Book recommendations

[Iosias]

Try In the Beginning by Joseph Ratzinger

 

[Assyrian]

That's interesting because for me that is my primary source for the argument against evolution. If the Bible didn't exist I'd probably be the ignorant fool I was when in high school believing all the so called 'scientific' facts. Since you don't see the Bible as a contrary source then all I would ask you to do is truly look at the hard facts and eliminate everything based on speculation and conjecture. Only with God's help you will come to the truth, that is if it is the truth that you truly seek.

Does that include literalist hermeneutics?

 

[The Barbarian]

Try In the Beginning by Joseph Ratzinger

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, has spent a good deal of time understanding the issue. He was, as you might know, chairman of the International Theological Commission under JP II. Their report, Communion and Stewardship, made clear the Church's understanding of evolution:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm (#63)

The Church does not insist that Christians must accept evolution, but it makes clear that evolutionary theory as such is not in any way contrary to Christian belief.

Any theory that attempts to deny divine providence is considered to be false by the Church, but no scientific theory can do that.

As Ratzinger wrote:
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2). (ibid #69)

 

[vossler]

Does that include literalist hermeneutics?

Yes! I don't believe we should ever trust conjecture and speculation, especially if it's contrary to God's Word. That includes anyone, TE, YEC or any other group.

 

[Assyrian]

So you are saying a literalist hermeneutic is speculation and conjecture, but it is ok because it is supported by your literalist hermeneutic?

 

[dies-l]

Yes! I don't believe we should ever trust conjecture and speculation, especially if it's contrary to God's Word. That includes anyone, TE, YEC or any other group.

In reading the Bible, I find myself coming to the conclusion that the two most reasonable "origins views", based on Scripture alone, would be YEC or a position that defers largely to whatever the science reveals (which I will call TE, for lack of a better term, but more accurately a position that would be open to, but not necessarily settled on, the mechanism of evolution by natural selection). The two reasonable conclusions come down to two ways of viewing the opening chapters of Genesis. According to a literalist perspective, the account is both literally true and historically accurate. The other way of reading the text that makes sense to me is that it is allegorically true, and not historical in nature. As I see it, if we read the biblical account from a literalist perspective, the only origins view that is consistent with the text is YEC. However, the other perspective would suggest that the story is not a scientific or historical account, and would therefore lead to acceptance of a TE viewpoint. The legitimacy of any alternate theories, imho, would wrest on scientific inquiry, not Scripture itself.

From a purely biblical perspective, I can see arguments for both YEC and TE viewpoints, which is why I am concerned also with the scientific theories of scientists who accept and those who reject evolotion.

Arguments for YEC
Literalist reading of Genesis (and other partd of the Bible) says that the Bible was created in seven days, several thousand years ago.

Geneologies in Genesis and Luke treat Adam as an historical person.

Jesus and Paul both spoke of Adam as though he were an historical figure. Noah is also treated as historical by NT authors.

The language of "there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day" leads to the conclusion that author was speaking of consecutive 24 hour days.

Arguments for TE
The opening chapters of Genesis are internally contradictory if read from a literalist perspective. To reconcile these contradictions, we would need to momentarily abandon literalism, but if we are prepared to abandon literalism in order to make the story internally consistent, why not abandon literalism altogether?

The Creation story contains elements that seem more consistent with folklore than history, most notably a talking animal (the serpent). The only other references in Scripture to animals acting outside of their natural capabilities are times when animals are used to carry out God's will or to speak to humans on behalf of God (E.g., Balaam's donkey and the whale or big fish that gobbled up Jonah).

The ancient wolrdview did not have the same distinction between hisroty and folklore as does the modern worldview. Thus, it strikes me as reasonable that Genesis would seamlessly transition from folklore to history (possibly between Babel and Abram), the author treating both as equally legitimate aspects of the Hebrew story. This might also explain why Jesus and Paul spoke in the same way, not because they were asserting a belief as to the story's historicity, but because its historicity was irrelevent to its meaning.

