@bprjam In dealing with Adam and Eve I do not use the material/functional distinction that was the premise of my work in Genesis 1. Rather I propose that the forming accounts of Adam and Eve treat them as archetypes. The “materials” referred to are part of an archetypal representation in that they pertain to all of us. This is the common use of named ingredients in ancient Near Eastern accounts of human origins as well. The book will give more details and fill in the gaps. Note that in your repeated use of “seems” you demonstrate your dependence on how the text reads most easily to you as a person situated in your particular culture and your particular theological tradition.
Thank you for the interaction. I’ll have to add the book to my reading list.
As far as my use of “seems”, it’s an artifact of my postmodern paradigm. I’m uncomfortable saying most things with global certainty. Conclusions are usually subjective, since warrants are usually more or less convincing to me (or anyone, really). I believe that’s why the Biologos organization even exists, since the warrants for evolutionary creation (which are convincing to me) are not convincing to everyone. Advocation for the warrants (both Biblical and scientific) must be made until the conclusions seem convincing to others as well. But I digress. Thanks again for the post, and interacting with me on this very important topic.
1 Like
Merv. I do not concede that “any” perspective (scientific or not) that we want to force onto some passages can be correct. In this case, even though the earth has a circuit, it is still firm and solid, and does not move when you jump up and down on it. In the case of Genesis one and two, where two is an explanation in more detail of parts of chapter one, some different explanations may be possible or compatible, but not if they contradict the basic essence of Genesis one and two. We could argue about length of days, as the day-age people do, but that also has problems. We could argue that the universe, and the substance of the earth was created in a more indefinite period of time before the first day, but evolution itself as a process does not allow for God creating man from dust, and does not jive with the impact of man’s disobedience to God. Nor can we argue that the tale of dust to man is easier to understand in the ancient context (or in the present context) than the tale of animal to man, or microbes to mice. (Re-incarnation theory gives evidence of that.)
In addition, the assumption of uniformity is just an assumption. There is no inherent reason why mutation rates should stay constant, or why mountains should rise at a constant rate, or why sediment should be laid down slowly at the rates we see today, or why ice layers should form exactly at the rate and methods that we observe today, or that volcanoes should erupt at the general rates we observe today. We are constantly adjusting rates (CO2 concentrations), volcanic ash impacts, and we already know that various radiometric dating methods do not match each other, ie. helium zircons, C14 in millions of year old rock (not intrusions), but the ideology of evolution is just as strong as the ideology of YEC, so such possibilities are simply dismissed out of hand. Conclusions are drawn long before the data is available, and with often minimal (not statistically representative) data. (The pig’s tooth being transformed into an entire hominid species comes to mind.) As a theory, it is not trustworthy because of the ideology behind it. Many scientists could not even conceive of trying to deal with biology without it.
The theory of evolution is created to be the basis for understanding and interpreting everything, so everything is adjusted to it, and it is revised to adjust to itself. It is an ideology that cannot be falsified… it is merely adjusted. If this is fair for evolution, then it is fair for any alternate theories as well.
Nor am I convinced that the dichotomy between “natural causes” and “un-natural causes” is legitimate. From an evolutionary perspective, all the unnatural things that humans do are still very natural. And from a theological perspective, all the the miraculous things that God does, are very natural to him. For us to say that this or that can’t happen, is to presume a lot. To ask whether it did happen or not, is legitimate.
JohnZ wrote:
Merv. I do not concede that “any” perspective (scientific or not) that we want to force onto some passages can be correct.
“Force onto” was a poor choice of words on my part, and I agree (if indeed you do also) that we shouldn’t be force fitting anything into Scripture that doesn’t belong or isn’t already found there. In fact, I think that is an important point that Dr. Walton has been driving home here.
“Simultaneously hold” or “not be incompatible with” would have been better phrases I could have chosen regarding how we hold both theological assertions about God’s faithfulness being like a firm foundation, alongside scientific notions about a moving earth. They do not interfere with each other at all.
