Does theistic evoltion cause more problems than it solves.

[Phil4987]

Hello everyone. I'd like to start this topic by quickly stating some backround info about me. I was born into a Christian household, and I've never strayed far away from the Rock that is God. Admitidly, I have had doubts. Quite recently - alittle over a year ago- I was introduced to "Christian evolution," and I couldn't quite accept the biological fact that is evolution at that time. Thankfully, I became a freshman soon thereafter and began my mandatory biology classes which cleared many misconceptins I had about evolution. But, like anyone else, I wondered how could an all-loving God and evolution possibly coexist. I aksed myself, "Isn't the Bible literal?" There are many answers to these questions. First off- I was told of Biblical Exegesis, and how Biblical Inerracy is pointless doctrine. I was told that Genesis was a fable. I learned all of that from word of mouth.

I then learned that nowhere in the Bible is it stated that He is benevolent in all things. This may very well mean that God did use the brutal and merciless system of evolution as his method of creation.

And now, I've started to learn more about Biblical Exegesis, and this is what the topic is centered on. I really wanted to learn precisely what it is and how it works. Well it turns that none of my friends have actually used Biblical Exegesis. They had infact heard eveything by word of mouth as I had, and this rendered them effectively useless. I did a bit of reasearch, and according to some internet sites, Biblical Exegesis is a tool used to determine the nature of a syntax of verses. Exegesis asks the questions, "Is this a historical account, poetry, or a fable?" By comparing a syntax of scriptures from the Bible and comparing them to literary works of the same time, then we may be able to determine the answers. Is this all correct? ...I have no gain in being wrong.

If correct, one of my problems is, how exactly do I procure literary works from the time when the Bible was written?

If Biblical Exegesis is effective, then why has Biblical Inerrancy not been disproved? I've seen fundamentalist Christian's use the term 'Biblical exegesis' as to prove the Bible IS literal, and entirely inerrant. I could never again be a fundamentalist Christian, but theistic evolution is starting to appear just as hypocritcal as Christian fundamentalism.

Sorry I can't expand any further; I've got to go to work soon.

 

[stumpjumper]

Do you have a specific issue with theistic evolution theologically?

In regards to literary works at the time of the writing of the Bible, you can certainly find a lot of the writings of the Early Church Fathers here::
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

 

[gluadys]

Hello everyone. I'd like to start this topic by quickly stating some backround info about me.

First, welcome to the TE subforum.

Thankfully, I became a freshman soon thereafter and began my mandatory biology classes which cleared many misconceptins I had about evolution.

That's a good start. But I think you still have some misconceptions about evolution. For example, later in your post you call it a "brutal and merciless system". What makes you use such morally condemnatory terms about a natural process? Do you also think that gravity is brutal and merciless because people who fall of cliffs or are hit by falling rocks are hurt or die? Would you call electricity brutal and merciless because people die when struck by lightning? Isn't referring to such natural events in moral terms really anthropomorphizing them?

But, like anyone else, I wondered how could an all-loving God and evolution possibly coexist. I aksed myself, "Isn't the Bible literal?" There are many answers to these questions. First off- I was told of Biblical Exegesis, and how Biblical Inerracy is pointless doctrine. I was told that Genesis was a fable. I learned all of that from word of mouth.

I agree that biblical inerrancy is a pointless doctrine, but many TEs disagree with me. Personally, I think it is pointless because even an inerrant scripture must be interpreted. A doctrine of inerrancy does not excuse us from the responsibility of doing exegesis, which includes, as you note, determining whether a particular passage is history or parable, poem, satire or myth or any one of dozens of other forms of literature in scripture. The real disagreements over scripture are not over the text, but over what the text means. That is, they are questions of interpretation, not of accuracy.

I then learned that nowhere in the Bible is it stated that He is benevolent in all things. This may very well mean that God did use the brutal and merciless system of evolution as his method of creation.