Just some thoughts to explain why I believe extra-biblical accounts are helpful in understanding how best to understand the biblical story. If the science largely disproves a young earth, then I would tend to assume the biblical account is allegorical. If there is sufficient evidence of a young earth, then I would be more willing to accept the story as literal. Therefore, the credibility of the scienctific evidence on both sides of the debate is important in determining how best to read that portion of Scripture.

 

[vossler]

So you are saying a literalist hermeneutic is speculation and conjecture, but it is ok because it is supported by your literalist hermeneutic?

No, I'm saying if a hermeneutic is based on speculation and conjecture, regardless of its form, it should be dismissed.

 

[vossler]

In reading the Bible, I find myself coming to the conclusion that the two most reasonable "origins views", based on Scripture alone, would be YEC or a position that defers largely to whatever the science reveals.

If you could, please show me where you can read Scripture and come to a reasonable conclusion that our origins should be defered to whatever science reveals. Especially given that you also made this statement shortly after the one above:

The legitimacy of any alternate theories, imho, would wrest on scientific inquiry, not Scripture itself.

From a purely biblical perspective, I can see arguments for both YEC and TE viewpoints...

Once again if you could, please show me the argument, from a purely biblical perspective, on the TE viewpoint.

Thanks for your willingness to address this very important issue.

 

[dies-l]

If you could, please show me where you can read Scripture and come to a reasonable conclusion that our origins should be defered to whatever science reveals. Especially given that you also made this statement shortly after the one above:


Once again if you could, please show me the argument, from a purely biblical perspective, on the TE viewpoint.

Thanks for your willingness to address this very important issue.

In my last post, I explained what I see as strengths of the YEC (and weaknesses of TE) based on Scripture alone, as well as the strengths of TE (and consequent weaknesses of YEC). If you like, I can expound on the latter in greater detail tomorrow when I am more awake and alert. But, the TE argument that I see stemming from these would be that the author of Genesis did not have a sense of historical accuracy vs. fictional folklore, or if he did, he did not see it as necessary to explore, because the folklore was as much a part of the Hebrew story as was the actual history. Thus, the parts that appear to be folkloric may very well be so, not intended for their narration of historical events, but rather their allegorical value to story of the Hebrew people and their relationship with God. If this is true, then the Genesis account of Creation is not even intended to express a view as to exactly how and when the Earth was Created. If I were to follow this line of thought, I would argue that where Scripture lacks guidance on a specific issue, then we ought to look to science, logic, and reason to determine what is most likely to be factual.

I accept as a given that the Bible contains history, but that it also contains story and mataphor for the sake of allegory. In reading Scripture, it is important to determine from the context which category a given passage falls into.

 

[shernren]

Just some thoughts to explain why I believe extra-biblical accounts are helpful in understanding how best to understand the biblical story. If the science largely disproves a young earth, then I would tend to assume the biblical account is allegorical. If there is sufficient evidence of a young earth, then I would be more willing to accept the story as literal. Therefore, the credibility of the scienctific evidence on both sides of the debate is important in determining how best to read that portion of Scripture.

I would caution against relying too much on the idea of science to guide your interpretation of Scripture. The world is God's creation, and the Bible is God's revelation; humans who study creation produce science, as humans who study the Bible produce theology.

Science may be fallible, and theology may be fallible, but God's creation and God's revelation cannot contradict each other, whatever mess humans may make of both.

(I say this as a scientist and a fully convinced TE. In a sense I am arguing against my own position: but it is precisely because what I believe has weathered this critique that it stands strong.)

To vossler: I've got a random question to ask you. When does an interpreter need God's help more: when he is determining a literal, common-sense meaning of a passage, or when he is determining an allegorical, hidden meaning of a passage?

 

[Assyrian]

No, I'm saying if a hermeneutic is based on speculation and conjecture, regardless of its form, it should be dismissed.

