’s loyalties—to God or to the son, “the one you love”— one understands what it was the author was doing in Gen 22:19: he was describing, in yet another way, Abraham’s success in this critical test. The author was depicting a line drawn; the relationship between father and son had been clarified, the tension between fear of God and love of son had been resolved. This test had shown that Abraham loved God more than anyone else.⁵³ One might almost say: For Abraham so loved God that he gave his only begotten son …. And to bring that home to readers, father and son are separated for the rest of their days—literarily separated, that is, for the purpose of achieving the narrator’s theological agenda. ⁵⁴ He was doing something with what he was saying."

(The “Aqedah” (Genesis 22): What Is The Author “Doing” With What He Is “Saying”?)

The parallelism with earlier stories also suggests the story as we have it is the original one:

Summary

"To begin, there are parallels between the accounts of Hagar’s expulsion in Gen 21:9-21 and the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22:1-13, 19: 1) In Both accounts a child’s life is placed in jeopardy, but he survives. 2) Abraham arises early to carry out the command given to him (Gen 21:14; 22:3). 3) A journey occurs (Gen 21:14; 22:4-8). 4) The child is about to die (Gen 21:16; 22:10). 5) An “angel of God” saves the child (Gen 21:17-18; 22:11-12). 6) The “angel” speaks from heaven (Gen 21:17-18; 22:11-12). 7) The “angel” refers to “fear” (Gen 21:17; 22:12). 8) The “angel” gives a command that saves the child’s life (Gen 21:17-19; 22:12-13). 9) Promise of future greatness is made (Gen 21:18; 22:17). 10) Hagar and Abraham “see” the solution to saving the child (Gen 21:19; 22:13).¹⁹

“Sean McEvenue saw a common format in all three accounts in Genesis 20-22 (patriarch’s wife, Hagar’s expulsion, test of Abraham): 1) God directs Abraham to wander (20:13), expel Hagar (21:12), or sacrifice Isaac (22:2), 2) Abraham obeys (20:1-2; 21:14; 22:3). 3) Bad things happen: Sarah is abducted and disease affects women (20:2, 18); the child almost dies (21:16); and Isaac almost dies (22:9-10). 4) God intervenes: Sarah is returned and women are healed (20:6-7, 17); the angel discloses the location of the well and the child is blessed (21:19-20); and the angel prevents sacrifice and reveals a ram (22:11-12).²⁰ All three of these Elohist accounts are connected by a similar dramatic plot line.”

(Robert Karl Gnuse, The Elohist: A Seventh-Century Theological Tradition [Eugene: Cascade Books, 2017], 36.)

Yet, even if the original story has Abraham indeed killing Isaac (which I think is not the case), theologocial truth is only found in the story as it stands in Genesis.

Could you please give an example that troubles you?

1 Like
7

You are right, my bad.

1 Like
8

Type/antitype theology uses real life examples for religious training. It does not mean the real.life example is a myth. The point i am making is that Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden are historical.

Christ uses this analogy to explain the theology that through 1 man, Adam, sin enterred this world (because Adam transgressed the law), and through 1 man Christ, we are saved from the wages of sin (christ atoned for sin according to the law)

The meaning is as simple as a normal reading of the text indicates.

We know that the meaning ive outlined above is correct because it is identical the the Old Testament Sanctuary Service model (internal consistency proves the doctrine)

9

We see real characters being used in fictional stories in the Bible.

  1. We see the bad prophet Jonah being used in the satirical fictional story after his own name.

  2. We see Xerxes being used in the fictional story of Esther.

We also see places like 1 Samuel 16 and 17 which has very different stories on how David and Saul met and both can be literally true.

So when we see Genesis 1 and 2 we also see two separate creation stories where both can’t be literally true. We also see tons of fictional evidence in the story.

  1. A man made of mud/dust ( a golem ) a mythical a mythical creature being turned into flesh.

  2. That golem being cut in half and one half becoming a woman.

  3. A talking flying snake.

  4. Blood that screams from the ground.

  5. A magical tree with fruit that grants knowledge and another that grants immortality.

The reality is that even a child can discern that’s not a literal story.

So Adam and Eve probably never existed and if they did, they were used as characters in an ancient Jewish myth.

Additionally regardless if you believe in old earth creationism or young earth creationism it’s just something that’s not supported anywhere by science or history. It has zero, not just 1, but zero supporting evidence. Adam as the Bible presents him simply couldn’t have ever existed.

2 Likes
10

Isn’t that circular reasoning?

“Type/antitype theology uses historical events. So Paul using Adam as an antitype means Adam is historical.”

“Adam is historical. So type/antitype theology has to always be about historical events.”

2 Likes
11

I think you’re familiar with the idea of cross references? Let’s look at one, Luke 17:26–30:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so, too, it will be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them; it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

If this proves Noah’s flood couldn’t be a localized event, that would also apply for the destruction Lot was saved from. Or perhaps “all of them” simply means all of them affected by that particular example. Localized events can also show what “it will be like … on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.”

