Yes, that’s what I’m here to try to find out: if the conflicts I see between the historical (truth) claims of the Bible and those of evolution are actual…or if they’re the result of my clinging to a cherished accretion rather than to the sacred text itself.
2 Likes
It’s not as if that sort of thing’s beyond God’s ability. And He’s opened my eyes to things I was blind to before.
Correct.
Truth is a matter in which there can be no compromise. Life, on the other hand, requires constant compromise. I’ve been married for 45 years and we raised four children, who now have children of their own. There’s no way I could be as happy as I am in this stage of my life without a lifelong aptitude for, and appreciation of, compromise. Truth is black or white, but it must be vigorously sought in the gray of our existence on the earth.
I can’t control what names people give the days of the week, but I can control the activities in which I and my family are willing to engage.
Et tu.
If you are really here to test “cherished accretions” - - aren’t you the least bit troubled by the following “odd coincidences” ?
- That Ea/Enki confused the languages of humanity, and so did Yahweh?
- That the Sumerians had a story about the divine destruction of humanity by a flood, and Ea/Enki saved humanity and so did Yahweh?
- That the Sumerians had a creation story including a “Lady of the Rib” and so does the Old Testament?
- That Moloch asked for sacrifices of the first born, and Yahweh used the same concept to punish the Egyptians?
- That the Sumerians referred to “Snakes/Priests” by the term “MS”, and the O.T.'s “MS” set up a serpent pole to save the people? And that this snake pole was moved from the wilderness all the way to Jerusalem and left in place for centuries until the time of Hezekiah?
- That the Egyptians had a story of Sinuhe who was an important Egyptian who fled punishment to Canaan and became an important tribal chieftain there?
- That the Persians had a myth of 2 brother gods where one brother killed the other?
- That the story of Samson parallels a human head of hair as solar imagery (blindness = powerlessness)?
I won’t say this is an exhaustive list, but I think it will do.
If the Bible is true, we should not be surprised - nay, we should expect - to find stories in other ANE cultures similar to those we find in Israel’s Scriptures. The obvious reason is that all these cultures shared ancestors (e.g. Noah and Adam), which means they inherited shared stories. The difference was that Israel’s version was kept by holy men who spoke by God’s Spirit while the versions kept by surrounding cultures were subject to corruption - because they had no holy men speaking by God’s Spirit to keep the stories straight.
Idolatry did not give rise to monotheism. Monotheism degenerated into idolatry…except where God intervened.
I think this point of view is available even to those who think Adam and Noah were “representative figures” rather than actual people.
Therefore, be not troubled by the things on your list.
And so it goes. I’ve heard this refutation before. And apparently you are even willing to extend it to the idea that Moloch was “copying” Yahweh! And I suppose that the priestly caste system used by the Magi of the Medes was copying - - in anticipation - - of the priestly caste system invoked in Exodus (circa 1200 BCE).
But there cracks in that perfect orb you imagine - - the Ten Commandments do not say there are no other gods. They say ignore the other gods. This is hardly a good match for your scenario that originally there was only one god.
Pax Vobiscum,
George
I articulated a principle. A principle doesn’t fully explain every case, but gives a way of approaching each case, which then has details of its own that must be worked out. If you want to play whack-a-mole with one ANE story after another, fine…but it’s not my game.
I don’t regard the monotheism of ancient Israel as denying the existence of false gods - rather it forbade the worship of them. Adam and Eve learned that listening to the god of this world instead of the God who had created them was their downfall. Their descendants would face - and do face - the same temptations.
In my estimation, your analysis of the polytheism of the Ten Commandments reflects a tone deafness to what a true monotheist scribe would have written but didn’t.
In your early posts, I experienced a tinge of regret that Evolution posed a challenge to your beliefs. But now I no longer worry about it. You are a YEC looking for final confirmation that there is no scripture or interpretation that you might have missed - - so you can happily continue to be a YEC with no qualms.
Consider your mission accomplished.
I and others have given more than enough to lift the mantle of guilt from your shoulders - - if you were so inclined. But, in fact, you are inclined in the other direction, and well invested in a durable apologetic mode. You are the perfect YEC.
I doubt that your grandchildren will arrive at the same conclusions you do - - just as the Unitarians of New England came to possess the Calvinist-leaning congregational churches of their forefathers. I genealogically descend from both wings of the New England gradient of Salvation.
“The Congregationalists kept the Faith - - the Unitarians kept the furniture.”
.
.
Pax Vobiscum
George B.
To have such opprobrium followed by “Pax Vobiscum” is a strange experience.
God knows my heart better than you do. If your assessment of me is true, may He punish me for it. If your assessment is false, and it is, may He forgive you for it.
1 Like
Why would the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob abandon you for being a YEC? … nay, a perfect YEC?
Be at peace.
[On a serious note: “To have such opprobrium followed by “Pax Vobiscum” is a strange experience.” When I wish someone a “Peace be With You”, it is to show that I don’t take someone’s views personally. Sometimes I forget to say it. And sometimes I …do… take their views personally! 