And yet you still hold on to that signature of yours

David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

 

[vossler]

In my last post, I explained what I see as strengths of the YEC (and weaknesses of TE) based on Scripture alone, as well as the strengths of TE (and consequent weaknesses of YEC).

I guess what I'm waiting for are the specific Scriptures that extol the virtues of TE. I haven't read one yet that does this and since you stated there was a 'purely biblical perspective' I wanted to know what that was. Thanks!

I accept as a given that the Bible contains history, but that it also contains story and mataphor for the sake of allegory. In reading Scripture, it is important to determine from the context which category a given passage falls into.

I couldn't agree more and I would add that one better be extremely careful how to go about doing that.

 

[vossler]

To vossler: I've got a random question to ask you. When does an interpreter need God's help more: when he is determining a literal, common-sense meaning of a passage, or when he is determining an allegorical, hidden meaning of a passage?

Randomness can at times be productive.

As far as your question, I think this is a general question that should best be answered in specific examples. In other words there is no clear answer. Sometimes the simplest most common sense Scripture has many layers or depth of meaning to it that one can only see after repeated study and experience. I'm constantly amazed to discover new meaning/understanding of relatively simple Scriptures I've read countless times before and yet now experienced with a level of enlightenment that previously didn't exist.

 

[vossler]

And yet you still hold on to that signature of yours

How does my signature in any way point to conjecture and speculation.

 

[dies-l]

I guess what I'm waiting for are the specific Scriptures that extol the virtues of TE. I haven't read one yet that does this and since you stated there was a 'purely biblical perspective' I wanted to know what that was. Thanks!

Obviously, there is no passage of Scripture that says anything specifically about TE. The argument for TE is based on inferences about what the Bible says (and does not say) about Creation.

By the same token, there is no passage of Scripture that explains the Trinity, but I believe in it, nonetheless, because it can be inferred from passages that speak of each of the three persons therein.

I couldn't agree more and I would add that one better be extremely careful how to go about doing that.

There are certainly instances where the distinction is not as important as here. For example, my reading of the book of Job is not influenced in the slightest by the disagreement among scholars as to whether Job was an historical person or merely a hero in a folktale, so I probably won't spend much time exploring that and I am content to accept Job's story for what it says about God in the midst of human suffering.

In the case of origins, however, modern science has made it relevant to modern man to decide whether the origins account falls into the realm of history or folktale. As a Christian who wants to be able to share and protect my faith, I feel as though I need to know whether evolution is something to be disproved to maintain the credibility of Scripture or if Scripture is reconcilable to evolution. If the biblical account is historical, then the former is true. If it is allegorical, then the latter is true. As I have explained, I see strong arguments for both sides, and I am looking for guidance in sorting these out, preferably from people who have a firm understanding of both Scripture and Science.

 

[Assyrian]

How does my signature in any way point to conjecture and speculation.

It is conjecture and speculation. It is a hermeneutic telling you how to interpret scripture that has no foundation in scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

In reading the Bible, I find myself coming to the conclusion that the two most reasonable "origins views", based on Scripture alone, would be YEC or a position that defers largely to whatever the science reveals (which I will call TE, for lack of a better term, but more accurately a position that would be open to, but not necessarily settled on, the mechanism of evolution by natural selection). The two reasonable conclusions come down to two ways of viewing the opening chapters of Genesis. According to a literalist perspective, the account is both literally true and historically accurate. The other way of reading the text that makes sense to me is that it is allegorically true, and not historical in nature. As I see it, if we read the biblical account from a literalist perspective, the only origins view that is consistent with the text is YEC. However, the other perspective would suggest that the story is not a scientific or historical account, and would therefore lead to acceptance of a TE viewpoint. The legitimacy of any alternate theories, imho, would wrest on scientific inquiry, not Scripture itself.

