Theistic Evolutionists - Interpretation versus Human Error

[AnotherAtheist]

I note from the big survey of who believes what (which is very interesting by the way) that there are quite a few theistic evolutionists here.

I'm curious about views of The Bible and theistic evolutionists.

One way in which theism and evolution (and other science) can be compatible is to view The Bible as an allegory that describes in simple terms what God did in much more subtle ways.

But, another way that they could be compatible is if The Bible is viewed as a flawed human product which includes mistakes. Such as: attributing the creation of life to God, when in fact God didn't do that. And if we (e.g.) eventually find fully detailed theories of abiogenesis, then the result of that might be to conclude 'OK, people who claimed that God did that have been shown to be wrong.'

So, the two theistic evolutionist approaches here (which I don't claim to be all possible ones) are: 'The Bible is correct but we haven't interpreted it correctly.' and 'The Bible isn't actually correct, and doesn't fully accurately describe God and his actions.'

While, as my username should make clear, I'm an atheist and don't believe in God, it seems to me that the latter of the two sets of beliefs above are logically possible. A person may have a strong belief in God and Jesus based on (e.g.) their interpretations of feelings and experiences, but still have no need to dispute any science at all. They might view science as discovering things about the world, including what God did do / is responsible for, and what God didn't do / isn't responsible for. So that, in their view, as science progresses, we learn more about God and God's role in the universe.

Therefore, there's no need for the frantic attempts to preserve beliefs flagrantly incompatible with evidence that full Bible literalists have. But, in the second of the two models described above, there also isn't the need to find new interpretations of The Bible.

I'm curious to know if there are theistic evolutionists here who would fit the second model described above. That The Bible isn't inerrant, is actually wrong in places, science helps us discover where it is wrong, but that they believe in God and Jesus.

From my atheistic viewpoint, the second model is the more reasonable one to approach, but the point of this thread is to see what theistic evolutionists believe, not atheists.

 

[Sanoy]

I could be wrong but it seems that you would have to take an errant view under complete TE. I think the language is wide open for theistic evolution of everything except for the creation of man. The book has God specially creating man from the dust of the earth and then God breathes life into him. I guess you could say it's allegory, but of what? and what is the allegory of Eve?

 

[Inkfingers]

I'm curious to know if there are theistic evolutionists here who would fit the second model described above. That The Bible isn't inerrant, is actually wrong in places, science helps us discover where it is wrong, but that they believe in God and Jesus.

The problem with questioning the inerrancy of the Bible is that once you do that, it becomes stripped of absolute authority and instead you have to dig out the authority from amongst the untruths/errors/lies (delete as applicable). And who can do that? If you get someone else to do it, how do you know if they are lying or not unless you yourself also do the research. But doing that research would be a fulltime task and then some....so we cannot possibly all do it (or we'd have no time for anything else, like a job or a family). I mean, have you TRIED getting to grips with the vagueness of Greek or the questions of accuracy of the Masoretic text's vowels? My spellcheck just told me to replace that with Masochistic, which is means my spellchecker may have more awareness than I previously gave it credit for. :o

Taking the Bible as inerrant is a shortcut for people who realise that for most people there are just not enough hours in the day to thoroughly learn and explore the Greek and Hebrew (or indeed Aramaic in the Qumran scrolls) and still have a job, life, family, etc.

The consequence, if they DID treat the Bible as no longer inerrant, would probably just result in them falling away from the faith (should I suggest nefarious intent on your behalf in seeking to nudge that route? ).

But at the same time WHICH translation is the "inerrant" one? The KJV? The NIV? The NLT? The Darby? The NWT? Can open...worms everywhere...

Personally I prefer to take the first route that you offer (I'm a Theistic Evolutionist who treats Genesis as poetry / allegory) but then as it says under my name.....

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Thanks for the replies @Sanoy and @Inkfingers

I didn't have 'nefarious intent'; I only want to know more about how people believe. This thread is not intended to manipulate people to change their beliefs.

@Inkfingers - I see what you say, to assume errancy in the Bible would weaken people's beliefs. I can certainly imagine people remaining firm in their beliefs even if they consider the Bible errant, due to the number of people who report personal experience as their primary reason for believing.

 

[sfs]

I could be wrong but it seems that you would have to take an errant view under complete TE. I think the language is wide open for theistic evolution of everything except for the creation of man. The book has God specially creating man from the dust of the earth and then God breathes life into him. I guess you could say it's allegory, but of what? and what is the allegory of Eve?

From Michael D. Guinan, professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages and biblical spirituality at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley:

In an article about the first couple, Father Guinan wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?”

The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”

 

[AnotherAtheist]

From Michael D. Guinan, professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages and biblical spirituality at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley:

This to me looks to be interpretation - would you agree?

Also, I note that you are Non-Denom. Do you think that non-demon Christians are more likely to be flexible in their approach to their religion, or not?