]
1 Like
I see what you are trying to say. Be that as it may, Christianity has long recognised that we cannot confine God (or believe that God is restricted) to time or space. This, when understood as orthodox theology, brings little comfort to evolutionary creationists, YEC or OEC.
The timetable that you infer, if I understand you correctly, deals with the way genealogical records are kept, which are there to show a continuous link from Adam, to Abraham to Christ, and to show that Israel is chosen because of Abraham. As an aside, it is instructive to realise this site has spilt ink and some “allegorical” blood over Adam, when the central figure in this context is Abraham. 
2 Likes
I’m tempted to ask you something about the second half of this sentence, but, given what you say in the first part, I think I’d better stick to the stated topic of this discussion and not digress into a focus on Adam.
I appreciate your response.
One or two of you have suggested that I’d be helped in my quest to see if evolution can be reconciled with the Bible by focusing first on the age of the earth…and then, assuming I got comfortable with the OEC position, focus on the question of evolution. I’ve responded positively to the logic of this suggestion of an indirect approach, but have not seen clearly how to act on it. Since my direct approach hasn’t been succeeding, however, let me now at least try to sketch out how I might proceed down this indirect path and identify the obstacles that have kept me from taking it. Maybe you can help me remove the obstacles.
As I understand it, the scientific community itself got to evolution after it got to an old earth. I say this both because the ancients believed in an eternal earth and the early geologists concluded from their rock studies that time, not Noah’s Flood, accounted for what they saw. This provides a reasonable basis to focus first on the age of the earth and, after that, evolution. Moreover, as I understand it, it was The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris that launched the modern YEC movement - not a book on creation or evolution. So, here again, it seems deciding the age of the earth preceded deciding evolution. Therefore, I clearly see that there are good reasons for taking the indirect path. Now for the obstacles I need help removing.
My perception of the geological community today is that the vast majority thinks the earth is old while a small but vocal minority (YEC’s) think it’s young. Moreover, this vast majority does not think it’s a debatable subject. They consider the small minority to be irrational on the subject. On top of this, the situation with astronomers - and I assume with any other field of scientific inquiry which focuses on the age of the earth or the age of the universe - is, it seems to me, identical. Therefore, the scientific community as a whole is rendering to me a clear and emphatic verdict on the subject, though not a unanimous one.
I know that for many of you a majority verdict - especially a majority as large as this one - is enough to settle the issue. Normally, it would be for me as well. That is, I do not require uninanimous verdicts from experts before I’m willing to trust what they say. However, the small but vocal minority appeals to Scripture as well as science in their dissent. I can’t opine on their science, but I do read the Scriptures and I see merit in their arguments from Scripture. I am also aware that there are OEC’s, who are among the vast majority of the scientific community declaring the earth to be old, who appeal to Scripture as well as science, present company included. I also see merit in their arguments from Scripture. I’ll get to the relative merits in moment.
I am not willing or able to learn enough science to decide this matter on scientific terms; it is one of the many areas in life where I have to rely on the views of experts. I have to decide this matter based on the Bible. (I recognize that, at this point, some of you have to dismiss yourselves from the discussion because you just don’t think this way on the subject. But I’m thinking that there are at least some of you for whom expert testimony, no matter how strong it is, cannot trump biblical truth, and if - and I know that it may seem like a huge “if” - the Bible does indeed say the earth is young, then it is young. It is to this group that the rest of my appeal applies.)
Point of clarification: In deciding this matter, I do not feel the need to decide between the earth being 4.543 billion years old or 6,000 years old. That’s more precision than I need. I only need to decide whether it is billions of years old or thousands of years old. (Billions of years would allow for evolution’s historical claims; thousands of years would not.)
My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old. I am aware of many of the biblical arguments made by OEC’s that the earth is old. I do not dismiss them out of hand. However, on the whole, I have felt that these biblical arguments are not as strong as the YEC biblical arguments or my own biblical arguments. I do see some weaknesses in the biblical arguments of YEC’s, and the voices that proclaim those arguments can sometimes be strident and off-putting. (By the way, I have not found OEC’s to be altogether saintly, but, generally speaking, I would say they are better behaved than YEC’s.) Nevertheless, I feel that, again, on the whole, the biblical arguments for a young earth by the YEC’s are more in line with my own reading of the Bible than are the biblical arguments for an old earth by the OEC’s.
Therefore, according to this proposed indirect path to my original question, let me refine my original question now and ask, which OEC’s provide the best biblical arguments for an old earth? Again, it won’t help me to point to the best scientific arguments for an old earth. And it’s worth emphasizing that I want to hear about the best OEC arguments for an old earth, not just any OEC arguments. I won’t enumerate all the OEC arguments I have read, but know that I have read many of them. What then do I hope to learn from you? Two possibilities: compelling OEC arguments I have not heard before or OEC arguments I have heard before but to which I perhaps did not give sufficient heed.
Thank you for any thought you give to my request, even if it doesn’t lead you to post a response.
1 Like
I know I am displaying my ignorance on the subject, but can I ask, "What biblical verse or book directly addresses the age of the earth, or the universe for that matter. I do not mean inference from various verses (although this is still scripture but invites interpretation), but if I understand you correctly, a clear argument to give an age (any age) of the earth.
