How can Genesis be interpreted to agree with Theistic Evolution?

The name Denis Lamoureux is mentioned on this site whenever concordism is mentioned. So I viewed one of his lectures called “Scientific Predictions of the Christian Approach to Evolution,” where he makes a simple case against Scientific Concordism by evaluating the predictability of the three leading interpretation styles of Genesis 1 with how the fossil evidence should appear if their beliefs are correct. Web Lectures

He starts with a true but loaded definition. Scientific Concordism is the assumption that God revealed scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. (emphasis his)

He made these conclusions (my wording):

  1. The use of Scientific Concordism by Young Earth Creationism failed the predictability test; therefore, Young Earth Creationism is false.
  2. The use of Scientific Concordism by Old Earth Creationism failed the predictability test; therefore, Old Earth Creationism is false.
  3. Therefore, Scientific Concordism is false.
  4. Evolutionary Creation accepts the geologic fossil record and rejects Scientific Concordism; therefore, Evolutionary Creation is true. This leaves us with only one way to read Genesis 1, which is to use the biblical writer’s knowledge of science. We should not expect the text to match modern science.

My problem:
Even though I agree with the first two statements, the third statement is not a conclusion of logic. Lamoureux’s test does not falsify the assumption within Scientific Concordism. The test falsifies the two interpretation styles by their use of Scientific Concordism. Of course, YEC would complain that the geologic fossil chart is false and OEC would say he was interpreting their interpretation incorrectly.

The test does not show Evolutionary Creationism as true or false, because that interpretation style was not part of the test. Lamoureux did not attempt to use Scientific Concordism in an analysis of Evolutionary Creationism or use Evolutionary Creationism in an analysis of Scientific Concordism. He did assert that the two are not compatible, but he did not give a reason except for the assumption that Scientific Concordism is false.

Lamoureux does not prove that the only way to interpret Genesis 1 is a rejection of Scientific Concordism. That is his assumption.

I don’t know about your wording.

Do you know of any attempt at scientific concordism that has not broken down?

1 Like

I listened to his conclusion a few times to consolidate his beliefs. I apologize if I miss something important.

Augustine succeeded. That lasted for a long time and served the church well. I agree that he did “gymnastics” to get there, but it was a totally unique and brilliant interpretation. It fell apart because our knowledge of nature grew into understanding, which rejected his cosmology. That does not mean our cosmology is too superior for God’s inspiration to succeed again.

Modern attempts started in the wrong place. Most of them contain dogmatic mythology that is not in the texts. Most of them retain beliefs about nature that have been falsified for several hundred years. They use a distorted interpretation of the text and try to force fit a distorted interpretation of nature into that limited format. If God inspired the texts to be about reality, how can those attempts do anything but fail?

As far as I can tell, none the supporters of Evolutionary Creationism (or whatever your name preference is) have tried because they assume concordism is impossible based on the previous attempts. That does not mean it can’t be done if the attempt starts in the correct place and does not distort the text or nature. However, it will never be done by those who will not try.

1 Like

If this works for you, hey, I wish you well.

Personally, fwiw, I don’t find it compelling, because [1] I don’t think it’s what the text is trying to do and [2] this approach is largely unfalsifiable. As best I can understand your position, any perceived mismatch between the actual progression of evolution and the order of the days can be magically hand-waved away by saying that either “that’s not the particular, focused snapshot that God in His wisdom chose to show the prophet” or “the prophet clearly misunderstood the vision God was showing him” (or the slightly more nuanced “the prophet did his best to understand given his limited Ancient Near Eastern cultural framework”). Oh, and [3]

as far as I can see, this fixes nothing whatsoever. Land-dwelling creatures always appear before sky-borne creatures, whether you’re talking about flying insects (which seem to be included in the ancient Hebrew category of עוף) or flying reptiles (pterosaurs) or flying dinosaurs (birds) or flying mammals (bats).

  1. If you don’t think that the text is trying to communicate to ancient peoples in the broadest possible terms how God created life on earth, then I don’t know what you think it is that the text is trying to do. Keep in mind that a text can do multiple things at one time. 2. My approach is unfalsifiable? I WIN!!! Yay. Now I can stop waving my hands. 3. [quote=“AMWolfe, post:95, topic:5065”]
    Land-dwelling creatures always appear before sky-borne creatures
    [/quote]

Correct, which is why dinosaurs are implied in day 5, dinosaurs being precursors to birds. Maybe that is why in verse 22 it says that the birds are to fill the earth אֶרֶץ and not the sky שָׁמַיִם. Evolution is implied in the text with life coming out of the oceans and filling the land.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Hi Jamie,

You ask a good question about creeping things. At a remove of thousands of years, the definitions of words are pretty tricky. So let’s do a little word study together. I’ll learn, too!

