Paul’s Adam (Part I)

March 9, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.

But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”

It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much. First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).

There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.

The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.

This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains.

There are human cultural remains dating well over 100,000 years ago. One recent example is 130,000-year-old stone tools found on Crete. (Their presence on an island presumes seafaring ability at that time.) Ritual/religious structures are known to have existed as far back as 40,000-70,000 years ago. Recently, a temple complex was found in Turkey dating to about 11,500 years ago—7,000 years before the Pyramids.

In addition to cultural artifacts, there is also the scientific data from the various natural sciences that support a very old earth (4.5 billion years old) and the evolutionary development of life on it—things most readers of this Web site hardly need me to point out. Most recently, the genetic evidence for common descent has, in the view of most everyone trained in the field, lent great support to the antiquity of humanity and sharing a common ancestry with primates.

There is a third line of evidence that is a problem for a literal reading of the Adam story. Archaeological evidence gathered over the last 150 years or so has helped us understand the religions of the ancient Near East during and long before the Old Testament period. As is well known, Genesis 1 and the Adam story bear unmistakable resemblances to the stories of other peoples—none of which we would ever think of taking as historical depictions of origins. (We looked at some of this in previous posts.)

A strictly literal reading of the Adam story does not fit with what we know of the past. Some choose to ignore the data altogether. Others marginalize or interpret the data idiosyncratically to salvage some type of literal/historical reading. But, by and large, everyone—even including this latter group—has to do some creative thinking about how to handle the Adam story. A “just read it literally” mentality is not an available option. “What do I do with the Adam story?” is a real and pressing question for most people of faith.

In my experience, a lot of Christians—I might even guess most—have come to some peace with all of this. They may handle it in different ways, and some may not have arrived at a conclusion, but they at least recognize that something has to be done. They sense that a simple literal reading of the Adam story won’t work without creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, and so they are open to ideas.

But, sooner or later, another issue comes up that is hard to get around and for some simply ends the discussion entirely.

Paul.

Christians have to account for more than Genesis vis-à-vis archaeology and science. They have to account for what Paul says about Adam. As I see it, this is as non-negotiable as accounting for the data mentioned above.

In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul draws a parallel between Jesus and Adam: Adam disobeyed (eating of the fruit) and brought death to “all”; Jesus obeyed (in his crucifixion) and (in rising) brought life to “all.” Jesus came to undo what Adam did. He came to reverse the curse of Adam.

There is really little doubt that Paul understood Adam to be a real person, the first created human from whom all humans descended. And for many Christians, this settles the issue of whether there was a historical Adam. That is what Paul believed, and for his argument to have any meaning, both Adam and Jesus have to be real people. If there was no Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there was no need for a savior. If Adam is a fantasy, so is the Gospel.

For people who take the Bible seriously, Paul’s understanding of Adam can be an insuperable obstacle to accepting what we know about the past from other sources. Some feel there is really no choice but to reject science and archaeology completely. I really don’t think this is a viable option.

Others will accept to some extent the data we have, including evolution, but will insist that at some point along the line there was a first historical pair chosen by God to bear his image and from whom all true, image-bearing, humans are related. Placing an “Adam” somewhere on the evolutionary timeline is hypothetically possible, and there are knowledgeable people who find this a good way to reconcile Paul and science. (Although for others, this kind of “Adam” is too far from the kind of Adam Paul was thinking about, so it is not much help.)

However you slice it, what Paul says about Adam is a very important point of Christian theology. Clearly, what Paul says must be addressed.

But there is a factor in all of this that does not always get as much airtime as it should. It is regularly assumed that what Paul says about Adam is rather obvious, a sure starting point from which to engage this issue. “Well, I may not know what all the scientific and archaeological data are, but I can read English and I KNOW what Paul says. That is obvious, and I have no intention of messing around with that.”

Yes, we must take Paul seriously. But what if what Paul is saying about Adam is not as straightforward as a simple reading suggests? Maybe the matter is more involved than “Paul says it, that settles it”?

Paul’s Adam is not a simple matter. There are numerous factors that come into play in gaining a broader perspective on what Paul is saying and why he says it. In my next post, I want to list what some of these factors are. This is an issue that cannot be resolved in the series of a few (or many) blog posts. I am only interested in laying out on the table the issues that need to be kept in mind as we think about what Paul says about Adam and why he says it.

The tensions between science and faith, specifically evolution and Christianity, center on the issue of Paul’s Adam. As such, I think this is where our theological energies need to be invested.