4 Likes
12

If someone said, “He was a large man, almost as large as Paul Bunyan himself,” I wouldn’t think this is an indication that Paul Bunyan was a real historical person.

4 Likes
13

I really wonder what’s going on when God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love …” (Gen. 22:2). Almost everything in that seems wrong.

Abraham has many other sons by Hagar and his concubine wife Keturah – Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. I don’t think it works to say the sons with Keturah were born later, since that would undermine the miraculous nature of Isaac’s birth (see 17:17). So Isaac is decidedly not his only son.

As for “whom you love,” we never see that in Genesis. Abraham cares for Ishmael. Even as God promises Isaac’s birth, Abraham says, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” (17:18). We don’t see that kind of affection towards Isaac. After Isaac is born, Abraham throws a party, but Sarah is upset to see “her son” Isaac and Ishmael happy together. She tells Abraham to send Ishmael away from “my son” Isaac (21:9–10). Genesis records that “The matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son” (21:11). It’s almost as if Abraham considers Ishmael his son and Isaac Sarah’s son. Abraham is distressed over having to send Ishmael away, though he does finally do so.

When God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the contrast is striking. This time there’s no recorded distress. Unlike his conversation with God over the destruction of Sodom, there’s no argument, no negotiation. He immediately sets out to obey. He does call Isaac “my son” on their journey, and he does say “God will provide the lamb.” Abraham does seem to trust that God will somehow preserve Isaac’s life, or bring him back to life as Hebrews puts it, so he really doesn’t seem to be distressed.

I think it’s fair to say that Abraham trusts God for other people’s lives. Earlier, he showed he was willing to give up his wife Sarah to save his own life (12:11–13; 20:11). He was willing to send Hagar and Ishmael out to certain death, if not for God’s protection. Now, he’s willing to kill Isaac. I don’t really see the growth. He trusts God for other people’s lives, but we already knew that.

Perhaps it was a mercy that God only asked him to offer his son, rather than trusting God with his own life. Maybe it shows God’s grace in lowering the bar for faith to a peg Abraham can clear.

2 Likes
14

Thats exactly what I said…the point is WHY?

Again,it for the purpose of trainjng. The entire bible isnt just a storybook…its a book trainjng us about questions of God. Type/antitype theology is one of the principles used within its pages.

Its not circular. If you are claiming the explanation itself is circular, then explanations are wasted and we live in our naivity.

You need to study some type/Antitype examples in the bible…one famous book containing this type of theology is the book of Daniel. The Baylonians are used extensively in bible theology to explain futuristic events, describe non godly people etc.

The Old Testament Sanctuary was another example…it explains exactly how salvation works and why atonement for sin is needed in the first place.

Noahs flood a third as it explains that the endgame for sin is a complete eradication of anything that lives that has been corrupted by sin.

15

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorah has nothing to do with the judgement in noahs flood… that one being a local city means the flood was local too.

The bible very clearly makes a distinction on who was killed in each event. We know the two are different in that way despite the common theme of death for the wages of sin.

A significant difference between the two events was that the angels told Lot to get out of the city for God was going to destroy it (the city and its people) and in Noahs day all were offered salvation. The angels did not offer salvation to anyone else in Sodom…only Lot and his family.

Sodom the city was then destroyed. Thats very different to “destroying every living thing that breathes on the earth” in the flood.

The common theme is that judgement means certain death.

Whats really interesting about judgement…in Hebrews 4.16, the redeemed walk in boldly before the throne of grace and recieve mercy, the wicked in Revelation have no access to the throne of grace. The same is found in Luke 16:19-31 when the rich man in Hades looks up and calls out to Abraham and Lazurus for help…hes clearly not anywhere near the throne of grace…no mercy is possible for him. He has woken up to find himself already in hell.

16

The point of the story is faith. Abraham was having trouble believing God’s promise that his descendants would be like the stars, particularly through Sarah who hadn’t given birth to any children for so so long. I think the turning point for Abraham was when Sarah became pregnant. He realized God could do anything. Abraham finally believed and surrendered Himself to God – whatever God commanded.

Of course God knew this. So why test Abraham? I don’t think it was to convince God as much as it was to convince Abraham that he had changed.

In the context of modern morality, God’s commandment is hard to accept. But it wasn’t modern times at all, and in the historical context, the reaction you and I have was not there. Besides, I don’t think it is so black and white. It can easily be argued that we bend a little bit too far in the protective/indulgent direction, giving our children too much freedom. To be sure, maybe in the past they weren’t protective enough and thought of children a bit too much like property and a resource. But I think there is a difficult balance to strike in there somewhere… for all of us. Like most modern parents I have likely put too much emphasis on freedom of choice, but the understanding that responsibility comes with freedom likely isn’t as automatic as we suppose.

It is interesting how much the contemplation of this story has inspired so much. I am remembering in particular how much Kierkegaard wrote about this story.