The word in Hebrew is רֶמֶשׂ (remes).

I’ll get back to the Hebrew passages in a moment, but I think it’s enlightening to look at the later Greek understandings of the category. The Septuagint translates it with the Greek word ἑρπετῶν (herpetōn). This root is of course where we get “herpetology,” the study of amphibians and reptiles, but that’s an English word so it doesn’t tell us anything. Interestingly, the New Testament uses this Greek word similarly to the way Genesis uses רֶמֶשׂ, as a major taxonomic category of living things. The key verses here are these:

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals (τετραπόδων) and ἑρπετῶν. (Rom 1:23)

For every species of beasts (θηρίων) and birds, of ἑρπετῶν and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. (James 3:7)

and there were in it [i.e., the great sheet of Peter’s vision] all kinds of four-footed animals and ἑρπετὰ of the earth and birds of the air. (Acts 10:12)

and when I had fixed my gaze on it [again, the great sheet] and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the ἑρπετὰ and the birds of the air. (Acts 11:6)

In the cultural categories of their times, this was clearly a major subdivision of animals. It doesn’t seem to have a neat one-to-one correspondence with any of our modern English categories.

In Hebrew, for the most part, it seems to do the same thing. It appears this way of course in Genesis 1 (verses 21, 26, 28, and 30) and the Noah story, where the categories mirror Genesis 1 (Gen 7: 8, 14, and 21; 8: 17, 19; 9:2). Apart from that, here’s what we find.

In that day I will also make a covenant for them With the beasts (חַיַּ֤ת, living things) of the field, The birds of the sky And the רֶמֶשׂ of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land, And will make them lie down in safety. (Hos 2:18)

So I entered and looked, and behold, every form of רֶמֶשׂ and beasts (בְהֵמָה) and detestable things, with all the idols of the house of Israel, were carved on the wall all around. (Eze 8:10)

The fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the beasts (חַיַּ֣ת, living things) of the field, all the רֶמֶשׂ that creep on the earth, and all the men who are on the face of the earth will shake at My presence; the mountains also will be thrown down, the steep pathways will collapse and every wall will fall to the ground. (Eze 38:20)

He [Solomon in his wisdom] spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that grows on the wall; he spoke also of animals (הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה) and birds and רֶמֶשׂ and fish. (1 Ki 4:33)

Beasts (חַיָּ֥ה, living things) and all cattle (בְּהֵמָ֑ה); and רֶמֶשׂ and winged fowl; [among the many things commanded to praise the Lord] (Ps 148:10)

There are two passages that don’t fit this mold, where רֶמֶשׂ seems to refer to some kind of fish. Of course, words often have several distinct meanings (polysemy), and there might also be different ways of interpreting these bits of passages. But here they are, for completeness’s sake:

24 O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions. 25 There is the sea, great and broad, In which are רֶמֶשׂ without number, Animals (חַיּ֥וֹת, living things) both small and great. 26 There the ships move along, And Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it. 27 They all wait for You To give them their food in due season. (Ps 104:24-27; note that Psalm 104 is a psalm of creation)

13b Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they? 14 Why have You made men like the fish of the sea, Like רֶמֶשׂ without a ruler over them? 15 The Chaldeans bring all of them up with a hook, Drag them away with their net, And gather them together in their fishing net. Therefore they rejoice and are glad. 16 Therefore they offer a sacrifice to their net And burn incense to their fishing net; Because through these things their catch is large, And their food is plentiful. 17 Will they therefore empty their net And continually slay nations without sparing? (Hab 1:13-17)

These last two passages both seem to connect to the sense of a school of fish that swarms. But I wouldn’t think it would be wise to use these last two passages to read into all the other uses of רֶמֶשׂ.

Summarizing: As a major category of living things, it seems to be frequently played against birds, fish, and beasts. But how would an Ancient Near Easterner define beasts? Multiple words are used (חַיָּ֥ה, בְּהֵמָ֑ה) and I don’t have time for more word study today. We don’t have any science textbooks from the Ancient Near East, so it’s not as if we have a list of what they meant by these words. I suspect further word study won’t resolve this. So does it mean (picking some common creatures that were surely known to the author) snakes? frogs? ants? mice (as you suggested)? I suspect mice is the least likely option and reptiles the most likely, but I have zero proof of this.