Filed Under:

religion, Bible, reading, Scripture, New Testament, Adam, Paul, story, hermeneutics, faith, theology, story, symbol, literal

Share |

Comments (143)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

steve martin - #6291

March 9^th 2010

Hi Pete,

Isn’t Adam particularly problematic for those that hold to confessions like the WCF? I don’t want to dig up old wounds here & put you on the spot, but although I agree that “Paul’s Adam is not a simple matter” I believe the “WCF’s Adam is a simple matter”. Or is it my own reading of WCF too simplistic? In Being an Evolutionary Creationist in an Evangelical Church Terry Gray recounts his trial in the OPC where he was censured for his EC views. He was reinstated into office only after recanting. In his words:

My recantation was not a denial of primate ancestry, but rather an admission that I did not know how to hold my views about human evolution together with the uniqueness of Adam as taught in the Confessions and in Scripture

So (at least for the OPC), the WCF is clear that Adam was a unique, historical figure & the Fall was a unique historical event.
steve martin - #6292

March 9^th 2010

Oops, title of article is “Being an Evolutionary Creationist in a Confessionally Reformed Church”
dopderbeck - #6294

March 9^th 2010

Pete—I’m glad you’re diving into this. I want to point out one anachronism in your post. You say that the “literal” reading of the Biblical story would indicate that “Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.”

Maybe this is something you’ll get into in the next series of posts (I hope), but obviously no ancient writer, even in a “literal” sense, would have had any idea about “genetics.” Nobody had any notion of “genes” until the 19th century.

As I read the scriptures, even in a “literal” sense, and admittedly having no facility in the original languages, there obviously is a strong cultural concern with geneology—but “geneology” is very different than “genetics.” If you were to look at your geneological family tree going back four or five generations, there would be many people in your “geneological” line from which you have inhereted no genetic material.
dopderbeck - #6295

March 9^th 2010

Continuing…

So, IMHO, one piece of this admittedly difficult problem—and I agree with you completely, Paul is the real issue—is that we are bringing our modern knowledge of and concerns about genetics into a set of texts that are about ancient geneologies, not genetics. So, “Adam” could literally be the “first man”—the first in covenant relationship to God—without necessarily being “geneticaly” the first “human.” And, “Adam” can be in the geneological line of all contemporary humans without being the sole genetic progenitor of humanity, indeed without necessarily having contributed any genetic material that remains broadly in the human gene pool. Biblical geneology and evolutionary genetics are entirely different categories of concerns.
dopderbeck - #6296

March 9^th 2010

continuing… (you guys need to up the character limit)

Anyway, that’s my not-entirely-comfortable way of making peace here. I don’t, it should be evident, really think that accommodation entirely helps with Paul. The theological concerns seem to important to suggest that Paul is only relying on an incorrect contemporary Jewish understanding of human origins. Accommodation must be part of it because obviously Paul knew nothing of genetics. Yet, I can’t come around to the common view that scripture in this instance is just using a Jewish story to make a point.
Joe Francis - #6297

March 9^th 2010

Peter,

You bring up an important point. As a young age creationist, It is tempting to shake my fist in your face and say…we have an answer to this….why is it so difficult? But instead of beating each other over the head with our theology, could we say that at this time, theistic evolution/old earth cosmology has better answers to some problems like starlight and time and young age creationists have better answers to problems like Paul’s Adam and the problem of natural evil? As I have have said in other posts, young age creationism is growing up, solutions to problems may be forthcoming. As you infer in this blog, the BioLogos community does not have a good answer to the problem of Adam’s humanity but the hope is that one might be forthcoming. So my point is this, should we not be fair to the young age creationists and respect their right to seek solutions to problems? Instead of dismissing their views out of hand?
Pete Enns - #6298

March 9^th 2010

Steve. Thanks for your question. You are correct. For the WCF, the historical Adam is a simple matter. WCF was written in the mid-17th century by those who, understandably and unavoidably, assumed the same explanation of human origins as past generations of Christians had done for centuries. The question, however, is whether it should be a simple matter today for those who find their theological identity in that statement. That is not a simple matter for the reasons outlined in this post. (cont)
Pete Enns - #6299

March 9^th 2010

(cont) A way forward, I think, would be to acknowledge, what I think can hardly be avoided, that the theologians who wrote WCF were operating under an assumption of human origins that can no longer be held, while still confessing by faith that everyone needs what Jesus came to do. It would certainly take some hermeneutical and theological energy to connect those dots, but I do not think it can be avoided, even if allowing WCF to settle the scientific issue has a certain degree of attractiveness for some. It fact, I think it would provide a great service to that tradition. Perhaps the question is whether one must accept a 17th century view of humanity in order for the Gospel to be true. But he matter may not be one of either “accepting” or “abandoning” WCF, but continuing to embrace it with a sense of expectation for continued theological reflection.
Pete Enns - #6300

