Theistic Evolutionists - Interpretation versus Human Error

[Speedwell]

"You people"?

Christians who believe in literal inerrancy.

 

[Inkfingers]

Christians who believe in literal inerrancy.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Biblical literalist.

I've already said that I take at least a serious chunk of Genesis as poetry, mythology, and metaphor, not history.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Human error. Where you insert those missing common ancestors in an attempt to link divergent species to support your evolutionary view. Also interpretation errors where you incorrectly interpret what is a separate species instead of labeling it as a subspecies.

So both interpretation error and human error apply.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Biblical literalist.

I've already said that I take at least a serious chunk of Genesis as poetry, mythology, and metaphor, not history.

Then why are you concerned with inerrancy being preserved in translation?

 

[Inkfingers]

Then why are you concerned with inerrancy being preserved in translation?

I already covered that in my first post on this thread.

 

[Speedwell]

I already covered that in my first post on this thread.

Given the nature of the post you mention, I took your disclaimer at the end with a grain of salt. For that, I apologize.

 

[Inkfingers]

Given the nature of the post you mention, I took your disclaimer at the end with a grain of salt. For that, I apologize.

To be fair I should say that I am open to the possibility of the Bible not being inerrant (as I said, which translation is the 'protected' one?), but as regards this thread my reasons for being TE are about the creation story being metaphor and poetry not history.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course, even I can be said to regard the Bible to be "inerrant." It is exactly the book God wanted it to be; He made no "errors" in its production. If it contains passages of myth or legend, if the essential meaning is tolerant of differences in translation, then that is what God wanted; there are no mistakes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, even I can be said to regard the Bible to be "inerrant." It is exactly the book God wanted it to be; He made no "errors" in its production. If it contains passages of myth or legend, if it is tolerant of differences in translation, then that is what God wanted; there are no mistakes.

But He wrote it in Hebrew, not in an English translation from the Hebrew.

Take the 2nd word of the second verse in Genesis for example.

"Hayah"

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

It means "to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

Yet almost all English Bibles don't translate it as "became" - as in the state the Earth became, but instead as "was" as in the state it started from. Even if "was" is not even listed as a possible meaning of the Hebrew word.

So which translation would you consider as inerrant, the Hebrew meaning of "became" or the English meaning of "was"????? Both change the interpretation dramatically.

 

[Speedwell]

But He wrote it in Hebrew, not in an English translation from the Hebrew.

Take the 2nd word of the second verse in Genesis for example.

"Hayah"

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

It means "to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

Yet almost all English Bibles don't translate it as "became" - as in the state the Earth became, but instead as "was" as in the state it started from. Even if "was" is not even listed as a possible meaning of the Hebrew word.

So which translation would you consider as inerrant, the Hebrew meaning of "became" or the English meaning of "was"????? Both change the interpretation dramatically.

What essential point of Christian doctrine depends on it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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).

I'm not sure it's quite either-or, as black and white as you say. People can be aware that The Bible could be wrong, but that a lot of it is right or a reasonable approximation to the truth.

EDIT: Note that language in the above should be interpreted as me trying to think from the viewpoint of a theist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What essential point of Christian doctrine depends on it?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.”

Or

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth became without form, and void; and darkness became on the face of the deep."

So one implies the earth underwent a catastrophe before man was created. Hence the dinosaurs died out....

The other implies man and the animals with him were the first life created.....

One fits with the examination of God's works, the other doesn't and leads to those claimed inconsistencies....

This is one small instance out of thousands......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not sure it's quite either-or, as black and white as you say. People can be aware that The Bible could be wrong, but that a lot of it is right or a reasonable approximation to the truth.

See above post, A proper interpretation clears up such inconsistencies...

 

[AnotherAtheist]

See above post, A proper interpretation clears up such inconsistencies...

That is one possible position to take. Others may (and from this thread - do) take other positions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is one possible position to take. Others may (and from this thread - do) take other positions.

Based upon an incorrect interpretation into English of a Hebrew word who's interpretation is not even listed as a possible meaning of the word.... by the same people that then interpret it as meaning the very word they don't even list as a possible interpretation....

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Based upon an incorrect interpretation into English of a Hebrew word who's interpretation is not even listed as a possible meaning of the word.... by the same people that then interpret it as meaning the very word they don't even list as a possible interpretation....

Who decides which interpretation is correct? And how?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who decides which interpretation is correct? And how?

The meaning of the Hebrew word. If we are going to start interpreting words any way we like...... even when we know such meaning is not a possible meaning, why bother at all, let's all just say whatever we want anytime we want. Much easier that way I guess than having to follow dictionaries and such.....

 

[Speedwell]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.”

Or

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth became without form, and void; and darkness became on the face of the deep."

So one implies the earth underwent a catastrophe before man was created. Hence the dinosaurs died out....

The other implies man and the animals with him were the first life created.....

One fits with the examination of God's works, the other doesn't and leads to those claimed inconsistencies....

What??? What dinosaurs? What catastrophe? The only difference I see it making is that the Earth was either created without form and void, or came to that condition from some previous condition not stated, as part of the creation process. There is no indication of a catastrophe, and man, dinosaurs and other animals are still in the future at that point.

What essential point of Christian doctrine is at stake?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What??? What dinosaurs? What catastrophe? The only difference I see it making is that the Earth was either created without form and void, or came to that condition from some previous condition not stated, as part of the creation process. There is no indication of a catastrophe, and man, dinosaurs and other animals are still in the future at that point.

What essential point of Christian doctrine is at stake?

Because you also fail to understand that tohu wa bohu is used together in only three verses in the bible, this being one of them. That in both other instances point to a once flourishing condition laid desolate and waste.

Please, you cant justify your view. Not a single human skeleton has been found anywhere with any of the life that existed previously.

And this steadfast view to unsupported interpretations is why evolutionists point to inconsistencies. You make them yourself....

 

[Speedwell]

Because you also fail to understand that tohu wa bohu is used together in only three verses in the bible, this being one of them. That in both other instances point to a once flourishing condition laid desolate and waste.

Please, you cant justify your view. Not a single human skeleton has been found anywhere with any of the life that existed previously.

What "view" is that? I don't recall saying anything at all about human skeletons, or about previously existing life. The passage we are talking about describes conditions well before there was any kind of life, so I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

And this steadfast view to unsupported interpretations is why evolutionists point to inconsistencies. You make them yourself....

So you can't answer my question. I will have to assume there is no point of Christian doctrine which depends on it so it doesn't make any difference which way you want to read it--which was my point to begin with..