Evolution meets the Bible -- and votes to change what the text means

[BobRyan]

In this article "evolutionary science meets evangelical faith" the objective was to change the Bible sufficiently so that it would fit with the doctrines on origins for all forms of life - as taught in evolutionism. The desired result is that students could then claim to affirm the newly-bent-bible AND ALSO their faith/belief in evolution. The hope was that they could report that more students were now affirming both faith in some-kind-of-Bible and also the unbent-pristine doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

Navigating the perceived conflict between faith and evolution

Initiatives to help students accept science without losing their religion

www.christiancentury.org

The step they propose is to view the Bible as mere "poetry" or "symbolism" whenever its statements of historic fact - are in the least bit inconvenient to the stories "easy enough to tell" that are found in evolution text books.

And "sure enough" -- if one distances one's self from the details in the Bible -- there exists a "sufficient distance from Bible details and exegesis" such that the unbent straight-up stories of evolutionism do not conflict.

===============================

China is also working to "customize" the Bible for its own communist-approved version where someone can be a strong promoter of the Chinese Communist party AND affirm their customized "Bible"

MSN

www.msn.com

"China Is Rewriting The Bible So That People Serve The Communist Party"

 

[HTacianas]

In this article "evolutionary science meets evangelical faith" the objective was to change the Bible sufficiently so that it would fit with the doctrines on origins for all forms of life - as taught in evolutionism. The desired result is that students could then claim to affirm the newly-bent-bible AND ALSO their faith/belief in evolution. The hope was that they could report that more students were now affirming both faith in some-kind-of-Bible and also the unbent-pristine doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

Navigating the perceived conflict between faith and evolution

Initiatives to help students accept science without losing their religion

www.christiancentury.org

The step they propose is to view the Bible as mere "poetry" or "symbolism" whenever its statements of historic fact - are in the least bit inconvenient to the stories "easy enough to tell" that are found in evolution text books.

And "sure enough" -- if one distances one's self from the details in the Bible -- there exists a "sufficient distance from Bible details and exegesis" such that the unbent straight-up stories of evolutionism do not conflict.

Maybe they should just study Origen, who reached the same conclusion before anyone had ever heard of evolution. It's one of the reasons why Christianity has never had a defined teaching on the age of the earth.

 

[PloverWing]

The discussions that Dr. Cordero and others are having, as described in the article, sound like they'd be quite useful to students at colleges like Point Loma, where many of the students are Christians and are wrestling with questions of faith and science. In the absence of conversations like this, students are left wrestling with these questions by themselves. The guidance of Christian adults can be useful during this time.

The closest I ever came to abandoning Christianity for atheism was when I was in college. I'd been taught that if the earth wasn't created in 6 literal days, then the Bible is false and Christianity is false. And -- even though I had tried to shut myself away from scientific evidence -- I had reached a point where I couldn't believe in a 6-day creation any more. I wanted to believe in God, I wanted to be a Christian, but young-earth Christians around me had told me that if the earth was old, Christianity was false.

In the end, what helped was reading a pile of books by 19th- and 20th-century Christian theologians who had worked through this and found ways to harmonize Christianity and scholarship. But if I'd had living, breathing adults to talk to during this period who accepted both the Christian faith and mainstream science, that would have helped me find my way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this article "evolutionary science meets evangelical faith" the objective was to change the Bible sufficiently so that it would fit with the doctrines on origins for all forms of life - as taught in evolutionism. The desired result is that students could then claim to affirm the newly-bent-bible AND ALSO their faith/belief in evolution. The hope was that they could report that more students were now affirming both faith in some-kind-of-Bible and also the unbent-pristine doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

Navigating the perceived conflict between faith and evolution

Initiatives to help students accept science without losing their religion

www.christiancentury.org

The step they propose is to view the Bible as mere "poetry" or "symbolism" whenever its statements of historic fact - are in the least bit inconvenient to the stories "easy enough to tell" that are found in evolution text books.

And "sure enough" -- if one distances one's self from the details in the Bible -- there exists a "sufficient distance from Bible details and exegesis" such that the unbent straight-up stories of evolutionism do not conflict.

No one is "changing" the Bible. It's just that the Bible might not be exactly the sort of overall message that so many fundamentalist Christians think it is and have worked all too hard to make it out to be.