March 9^th 2010

dopderbeck. We have a word limit to keep you from being so wordy (and apparently me too, see my two part comment above)

You are ABSOLUTELY right about the “genetic” issue. See what happens when you let a biblical scholar run free in a laboratory? Another such problem in the post was found earlier and corrected. All I am really saying there is that a literal reading today usually brings in a reference to genetic connection, but your point is correct and well taken.
Dan - #6301

March 9^th 2010

The primary issues for most of us are not the age of the earth or the length of the Genesis 1 day. The primary issues are indeed the historicity of Adam, which Paul clearly and Jesus apparently both accepted, and the origin of both sin and death. it is more a matter of history than science. Paul hangs far too much on Adam to easily explain away as Paul’s cultural acceptance of the knowledge of his day. As Jesus told Nicodemus, “if you do not believe me regarding earthly things, how will you believe me regarding heavenly things?”. If Paul was wrong about Adam, and about the origin of sin and death, then Paul’s case for Christ as the solution is also wrong. In short, attempts to reconcile Darwin with the New Testament inevitably require a significant if not radical change in the meaning of Christianity itself, as a victory over sin and death.
Pete Enns - #6302

March 9^th 2010

Joe, I hear what you’re saying, but no one is dismissing YEC “out of hand” but for reasons. And is a YEC view of human origins really “better”? Better fro certain construals of theology perhaps, but does it give a more persuasive account of human origins scientifically? Does does have true explanatory power? That is the issue, as I see it: what accounts best for human life and how do we think theologically about that? I’m not sure we can remain in YEC to address that. Again, I am hearing you and respect you, but I don’t agree.
Phil Taylor - #6304

March 9^th 2010

You mention that human remains on Crete are 130,000 years old. But surely a YEC would simply say “What is the method that yielded this age? Are there any assumptions in the method?” They may encourage Peter Enns to be more skeptical of scientifc methods.
Joe Francis - #6305

March 9^th 2010

Peter,

Thanks for you personal reply. I think YEC has answers to human origins biblically, and some of this can be backed up by anthropology. We would have answers to common descent from a first pair of humans, but we would not have good answers for common descent prior to human life. YEC is moving toward a polyphyletic origins view which is not totally out of the mainstream, and I think if YEC solved the common descent problem, it would have explanatory power in this area. This reminds me of the origin of life ideas of the 1920s by Oparin and others. My understanding is that his ideas were not well received….but 30 years later, Miller’s work confirmed some of Oparin’s ideas. SHould there not be some form of tolerance for ideas which are maturing? What I find on BioLogos is kind of prideful attitude coming through, in that this represents a coming out of OEC ideas which could be made mainstream to the public, but aren’t you possible creating a narrow view…isn’t this what you are trying to avoid?
Joe Francis - #6306

March 9^th 2010

Pete, I should have addressed you as Pete, not Peter.

I apologize.
Harry - #6307

March 9^th 2010

Joe, with all due respect you claim that YEC is “maturing” but to any outsider looking in this is quite patently not the case. Look at Andrew Snelling’s slide from his presentation at a YEC conference; there is no model of biology, no model of geology, no model of astronomy, no model of anything at all. Furthermore, in your very own field of research, biology, the field has barely moved on in 4 years. The most up-to-date genomics research is still Todd Wood’s from 2006 where he lays out the data and challenges others to provide explanations. This patently has not been done. This is not because the model has not had time to “mature,” it is because the model simply will not accept the plain, obvious implications of the data; humans share ancestry with other forms of life. Meanwhile evolutionary science continues apace.

I’m curious as to what the evidence from anthropology is. Are there even any trained YEC anthropologists?

With regard to “common descent from a first pair of humans,” the genetics data is pretty clear; human population size has never been below a few thousand individuals, maybe 1,000 minimum.
Christopher Gudmundsson - #6308

March 9^th 2010

Not a professional theologian, nor a trained scientist, nor even any sort of credentialed academic, unless you consider an MDiv to be a meaningful academic credential… just a Christian, a dad, and a pastor, and a lifelong observer of the intersections/collisions between Sunday School and science. So here is my humble admonition: be very careful with what you do with Paul and the gospel he preached. A lot of hearts and lives formerly deconstructed are now reconstructed by the biblical gospel. It has outperformed and will outlast us. And by the way, thanks for having the guts to put your finger on the truly core issue.
Joe Francis - #6309

March 9^th 2010

Harry #6307,

I admit that progress is slow, however there is a growing society of creation biologists called the BSG. Our numbers are increasing and conferences are well attended, a good percentage are at the PhD level. We have a scientist working on patents for viral medical therapy, an idea which flows from creation biology. Several monograph series have been done with creation modeling.(The CORE series).