I agree in part, but think the big problem with YEC is inconsistency. I remember as a young Christian trying to get to grips with what scripture said for myself. One of the challenges I saw was that it should be possible to build a complete world view based on scripture. The problem was you come across passages that describe the earth set on pillars over the waters. If you are simply going to look at scripture to build your world view, without any reference to what we know from science you will end up with a very odd view of the world. That was a dead end, so I filed the question away for later reference. I was a YEC at the time and remained so for a long time. But coming back to the question years later, I don't see a difference between building your view of YEC from scripture ignoring what we know from science and a view of a flat earth set on pillars from scripture and ignoring the science. It seems YECs make excuses for looking for ways to interpret flat earth or geocentrist sounding passages to fit what we know from science while insisting we ignore science if it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis.

From a purely biblical perspective, I can see arguments for both YEC and TE viewpoints, which is why I am concerned also with the scientific theories of scientists who accept and those who reject evolotion.Arguments for YEC
Literalist reading of Genesis (and other partd of the Bible) says that the Bible was created in seven days, several thousand years ago.

The six thousand years come from the genealogies, the real issue is the days in Gen 1. If they are not literal there is no issue with the billions of years science has shown. That still leaves the question then is how literal are the ages of the patriarchs, are they consecutive, and where, if anywhere, in human history do you see the man God called Adam, but it doesn't effect the age of the earth.

Geneologies in Genesis and Luke treat Adam as an historical person.

Jesus and Paul both spoke of Adam as though he were an historical figure. Noah is also treated as historical by NT authors.

I don't think this is an issue, there are plenty of TEs who accept Adam as a literal individual.

On the other hand, we don't know how Jesus interpreted Adam. he never mentioned Adam by name or as an individual person, the closest we get is his use of the creation account as a lesson about marriage, but you can do that whether you take the account literally not. Don't forget Jesus usually taught through parables. Luke begins the genealogy describing it is what people 'supposed' and finishes the genealogy describing Adam as the son of God, which is hardly a literal reading of Genesis. Paul is very interesting though. Don't forget he was a trained Rabbi who handled scripture with all the depth and insight Rabbis had, that includes an understanding of the allegorical significance of passages. Paul did it all the time, crossing the Red Sea was a picture of baptism, the rock Moses struck water from (a rock which followed them around) was Jesus. Hagar and Sarah are the two covenants. Adam and Eve being made of one flesh is about marriage, it is also a mystery about Christ and the Church. Paul tells us in Romans 5:14 that he sees Adam as a figure of Christ. Maybe Paul saw Adam as a historical indicidual who could be interpreted allegorically, maybe he saw Adam as a figurative picture to start with, like other Jews of the time. You can't actually tell from the passages. All I can say is if you are aware that Paul uses allegory and and that he talks about about interpreting Adam figuratively, references to Adam in his epistles do fit beautifully into that framework.

The language of "there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day" leads to the conclusion that author was speaking of consecutive 24 hour days.

That is a bit of a circular argument, if you interpret Gen 1 literally, then the days are probably literal. But you can get figurative passages, like that parable of the labourers in the vineyard where the descriptions of time seem very literal - within the framework of the parable.

Arguments for TE
The opening chapters of Genesis are internally contradictory if read from a literalist perspective. To reconcile these contradictions, we would need to momentarily abandon literalism, but if we are prepared to abandon literalism in order to make the story internally consistent, why not abandon literalism altogether?

Ah yes, the old slippery slope argument. I don't think it makes sense. Scripture contains both literal and figurative passages anyway. Jesus spoke in parables. Just because you realise one passage is figurative doesn't mean you have to say everything is figurative. How many YECs interept 'the good shepherd', 'the good Samaritan' or 'this is my body literally'? Yet they don't slide down the slippery slope and claim the Resurrection and the cross are figurative. It is a false dichotomy.

The Creation story contains elements that seem more consistent with folklore than history, most notably a talking animal (the serpent). The only other references in Scripture to animals acting outside of their natural capabilities are times when animals are used to carry out God's will or to speak to humans on behalf of God (E.g., Balaam's donkey and the whale or big fish that gobbled up Jonah).