And I'm already familiar with Cordero and her work. I made a thread regarding her here on CF a few years ago.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe they should just study Origen, who reached the same conclusion

I don't know of anyone who claims that Origen was a Darwinist or that he spoke of genetic mutations and survival of the fittest working to upgrade species from one level to the next in systematics/taxonomy. Do you??

 

[BobRyan]

The discussions that Dr. Cordero and others are having, as described in the article, sound like they'd be quite useful to students at colleges like Point Loma, where many of the students are Christians and are wrestling with questions of faith and science.

Their "solution" as noted in the OP is not to down grade the stories in evolutionism - but rather to downgrade the Bible's historic account of origins for all Phyla of life - into "abstract poetry" where "insert your view here" is open at the end of every sentence.

That does not work with the incarnation, miracles, the Gospel or any teaching in the Bible.

In the absence of conversations like this, students are left wrestling with these questions by themselves.

Can we trust Christians to think for themselves or should we suggest changing the Bible's meaning for them -- from a "science" bias where stories in evolution are termed "science". Wouldn't that be turning science into religion??

The closest I ever came to abandoning Christianity for atheism was when I was in college. I'd been taught that if the earth wasn't created in 6 literal days, then the Bible is false and Christianity is false

Why do you suppose that is?

The Bible states it as a literal 7 day week in Gen 1-2.

But even WORSE - for those inclined to re-cast Gen 1-2 as open-ended DIY-inserts-go-here poetry - the Bible also hardwires the literal 7 day week of Gen 2 -- right into non-poetry legal code in Ex 20:11 saying that it is the exact same time frame as a 7 day week at Sinai.

Even WORSE - the Bible then declares that this perfect, deathless , sinless , mature point for Adam and Even in Paradise with perfect righteousness is the "start point" from which mankind chooses to fall into sin and it is this stellar START point and then fall that then requires God to doom all mankind to the lake of fire -- and then come up with a rescue plan that involves Himself dying on the cross for all of the sins of all of mankind - to get us out of that mess.

Now between you and me and the amoeba next door - how does any of that Gospel make sense when you rewrite the whole thing into "two amoebas went walking and the first one did the talking"??

In the end, what helped was reading a pile of books by 19th- and 20th-century Christian theologians who had worked through this and found ways to harmonize Christianity and scholarship.

Let me guess ... their "solution" was not to rationalize away the "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" in evolutionism - rather they rationalized inconvenient parts of the Word of God away into "insert whatever you feel is best here" form of poetry and did not bother to clean up the mess that makes of the rest of scripture, and the gospel itself.

 

[BobRyan]

No one is "changing" the Bible. It's just that the Bible might not be exactly the sort of overall message that so many fundamentalist Christians think it is

Well they could simply "imagine a more evoltuion friendly Moses as a Darwinist" but that does not change reality of what the Bible actually says and means - it just reflects wishful thinking.

IN the real life of Bible interpretation - exegesis matters, context matters. Simply wishing that it were a pro-darwinian text does not go very far since everyone admits that neither Moses nor his readers were trying to promote a Darwinian view of origins.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe they should just study Origen, who reached the same conclusion before anyone had ever heard of evolution. It's one of the reasons why Christianity has never had a defined teaching on the age of the earth.

Note; Origen does not say the Gen 1 text does not say the sun and moon were created on the 4th day.
Nor does he say the text does not say that God created light on day 1.
Nor does he say that Moses or his readers were inclined to reject the literal 7 day week of Gen 2 and Ex 20:11)
– nor does he claim to affirm Darwinism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well they could simply "imagine a more evoltuion friendly Moses as a Darwinist" but that does not change reality of what the Bible actually says and means - it just reflects wishful thinking.

Your act of simply saying that it's "wishful thinking" doesn't make it so.

You're response here seems to show that you disrespect other Christians and think you have to "call them out" for wherever they don't align with your own denominations doctrine. Mrs. Cordero isn't one of those folks whom you probably know enough about, let alone have heard her testimony, for you to make an equitable judgement about her. I suggest you don't. It gets tiresome.

IN the real life of Bible interpretation - exegesis matters, context matters. Simply wishing that it were a pro-darwinian text does not go very far since everyone admits that neither Moses nor his readers were trying to promote a Darwinian view of origins.