For more info go here: creationbiology.org
Matt - #6310

March 9^th 2010

Great post and discussion. Paul’s understanding of Adam is not straightforward. According to Gen 2-3, sin entered the world not just through Adam, but Adam AND Eve. I am not denying that Paul thought Adam to be historical, but giving Paul’s “stretch-the-story-to-make-a-comparison (with Jesus) M.O. in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15, perhaps Paul is not the YEC smoking gun some have made him out to be. (i.e., is Paul really taking Gen 3 “literally” in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15?)
Harry - #6311

March 9^th 2010

Joe, how many of the people that you work with, or generally know within the creation movement, would honestly say that they became YECs because of scientific evidence?

Apart from Todd Wood, who else would you regard as some of the leading creation biologists?
Joe Francis - #6312

March 9^th 2010

I don’t know all the stories, but I know two people who became YEC because of YEC evidence. Both are faculty members at a Christian college.

However, I personally don’t like the tranditional evidentialistic approach.

Leading creation biologists:
Todd Wood
Roger Sanders
Kurt Wise (although his main area is geology and paleo)
John Silvius
Georgia Purdom
Luke Kim
Ying Lui
Kevin Anderson
Frank Marsh (deceased)
Leonard Brand (more geology but has worked with whale fossils)
Tim Standish
Nick Altman - #6313

March 9^th 2010

Dan,

Not necessarily,

But I will wait for part deux of Dr. Enn’s argument to see where he goes with it. (I have my fingers crossed for “views of death in the 2TJ world..”).

Pax Christi..Nick
ken_the_confused - #6314

March 9^th 2010

At what point do you just throw up your hands and say the Bible is simply unreliable when it comes to historic truth claims?

Here are the “predictions” the bible makes..and the current 21st century scientific “results”:

Prediction/results
1) Earth created in 6 days/nope
2) Day 4 sun/moon/stars created/nope
3) Global Flood/nope
4) Local flood that wiped out all humanity/nope
5) Adam a real person/nope

And so on…

Can’t you compare the Bible to a Scientific Model? What scientific model would still be held to
that continually had it’s fundamental assertions falsifiied and the adherants of the model jumping
through all types of hoops to try to get the data to fit?

I’m a Christian, former zealous YEC, but quite mystified as to how to approach this. It isn’t
what I’d expect. I’d expect the Bible to make claims and whenever we could we’d find evidence
for those claims. This does occur in many areas: Hittite, Babylonian empires, rulers, etc. But
I’d expect it in all areas where we have data to either back up the claim or not.

confused…any help would be appreciated..
Norm - #6315

March 9^th 2010

Pete,

I’ve pointed this out before on a couple of other post here that it is not a foregone conclusion Paul is applying Adam individually theologically speaking as the physical first person. In fact Paul appears to be applying Adam in the corporate understanding as Israel just as you have pointed out in your previous blog as “Adam as Israel.” The implication is of Adam corporately from the Covenant understanding as the collective view of the Body.

Basically Adam became the first Covenant man as the originator of the Old Covenant Dispensation according to Paul to be replaced by Christ the second Adam for the New Covenant Dispensation. There are some scholars out there who have pointed these issues out like A. T. Robinson in his work “The Body” and recently by Tom Holland’s work “Contours of Pauline Theology”. Death is a metaphor describing Adam/Israels separation from God and Paul addresses how the corporate body is to be rescued from this Body of death.

Rom 7:24 … Who will deliver me from this body of death?

1Co 15:44-45 It is sown a NATURAL BODY; it is raised a SPIRITUAL BODY. …. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Gilbert Hendrickson - #6317

March 9^th 2010

Pete,
The story of the garden should not be read literally. At the same time it is a conceptual
construct of their own origion as a specific people.
I don’t think that Paul seen all peoples , nations that would inhabite the earth
as originating through Adam in the garden, who were in their beginning a part of their generations. The split that came of Noah was still within the bloodline of their own ancestry.
Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee , and was familiar with Hebrew/ Jewish History
and theology.
He was also a Roman and was well versed in Greek concepts as well.
I see Paul as trying to synthesize the Greek and Hebrew traditions .
As progression of thought to move the Word, Logo’s forward, that the world outside of
the Hebrew/Jewish mind set of origions could comprehend the Body of Christ
and it’s revelvance to the Body Of Flesh.
Paul seen the Adam in the garden as the Father, Mother of the generations
of their ancestry. Their births ,deaths in a time sequence points to a historical
Adam and Eve.
I don’t think Paul was making reference to the ADAM bara’ed of the sixth day.
He seen Adam in the garden as being but one of many flesh elohim that would come of
ADAM of the sixth day.
Gil
Matthew - #6318

March 9^th 2010

@ken_the_confused

I personally like Denis O. Lamoureux’s approach. He argues that the Bible is scientifically reliable—it’s just first-century science. This dovetails with the generally accepted view that one also needs to read the Bible’s historical and theological claims with an understanding of its original audience.
Doug Hayworth - #6320

March 9^th 2010

Thanks Pete, once again, for a nice post.