6 Likes
17

Good point! It reminds me of this:

Moberly on Genesis 22

"The general attitude to children in the ancient world was almost the exact opposite of that generally found in the modern West. Where the modern world has a high estimate of the value of children, which easily lapses into sentimentality, the ancient world had a low estimate, which easily lapsed into cruelty (most obviously in the widespread practice of the exposure, i.e., abandonment in the open to [127] death, of unwanted children). The adult, in particular the father, was considered the norm of life, and children, until they themselves reached adulthood, were considered as significant to the extent that they enhanced the worth of the father. Although the Old Testament generally encourages a humane attitude towards children (and towards orphans and widows, being the most vulnerable in society because left without domestic male protection), it does not generally question their subordinate importance in relation to the father, and this is particularly evident in some of the older strata. For example, on two occasions in Genesis (other than ch. 22), the story takes for granted that a father can make life and death decisions about his child (38.24, Judah with regard to his daughter-in-law, Tamar; 42.37, Reuben with regard to his two sons). The law of Deut. 21:18-21 envisages a father’s making a life and death decision with regard to a rebellious son, and Exod. 21.7 envisages a man’s selling his daughter as a slave. Jephtah sacrificed his daughter in fulfilment of a vow (Judg. 11.34-40). The assumption common to all these passages is that the role and worth of the child is relative to, and dependent upon, the father. The material is, in on important sense of the term, patriarchal in outlook.

"In the light of these passages, it is clear that Genesis 22 is making a similar assumption – Abraham naturally has the right of life and death over Isaac. …

“In short, therefore, whatever moral scruples the story of Genesis 22 may initially arouse in a modern context, in its own context any notion of immorality is out of place.”

John W. Rogerson, R.W.L. Moberly, and William Johnstone, Genesis and Exodus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 126-127, 129.

Sarah was barren, so another man taking her did not really impact Abraham’s hope for an heir, if it wasn’t for Yahweh’s promise that it would be through Sarah.

Isaac was already born when Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. So there were also no risks involved.

But then God asked him through kill his heir! With both Lot and Ishmael gone, he would have to sacrifice his only child by his first wife.

“throughout the story of Abraham, Isaac is always seen as significant in terms of Abraham, for the birth of Isaac means that Abraham will no longer be without an heir by Sarah, and that the promise to Abraham made by God will be fulfilled. At the beginning of Genesis 22 something is said about Isaac, not about Isaac in himself but about his significance for Abraham (‘your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love’, v. 2), and at the end of the story it is Abraham who is commended and promised further blessing because he has not withheld his only son from God (22.16-18). The significance of Isaac in Genesis 22, therefore, is not that of a unique human being whom it would be immoral to kill. Rather, as Abraham’s son, he is Abraham’s hope for the future. Isaac is Abraham’s most precious possession, a possession all the more significant because promised by God and waited for over so many years. What Abraham’s test of obedience consists in, therefore, is a willingness to surrender to God that which is most precious to him, that in which he could most legitimately have confidence and hope, precisely because it was promised and given by God in the first place.”

John W. Rogerson, R.W.L. Moberly, and William Johnstone, Genesis and Exodus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 127.

2 Likes
18

I am not saying that the explanations are wasted.
Neither am I saying that antitypes are always non-historical.
I am saying that typology can use non-historical antitypes.

The Book of Jonah is clearly a historical novel (although you probably disagree). Yet Jesus uses the term “sign of Jonah” to explain what would happen after his death.

“This careful design is matched by a very distinct style of narrative. The story is full of stereotyped characters who, ironically, do the exact opposite of what you would expect. The prophet, a man of God, rebels against and can’t stand his own God. The sailors, who are supposed to be immoral pagans, have soft repentant hearts and turn to God in humility. The king of the most powerful murderous empire on Earth humbles himself because of Jonah’s five-word sermon—even his cows join in the repentance. This kind of story fits in with what we would today call satire—stories about well-known figures in extreme circumstances, using humor and irony to critique their stupidity and character flaws.”

https://bibleproject.com/guides/book-of-jonah/

2 Likes
19

As a possibility you may also interpret the story of Jonah (especially since Jesus referred to it) as prophetic as Paul explains in Romans 11, the branches of the olive tree, the gentiles crafted in, the natural branches (Israel) cut off, temporarily that is.

1 Like
20

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorah has everything to do with showing that the young-earth claim that Matthew 24 proves a global flood is incorrect. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is saying that judgement will come on those who are unprepared, and gives two examples. Elsewhere, the incident of the falling tower is used for the same message. Nothing can be concluded from the passages as to what is global versus local - it’s not what Jesus is talking about. The fact that Jesus uses Sodom as a comparison shows that a local event is adequate for the comparison He makes. Of course, this doesn’t prove that the flood wasn’t global either. But it does prove that young-earth claims to be biblical are problematic, when they claim that the Bible says something it doesn’t. To argue credibly, you need to carefully check whether it is a good argument, not just whether it is supporting what you want.

2 Likes