You're talking to a person who has over 20 books on Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. So, you're preaching to the choir here.

 

[PloverWing]

Can we trust Christians to think for themselves or should we suggest changing the Bible's meaning for them -- from a "science" bias where stories in evolution are termed "science". Wouldn't that be turning science into religion??

Can we trust Christians to think for themselves? Yes and no. Certainly, we should try to educate ourselves as best as we can, and evaluate critically those ideas that come our way. Additionally, we should think deeply about our faith, exploring the truth about God to the best of our ability. In these ways, yes, we should think for ourselves.

But, no, we don't have to do this all on our own. We don't have to independently discover all of human knowledge all by ourselves. Taking this particular example: the only options my 19-year-old self could see were Young Earth Creationism or Atheism. (Or a third, more terrible option, that maybe God wanted us to believe false things, as a condition of salvation.) Some wise Christian theologians showed me some alternatives that I wouldn't have thought of, left to myself. I am grateful that they suggested those alternatives to me.

Even WORSE - the Bible then declares that this perfect, deathless , sinless , mature point for Adam and Even in Paradise with perfect righteousness is the "start point" from which mankind chooses to fall into sin and it is this stellar START point and then fall that then requires God to doom all mankind to the lake of fire -- and then come up with a rescue plan that involves Himself dying on the cross for all of the sins of all of mankind - to get us out of that mess.

Now between you and me and the amoeba next door - how does any of that Gospel make sense when you rewrite the whole thing into "two amoebas went walking and the first one did the talking"??

Suppose that Genesis 1-3 had never been written down for us. Suppose we had no idea what the lives of the earliest humans were like. We could still look around us right now and see that humankind is messed up. I could still look in the mirror and see that I'm messed up. The bad stuff that I've done, and the bad stuff that humans do to each other when we get together in groups -- we still need a rescue plan in which God fixes the terrible mess that we've made of our own lives and of the world. That's this amoeba's view of things, anyway.

Let me guess ... their "solution" was not to rationalize away the "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" in evolutionism - rather they rationalized inconvenient parts of the Word of God away into "insert whatever you feel is best here" form of poetry and did not bother to clean up the mess that makes of the rest of scripture, and the gospel itself.

Different theologians have different approaches, but one important part of the solution is paying close attention to the various literary genres in the Bible. I think we'd all agree that the stories of the conquest of Judah by Babylon in II Kings are intended as literal history; that images like the mountains clapping their hands in the Psalms are poetic metaphor; and that most of Jesus' parables are fictional stories intended to make a point. When we get to some of the other parts of the Bible, identifying the genre gets trickier. I was raised to view Genesis 1-3 as literal history, like II Kings is. But what if it's not? What if it's more like the parable of the sower and the seed, or the man building bigger barns -- a "once upon a time" story intended to make a spiritual point?

It's not about replacing what's inconvenient with whatever I feel is best -- or, it shouldn't be. It's more about finding a way to be Christian without having to believe things that are demonstrably false.

 

[NBB]

Can we trust Christians to think for themselves? Yes and no. Certainly, we should try to educate ourselves as best as we can, and evaluate critically those ideas that come our way. Additionally, we should think deeply about our faith, exploring the truth about God to the best of our ability. In these ways, yes, we should think for ourselves.

But, no, we don't have to do this all on our own. We don't have to independently discover all of human knowledge all by ourselves. Taking this particular example: the only options my 19-year-old self could see were Young Earth Creationism or Atheism. (Or a third, more terrible option, that maybe God wanted us to believe false things, as a condition of salvation.) Some wise Christian theologians showed me some alternatives that I wouldn't have thought of, left to myself. I am grateful that they suggested those alternatives to me.



Suppose that Genesis 1-3 had never been written down for us. Suppose we had no idea what the lives of the earliest humans were like. We could still look around us right now and see that humankind is messed up. I could still look in the mirror and see that I'm messed up. The bad stuff that I've done, and the bad stuff that humans do to each other when we get together in groups -- we still need a rescue plan in which God fixes the terrible mess that we've made of our own lives and of the world. That's this amoeba's view of things, anyway.



