Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?

@Mike_Gantt

Your response seems quite reasonable; your hopes, however , seem destined to disappointment.

Even YECs, content with their view of the Bible, are denied the expectation that the Bible will give a good explanation for why Science betrays them.

There really is no GOOD explanation for this conundrum. And yet millions of Christians are simultaneously satisfied with their view of Jesus as God … and a Universe where God employed Evolution to accomplish His ends.

What kind of carpenter will you be? One who refuses to finish a cabinet because the pieces he has will not fit the design he has in his head?

Or will you set aside an ill-fitting piece so that he can complete 95% of the Ark of his hopes and expectations for an Eternal Life to come?

As for what hermeneutic, @Christy recently pointed me in the direction of Kevin Vanhoozer. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on him lately, and his Introduction (“What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible?”) to the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible is a fairly close approximation of my views. (You can read Vanhoozer’s Introduction with the “preview” feature.) I suppose you could call it the grammatico-historical approach leavened with a healthy dose of respect for the typological approach of the apostles and church fathers, which is heavily Christo-centric (seeing Christ in all of Scripture).

As far as triggers to know when to apply a primarily figurative interpretation, the author will provide sufficient clues. As for Genesis, commentators are virtually unanimous in identifying stylistic differences between the Hebrew of Gen. 1, Gen. 2-11, and Gen. 12-50. This is one clue. There are many others, but I am short of time, so I’ll have to apologize for my incomplete response.

1 Like

As to the age of the earth, even if one takes the 7 day creation story as literal, it does not speak to cosmic age as it starts with:
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

This appears to be before the 1st day. While I do not particularly agree with the view that it relates to age of the earth and universe, it certainly opens the door to great age before the 7 day creation story.

Even if I packed the vast majority of the 5.543B years into Gen 1:1-2, I’d still feel uncomfortable ascribing the remaining tens of thousands of years to imprecise genealogies.

Thanks. No apology necessary.

I should add, though, this portion of my original post:

If your hermeneutical answer is to interpret Genesis 1-12 figuratively, you are at the same point as the homebuilder who says he’s going to make his house with this material instead of that - that is, you still have to build the house. I continued to be surprised by the number of people content to have chosen the material, but don’t think it’s necessary to finish house.

All my work on trying to reconcile evolution and the Bible is to help in this life; I’m not expecting it to be an issue in the next.

2 Likes

@Mike_Gantt

Perhaps you misunderstand my analogy? The “Ark” of one’s hope is for use in this life. Must we abandon the whole furnishing just because all the pieces do not fit perfectly together?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Hugh Ross found a verse for every one of these scientific ideas, but that’s not what I’m looking for. I distinguish evolution from the ideas in your list because it implies history, and it is this history I am interested in trying to reconcile with the Bible’s history.

We come to Christ in different ways. For me, it was reading the Bible. Loosening my grip on it is not an option.

I would agree with you there. However, growing and developing a deeper understanding is something we all should strive for. Sometimes that means concluding that some of our earlier ideas and interpretations were wrong. I can think of several areas where I thought I knew what a passage meant, only to learn through study and through reading and listening to good Godly men, that I was either wrong, or had a very superficial understanding. Ultimately, I do not think there is anything science can do to help you change your mind about how the scripture is read. You will have to be led to change your mind as to how the scripture reads, then maybe you will change your mind about the science.

@Mike_Gantt

I think millions of Christians become Christians before they become convinced of Evolution’s validity.

Must a child who reads about George Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree be doomed to hold to that story, no matter how much the child later reads more sophisticated biographies - - books explaining that the Cherry Tree story was a fictional insert into the life of George Washington?

Me, too! And that’s the sort of experience I’m seeking in this matter - if it’s to be had.

I agree. I’ve come here looking not for someone who understands science better than me (I wouldn’t have to leave my neighborhood to find that) but rather for someone (or multiple someone’s) who understand the Scriptures better than me as it relates to this matter (specifically the historical and truth claims of evolution, not its scientific claims).

Of course not. But in your analogy, who is the biblical author analogous to Parson Weems who deserves to be discredited? And where is the corresponding myth that deserves excision from the canon?

@Mike_Gantt
Parson Weems is the anonymous writer of Genesis 1, and the corresponding myth is the idea that the Earth and its creatures were made in six days.

You would have the Bible start at Genesis 2?

@Mike_Gantt

Would you have your story of George Washington start as an adult?

Genesis 1 is a good story. Keep it. But don’t base your world view on it.

I like your analogy here. And taking off with it in a slightly different direction, how do you know that this one wouldn’t be more accurate to our situation: We are all standing in a house that was already built for us by others. But we are curious as to the materials used to build it and have a long standing argument about whether this or that material is concrete or wood, etc. And then furthermore some people think they’ve found good evidence that the foundation actually goes far deeper into the ground than we had ever previously imagined.

Isn’t this closer to the situation we are really in? Our Christian edifice is already constructed. Christ completed that work. How far or deep our material understandings go can still be a matter of growth without us thinking that the house has to be rebuilt with each new discovery, no?

I can’t imagine giving my children a Parson Weems biography of George Washington and telling them that, oh by the way, the cherry tree story is a good one but don’t base your view of George Washington on it. Weems lost his chance to be the biographer of Washington to my children when he included a falsehood.

Amen to that! You may have to loosen you grip on certain cherished accretions that get added to the sacred text, though. The bible may be (is, in my view) infallible in all that it affirms, but our fundamentalisms we like to attach to it most certainly are not.

@Mike_Gantt

It’s pretty clear that you need a miracle to resolve your issues with Genesis and Evolution.

And that you probably don’t tell your children about Santa Claus either.

It would appear life for you is no exercise in compromise. Things are black or white.

But when you bar your children from engaging in Halloween, don’t forget that you still make appointments on the days of the pagan gods: Monday = Moon Day, Tuesday = the Day of Twos. Wednesday = Odensday, and so forth.

Pax vobiscum. ,

George