 

[sfs]

The problem with questioning the inerrancy of the Bible is that once you do that, it becomes stripped of absolute authority and instead you have to dig out the authority from amongst the untruths/errors/lies (delete as applicable)

The problem with not questioning the inerrancy of the Bible is that when somebody refuses to question, the questions haven't gone away. All they've done is refuse to think about them.

 

[sfs]

This to me looks to be interpretation - would you agree?

Anything other than quoting a text verbatim is interpretation.

Also, I note that you are Non-Denom. Do you think that non-demon Christians are more likely to be flexible in their approach to their religion, or not?

Non-denom is a catch-all category. Probably most non-denominational American churches are evangelical or fundamentalist, and they would typically have less flexible approaches than, say, someone in a mainline church. (Assuming there still are any people in mainline churches, that is. They're disappearing fast.)

To answer your original question. . . I tend to think of the Bible as a human document, with varying degrees of historical accuracy, and representing a range of theological views, some of them in conflict with one another.

 

[Inkfingers]

The problem with not questioning the inerrancy of the Bible is that when somebody refuses to question, the questions haven't gone away. All they've done is refuse to think about them.

But as I said, once you question one piece you question ALL of it - at which point your will either take up a life-filling work to learn and check the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their original language and in their entirety, or in the fact face of that enormous task, abandon the Bible (which is kind of convenient for atheists).

 

[SeventyOne]

So, the two theistic evolutionist approaches here (which I don't claim to be all possible ones) are: 'The Bible is correct but we haven't interpreted it correctly.' and 'The Bible isn't actually correct, and doesn't fully accurately describe God and his actions.'

That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion when considering that particular position. I am a creationist, and I've arrived at the same basic conclusion from my end of the spectrum as well.

 

[sfs]

But as I said, once you question one piece you question ALL of it - at which point your will either take up a life-filling work to learn and check the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their original language and in their entirety, or in the fact face of that enormous task, abandon the Bible (which is kind of convenient for atheists).

Or you decide the question doesn't really matter that much to your life. Or you decide to trust some authority or set of authorities -- which makes at least as much sense as basing your answer on a desire not to be bothered with thinking about the subject.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem with questioning the inerrancy of the Bible is that once you do that, it becomes stripped of absolute authority and instead you have to dig out the authority from amongst the untruths/errors/lies (delete as applicable).

If scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (I'll assume edited and or translated by people also inspired) then there is no reason to suspect any fiction, error, or lies. Errors would be minor, and authority would be personal rather than authoritative and external. That's my conclusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

But as I said, once you question one piece you question ALL of it - at which point your will either take up a life-filling work to learn and check the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their original language and in their entirety, or in the fact face of that enormous task, abandon the Bible (which is kind of convenient for atheists).

No. Translation teams of 20 to 100 people debate on the wording of the translation they are working on. No one is required to take on the task themselves.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or you decide the question doesn't really matter that much to your life. Or you decide to trust some authority or set of authorities -- which makes at least as much sense as basing your answer on a desire not to be bothered with thinking about the subject.

@Inkfingers

I this is just it. God is ultimately a topic that could never be fully understood by any believer. Questions would always exist on how X, Y and Z should be interpretted. So it comes down to whether you can live life with these questions or not.

The teachings of Jesus, I would say contain many truths and valuable concepts that are worth learning about, experiencing and putting into practice. And these truths do not need to be tied to say, a literal interpretation of Genesis.

When Jesus was taken captive, in the quarrel that took place between the apostles and Romans, as the story goes, a roman soldier was injured. And Jesus went and healed this man, even when he knew that this man would be taking him captive for his cruxifiction. Until Jesus died on the cross where he asked the father to forgive mankind, Jesus always sought out salvation and healing of mankind. And he still does seek out our salvation, as Christian beliefs go. He displays the ultimate form of love and grace. And this is something that, even without a literal interpretation of Genesis, all Christian's can believe.

And it's a message that can be believed in, without having all the answers as to what it's origins are.

 

[Speedwell]

If scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (I'll assume edited and or translated by people also inspired) then there is no reason to suspect any fiction, error, or lies. Errors would be minor, and authority would be personal rather than authoritative and external. That's my conclusion.

Why not fiction? Is God not allowed to write fiction?

 

[Inkfingers]

No. Translation teams of 20 to 100 people debate on the wording of the translation they are working on. No one is required to take on the task themselves.

They all need to know Greek and Hebrew fluently, and be experts in theology.

Even then, HOW many different translations are there now?

 

[Speedwell]

They all need to know Greek and Hebrew fluently, and be experts in theology.

Even then, HOW many different translations are there now?

If which translation you use makes all that much difference, you're chopping your theology way too fine.

 

[Inkfingers]

If which translation you use makes all that much difference, you're chopping your theology way too fine.

If they are all different, they cannot all be inerrant (by definition).

 

[Speedwell]

If they are all different, they cannot all be inerrant (by definition).

What makes you think any of them are? They're translations. I was under they impression that you people believed that only the original autographs were "inerrant."

 

[Inkfingers]

What makes you think any of them are? They're translations. I was under they impression that you people believed that only the original autographs were "inerrant."

"You people"?