Different theologians have different approaches, but one important part of the solution is paying close attention to the various literary genres in the Bible. I think we'd all agree that the stories of the conquest of Judah by Babylon in II Kings are intended as literal history; that images like the mountains clapping their hands in the Psalms are poetic metaphor; and that most of Jesus' parables are fictional stories intended to make a point. When we get to some of the other parts of the Bible, identifying the genre gets trickier. I was raised to view Genesis 1-3 as literal history, like II Kings is. But what if it's not? What if it's more like the parable of the sower and the seed, or the man building bigger barns -- a "once upon a time" story intended to make a spiritual point?

It's not about replacing what's inconvenient with whatever I feel is best -- or, it shouldn't be. It's more about finding a way to be Christian without having to believe things that are demonstrably false.

we have an spirit inside that works with our bodies, thats how we can sense the presence of God, and can connect with him. That alone destroys evolution and validates that the universe and humans a creation of God, so that makes the bible more right about the universe than modern science.

 

[PloverWing]

we have an spirit inside that works with our bodies, thats how we can sense the presence of God, and can connect with him. That alone destroys evolution and validates that the universe and humans a creation of God, so that makes the bible more right about the universe than modern science.

I agree that God created all things, including humans, and that God continues to be present with us. The presence of God in my life does not, however, tell me how old the universe is, or what processes God used to create things, or whether natural selection happens.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Well they could simply "imagine a more evolution friendly Moses as a Darwinist" but that does not change reality of what the Bible actually says and means - it just reflects wishful thinking.

Your act of simply saying that it's "wishful thinking" doesn't make it so.

Actually it is very very hard to find well-informed evolutionists trying to make the case that Moses was a Darwinist.

By contrast - what is NOT so hard to find among evolutionists is this:

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:​

​

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story​

​

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

​

"Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."​

​

IT is not just Bible believing Christians that see the serious flaw in such Moses-a-Darwinist or Moses-a-Evolutionist arguments - it is the university's own experts in the case of world class universities that notice that flaw.

So "no" this is not simply "wishful thinking on my part".

You're response here seems to show that you disrespect other Christians

Nope. My argument is that everyone has free will.

My argument is with the teaching that if we sufficiently distance ourselves from the Bible text -- then maybe evolutionism's doctrines on origins could be smuggled into the the Genesis text even though we all admit that Moses was no Darwinist.

Its that argument that I expose.

and think you have to "call them out" for wherever they don't align with your own denominations doctrine.

I never say anything at all about "my denomination" --- I point to the details in the text. Details that your post is not addressing at all.

My whole point is that sweeping all those Bible details aside - is what is needed to open the door for evolutionism's origins doctrine in the text of Genesis.

Mrs. Cordero isn't one of those folks whom you probably know enough about, let alone have heard her testimony, for you to make an equitable judgement about her.

I have said very little about her.

But I say a lot about the argument for trying to get some form of evolutionism into Genesis

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that God created all things, including humans, and that God continues to be present with us. The presence of God in my life does not, however, tell me how old the universe is,

So then we can agree on something

or what processes God used to create things,

That would be found in Genesis 1-2 and in Ex 20:11. But IF we did not already have such texts - we could then argue that we have nothing that tells us what method/process God used between x-billion years vs 7 actual days.

 

[BobRyan]

Can we trust Christians to think for themselves? Yes and no.

Can we assume they will all come to the same conclusions ? No
Can we assume they will never allow a bias to cloud judgment? No
Can we affirm that that they all have free will? yes!

Can we point to the details in the text of scripture that do settle this matter such that the only counter to it - is sufficiently ignoring those Bible details? -- yes! (As even this conversation demonstrates)

Certainly, we should try to educate ourselves as best as we can, and evaluate critically those ideas that come our way.

Amen to that

Suppose that Genesis 1-3 had never been written down for us. Suppose we had no idea what the lives of the earliest humans were like. We could still look around us right now and see that humankind is messed up. I could still look in the mirror and see that I'm messed up. The bad stuff that I've done, and the bad stuff that humans do to each other when we get together in groups -- we still need a rescue plan in which God fixes the terrible mess that we've made of our own lives and of the world.

Indeed.

In fact Romans 1 argues that some things are "noticed" even by pagans and atheists... in they observe "The things that have been made".

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

dust, rocks, sunlight and gas will never make "a ten dollar bill" or "a rabbit" no matter how many billions of years you give them to sit there and bang around in random chance just-so interactions.