Regarding Steve’s question about the WCF. I had to address this when I was a candidate for deacon at a PCA church in 1995. My answer to the WCF statements about creation in six days and Adam was, I affirm those statements insofar as they are consistent with the meaning of the Scripture passages from which they are quoted. Six days has no authority (to me anyway) based on the WCF authors; its only authority is that provided by Scripture. So, if Scripture can be shown to say six days but not mean it literally, then I am not bound (by the WCF) to affirm it as literal. That argument was good enough to be appointed deacon; it probably would not have passed the mustard to be an elder.

Doug
Chris Massey - #6321

March 9^th 2010

Pete,

I had the pleasure of meeting you in Victoria, BC last year. I was the guy with all the Exodus questions Can’t tell you how glad I am to have you writing here on Biologos.

I agree with you that Paul most likely believed Adam to be a literal historical figure. Why wouldn’t he? My current view is that when Paul begins drawing analogies with Christ, his references to Adam assume the historicity of Adam, but that doesn’t make historicity essential to the analogy. I’ve overcome a lot of cognitive dissonance by letting go of the idea that biblical writers were somehow endowed with superhuman knowledge that allowed them to transcend all of the faulty notions of their culture. Surely that isn’t the case.

Perhaps we can find a parallel in Christ’s words in Matt. 12:40, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” There are good reasons to question whether the fish-swallowing of Jonah is pure history or literary device. Does it render Christ’s analogy meaningless? I should hope not.
...
Chris Massey - #6322

March 9^th 2010

...

I would concede that Paul’s reference to Adam is more than just an analogy. He clearly believes that the Adamic fall is the origin of sin. But again, if Paul is mistaken about sin’s origin, does that lessen the reality of sin or our need for a Savior?
Gordon J. Glover - #6326

March 9^th 2010

Chris,

I’ll go one step further… Paul’s vision of being caught up with Christ in the “3rd heaven” certainly assumed an ancient geography (as well as his many references to the “ends” or “corners” of the earth). And I have not heard any Christians argue for the ancient 3-tier universe based on Paul’s remarks.

The eyewitness accounts of the resurrection also assumed that the literal heaven (ie: God’s dwelling place) was just beyond the clouds. What else would it mean to have Christ physically taken up? Our ancient creeds clearly say that Christ “descended into hell” and ” ascended into heaven”—where he is physically seated at God’s right hand. Yet, the vast majority of Christians never question how this actually works given our modern cosmological context.

To stumble over such questions would completely miss the point of the biblical accounts—and I think deep-down that we understand this. My hope is that someday, many years from now, Christians will look at the Adam-Christ stumbling block in much the same way.
JHM - #6330

March 9^th 2010

Chris said:
“But again, if Paul is mistaken about sin’s origin, does that lessen the reality of sin or our need for a Savior?”

Frankly, if Paul couldn’t get the origin of sin right, it would tend to make me wonder why I should trust that he got the “solution” any more right. If I am to base my understanding of God, sin, salvation, heaven and hell on the writing of a guy who lived 2000 years ago I would like to know he’s reliable. How am I to trust Paul now?
Gordon J. Glover - #6334

March 9^th 2010

JHM,

Had Paul “got it right” with respect to 21st century science, then he would have surely “got it wrong” for his immediate audience. Paul’s understanding of sin with repsect to human origins had to intersect a scientific paradigm somewhere. Had that intersection been anywhere but the day and age in which he lived and wrote, it would have been nonsense. While the scientific context required to properly understand a “technically correct” sin narrative that included millions of years of evolution would have been inacessible to ancient man, certainly it should be within the ability of all future generations of Christians to see Paul’s words through their original scientific context. So in that sense, I think Paul got it right.
Gordon J. Glover - #6335

March 9^th 2010

Ooops—this sentence should read… “While the scientific context required to properly understand a “technically correct” sin narrative that included millions of years of evolution would have *NOT* been inacessible to ancient man…”

That’s a pretty important “NOT”...
Chris Massey - #6336

March 9^th 2010

JHM:

I’m sure Pete’s next post will shed some light on the issue.

