That’s part of what the judge is trying to decide - does Bob, or does he not, testify about some of key implications of Sam’s testimony? And if he does, precisely what is he saying?
As I hope I’ve communicated, I’m attracted to your logic. However, if it’s a matter of my going to geology to determine the age of the earth because it can’t be determined from the Bible, then it doesn’t help me.
If, on the other hand, you could help me see how the Bible even allows for a billion-year-old earth it would open the door you want me to walk through. I currently read it as foreclosing that possibility.
If this hermeneutic is more faithful to Scripture, does it mean that you apply it to all of Scripture? If so, what triggers do you look for in a text to decide whether to apply this hermeneutic? If not, what triggers do you see in Genesis 1-11 which allow you to interpret it differently from what follows?
A poet does not need history to make a point about truth. If, however, he employs history to make such a point, it ought not be counterfactual.
Mike
This is not a bad summary, which I’ve found helpful in the past. I’d want to nuance some of what he says, particularly with regard to Aquinas, and words like “autonomy” and “chance” - which are sometimes used as authorities out of the context of what Thomas meant by them in support of unguided evolution - to Aquinas, as to Calvin, every detail of creation is governed by providence.
But that aside, it’s a good summary of how creation continua is mainstream tradition. Note that some modern writers on evolution have sought to make that and ex nihilo creation alternatives. But throughout the tradition, they are simply different aspects of God’s work, not competing theories.
My background is without YEC or OEC, or for that matter TE, so I guess my comment may seem strange to some, but nonetheless, I ask, “what portion of the Bible allows billions of years, or a few years, for any natural phenomena we observe? By this I mean how could one read the Bible to obtain ages of hills, oceans, planets, etc?”
Allow me to pause and validate some of the assumptions I’m carrying.
- Some OEC’s accept evolution.
- Some OEC’s do not accept evolution.
- No YEC’s accept evolution.
It might sound like a stupid question, but I just want to make sure I don’t have a blind spot here.
2 Likes
I add a bit of nuance to this. Allow me to take your statement and restate it this way.
If history is employed, it ought not to be counter-factual according to accepted understandings of the time.
And even this is still fails to capture more that needs to be said. There are two ways in which current understandings (“history”) could be used:
-
in an incidental or illustrative way --i.e. to help develop understanding of something else entirely.
-
in a foundational way – i.e. the teaching builds on the mentioned history in a way that depends on its actual truth like a conclusion which depends on a premise.
Here is an example of the first one above. I am an ancient teacher trying to help a pupil understand how something (an animal perhaps) circles its prey, and I say “It does for a small time just like the sun circles the earth.” Such a teaching remains intact even if it is discovered later that the sun doesn’t circle the earth at all, because I wasn’t teaching that it does so; and a contemporary reader of my words would be 100% in error to think my point was about anything other than the animal. I was employing apparent motion of the sun to make another point entirely --and the latter point is the only real one.
Jesus’ parable about the mustard seed (or any of his other parables) are also in this category. It is wrong for us to think that the prodigal must have historicity before we can accept the truth of its teaching. We should look for the actual points he is making to us rather than try to make something of the incidental understandings of the time that he employs for illustrative purposes. Now, yes – it ought to at least be an accepted understanding of the audience, lest it be a poorly chosen illustration. One supposes they all knew of such dangers along roads connecting cities like Jerusalem or Jericho so that the Good Samaritan story connects with them, but you and I are 100% wrong if we make such things into necessary premises of his parables or think them in any way about those incidentals. The mustard seed is an even better illustration of my point in this regard since we now know it indeed is not the smallest of all seeds. But Jesus teaching that employs this understanding is not one whit touched or troubled. Only the modern notions of what inerrancy ought to look like become troubled and must commence with their rescue gymnastics.
The #2 (foundational) way more matches your expectation. If I was teaching my pupil, “the sun is moving very fast because, you see, it circles the earth once every day” – now here your assertion that my “history” ought to be true does apply full force. I have made it foundational (not incidental or merely illustrative) to what I am teaching. When it turns out that the sun doesn’t actually move around the earth, my teaching fails. (Yes --it turns out to be right anyway, but because of galactic motion – not for the reason that I gave.) One rightly holds the conclusion suspect when a false premise is discovered.
I think our real issue is that many want to turn incidental, illustrative things in some passages into full-fledged premises. What they are protecting is not so much Scripture itself (as they insist) as their own modern notion of what infallibility or inerrancy should look like. In doing so, the real aim of the passage (the discernment of which ought always to be our aim) is obscured or even jeopardized and violence is done to Scriptures.
Edit: more than a few clarifiying edits were added to improve wording and more closely make my points.
That would seem obvious, but it seems most YECs now accept change in species over time, within “kinds”. “Change over time” is the scientific minimalist definition of evolution, so that makes them evolutionists! And many accept Darwinian (and other variants of) microevolution, ie within species or perhaps somewhat larger limits. BUT they reject universal common ancestry and Darwinian processes applied beyond “kinds”.
Ah, yes - the variation in how “evolution” can be defined. Thanks for the refinement.
I’m not sure this is true anymore. Some YEC groups allow hyper- speciation of the animals released from the ark in order to explain where all the species came from!
[ I see I’m late with this comment. I salute @Jon_Garvey ]
How does ANY book… purporting to describe actual events allow some of it to be rejected? Do we reject the various bios of George Washington as soon as we find reports of the story that he chopped down the cherry tree within Them?