Don't forget talking trees in Judges 9, a talking bear-beast in Daniel 7:5, a talking horn in verse 8 and a talking leopard-bear-lion hybrid in Rev 13. You even have talking leeches in Prov 30:15. Talking animals don't have to be folklore, they can be very deliberate figurative images. I think this meaning of the serpent was understood when the rest of scripture was being written. The image of leviathan the twisting serpent was drawn from the serpent in Genesis and used to describe God's apocalyptic enemy. God did not just defeat the Pharaoh and his army crossing the Red Sea, that was God crushing the heads of leviathan.

The ancient wolrdview did not have the same distinction between hisroty and folklore as does the modern worldview. Thus, it strikes me as reasonable that Genesis would seamlessly transition from folklore to history (possibly between Babel and Abram), the author treating both as equally legitimate aspects of the Hebrew story. This might also explain why Jesus and Paul spoke in the same way, not because they were asserting a belief as to the story's historicity, but because its historicity was irrelevent to its meaning.

Just some thoughts to explain why I believe extra-biblical accounts are helpful in understanding how best to understand the biblical story. If the science largely disproves a young earth, then I would tend to assume the biblical account is allegorical. If there is sufficient evidence of a young earth, then I would be more willing to accept the story as literal. Therefore, the credibility of the scienctific evidence on both sides of the debate is important in determining how best to read that portion of Scripture.

Glaudys and Mallon would make a distinction between allegory and the adaptation of folklore to teach spiritual truth but I think people back then knew how to spin a good allegory too, just ask the talking trees.

 

[dies-l]

I don't think this is an issue, there are plenty of TEs who accept Adam as a literal individual.

Can you expound on this point a bit more? According to a TE view of history, who was Adam? Was he the first "specimen" of evolutionary process to be recognizable as human? Was he the first living being that God felt was worthy of a soul? This is probably my biggest stumbling block in fully embracing TE.

The other concern that I have with Adam is the writings of Paul that say that "one man" (or Adam) brought death into the world. But, according to a TE worldview. Animals were dying for millions of years before Adam and Even sinned. I would be interested in your perspectives on how to reconcile this with a TE viewpoint.

That is a bit of a circular argument, if you interpret Gen 1 literally, then the days are probably literal. But you can get figurative passages, like that parable of the labourers in the vineyard where the descriptions of time seem very literal - within the framework of the parable.

I actually think that this is one of the more convincing YEC arguments. The fact that the author of Genesis used the expression morning and evening points to a literal understanding of the word "day." I can also see, however, that, if the story is allegorical, then it would make sense that the author would use language consistent with the rest of the story.

So, I guess I see this argument pointing to the credibility of YEC over OEC viewpoints, but not necessarily over TE (as TEs are more willing to accept that the whole story is allegory, and so there is no need "interpret" it from a scientific or historical perspective).

Ah yes, the old slippery slope argument. I don't think it makes sense. Scripture contains both literal and figurative passages anyway. Jesus spoke in parables. Just because you realise one passage is figurative doesn't mean you have to say everything is figurative. How many YECs interept 'the good shepherd', 'the good Samaritan' or 'this is my body literally'? Yet they don't slide down the slippery slope and claim the Resurrection and the cross are figurative. It is a false dichotomy.

I don't think I was making a slippery slope argument. What I was trying to say is that, according to a YEC perspective, there are certain contradictions that cannot be explained unless you pretend that one of the contradicting passages is not intended to be literal. For example, I have heard it said by YECs that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve differing purposes, wherein one of the two conflicting accounts is not intended to be read as an accurate portrayal of the historical events, while the other is accurate. I never really understood that argument, because I figure that if we deny the historicity of Gen. 2, simply because it conflicts with the historicity of Genesis 1, why not at least consider the possibility that neither one is historical? After all, the only theological reason that we need any of the story to be historical is to preserve the authority of a certain interpretative methodology (literalism) that we are denying by treating one of the two accounts as non-literal.

