Theistic Evolutionists - Interpretation versus Human Error

[Ophiolite]

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

If you are going to acknowledge the catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs, presumably you are going to acknowledge the others major catastrophes for which there is equally sound evidence. In other words, you cannot acknowledge the demise of the dinosaurs without acknowledging the earlier ones. How do these earlier catastrophes fit into your reading of Genesis in the original Hebrew?

 

[Inkfingers]

It is exactly the book God wanted it to be

Ah, now on that we completely agree.

 

[Sanoy]

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

Why would the author construct a "everyman Paradigm" by using the example of specially forming him and specially breathing life into him? If he wanted to create a "everyman paradigm" it seems he would have just left things with the generic creation of man in Genesis 1. It seems very clear that that the author is going for the exact opposite of creating an everyman paradigm here in the intimacy with God that is portrayed in Adams creation. Granted Adam is not a proper name here, but it is definitely an individual being spoken of here. It is just inexplicable under this 'paradigm view' why the author would include this 'special creation story' if he didn't want Adam to be distinguished from the creation of the rest of life on earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you are going to acknowledge the catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs, presumably you are going to acknowledge the others major catastrophes for which there is equally sound evidence. In other words, you cannot acknowledge the demise of the dinosaurs without acknowledging the earlier ones. How do these earlier catastrophes fit into your reading of Genesis in the original Hebrew?

Oh agreed, I agree there have been 6 creations and 5 destructions, with man being part of the sixth creation. that soon there will be a sixth destruction followed by a seventh and final creation.

Hence 666. Sixth creation, on the sixth day and man will cause the sixth destruction.

Genesis is only the account of the creation of "man". (and the animals created with him).

One must indeed go to the works of God in order to read the history of the rest of creation.... after all, supposedly the same author penned them both, so why would I dismiss one?

 

[sfs]

Why would the author construct a "everyman Paradigm" by using the example of specially forming him and specially breathing life into him?

What does "specially forming" mean in this context? Each of us experiences ourselves as unique and special, so a narrative about the experience of being human should describe a unique, special, intimate creation.

If he wanted to create a "everyman paradigm" it seems he would have just left things with the generic creation of man in Genesis 1

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were not written by the same person. Quite different ways of thinking about things, I would say. Genesis 1 seems deliberately stripped of mythic and personal elements, while Gen. 2-3 has both. Neither one reads at all like sober historical narrative.

 

[Sanoy]

What does "specially forming" mean in this context? Each of us experiences ourselves as unique and special, so a narrative about the experience of being human should describe a unique, special, intimate creation.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were not written by the same person. Quite different ways of thinking about things, I would say. Genesis 1 seems deliberately stripped of mythic and personal elements, while Gen. 2-3 has both. Neither one reads at all like sober historical narrative.

'Specially formed' here is the contrast from being generally called into existence, which should be taken to refer to something empirically equivalent to abiogenesis and evolution, and being personally hand made from the dirt and life breathed in, likely by Jesus.

I agree, they are different books. I think we go through at least 3 books, each of different genre, before the story of Adam is done. The third starting in chapter 5 where Adam becomes a proper name for the first time.

I think the Genre of the first book is liturgy (which does not diminish the content, but merely constructs the content in the order of building a tabernacle over 7 days), the second book I think is a narrative, as Eden is a real place described and specifically identified in Genesis, it's mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is paralleled in ANE literature as a real place guarded by a Cherubim, for example Humbaba in the Babylonian Gilgamesh. (Cherubim are surrounded by torches of fire (swords) Ezekiel 1:13). I think it uses layered symbolism, but not in the allegorical sense. I think it uses ANE contextual triggers and phrases to draw the reader to broader contexts, much like we would see in the NT where a single verse is quoted to bring in a chapters worth of meaning. A couple of easy examples are the Cherubim I mentioned, the word for "snake" being the same word used for serpent, diviner, and shining one, and the curse of the "snake" having to eat the dust of the earth is ANE spiritual language to describe a deceased spirit whom no one loves.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh agreed, I agree there have been 6 creations and 5 destructions, with man being part of the sixth creation. that soon there will be a sixth destruction followed by a seventh and final creation.

Hence 666. Sixth creation, on the sixth day and man will cause the sixth destruction.

Genesis is only the account of the creation of "man". (and the animals created with him).

One must indeed go to the works of God in order to read the history of the rest of creation.... after all, supposedly the same author penned them both, so why would I dismiss one?

A creative explanation from a creationist. Nicely done. At least you've caused me to smile appreciately at a creationist's post rather than grimace, vomit and curse.

 

[sfs]

'Specially formed' here is the contrast from being generally called into existence, which should be taken to refer to something empirically equivalent to abiogenesis and evolution

Evolution and abiogenesis belong to a different conceptual world than Genesis, whatever those texts are doing.