In the meantime, I’ll offer this. Suppose God gives Paul clear divine revelation about the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection as a means of redeeming sinful mankind. Paul sits down to record what God has revealed to him. In trying to explain this revealed message, Paul may make incidental reference to issues about which God has not given him specific revelation (such as the historical origin of sin). In those instances, he’s likely to express the ideas that were common to his time and culture (such as a literal Adam). But that doesn’t mean that Paul is untrustworthy in the core message that he has been inspired to write - salvation from sin through the cross of Christ.
Norm - #6337

March 9^th 2010

Paul was not mistaken about sins origins starting with Adam. As I have pointed out above the sin is related to Adam/Israel being separated because of the failure of the Covenant of works to sustain a relationship with God. Adam is a picture of old covenant life that was a failure associated with the first dispensation and the reality was Israel after the fleshly or works nature to obtain righteousness. In Daniel 9:24 it was prophesied concerning Israel/Adam that sin would be sealed up or ended for the covenant people (saints). There are two stories going on here in scripture. First the Jew and Covenant people and secondly the Gentile (originally non covenant people). The Jew was taken out of mortal humanity (the dust of the earth) or Gentiles and given the opportunity to remain in fellowship with God but could not. We all know that story. The Gentiles were completely mortal and outside this first covenant except for those who came into the fold through the covenant people such as the Assyrians (Jonah) and Babylonians (Daniel and the exile) and interested others that turned to Israel’s one true God. This was a precursor to the Gentiles coming into the fold of true Israel as the one new body of Covenant.
Norm - #6338

March 9^th 2010

There is darkness and chaos amongst a dry and desolate spiritual land outside of the covenant people in which the Gentiles lived. They were separated from God and that remains to this day for those who do not seek God in the New Covenant of Christ the Savior of Israel and the World. What was corrected and became the end of “sin” pertained to the Covenant peoples failure to obtain righteous relationship with God. When Paul speaks of Sin being imparted to “all” men he is not concerned with humanity outside who do not seek God but is speaking “only” of those who seek covenant with God both the Jew and the Gentile. That is why he turns around in Rom 5 and says that righteousness and justification to “all” men occurs through Christ. He is talking only of those who come to God not those disinterested folks who remain outside in darkness.

Rom 5:18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.
Norm - #6339

March 9^th 2010

Sin has been removed for only those interested in calling upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26) and so this has been a quickie overview of a Pauline view of sin and its removal. Bottom line is that now any who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ have no sin because of the New Covenant of Grace that has been provided. The Gift is intended for humanity at large but is effective only for those seeking God through Adam/Israel’s redemption from spiritual Death (separation). As long as folks insist on mixing humanity at large into the concept found in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 the message will generally go right over our heads.

1Co 15:54-57 But when this corruptible (Old Covenant Israel) shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality(New Covenant Body of Christ), then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death (separation from God) is swallowed up in victory. (55) O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? (56) The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: (57) but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry for the length but this is not simple stuff.
JHM - #6340

March 9^th 2010

Chris,

Interesting thoughts. So given:
“In trying to explain this revealed message, Paul may make incidental reference to issues about which God has not given him specific revelation (such as the historical origin of sin)”
how are we to know what was specifically revealed and what wasn’t? This seems almost like sounds like a theological version of God-of-the-gaps, i.e. what statements of the Bible we find to be in error are not divinely revealed, therefore the other statements are the ones that *are* divinely revealed.

Additionally, you say:
“But that doesn’t mean that Paul is untrustworthy in the core message that he has been inspired to write - salvation from sin through the cross of Christ.”
How are we to know 1) that that *is* the core message and 2) that Paul didn’t get the core message wrong too?
JHM - #6341

March 9^th 2010

Gordon,

If the historicity of Adam were just a matter of misunderstanding the technical details of human origins I doubt anybody would much complain that Paul viewed Adam as historical/literal. The problem is that this intersection of scripture and science has real theological consequences. Gordon is completely right to say:
“Paul’s understanding of sin with [respect] to human origins had to intersect a scientific paradigm somewhere.”
but this is a case where one seems to end up with a different theological outcome depending on the scientific paradigm chosen. Genesis 1 is almost trivial in comparison to Genesis 3 in this regard.

P.S. I’m half way through your 16 part YouTube series. You did an incredible job! My hat’s off to you for the obvious effort you put into that.
JHM - #6346

March 9^th 2010

Norm,

Interesting thoughts, but I’m a little confused as to what your actual view of the Fall and origin of sin is. You said:
“The Jew was taken out of mortal humanity (the dust of the earth) or Gentiles and given the opportunity to remain in fellowship with God but could not.”
I looks to me like you’re saying that sin originated with the Jews and I guess therefore the Gentiles didn’t have sin BC. Is that what you mean by ” given the opportunity to remain in fellowship with God but could not”?
Gregory Arago - #6347

March 9^th 2010

Does anyone know, what does Dr. Enns call his approach/position?

