An interesting view of Genesis 1 and 2

[California Tim]

Right, Gluadys, and the problem is that many YEC's just say we are wrong for taking Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively, period, without any analysis as to WHY this text is one that should be read literally. They will go on and on about "not trusting God", "not taking God at His word", etc, etc, as if this is what a person is doing when they read figuratively . . . except when THEY read figuratively.

So, we need to move past the figurative interpretation=not believing, and get to the analysis of the how and why THIS text falls into one category or the other.

And, no, Tim, we are not setting up a strawman. The YEC's generally are the ones simply yelling "you must read it literally" and we point out that even they don't do this all the time. So, it is the TE's pointing out that the YEC's are not reading solely literally.

I would not exactly say no reasons have been given in support of the literal translation. The fact is the reasons for supporting a literal translation are found within the Bible itself and many of these passages including references by Christ to the literal Adam for example have been presented time and again. By contrast, the arguments found for a figurative translation - so far- have been overwhelmingly extra-Biblical sources. I see links to talkorigins.com presented by TE'ists more often than Bible quotes when advancing TE.

I asked the question in another thread once: When secular science and the Bible disagree, which takes precedence? Does a particular scientific conclusion cause you to reevaluate the Bible to fit the declared evidence? Or should the evidence be reevaluated to conform to the apparent truth presented in the Bible? And I don't mean when there is an "apparent" contradiction - I mean when they flat out don't jibe. For example: natural laws of nature preclude the spontaneous generation of food in the feeding of 5000. Do we interpret that passage as figurative as a result? OR - do we accept that passage as literal in spite of the scientific evidence refuting the possibility?

Personally, I don't even think science and a literal Genesis translation could disagree. I do however think "scientists" have formulated some bad conclusions based on hopelessly flawed time tables leading to this chasm between two camps - literalists and figurativists. So when I see an apparent contradiction between a traditionally accepted passage of the Bible and a scientific conclusion, my FIRST reaction is to be wary of the conclusion, not the Bible.

 

[Vance]

I would not exactly say no reasons have been given in support of the literal translation. The fact is the reasons for supporting a literal translation are found within the Bible itself and many of these passages including references by Christ to the literal Adam for example have been presented time and again. By contrast, the arguments found for a figurative translation - so far- have been overwhelmingly extra-Biblical sources. I see links to talkorigins.com presented by TE'ists more often than Bible quotes when advancing TE.

1. Most of the support for a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 that have been given can apply equally to any Scripture, ie. the idea that we should START with a literal-historical or literal-scientific reading unless there is a clear indication otherwise. So far, I have seen no reason why we should start there. It makes sense to us moderns, who view non-literal as less "valid" or "true", but it makes no sense at all when reading ancient texts.

2. You are begging the question when you say that Christ referred to a literal Adam. He refers to Adam, just as Genesis refers to Adam. Both references can be to literal or figurative Adam. It is boot-strapping to use one reference to support a particular reading of the other.

3. If by extra-biblical you mean an understanding of how ancient texts were written and read, then absolutely. And why WOULDN'T this be an essential aspect of Biblical exegesis? If you mean allowing our understanding of the natural world to influence our reading of Scripture, then yes, this should also be a factor. You do it yourself, whether you know it or not.

St. Augustine set out four criteria we should use when we set out to determine what a text means. One of those is that it does not conflict with what we see in the natural world. This has been a common factor of Biblical interpretation before he said this and since, right up to the current day. It has only been in the last couple hundred years that certain groups within Christianity have used more limited methods of interpretation.

I asked the question in another thread once: When secular science and the Bible disagree, which takes precedence? Does a particular scientific conclusion cause you to reevaluate the Bible to fit the declared evidence? Or should the evidence be reevaluated to conform to the apparent truth presented in the Bible? And I don't mean when there is an "apparent" contradiction - I mean when they flat out don't jibe. For example: natural laws of nature preclude the spontaneous generation of food in the feeding of 5000. Do we interpret that passage as figurative as a result? OR - do we accept that passage as literal in spite of the scientific evidence refuting the possibility?

1. Why do you specify it as "secular" science? This makes it sound like non-Christians are out there presenting scientific evidence and we must make a choice between these atheists and the Bible. Many of these scientists giving us the information are Christians. Science is just the study of the God's natural world. Thus it is only "secular" in the sense that it is not pursued solely to further religious ends.