Certainly, I don't believe that reading some passages of Scripture as figurative means that we throw out literalism altogether. But rather, where a figurative interpretation seems more consistent with the text, why would we momentarily resort to a non-literal interpretation in order to prove that a literal interpretation is non-contradictory?

Don't forget talking trees in Judges 9, a talking bear-beast in Daniel 7:5, a talking horn in verse 8 and a talking leopard-bear-lion hybrid in Rev 13. You even have talking leeches in Prov 30:15. Talking animals don't have to be folklore, they can be very deliberate figurative images. I think this meaning of the serpent was understood when the rest of scripture was being written. The image of leviathan the twisting serpent was drawn from the serpent in Genesis and used to describe God's apocalyptic enemy. God did not just defeat the Pharaoh and his army crossing the Red Sea, that was God crushing the heads of leviathan.

If I remember correctly, in all of those examples, the context was such that even a literalist would accept that those talking animals did not really exist. For example, wasn't the talking beast in Daniel a vision in a dream? And there is a lot of strange things in Revelation that seem to be a product of the fact that John was having a vision and was not speaking of events literally happening at the time.

Glaudys and Mallon would make a distinction between allegory and the adaptation of folklore to teach spiritual truth but I think people back then knew how to spin a good allegory too, just ask the talking trees.

I guess I have been using, probably incorrectly, folklore and allegory as roughly synonomous.

But, my point about Genesis is this: Unlike other allegories in the Bible, there is no language indicating that the story is fictional (such as "then Jesus told them a parable"). In fact the transition between Babel and Abram (which I have always been taught is the dividing line between the allegory and the history) contains no such language. It simply lists another genology that takes us to Terah father of Abram and then to the story of Abram and Sarai.

Anotehr thing that does confuse me about the YEC perspective is this: All throughout the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, we read stories of people having babies at very old ages (e.g., Adam, and presumably Eve if we read the story literally, was 130 years old when Seth was born). Even Abram's father, Terah, was 70 years old when Abram was born. Why, then did Abram and Sarai find it so unusual that God had promised them a child in their "old age"? Just a thought.

Thanks for all your comments on the issue. This really is something that I have gone back and forth on throughout my Christian journey. I am not committed to either perspecitve (though I don't understand OEC views at all) but lately I have been finding the question really worth exploring.

 

[Assyrian]

Can you expound on this point a bit more? According to a TE view of history, who was Adam? Was he the first "specimen" of evolutionary process to be recognizable as human? Was he the first living being that God felt was worthy of a soul? This is probably my biggest stumbling block in fully embracing TE.

You would be better off talking to one of the TEs who go in for a literal Adam. I think it is that Adam was mankind's representative in our Covenant with God, when he sinned he broke that covenant.

The other concern that I have with Adam is the writings of Paul that say that "one man" (or Adam) brought death into the world. But, according to a TE worldview. Animals were dying for millions of years before Adam and Even sinned. I would be interested in your perspectives on how to reconcile this with a TE viewpoint.

As someone who doesn't take Adam literally I would first point to verse 14 where Paul tells us he see Adam and a figurative picture of Jesus. If you look at that whole section from verse 12 to the end, it is series of comparisons of Adam and Christ, starting with his unfinished "Therefore just as..." in verse 12 to the "grace also... " in verse 21. But according to verse 14 these comparisons of Adam and Christ are figurative. Even if you take Adam literally, Paul is describing a death that spread to all men in verse 12, not animals. It is probably spiritual death or the terrible amalgam of spiritual and physical death that only humans are condemned to. It does not describe the sort of death animals died for billions of years before man sinned, just the death that spreat to mankind since then. In fact it is a kind of death that cannot spread to animals because Paul tells us death spread to all men because all sinned. Animals don't sin. so whatever kind of death this is, it does not effect them.

I actually think that this is one of the more convincing YEC arguments. The fact that the author of Genesis used the expression morning and evening points to a literal understanding of the word "day." I can also see, however, that, if the story is allegorical, then it would make sense that the author would use language consistent with the rest of the story.