He writes: “A strictly literal reading of the Adam story does not fit with what we know of the past.”

Later he puts literal/historical together. He also speaks of a ‘simple reading.’

In contrast to literal/historical and simple, does Dr. Enns propose symbolical/mythical or non-historical and complex? Or…?

While I agree with this: “what Paul says about Adam is a very important point of Christian theology,” I think it goes to far to suggest: “The tensions between science and faith, specifically evolution and Christianity, center on the issue of Paul’s Adam.” There are other ‘core/centre issues’ involved as well.

For the sociology of theology, however, unless Pete can convince Christians that Paul’s Adam was *not* historical, he’s got a tough road going forward.
Norm - #6350

March 9^th 2010

Here is how I would best describe what happened. The Gentiles were sin personified because of their pagan non relationship with God. (See Eph 2:12) They are in a natural state of separation from God called the desert wilderness with no plant or rain. (Gen 2:5) This is metaphor for mortal man’s natural state of being outside of a covenant with God. Adam or if you like Israel was given the opportunity as a called or covenant people to leave this existence through Garden life. This is metaphor for intimacy with God in right standing.
Here is where the rub comes though. What we call the fall is Adam or Israel’s failure to hold up their side of the bargain (covenant life) with God because of the weakness of the mortal human nature to obtain righteousness through works or ones own effort. This means then that God’s chosen ones were cast back out of the Garden into the fringes of their former realm of mortal existence. In other words they lost immortality and were not much better off than their original state of Gentile existence, however they were still the chosen ones and there was this thing called the promise that gave them hope and to all humanity through them as well.
Norm - #6351

March 9^th 2010

Until the time of the messiah they were living in a covenant “Sin” lost condition under the burden of the Law which relegated them back to the dust of the Earth just as the lost Gentile world remained. However it was a covenant “Sin” that was reversible through the promised seed of the coming messiah which restored them to Garden status contrary to pagan humanity’s natural lost existence. The catch though is that this Sin was removed only for those in Covenant while humanity that still resides outside the New Jerusalem are still in the desert wilderness without the river of life. In Gen 3:18-19 we see this condemnation back to the “dust of the earth” or mortal status that hung over their head until the coming of the promised “seed”. These stories about Israel are told using metaphorical symbols that one can determine if you set your mind to it as they are found in various forms throughout all scripture. That is why it’s possible to decipher what Paul is talking about in Rom 5-8 and 1 Cor 15 and put the puzzle together. What Paul calls a mystery often times.
Chris Massey - #6352

March 9^th 2010

JHM:

“Inspiration-of-the-Gaps” Haha, I like that. Point taken. I totally agree that the absence of historical/scientific error about a particular biblical statement does not amount to evidence FOR its inspiration. This would indeed amount to an inspiration-of-the-gaps approach.

I’m not trying to mount a proof of inspiration. I’m simply trying to say that a belief in the inspiration of Scripture is not incompatible with a recognition that Adam wasn’t historical.

Your initial question seems to presuppose a particular view of inspiration. Namely, that on every subject the Bible touches its treatment of the subject matter should be 100% accurate by all criteria (scientific, historical, theological, etc.). If that is the view of inspiration that one holds, then it makes perfect sense to say “If Paul is not reliable on X, inspiration is disproved. Therefore I cannot trust him on Y.”
...
Chris Massey - #6353

March 9^th 2010

...

JHM:

But what if inspiration is more like this: God gave specific messages to specific men throughout history and permitted them to convey those messages in a fashion that reflected their (sometimes inaccurate) cultural, scientific, and historical understandings. If this is one’s view of inspiration, then the discovery that an author’s particular historical or scientific understanding has now been surpassed by 21st century science, archaeology, etc. does not shatter one’s view of inspiration. It may, in fact, help us to distill the core message from the incidental messages.

What’s the inspired message and what’s incidental? That the challenge, I suppose. It may be a difficult task, but I think it is one we’re forced to attempt. I don’t have any easy answer for you. Although I do think it is fairly obvious from Paul’s preaching and the NT as a whole that the cross of Christ as an atonement for sin is the central message.