I think we'd all agree that the stories of the conquest of Judah by Babylon in II Kings are intended as literal history

True.

And we can all agree that the legal code found in things like the "Ten Commandments" in Ex 20 - was meant to be taken literally.

This is why Ex 20:8-11 is so significant because it hard wires the time frame in Gen 1-2 to the 7 day week at Sinai.

I was raised to view Genesis 1-3 as literal history, like II Kings is.

And that is helpful when you get to things like "legal code" in places like Ex 20. Because it is pretty hard to smuggle "not really, not literally, not true" into legal code - and still have it work.

What is more - every credible historian on the planet admits that Moses was not a Darwinist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

BobRyan said:

Well they could simply "imagine a more evolution friendly Moses as a Darwinist" but that does not change reality of what the Bible actually says and means - it just reflects wishful thinking.

Actually it is very very hard to find well-informed evolutionists trying to make the case that Moses was a Darwinist.

I hope you don't have me confused with one of them. Because I'm not an evolutionist who attempts to make the case that moses was a Darwinist. He wasn't; and neither was Paul the Apostle, as we both already know.

By contrast - what is NOT so hard to find among evolutionists is this:

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:​

​

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story​

​

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

​

"Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."​

​

IT is not just Bible believing Christians that see the serious flaw in such Moses-a-Darwinist or Moses-a-Evolutionist arguments - it is the university's own experts in the case of world class universities that notice that flaw.

Yes, I already know who James Barr is. I've studied 2,000 years of church history in a general way. But citing him doesn't finish any argument here.

So "no" this is not simply "wishful thinking on my part".

I think you've misunderstood me thus far.

Nope. My argument is that everyone has free will.

My argument is with the teaching that if we sufficiently distance ourselves from the Bible text -- then maybe evolutionism's doctrines on origins could be smuggled into the the Genesis text even though we all admit that Moses was no Darwinist.

I have no plans to "smuggle" into Genesis the essence of the Theory of Evolution. Like you, I don't think the original writer (Moses) thought in any way that resembles the thinking of today's scientists. Most of us who have studied the Historiography of the book of Genesis, coming from ancient Hebrew lines as it does, would know this.

Its that argument that I expose.

I never say anything at all about "my denomination" --- I point to the details in the text. Details that your post is not addressing at all.

Right. Because I haven't gottne that far yet. I'm not to have either the time or the inclination to write out extensive posts of thousands of words to explain something I've probably already touched upon during the 15 years I've been on this forum. I'm more for the simpler method of "monkey see, monkey do." If I sense that someone can't or won't do that, then I tend not to invest much time in that discussion.

So far, I get the sense that you have zero intention to engage anything that someone like myself might say or offer as a source of reference.

My whole point is that sweeping all those Bible details aside - is what is needed to open the door for evolutionism's origins doctrine in the text of Genesis.

No, it really doesn't. One can simply hold each area of inquiry and study separately. In fact, I like to allow the Bible to be the Bible and Modern Science to be Modern Science without attempting to synthasize them.

I have said very little about her.

But I say a lot about the argument for trying to get some form of evolutionism into Genesis

Again, not all Christian Evolutionists are trying to "get some form of evolution INTO Genesis." You need to realize that right now. You probably already know, like I do, that there are several different interpretive schemes that various interpreters (scienctists and/or theologians) of the book of Genesis offer. I usually understand the original writing to more or less be the kind of narrative that it purports to be. And that's even after applying Higher Criticism to it.

 

[NBB]

I agree that God created all things, including humans, and that God continues to be present with us. The presence of God in my life does not, however, tell me how old the universe is, or what processes God used to create things, or whether natural selection happens.

Problem is evolutionists say evolution process don't need anything else to work just the process of evolution alone is enough to create animals and humans. And thats a lie.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

No one is "changing" the Bible

Certain politicians and Wayne Grudem have done.

Don't accept "downloads".

This is nothing to do with genuine interpretations, a skill you have to learn by yourself,

Reject false dichotomies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Certain politicians and Wayne Grudem have done.

Don't accept "downloads".

This is nothing to do with genuine interpretations, a skill you have to learn by yourself,

Reject false dichotomies.

Oh, don't worry about that. I NEVER passively accept downloads, from anyone.