So simple, but that’s not evolution! Single organisms do not evolve–only populations do.
“The clincher for me is that it would have been so simple for the account to have said, “God took one of the animals and changed it into a man”.” -JohnZ
I think this issue could be somewhat resolved when one examines the overall context of the story of Adam & Eve. What is the purpose of the story? What was the author’s intentions? Etc. For instance in Genesis 2:7 we read that God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and then later on we read the consequences of Adam’s sin. In Genesis 3:19 we read " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for DUST thou art, and unto DUST shalt thou return."
Because we know from the previous chapter that man was made from dust, this passage from Genesis 3 makes coherent sense, and adds a sense of completion.
Reality = man is made of dust
Consequence of sin = returning thither to the dust
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that common descent of human beings is absolutely true. Would Moses INSTEAD have written “God took an animal and formed it into a man”? Would we come to Genesis 3:19 and feel somewhat confused as to why “dust” was mentioned, when it said earlier that we came from an animal?
I believe it is important to not only look at what biblical passages COULD have said, but also to examine WHY they were stated and what the message behind the story was. For me, when I read these passages, I feel that Moses’ intention with it was to say that we are earthy/corruptible and that the sin creates enmity between man and God. Not to give a science lesson of the exact “how” but instead the more vital “why”… does that make sense?
When you read the Babylonian creation story, it talks about how humans were created “from the blood and remains of dead gods” as well as for the purpose of slavery to kings and victor gods. To me that speaks much more about mindset , and the hopelessness of life that the Babylonians felt in their hearts and minds, rather than trying to explain rational or reasonable means of origins, when that wasn’t the mindset of ancient people. Why was more important than how.
Now, I’m not trying to argue for common descent, but merely attempting to make the case that if it IS true, then I don’t believe that would really affect the nature and purpose of Genesis 2-3. You could perhaps make a better case at explaining the creation of the woman, rather than the man… for that is the aspect of the story that deeply puzzles me.
Cheers, my friend.
It’s simple. If God had made man from an animal, then he simply would not have said, “From it you were taken, ,unto dust you will return”.
I hope I’m not out-of-bounds in referring to a piece on Jon Garvey’s blog site that is a thoughtful response to this very column. This one is authored by Eddie (a sometimes commenter here). If Dr. Walton or anybody else wanted to respond to it either here or there, I know I, for one, would continue reading with interest.
@Mervin_Bitikofer here is my response:
I make no claim that some events could not be extraordinary or bypass natural causes. It is just that the Bible does not have ways to categorize the distinction. Of course God does extraordinary things—but that has does not have to do with whether they bypassed natural laws or not. The earthquake in Nepal is extraordinary, but that does not mean that it bypassed natural laws. My view is not naturalistic—it is entirely supernaturalistic.
“It’s simple. If God had made man from an animal, then he simply would not have said, “From it you were taken, ,unto dust you will return”.” -JohnZ
Hello again John! I respect your opinion and point of view. My purpose wasn’t to say that God made Adam through supernatural means OR evolutionary means. I was simply saying that saying “man is made from dust” is not a contradiction of, say, an evolutionary explanation. We ARE made of dust. And the mammals are made of dirt… Genesis says “Let the EARTH bring forth life”… as well as sea mammals are said to be made and/or formed in the sea: Let the WATERS teem with life. etc.
I don’t think it’s exactly fair to say what God would and would not have said, because to me that’s putting words in God’s mouth. If you read Genesis 1 you’ll notice there’s not a single mention of any of the planets that orbit our sun: Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc. Nor is there a single mention of coral reefs or even mountains. But I don’t believe that anyone would come to the conclusion that God didn’t make all those things because they aren’t mentioned in Genesis 1.
Many of the ancient Jews believed there was some form of kinship between man and animal because both are created on the same creation day. Even though man is made in God’s image it’s peculiar that we don’t even get our own creation day… it’s interesting!