…but this is kind of why I think we’re missing the point. The point is not, “So God showed me this one thing in one of the visions he showed me, and I’m going to describe it as a remes.” The point is, “God made all living things, which in my culture includes the categories of bird, beast, livestock, fish, sea monster, and remes.” If we look at what the author was saying in his wider cultural context, we don’t have to do this bizarre sort game of trying to figure out which Linnean taxonomic category the author was trying to convey with each of his ancient words. He wasn’t trying to convey Linnean taxonomies at all. He was describing God as the creator of all living things, and he used all the major categories of life that he knew.

2 Likes

Thank you for that very complete answer. You have a lot of knowledge on this subject. I noticed that Beasts of the field is strongly suggestive of cows and grazing animals. I’m not sure mice fit in that category either. But I see your point and I will think on that. I think we are both in agreement that the point of Genesis is that God created everything. However I still don’t think that the vision interpretation is any sort of stretch or reach because it seems to me to be a very simple plausible idea and one that is not mutually exclusive of poetry interpretations.

2 Likes

Oh, I don’t have a lot of knowledge on the subject. I can find my way around an online Strong’s Concordance and an online Septuagint; that’s really all that response took. Like I said, I was actually learning all that alongside you as I researched my response.

At any rate, if the vision idea makes sense to people, then personally I’m happy. It’s certainly a whole lot better (that is, it takes a more honest approach toward the scientific data) than the young-earth view. I don’t wish on anybody that they have more challenges with origins issues than they already do. Working through this is hard stuff!

Peace.

There is no point in trying, since most people realize that Genesis clearly reflects ancient science, which doesn’t detract from its timeless message. Furthermore, nature can be studied by anybody, and the scientific enterprise has been very fruitful.

1 Like

Well thanks for looking into it for me then. I have to figure out how to use those myself. Peace to you too.

1 Like

That is a very sad statement. There was no point in traveling to the bottom of the ocean, yet people have and found it rewarding. Dito for almost every discovery in history. Church people and many scientists claimed there was no way to fly or go to the moon or build a faster computer. They did not make the discoveries.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. What scientists, and what Church people claimed there was no way to build a faster computer? However, why don’t you apply for an Evolution and Christian Faith Grant from BioLogos to see if they will fund you in your quest for concordism?

I get that it really bothers you that amphibians and lizards evolved before birds, but they don’t show up in Genesis until day 5. Luckily for us, you have given us three arguments to pick from which we can use to resolve any little conundrum. Thanks for that. I’m going to go with the first and the third. It seems clear from your word study that ἑρπετῶν [/quote]
is unclean animals such as frogs and reptiles etc. As such, I don’t think that they would be important enough to the ancient semetic peoples to warrant their own special day (vision), so they just get lumped in with livestock on day 5. And yes, I believe that the origins of the Genesis account predate the mosaic law.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that there was a period of time when salamanders and possums ruled the earth. Does anyone really care? Why was there no “possum and salamander” enclosure in the Jurassic Park movie? Because it doesn’t make for exciting narrative, that’s why. You can’t have a Land Rover chase with a monster marsupial that plays dead at the first sign of danger.

There was a time when fish ruled the world. There was a time when dinosaurs (birds) ruled the world. There was a time when herd animals such as buffalo, reindeer etc ruled the world. There was an age of fish. There was an age of dinosaurs. There was an age of herds. Was there an age of frogs? If there was an age of frogs would that warrant it’s own Nova special? Even if it did warrant it’s own Nova special, would it get play during pledge week? Sorry, but the creepy critters get lumped in with the herd animals.

Here is a link to a good on-line concordance. https://www.blueletterbible.org/

Since their origins, microbes have ruled the world.:slight_smile:

1 Like

That is very true; I remember when the late Stephen Jay Gould pointed that out years ago. And the cells in each person’s microbiome, inside and out, outnumber the cells in his body!

Since before thecreation of active culture yoghurt, microbes have ruled my lower intestine, but try explaining that to a prehistory Shepherd.

Did Adam have a microbiome?

1 Like

I don’t believe in a literal Adam.

1 Like

Sort of tongue in cheek question, as if he did , God would have had to create a lot bacteria at the same time as Adam.

1 Like