I really don't think that kind of argument would have made sense to people in biblical times. They were much more used to parables and allegory. If we look at Psalm 90 which is attributed to Moses himself, he has no problem looking at the creation and then telling us God's days are not like ours and goes to use morning and evening very figuratively too.
Psalm 90 A prayer of Moses the man of God.
1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning-
6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.

In fact I don't know anybody in scripture who interpreted the days of Genesis literally, not that you find many references to them.

So, I guess I see this argument pointing to the credibility of YEC over OEC viewpoints, but not necessarily over TE (as TEs are more willing to accept that the whole story is allegory, and so there is no need "interpret" it from a scientific or historical perspective).

Actually OECs have Psalm 90 to support their interpretation, it is even repeated in 2Pet 3:8 with an reminder not to forget this one thing. Hebrews 3&4 also seems to use the Day Age approach to the seventh day of creation. My biggest problem with OEC is the view God could not have used evolution. I think if you understand that the age of the earth does not contradict Genesis, then the only reason to reject evolution is anti evolution tradition. That said. I really do like OECs Hugh Ross and the Answers in Creation website.

I don't think I was making a slippery slope argument. What I was trying to say is that, according to a YEC perspective, there are certain contradictions that cannot be explained unless you pretend that one of the contradicting passages is not intended to be literal. For example, I have heard it said by YECs that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve differing purposes, wherein one of the two conflicting accounts is not intended to be read as an accurate portrayal of the historical events, while the other is accurate. I never really understood that argument, because I figure that if we deny the historicity of Gen. 2, simply because it conflicts with the historicity of Genesis 1, why not at least consider the possibility that neither one is historical? [a favourite argument of mine ] After all, the only theological reason that we need any of the story to be historical is to preserve the authority of a certain interpretative methodology (literalism) that we are denying by treating one of the two accounts as non-literal.

Certainly, I don't believe that reading some passages of Scripture as figurative means that we throw out literalism altogether. But rather, where a figurative interpretation seems more consistent with the text, why would we momentarily resort to a non-literal interpretation in order to prove that a literal interpretation is non-contradictory?

I think there are two different if related YEC arguments here. The "I you abandon literalism here ...why not abandon literalism altogether" is a slippery slope argument, it usually comes in the form of "...why not take the resurrection allegorically". The only way to avoid the slippery slope to a complete rejection of the cross and resurrection is to stand our ground here and keep on taking Genesis literally. It is a false dichotomy. The other argument is the claim that the bible is always very clear when it is being figurative. It isn't. But for literalist it is a bit of a circular argument as the only passages they recognise as figurative are the one that are clearly labelled. And so they think all figurative passes are clearly labelled. But they are usually not very consistent and interpret a lot of passages non literally even though thy don't realise that is what they are doing. How many YECs interpret 'this is my body' literally? They certainly don't interpret the geocentric passages or the flat earth passages literally.

If I remember correctly, in all of those examples, the context was such that even a literalist would accept that those talking animals did not really exist. For example, wasn't the talking beast in Daniel a vision in a dream? And there is a lot of strange things in Revelation that seem to be a product of the fact that John was having a vision and was not speaking of events literally happening at the time.

Of course. My point was that talking animals are not that unusual in scripture. You could even say they are a good indication you might be dealing with apocalyptic literature, especially when we meet the Genesis snake again in the book of Revelation. The talking trees are not introduced as a vision or parable.

I guess I have been using, probably incorrectly, folklore and allegory as roughly synonomous.

It's a can of worms, especially when people start using the term 'myth'

But, my point about Genesis is this: Unlike other allegories in the Bible, there is no language indicating that the story is fictional (such as "then Jesus told them a parable").