Best wishes to you.
I am unaware of any biblical verse or book that directly addresses the age of the earth or the universe. However, I believe - in my reading of the Bible, of course - that the implication is unavoidable. For me, the precision of the implied timetable is much more a matter of interpretation than is the timetable itself.
I suppose I am none the wiser, but I understand that there are various views put by denominations, and thus a great variety when reading Genesis. I also understand that in past centuries there was some sort of acceptance of a six day creation, even though the Church had discussions on “the days of Creation” as a distinct meaning - but that is for another conversation.
Hi Mike,
I understand you’re line of reasoning here, but… are you really sure that’s true? You seem like a very intelligent guy and sorting out the age of the universe does not require very much learning overall. I think it’s worthwhile to sort out the science for yourself to some extent, especially since you’re staking your view of the Bible on the matter. I’m myself an astronomer and I know a Christian professor in Astrophysics who wrote a very informative post on this topic on his blog. He takes the reader through the logic behind a particular argument on the size and the age of the universe in an accessible way:
All things he wrote there can be fact-checked by anyone who reads the post. Also, what may be interesting is the series of posts I wrote here on BioLogos on the age of the universe. It’s written completely so that the logic can be followed by readers without a background in astronomy:
http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/series/light-matters
http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/light-matters-is-einstein-a-friend-of-young-earth-creationism
http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/light-matters-missiles-flying-without-being-launched
http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/light-matters-galaxies-are-telling-the-story-of-our-ancient-universe
http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/light-matters-ancient-radiation-as-a-baby-picture-of-the-universe
It reminds me of this joke about science and poetry. “Science intends to say things that nobody knows in such a way that everybody can understand, while poetry intends to do the opposite.” 
Casper
3 Likes
Yes, there is a great variety, but, having been through the cafeteria line a time or two, I haven’t found anything appetizing enough to put on my tray. Is it possible I missed something delicious? Yes, as I do not claim to have discovered and reviewed every single item on offer. The thought of going through the line yet gain, and this time exhaustively is exhausting just to contemplate, so that’s why I’m here - asking what biblical arguments the BioLogos people have found taste best.
On that basis, I am probably the last person to help you, as my advice would be to read the Patristic writings. But that is a task that takes a long time, and I am still at it, after many years.
1 Like
Lest I appear unjustifiably obstinate on this issue, let me explain why your suggestion, reasonable as it sounds, won’t work for me…and shouldn’t work for me.
First of all, it’s not as if I’ve never tried to read science writings on this subject. I have. And let me be quick to say that the OEC community has provided an abundance of literature designed for a lay audience - your suggestions here being prime examples. Part of the problem is my personal lack of aptitude for science. Maybe it’s some kind of learning disability; I don’t know. What I do know is that I find it very difficult to concentrate on science issues. I only scrolled through the blog post by the Christian professor in Astrophysics first to get a sense of its length and logical layout…and immediately felt weary.
Second, the weariness stems not just from my lack of aptitude for science but also from what we can call “the Proverbs 18:17 dynamic.” That is, in a debate, it’s possible for both sides to sound convincing - especially to an unsophisticated audience. For example, I have sat through hours of YouTube debates between OEC’s and YEC’s and found myself agreeing with each speaker every time he had his turn at the microphone. All you guys are very persuasive! Thus I was simultaneously encouraged and depressed when I saw that one of your posts challenged Jason Lisle - encouraged because you were engaging the other side, and depressed because, once again, I’m confident both of you will prove convincing to me.
Third, and this is why I say “shouldn’t work for me,” even if I were to find some way to press through my lack of science aptitude and learn enough to arrive at a firm conviction that the OEC’s have the better of the science argument, I’d still be left with my conviction that the Bible implies a timetable that disallows a billion-year-old earth. Some would say to me, “But, Mike, if your conviction about science is clear enough and strong enough, won’t that convince you that your understanding the Bible’s implied timetable must be wrong?” No. I need to see where I have misunderstood the Scriptures. I need a better understanding of the Scriptures to guide me forward to replace in the inferior understanding of the Scriptures I’ll be leaving behind. I have been through this process on other issues at multiple points in my life and it has always served me well. I know well what it means to see more clearly in the Bible something I previously saw less clearly. It’s that experience I’m looking for.
Again, I don’t need the Bible to tell me OEC is right. I just need it to stop implying that OEC is wrong. You may say, “But, Mike, the Bible does not imply to me that OEC is wrong.” I would say, “That’s fine for you, and maybe if you’ll tell me how you’re interpreting the Bible it will help me get to where you are; but until you or someone else can tell me how to see the Scriptures differently on this point, I can’t let my understanding of it go because my conscience won’t let me.” In other words, if I were to accept a scientific argument instead of a biblical argument on this issue I will have violated my conscience.
Therefore, you are being very gracious to me, but I hope you can see why its a biblical argument I need to get me over the hump - a scientific one, no matter how well stated or how abundantly provided, is not enough.