I might not track with every single point you’re wanting to make here, but I certainly agree that there are nuances which deserve consideration.
The Bible doesn’t tell you everything. The people who wrote it had no idea of the vast age of the earth and when they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit He had no way to convey that information to them. The only record we have of knowledge being transmitted from God to man is when God speaks to a prophet about a future event. I don’t think we have any cases of a prophetic past being given to man.
Also remember why we have the Scriptures. They are to “to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”, 2 Timothy 3:15. The age of the earth is not a salvation issue, unless you are Ken Ham, so I wouldn’t expect to find anything related to the age of the earth just as I wouldn’t expect to find anything on quantum mechanics.
First let me ask what it is you believe that prevents an old earth from being correct.
The only way to get a 6,000 year old earth is if you make the assumption that the ages of people and the genealogy presented is done in the precise, Western style. With this assumption the age of the earth question is settled. Now approach this using the eyes of the authors of the OT. They often used honorific ages for their ancestors. The didn’t consider it lying it was just the way it was done. Also realize that B could be considered the son of A when A was actually the great-great-great-grandpappy of B. Don’t overlay the Ancestry.com way of doing family history on the Bible. It just doesn’t fit. And as I have mentioned before any history before Abraham is before the invention of writing. Any history had to be passed down orally over thousands of years. While the Holy Spirit did inspire the writers in what they recorded it is still just a written version of oral history.
2 Likes
I’m not sure how to take your answer, but my invitation was sincere. I’ll paraphrase it: I currently see the Bible disallowing a billion-year-old earth. Of course, I don’t see it doing so in explicit terms; rather, it’s the implication of the chronology it seems to lay out. I’d genuinely be open to someone explaining to me how to read the Bible in such a way that it would allow for a creation of the earth 4.543 billion years ago. I was not trying to make a rhetorical point.
1 Like
My experience, @Mike_Gantt, is that the solution you seek is a very personal matter:
-
Some (like me) allow the Bible to have factual errors… just like any other wonderful book 3000 years old might have.
-
Some say that ultimately there are no errors, but the resolutions may not be knowable (So far OR Ever).
-
Only texts that bind on theology are without error, but even then, (2) above may apply.
But, frankly, we read non- fiction books all the time … even with errors. The Evangelical position that there can be no errors is untenable.
(Obviously, this is my personal position and cannot be ascribed to BioLogos.)
Agreed.
I wouldn’t either.[quote=“Bill_II, post:135, topic:36078”]
The only record we have of knowledge being transmitted from God to man is when God speaks to a prophet about a future event. I don’t think we have any cases of a prophetic past being given to man.
[/quote]
Was David’s evil past or future when God revealed it to Nathan?
By the way, which is easier for a human being to get right: history or prophecy? Are we to consider the prophets reliable on what’s harder but unreliable on what’s easier?
I am not an apologist for Ken Ham, but I think I’ve heard him say multiple times that he doesn’t believe the age of the earth is a salvation issue.
Even granting that OT authors should not be held to the Associated Press Stylebook or the Ancestry.com user guide, I find it hard to figure out how their imprecision could cause them to be off by 4,542,994 years - which would mean that the time they do not account for is over 750 thousands times greater than the time they do account for.
I say all this not to argue for a young earth but to explain to you the hump I’ve got to get over to embrace an old earth - that is, this is where I need help. I am not saying that I’m unwilling to believe in a 5.543 billion-year-old earth; I’m only saying that imprecise genealogies seems inadequate for a discrepancy that large.
Nevertheless, if this sub-thread on age of the earth has turned unproductive, I’m fine with abandoning it. I started this discussion with a request for a reconciliation of the Bible and evolution and I’m happy to stick to that.
George,
You answer here is particularly helpful because it identifies the kind of BioLogos person who cannot answer the request I made at the launch of this topic.
I do not like the doctrine of inerrancy because it seems to always tilt the conversation to trivialities. Nevertheless, many people would call me an inerrantist.
Similarly, I do not consider myself a YEC because, among other things, I differ from them in my inability and lack of desire to argue science issues.
What brought me here is that I hear what feels like almost the whole scientific world - if not the majority of the world itself - telling me that I should believe in evolution. So I came to the place where people profess a love of Jesus and an acceptance of evolution. BioLogos is, in effect, saying to me: Even Jesus believes in evolution!
I can bear the thought that the world thinks I’m foolish. I cannot bear the thought that Jesus thinks I am. If evolution is the way Jesus does things, I want to believe it.
You cannot help me. I see that. It’s not because you love Jesus less than I do; it’s because you think I’m expecting too much from the Scriptures. Maybe you’re right. Maybe no one at BioLogos can help me, but I’m going to give it another day or two.
I would say by recognizing the timetable that the Scriptures seem to imply. You can say Ussher got carried away with inferring a degree of precision that was never implied, but I don’t see how anyone can say that his fundamental notion that a timetable was implied by the text was absurd.
Jon,
I read the article and don’t have any particular problem with it…unless it results in Genesis 2:1-3 being stripped of meaning.
The pattern in Genesis 1 is clear: doing, doing, doing, doing, doing, doing - then Genesis 2:1-3 says, essentially, no longer doing. I can see how people quarrel about the length of day a lot easier than I can see completely ignoring the doing-not doing transition.