2. There is no complete disagreement between science and the Bible. I am not sure how many times we have to explain this point. Even if you disagree with it, it is improper to restate your same point without recognition of the answer already given. Here it is again: science does not contradict the supernatural. Period. Science just describes things in their natural state, the natural processes. When a supernatural event happens, this is OUTSIDE these natural processes, and thus science can not confirm or deny it. All science can say is "without a supernatural intervention, it is impossible for food to generate itself pursuant to natural laws and processes." Science can not, and does not, say that such a miracle can not take place. Why do you keep ignoring this point? I know it is an easy one for YEC's to make, and it sounds good: "miracles contradict science, so if you accept science you reject miracles". But it is just wrong.

Now, it is a very different thing when we discover evidence that shows us that a particular event did or did not take place. This is not science disputing a supernatural event, it is the actual data from God's Creation confronting us. If evidence exists that would NOT exist if a particular event took place, OR if evidence that would exist if the event took place is MISSING, then we know the event did not take place (and this works in the corrollary, of course). And, of course, this is all a matter of degree. THE EXTENT TO WHICH the evidence is convincing is THE EXTENT TO WHICH we should believe the event did not take place.

So, if our particular interpretation is that a particular supernatural event took place, and we are confronted with such hard evidence that it did not, then yes, absolutely, we should follow St. Augustine's advice and consider whether our interpretation is correct. But ONLY to the degree that the evidence is convincing. Which means that we may be in a state where we are not sure which is the correct interpretation. And this is fine.

Personally, I don't even think science and a literal Genesis translation could disagree. I do however think "scientists" have formulated some bad conclusions based on hopelessly flawed time tables leading to this chasm between two camps - literalists and figurativists. So when I see an apparent contradiction between a traditionally accepted passage of the Bible and a scientific conclusion, my FIRST reaction is to be wary of the conclusion, not the Bible.

Ah, but what is the "traditionally accepted" reading? Modern fundamentalist reading? Post Reformation reading? Early Church Father reading? Longest held belief? Belief held most recently? Belief held by YOUR denomination? All of these standards will come to varying readings.

For me, I would not rely any more on "traditional" interpretation of Scripture to ANY greater extent than human interpretation of God's Creation. Both have the possibility to be flawed. While God is unchanging, how Man has read His Scripture is not. While you complain that TE's place a lot of faith in the conclusions of the scientific community, I find it equally troubling that you would place so much faith in your fellow man's interpretation of Scripture.

I look at the scientific presentation. I check how well supported the conclusions are, etc. I also look at Scripture to see how it was most likely meant to be read (not relying on the modern, fundamentalist reading I was indoctrinated in). Then I see whether there is a conflict between the two.

So far, there hasn't been any.

 

[California Tim]

2. You are begging the question when you say that Christ referred to a literal Adam. He refers to Adam, just as Genesis refers to Adam. Both references can be to literal or figurative Adam. It is boot-strapping to use one reference to support a particular reading of the other.

Before I engage in this one important tangent, would you at least go as far as to say that if the representation of Adam is literal - and if it can be demonstrated Biblically with reasonble certainty - then it sheds a new light on the interpretive manner of the creation account?

 

[Vance]

1. Any reference to Adam that seems literal can, nevertheless, still be a reference to the figurative Adam. They made no distinction at that time, they would have referred to a past figurative person like Adam in the same way they would an historical person. So, the style of reference would tell us little.

2. Further, a figurative Adam would fulfill any role they would have had for such a figure as well as any historical Adam. So, the role referred to by Jesus and Paul is equally met by either a figurative or literal Adam.

3. The possible "Adams" to which the named "Adam" is figurative for is open to interpretation. It could refer to Mankind at the time, or it could refer to Mankind of all time. It could even refer to an historical person, but around whom a more complex figurative story is developed by God to present His truths. Also, we must always consider that the Man created in the first creation narrative is not the same Adam created in the second creation narrative. One might refer to Mankind, the other as a single person, or a later group.

4. Even if there was a literal, historical Adam, and the second creation narrative was essentially meant to be read historically, this does not change a theistic evolutionary view at all. All it would mean is that such an Adam was placed in the Garden (even the text speaks of him being outside the garden at first and then placed within it) where all the action takes place, while the rest of the world goes on as it had for billions of years. They are then kicked back out into that world. This would also explain why there were other people living at the time (Cain's wife, who he was afraid of, who occupied his city, etc). This is a possible variation that I have always been open to, and have even listed elsewhere as being among the possible interpretations.

So, no, I don't see how determining anything new about how Adam was referred to in the NT could dramatically alter my viewpoint. But feel free to present your ideas, I am always open to new concepts and approaches as long as they make sense, are the most likely interpretation, etc.

 

[California Tim]

I see no need to proceed if what you are saying is that even if it could be reasonably demonstrated that the Genesis account referred to a literal Adam that your mind is made up about the interpretation of the rest of the account. I will hand it to you though - you covered just about every base to insure that any attempt to present the case would be invalid or "open to interpretation" before it was even offered.