Well, this is an interpretation. Both of the bible and of evolution. I would say it makes erroneous assumptions in regard to both. As far as the bible goes, remember that for a Christian, Jesus is the key revelation of God and everything in scripture must be interpreted in the light of Jesus' life and teachings. Jesus certainly seems to present God as loving and forgiving.

And now, I've started to learn more about Biblical Exegesis, and this is what the topic is centered on. I really wanted to learn precisely what it is and how it works. Well it turns that none of my friends have actually used Biblical Exegesis.

Exegesis is the art of drawing out the meaning of scripture. Probably the most skilled exegete here is rmwillaimsll, though shernren does pretty well too.

The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, which means putting into scripture the meaning you want it to have--adding your own thoughts to scripture.

There are many different types and levels of exegesis. Exegesis can include textual study (what is the best, most accurate text in the original language--do we have the words right), word study (how is a particular word used in the text, what is its range of meanings and which meaning applies in this passage), sentence study (here is where syntax becomes important), form study (what type of text is this? Is it a law, a poem, a history, a prophetic oracle? How does this affect the way we should interpret it?) redaction study (who was the original human author, when did he write and who did he write to, what agenda did he have, what message was he trying to convey, has the text been edited since its original writing, by whom, when, for what purpose), contextual study (what is the social and political and religious background to the composition, what literary forms were common at the time, what literary images did the author use, were those images also found in other writings of the time, how would people of that society have understood them and interpreted them?)

All of this is really preparation for exegesis proper, which is taking all this information and applying it to us in our time, with our very different conceptions of reality--social and political as well as scientific and religious.

In the middle ages, the usual technique of exegesis was to determine various layers of allegorical meaning and teach the lessons of scripture through these allegories. It was only a few centuries ago, as science was on the rise, that it became popular to dispense with figurative meanings and aim for a plain, common sense reading. Perhaps we now realize we have come too far in that direction and are making a course correction that gives due weight to both figurative and common sense readings.

Obviously, a truly expert exegete needs to be conversant with scriptures in their original languages and with the cultural context in which they were written. But we can all do a bit of exegesis on our own as long as we are aware of our limitations.

If correct, one of my problems is, how exactly do I procure literary works from the time when the Bible was written?

Since the bible was written over many centuries, you are looking at a large block of time. The earliest church fathers overlapped somewhat with the later NT writings. In fact some of their writings, such as the letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache were seriously considered for inclusion in the NT canon. Many patristic writings are available on line.

Another source, for a non-Catholic, are the additional books included in a Catholic OT, such as the books of Judith, Tobit, the additions to Daniel and Esther. Most of these were written in late OT times and included in the Septuagint. The older passages of the Talmud were also composed in this time period. The Talmud makes some references to the teachings of Gamaliel who was the rabbi under whom Paul studied, and also to Gamaliel's teacher Hillel.

Non-biblical books among the Dead Sea Scrolls give a good idea of religious writing among the Jews in the century before Christ.

The Book of Enoch, cited in the NT also belongs to this time period. For a different style of Jewish writing, look for the philosophical writings of Philo of Alexandria.

For writings from earlier times, it is easier to find non-Hebrew works, such as stories from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Sumerian sources. But since the Hebrews shared much of the same culture, these are also good sources for comparison with the OT.

If Biblical Exegesis is effective, then why has Biblical Inerrancy not been disproved?

It is not something that can be proven or disproven. It is an attitude of faith. "Proving" it always involves interpreting the text, and people do not always agree on the interpretation.

I have a particular aversion to a form of interpretation which tries to interpolate modern science into scripture. How can the plain statement of the psalmist that the earth does not move be squared with what we know of the earth's motion around the sun? Only by seriously wrenching the psalm out of its historical context and re-interpreting it to fit our scientific conventions. Why should we engage in such mental acrobatics to preserve the concept of inerrancy?

I could never again be a fundamentalist Christian, but theistic evolution is starting to appear just as hypocritcal as Christian fundamentalism.

Could you expand on what you find hypocritical about TE?