Even Solomon who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes and was granted great wisdom from God in a dream, had this to say:
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21
“I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”
Although we bear God’s image there is still that carnal side to humanity…
Again, I’m not against believing God made man a very special creation, and even instantaneously. I’ve believed that all my life actually… I just find it easier to appreciate the Bible for it’s multiple layers of complexity and wisdom when I don’t put so much weight onto one particular interpretation. and instead try to consider all angles. What did it mean back then and what does it mean now? Do I gain a fuller understanding when I consider the ancient cultural context it was written in? Why does the Bible tell me certain information on specific topics and yet withheld other information? These are the kinds of the questions that I attempt to ask myself in hopes that I can gain understanding and keep humble.
One theologian I like is John Lennox, who takes your view that man is a very special creation. But he also believes that universe is very ancient. But to me, he’s a very a fascinating guy to listen too, and always very concise and logical.
Cheers, mate. Blessings 
Thanks, Dr. Walton, for this quick reply. Perhaps we need to add the category of “supernaturalist” to our cultural vocabulary.
I haven’t [yet] read your work, apart from what you’ve published on this site; but I look forward to reading your insights in greater detail.
Okay Timothy, If God could have said, “from dust you are made (rather than “you were taken”), and to dust you shall return.”, regardless of evolution, then your point that man’s creation as made by God from dust was only written to make this concept easier to understand, carries no weight. Man knew from the beginning that he needed to eat, that what he ate came from the ground, and that therefore he also depended on dirt, and consisted of similar materials to dirt. In that sense, man was made from dirt anyway. But the text indicates God taking dust to make man in an explicit way. It is not a statement like Ecclesiastes, which generalizes about man’s condition, to make it like animals in the way both eat, sleep, procreate, and die in similar ways.
When Genesis says “let the earth bring forth life”, we do not know what specific form of “earth” is being used, and should not draw more conclusions than is warranted. “Earth” can refer to soil, the globe, and sometimes to people of the earth, or to all things on earth, depending on the context. The part that should not be missed, is “everything according to its kind”. But if the text says that God brought forth creatures out of the ground (Genesis 2) then it makes more sense that God also made man from dust, after his kind, since he also did this with other “kinds”.
It would not be necessary to take seriously what was omitted. And understanding ancient culture and language can help us to understand the bible better. But the key is better understanding, and the key is not to assume that culture determined the message.
God is often counter-cultural.
@Eddie I am not a philosopher and know nothing about Medieval Islamic theologians. I agree neither with Kant nor with NOMA. I don’t speak for TE or EC and have not self-identified as either. My only point is that in Old Testament theology and my own, the fact that we can describe something by natural laws does not mean that God is not acting. Therefore, both regular and irregular reflect the work of God. I have no inclination to try to sort that out philosophically. But I said that plainly in my post, so I am not really sure what is in question. The Bible does not address modern philosophy any more than it addresses modern science or modern cosmic geography. To classify it with regard to occasionalism is no more possible than to classify it with regard to common descent. We have to stop trying to force it into modern categories.
Hello John.
My argument was based solely on the “dust” that’s being referred too in Genesis 2-3. When I read the story with my fallible interpretation it seems to focus on the earthiness of man, and that there is great strife when man sins against God. Sure, everyone knew they needed to eat something, and that the human body is made up of some earthy material… but not everyone had the idea in their head that “sinning against God means death” which is the focal point of the story. Even in today’s world, when someone we love passes, we say “they are returning to the dust” even though on a technical standpoint they were formed in their mother’s womb, and their body is simply decomposing.
If you read about Adam and Eve, as a whole, taken as a completely literal historical account, then there’s no way to “reconcile” it with modern day thought about macro-evolution. You’re only real solution would be to take it as mostly allegorical or figurative. Not necessarily condoning that point-of-view, but I’m just letting you know that’s what people are up against.