Notice how you said "Jesus told them a parable" not "Jesus said 'here is a parable' ". Sometimes Jesus did introduce his parables, often we just have the gospel writer explain to us what Jesus did not tell the crowds, that it was a parable, and sometimes here is no explanation at all. It is worth realising as well that Genesis is a collection of different documents by different authors, not a single chronicle. This was recognised first by liberal scholars but the idea is even accepted among creationists who think the different books were written by various patriachs form Adam down. THe thing is, if Genesis is made up of of different documents by different authors, there is no reason not to find different types of literary genre in such a collection.

In fact the transition between Babel and Abram (which I have always been taught is the dividing line between the allegory and the history) contains no such language. It simply lists another genology that takes us to Terah father of Abram and then to the story of Abram and Sarai.

That is a good point. I would say though that the first genealogy was the genealogy of the heavens and the earth, which is hardly literal unless we are talking an evolutionary genealogy and the next was the genealogy of man (or adam in Hebrew). Somewhere along the line the genealogies went from non literal genealogy of the heavens and the earth to literal genealogy of Terah.

I find Gen 6 very interesting.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Now adam was a very common Hebrew word for 'man' but in this passage it is talking about God forming and creating adam on the earth, it seems to be pretty clearly using the language of Gen 1&2 and God's creation of Adam to describe God wiping out mankind.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of Adam was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made Adam on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out Adam whom I have created from the face of the land, Adam and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Of course in the conventional chronology of the patriarchs Adam was long dead when the flood came, this is talking about mankind, at least mankind in that region. What we have here is a very ancient document and it is giving and allegorical interpretation of Adam in Gen 1&2

Anotehr thing that does confuse me about the YEC perspective is this: All throughout the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, we read stories of people having babies at very old ages (e.g., Adam, and presumably Eve if we read the story literally, was 130 years old when Seth was born). Even Abram's father, Terah, was 70 years old when Abram was born. Why, then did Abram and Sarai find it so unusual that God had promised them a child in their "old age"? Just a thought.

Or Moses who lived to 120 saying in Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty. Good point. It is possible the numbers were figurative, as was common in ancient cultures, and would have been understood to be figurative.

Thanks for all your comments on the issue. This really is something that I have gone back and forth on throughout my Christian journey. I am not committed to either perspecitve (though I don't understand OEC views at all) but lately I have been finding the question really worth exploring.

It is good to explore these issues, though it can be hard going at times. The important thing is to hold on tight in your walk with the Lord and grow in him. After all he is the one who created it all in the first place.

 

[gluadys]

I guess I have been using, probably incorrectly, folklore and allegory as roughly synonomous.

I don't get too hung up on people without a strong background in literature using the term"allegory" loosely to refer to all sorts of figurative writing. "Allegory" has always had some broad and some technical (narrow) meanings. The only difficulty arises when someone who does have some understanding of the technical characteristics of allegory starts asking "And what does X symbolize? And what does Y symbolize?"

Because in a narrow sense an allegory is a story in which everything is a symbol of something. We see this in Jesus' parable of the Sower, where every detail of what appears to be an ordinary story about an everyday event is invested with symbolic meaning. The field is the world, the seed is the Word, etc. etc.

But a folk-tale, and even most parables, are not constructed so that everything is symbolic. So, although they may be included under a broad meaning of allegory, they don't meet the technical definition of allegory.

But, my point about Genesis is this: Unlike other allegories in the Bible, there is no language indicating that the story is fictional (such as "then Jesus told them a parable").

Although the gospel writers sometimes tell us that Jesus is telling a parable, we don't have any indication that Jesus told his original audience that he was speaking in parables. How would they know if he was speaking fiction or not? (In fact, on occasion, I have run across literalists who insist that some--even all--of the parables are history and not just imaginative stories. These are rare blokes and not typical of most self-identified literalists.)


The most important thing to learn about ancient near east literature is that there was no hard and fast line between story and history. Even some of the ancients who are considered "fathers of history" weave all sorts of tales into their histories with no indication of where history leaves off and tales begin. Trying to impose the solid line we fix between history and story-telling on biblical writings is rather anachronistic. In an oral society, where only 1-2% of people could read and write, story-telling was the way they told history and kept it alive from one generation to another.