I think the Genre of the first book is liturgy (which does not diminish the content, but merely constructs the content in the order of building a tabernacle over 7 days)

It is at least liturgical, although I don't know of any reason to think it was an actual liturgy. That tells us something about the function it served, but hardly everything: liturgies can serve many functions.

he second book I think is a narrative, as Eden is a real place described and specifically identified in Genesis, it's mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, and is paralleled in ANE literature as a real place guarded by a Cherubim, for example Humbaba in the Babylonian Gilgamesh. (Cherubim are surrounded by torches of fire (swords) Ezekiel 1:13). I think it uses layered symbolism, but not in the allegorical sense. I think it uses ANE contextual triggers and phrases to draw the reader to broader contexts, much like we would see in the NT where a single verse is quoted to bring in a chapters worth of meaning. A couple of easy examples are the Cherubim I mentioned, the word for "snake" being the same word used for serpent, diviner, and shining one, and the curse of the "snake" having to eat the dust of the earth is ANE spiritual language to describe a deceased spirit whom no one loves.

That all sounds quite reasonable, and not in any way contradictory to it serving as an expression of our individual experience. In reality, I think it's more a reflection of the experience of an entire community going into exile, but a text like this is unlikely to be only doing one thing. The imagery of the Garden is a potent one, and one that continues to echo. . .

And then to awake, and the farm, like a wanderer white
With the dew, come back, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on his shoulder: it was all
Shining, it was Adam and maiden,
The sky gathered again
And the sun grew round that very day.
So it must have been after the birth of the simple light
In the first, spinning place, the spellbound horses walking warm
Out of the whinnying green stable
On to the fields of praise.

Or in a very different key,

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always—
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Even then, HOW many different translations are there now?

It you check the makeup of translation teams, that's what you find.
Usually some of each.

You are free to use any version you wish. The "spirit" of what is said is consistent.
And so many english versions to read from! You get the best analysis from
thousands of greek and Hebrew experts!

But reading is not that critical:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Jesus claimed he was the truth and any fiction would undermine His claim.
And if the Father knows everything then:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus claimed he was the truth and any fiction would undermine His claim.
And if the Father knows everything then:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Does "fiction" not have its own kind of truth?

 

[SkyWriting]

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."

Inerrancy is not usually limited to original writings by most groups.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does "fiction" not have its own kind of truth?

Since there is nothing new under the sun, then fiction ........hmmm....I guess all fiction must be true.

I'll need to chew on that.

 

[Speedwell]

Since there is nothing new under the sun, then fiction ........hmmm....I guess all fiction must be true.

I'll need to chew on that.

Do you ever read anything not 100% factual literal history? Why? What do you get our of it?

 

[sfs]

Inerrancy is not usually limited to original writings by most groups.

Most doctrinal statements on inerrancy that I'm familiar with do indeed specify that it is the original manuscripts(*) that are inerrant. See, for example, the Chicago Statement.

(*) "Original manuscripts" is of course a problematic concept for something with as complicated history as some parts of the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

Most doctrinal statements on inerrancy that I'm familiar with do indeed specify that it is the original manuscripts(*) that are inerrant. See, for example, the Chicago Statement.

(*) "Original manuscripts" is of course a problematic concept for something with as complicated history as some parts of the Bible.

What it boils down to is that we don't have any of the original manuscripts.

 

[SkyWriting]

What it boils down to is that we don't have any of the original manuscripts.

But the 20+ thousand handwritten copies all seem to have used the same source material, giving support to the idea that there have been no errors or alterations since originally penned.

If you could show a progression of changes or something, you'd have a case against inerrancy.
So the evidence all boils down to accurate copies.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you ever read anything not 100% factual literal history? Why? What do you get our of it?

All of the Sci-Fi collections in the junior high library. Pure fanciful entertainment.
I don't recall even one lesson. I vividly recall early settlers on mars looking into
a stream and Dad points out the kids reflections in the water and says "THERE are
the Martians!" But that's the only bit I recall. (From Bradbury's Martian Chronicles.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A creative explanation from a creationist. Nicely done. At least you've caused me to smile appreciately at a creationist's post rather than grimace, vomit and curse.

That's just it, how does one call themselves a believer, if they are going to ignore the book of the earth written by the hand of God Himself? To ignore what the works tell you is paramount to ignoring what the word tells you. The two are not incompatible.

One must just realize the Bible was not written to describe the entire creation, but to tell of the creation of man, his fall, and his need for salvation. The life created before man has nothing to do with the intent of the Bible.

No more creative than your random life from non-life, randomly evolving yet following such strict rules for randomness..... Shall we also say from the "dust" of the earth?

Well we agree then, as most evolutionary creative explanations make me grimace, vomit and curse as well.

 

[hedrick]

People who believe in inerrancy seem to think that everyone agrees on what the Bible is, and some of us just think God wrote it incompetently. In fact that’s not the case. People who believe in inerrancy have an idea of Scripture that comes from what they think God should have done; the rest of us proceed inductively from what the Bible actually is.

The Genesis stories aren’t errors. They’re legends. The people putting together the Bible refer to historical accounts for the period of the kings. But for Genesis they wouldn’t have had history. For that period they gave us their people’s sacred stories. Just to make sure we didn’t misunderstand, they gave us two creation accounts that (except for Procrustean exegesis) can’t possibly be understood as both being literally true. That’s not an error. The stories are important for Jewish self-understanding. Both Jesus and Paul used them. They should have been included. But we shouldn’t derive biology or history from them.