I know I’m already rehashing what’s been previously discussed, but when you read about the passage in Joshua 10:12-14 when Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still - even though on a technical viewpoint the moon “literally stood still” while the sun only “figuratively stood still” in a cosmic sense. In today’s world we read this passage and don’t think a lot of it, unaware that for thousands of years people read this passage as a statement of absolute physical reality. Today we say “It is written in the language of appearance and observation”, even though the text never says it “appeared that way” nor did God step up in and say “Well, you know Joshua, what I really did was slowed down the rotation of the earth so it appeared to stand still.” All those things could have been said, and would arguably make more sense, but it never was stated because that wasn’t the point. The point was that Joshua needed more sunlight to continue his battle, and it didn’t ultimately matter “how” God brought about this miracle to him… what mattered was that God was listening to him. Just a couple centuries ago, this passage, and others like it that claim “the earth is unshakable that it cannot be moved” were a hot debate, but today we don’t see it that way… but what changed? Indeed a very small fragment of the Christian community still hold to a Geocentric model, and that’s okay. Because ultimately it doesn’t matter if a Christian holds to a geo-, helio- or acentric model of the cosmos. It doesn’t affect the faith.
You are correct that the uniformity of nature is an assumption. But it’s an assumption that came right out of Christian theology (such as matter and time having a definite beginning point… which is now today’s standard cosmology). Many early Christians were very adamant about the doctrine of the Two Books that goes like this:
God wrote Two Books: the book of his Word (Scripture) and the book of his Works (Nature). Since God is the ultimate author of both, than neither books can be in conflict with each other. Thus any serious contradiction between the two must be seriously investigated and not simply shrugged off as inconsequential. And this concept comes right out of Scripture: Psalms 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 are great examples. They were very adamant about this doctrine even though in their day there was no serious scientific objection to the Bible, to the scale of today’s world.
It’s true that God could have slowed down the speed of light after the days of Creation. He could have made the earth appear old, when it actuality it was young. The difficulty in that is how it would jive with the Two Books, and god’s Revelation in Nature? How would it jive with Psalms 19 that makes it clear that the heavenly bodies “utter speech” and “give forth knowledge”… does it imply that God is some form of trickster, or that God would lead people to him through his creation?
When I was growing up, I had the belief that mutations occurred after the Fall of Man. That creatures like “porcupines” didn’t come into existence until after Adam’s sin, because the porcupine’s needles are only necessary for self defense. That the law of entropy didn’t take place until sometime after the Fall, even though the law of entropy is entangled into almost everything… the sun, gravity. deterioration, etc. I became so enraptured in these ideas that I eventually had to stop and ask myself more important questions: what is the message that the Scriptures are conveying to me? I discovered it was much more profitable to me to gain a spiritual message, than worry myself with the logistics of something literally taking place, when I can’t be certain that that was the message the author was attempting to convey.
I try my best to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. To hold ideas such as entropy entering the world after the fall, of evolutionary origins, of literal 24 hour Creation days, in a state of limbo, because I can’t be absolutely certain that that is the point of the message. What I can be certain is that everyone is need of a savior. That everyone is a sinner and can’t “earn” salvation… but it’s only through grace. If my focus is on this message, than other issues seem to pale in comparison.
