A question for Theistic Evolutionists

[chilehed]

I have a question for everyone who believes in Theistic Evolution. I know most or all of you do not believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

I don't believe in a woodenly literal meaning. I do believe in a literal meaning: it actually means what God intends it to mean, and what He intends it to mean is true.

I see no reason to believe that God intended it to be an explanation of the physical details of the creation of the world.

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

"For on the day you eat of it you will die."

Adam did not die physically on the day he ate of it, he died spiritually. That is the death with which we are concerned. For what does it benefit a man if he gives up his body to be burned, and yet loses his soul? The distress of physical death is nothing compared to the evil of separation from God.

That which we call death is not death for he who is in Christ, but merely passage into eternal life.

 

[gluadys]

I don't believe in a woodenly literal meaning. I do believe in a literal meaning: it actually means what God intends it to mean, and what He intends it to mean is true.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post, especially the interpretation of "death" related to the fall of Adam.

But I quibble a little on the opening phrase because to me it touches on the immense confusion around the meaning of "literal".

Too often people equate "literal" with "true""real" "actual" "historical" "preferred meaning" "prose" and "narrative".


But as applied to texts, it really means none of these things. It means "plain meaning" or "most common meaning". So when you say "[scripture] actually means what God intends it to mean" you are not really referring to literal meaning at all. For God often chooses to have the biblical authors convey his intended meaning in terms that are not common or words which are intended as allegory.

I take it the plain meaning, disallowing any reference to the use of simile, metaphor or allegory, is what you are referring to as "woodenly literal". It would be like interpreting the phrase "It's raining cats and dogs" as referring to animals actually falling from the sky. Of course, even most people who affirm allegiance to a "literal" interpretation don't take it that far.

But beyond that, plain meaning can be found not just in what is true or actual or written in prose, but in fictional stories, falsehoods and poetry. So, for clarity, we should not connect the word "literal" with "true" but rather with "plain or common meaning" whether it is intended to be historical or true or not. And whether it is written in prose or poetic form.

With that in mind, I would say that the rest of your post is captures well the intended and true meaning of the death associated with the fall, but that it is not the literal meaning, since in ordinary discourse the common meaning of "death" refers to the death of the body. Here that meaning is not the intended or true meaning, nor the preferred meaning.

I see no reason to believe that God intended it to be an explanation of the physical details of the creation of the world.


"For on the day you eat of it you will die."

Adam did not die physically on the day he ate of it, he died spiritually. That is the death with which we are concerned. For what does it benefit a man if he gives up his body to be burned, and yet loses his soul? The distress of physical death is nothing compared to the evil of separation from God.

That which we call death is not death for he who is in Christ, but merely passage into eternal life.

 

[chilehed]

I agree with almost everything you say in this post, especially the interpretation of "death" related to the fall of Adam.

But I quibble a little on the opening phrase because to me it touches on the immense confusion around the meaning of "literal".

Too often people equate "literal" with "true""real" "actual" "historical" "preferred meaning" "prose" and "narrative".


But as applied to texts, it really means none of these things. It means "plain meaning" or "most common meaning". So when you say "[scripture] actually means what God intends it to mean" you are not really referring to literal meaning at all....

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation. In the example of "raining cats and dogs", the literal sense is not that animals were falling from the sky, because the meaning conveyed by the words is "raining very hard".

But we needn't quibble on a point not in view of the OP.

 

[MKJ]

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

Personally, I would say that it is entirely possible that the "history" we hear of in genesis happens in some sense before the entire history of the universe as we know it. There are some writings by early church fathers that suggest something like this - that the universe as we see it, including the laws of physics and the beginnings of the universe we can observe, is a result of the Fall, and that the incident in the Garden was accomplished in only an instant.

Another way to think of it might be this - that the effects of the Fall not only impact what happens after the Fall, but what happened before it. We know the Fall changed even the very fundamental ways the universe behaves physically, including time itself - it was a metaphysical level of change and so above time. Similarly, we know the reconciliation of creation to God in Christ affects not only things that come after Christ, but all that came before as well.

In the end though, I don't think I need to understand just how this works. I think there is good evidence for much of what science tells us of the development of the universe and life on Earth. I do not think creation is somehow separate from God, it too is a revelation of him. Nor is he a God who would plant evidence to obscure the truth - that would make him the God of lies. In fact, to take either of those kinds of positions would mean making clear and significant theological errors.

These kinds of questions of how precisely God created are complex and probably impossible for us to really understand. So generally I feel free to consider the conclusions of reason and science and such without worrying if I am able to completely understand how they fit into what God did.

In fact, it would be more surprising if we could understand such things easily, and it may be rather arrogant to think we should be able to.

If I have to choose between advocating clear theological problems, and saying I am not sure how it is that the Genesis account - which clearly has some allegorical elements - and convincing scientific accounts fit together, I think I am going to go with the latter.

 

[gluadys]

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.

I think that goes a bit too far. I would say the literal sense is the plain or common meaning conveyed by the words--which in the case of the idiomatic expression "raining cats and dogs" is "raining very hard". Exegesis and sound interpretation may show that the intended meaning is different from that e.g. spiritual rather than physical death.

But the most important point is that "literal" refers to the sense of the words, not to the truth or historical accuracy of the words. When the serpent tells Eve "You shall not surely die" we can take the plain meaning of the phrase as what he and the biblical author intend to convey even though it is not true. Similarly, we can read the parables in their literal meaning as fictional stories while appreciating that they also convey a deeper meaning that is spiritually true.

But we needn't quibble on a point not in view of the OP.

Right.