The issue of “according to it’s kind” does seem to imply a fixity of species. The difficulties lie in trying to define what “kinds” mean, and also in trying to understand the fossil record, and what that means. There are groups of people that see the record as a series of events in the strata, that took place over long periods of time, and yet don’t jump to the idea of animals “changing into one another”… which is called Progressive Creationism. Then there’s the TE (theistic evolutionists) that seem to take “according to it’s kinds”, and treat it in a similar fashion that people have treated Joshua’s Long Day… a statement of immediate appearance and observation. I think there was an article on here that I read that talked something about “Genesis not being anti-scientific or un-scientific, but rather NON-scientific.” I don’t see it as that extreme since the claims of science and the claims of the Bible overlap on some issues and are not mutually exclusive (like the Universe having a beginning and the heavens expanding)…
I think there is something to be said about what information is being given and what is being withheld. For instance when you compare the genealogies of both Seth and Cain’s line in Genesis 4 and 5 you’ll find something interesting. In Seth’s line (which is more-or-less the “good line”) we are told of specific dates of when each patriarch begat children and when they died, but we know nothing about their livelihood or what they did to survive. In Cain’s line (more-or-less the bad line) the exact opposite is true. We nothing about when they gave birth to children or how precisely long they lived. But we do know quite a bit about their professions: Cain built a city after his son, Enoch; Jabal was the father of such that dwell in tents; Jubal was the father of such that handle harp and organ; and Tubalcain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. Is the all the information they had at their disposal or was that some sort of spiritual intention behind this information? Some things to ponder about…
You said that culture doesn’t define the message and that’s true… but culture definitely plays a part. For instance, in modern day culture, we hold almost no meaning to numbers beyond it’s plain numerical value (except for the lingering superstition still prevalent in the number 13). But in the ancient east that wasn’t the case. In Matthew 1:17, on the list of names for Jesus’ genealogy, it says:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
The problem is that when you actually count the numbers of names listed prior to this there are only thirteen names for the “carrying away into Babylon unto Christ”. And in the second list of 14 names Matthew skips 4 kings, and there’s a 300 year gap between Salmon and Boaz in the first set of 14 names. If we are reading the three groups of 14 literally, in our modern way of thinking, then we would come to the conclusion that Matthew made a mistake literally just a sentence after his own passage, when he made it a point TO tell us the numbers of names. The question is why does it even matter to know the number of names that lead up to Jesus, and why did Matthew seem to manipulate the numbers to add up to 14 three times?
The answer has to do with the gematria and numerology in ancient culture, which I won’t go into detail right here. I’d recommend this short 4 min video that goes into detail about this passage:
I hope you can understand my perspective as I try to understand yours. The ancient culture has to be taken into consideration, and we have to know what it meant back then, otherwise we could make a mistake in reading with 21st century eyes. I’ll leave you with a quote by Carol Hill, who wrote an article called Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis:
"To faithfully interpret Genesis is to be faithful to what it really means as it was written, not to what people living in a later age assume or desire it to be. It is also ironic that the mythological world created by many well-intentioned and serious “literal” Christians, based partly on the numbers in Genesis, has caused millions of people to reject the Bible and the truths contained therein.’
I could be totally wrong in my interpretation, but I have to consider all options, and weigh in the balances what is the more clear information that is being presented, and the what the goal/purpose of the passage was to the contemporary audience as well as what it means today.
Peace to you, my friend.
I’m new to this site BioLogos so I’m not completely familiar with the technical details. I did give a video link, but it doesn’t seem to pop up… in any case the video is called Supposed Bible Contradiction #2 by a YouTuber InspiringPhilosophy. It’s a very interesting clip, in my opinion.
tim, I agree ancient culture needs to be considered when reading scripture. I do not agree that ancient culture determined the general message nor the individual facts and truths that scripture presents.
It’s true that God could have slowed down the speed of light after the days of Creation. He could have made the earth appear old, when it actuality it was young. The difficulty in that is how it would jive with the Two Books, and god’s Revelation in Nature? How would it jive with Psalms 19 that makes it clear that the heavenly bodies “utter speech” and “give forth knowledge”… does it imply that God is some form of trickster, or that God would lead people to him through his creation?
Interesting point comes to mind here, Timothy. Supposing God did slow down the speed of light after creation. Supposing we discovered that was the best answer for the observable phenomena? Would that imply that God is a trickster? I would say, No. It would only imply that God did things differently in the past than how he does things today… or it implies we have not yet discovered all the laws of the universe yet. It is not God who is the trickster, but it is we who have tricked ourselves into thinking that things have always happened in the past at the same rate and pace as they happen today. (If the speed of light was different in the past, which I am not arguing for.) This principle applies also to various other things, such as rate of mutations, rate of mountain uplift, rate of tectonic plate movement, rate of volcanic activity, rate of incoming radiation, rate of moon’s recession from earth, rate of magnetic reversals in the earth, rate of magnetic field decline, rate of the sun’s expansion, or shrinkage, etc., etc.