Your question really boils down to “Why should we believe the Bible is inspired at all?” If you used to answer that question with “Because it is 100% accurate about everything it says as judged by any criteria” then you will probably need to find a new answer. I know that’s the journey I’m on.
JHM - #6356

March 9^th 2010

Chris,

Interesting points. When you said:
“Your initial question seems to presuppose a particular view of inspiration. Namely, that on every subject the Bible touches its treatment of the subject matter should be 100% accurate by all criteria (scientific, historical, theological, etc.).”
I’ll admit that strict Biblical inerrency is the tradition I’m coming from, but that’s not exactly where I was trying to come from. Instead I think I’m trying to look more at the idea of “interpret Scripture with Scripture”, which I suppose presupposes at some level that Scripture can be trusted to do that with. So a question would be, “if we can not necessarily rely on other parts of the Bible to aid in the interpretation of difficult passages, what do we do?”. This is basically the crux of Pete’s work here I guess. We’ve declared that every Biblical author believed Adam to be litera/historical, *but* then said they must have been mistaken so we need a new theology on the origin of sin.
Gordon J. Glover - #6357

March 9^th 2010

@Gregory Arago - #6347

“Does anyone know, what does Dr. Enns call his approach/position?”

I’m pretty sure this is the “incarnational” view of Scripture. Rather than float down through a hole in the clouds (which nobody actually believes even though many evangelicals act as though they do), the Bible is actually a product of a messy human process, and can be studied as such. But its human qualities do not make it any less “God breathed”—and its inspired qualities do not make it any less a piece of ancient Near-Eastern literature. The model for this approach is the incarnation of God in the flesh—hence the title of Pete’s book, “Inspiration and Incarnation”.
JHM - #6358

March 9^th 2010

The importance of how we, as Christians, interpret the Fall has really come home for me in recent discussions with small group I attend. We have been talking about the “problem of evil” and how we are to deal with things like the Haitian earthquake, the massive tsunami a couple years ago, or Hurricane Katrina. We have both YEC and EC perspectives in our group and the difference in how they view such “natural evil” is starkly different.

The YEC (and many old-earth creationist) thinkers will immediately point at the Fall and assert that it was humanities choices that ultimately cause both natural and moral evil. The Fall, from this perspective, not only caused humanity to be thrown into a “lineage of sin” but that the world is also cursed as a result of Adam.

On the other hand, the EC contingent can assert “at some point humanity fell and was separated from God, introducing ‘sin’”, but they have a much harder time with natural evils because God has declared the natural order “good”, and the Fall had no physical consequences (the Fall is only spiritual).

Now will both assert the same essential Gospel? Certainly. Will they view sin and “natural evil” the same? I don’t think so.
Joe Francis - #6359

March 9^th 2010

JHM,

Yes the problem of natural evil appears to be a driving force for how some individuals move from one view to another. It appears that Ken Miller solves the problem of natural evil using evolution….for instance, God cannot be held responsible for the mosquito because he did not make it. Charles Templeton the famous evangelist abandoned Christianity altogether….in his writings he struggled with natural evil. Could it be that EC and TE cause some people to move toward atheism because of their inability to resolve the problem of natural evil?
CH - #6374

March 10^th 2010

ken_the_confused, (#6314)
I think you make an excellent point. And to your predictions more could be added:
6) Origin of languages at Babel / nope
7) Historicity of the Exodus / nope
8) Historical accuracy of Daniel / nope
9) Confirmation of incredible astronomical events like the sun going backwards / nope.
...

At some point we have to ask, “Is it right to believe the unverifiable parts of scripture (theology) when the verifiable parts (history, science) fail verification?”
Nick Altman - #6375

March 10^th 2010

Joe,

What might be instructive to your question at the end of #6359 is temepletons book on his losss of faith. What is interesting to me is that pages 193-220 give as part of his reason for his deconversion the problem of evil. Out of those 27 pages about 8 pages concern natural evil.

The book however spends the rest of its time in a way which is fairly instructive to some of the background issues concerning this discussion. He spends 41 pages on the OT, speaking about everything from the implausibility of the exodus to the issues of Job. Another 4 pages is spent on racism in the bible, another 38 on issues with Jesus and historicity/archeological evidence, another 10 pages on issues of women and the bible and most instructively his largest category, in two sections, is on the action and sin of the church and his time with Graham, 43 pages in all.

I would reckon his faith might have been salvaged by a more nuanced view of the ANE, rather than harmed by his acceptance of EC of TE - It seems that (based on his choice of topics) fundamentalisms answers to those questions just weren’t enough and that was the straw that broke the camels back.

Pax Christi…Nick
Joe Francis - #6376

March 10^th 2010

Thanks Nick, That was informative. However, what I have read about his struggle with natural evil suggests that he was not a fundamentalist….but perhaps he had a nuanced view.

It is interesting also, that many of the Darwin movies this past year made Darwin’s struggle with natural evil central to his rejection of faith (?)
Karl A - #6377

March 10^th 2010

Fascinating discussion. Although I would call myself an EC, I mourn the loss of the coherent cosmology I had as a YEC. Here’s how it used to be: God created the world good, in fact you could describe it as paradise. Man sinned, and separation from God and physical death came. At some point Satan rebelled and added more nasty stuff to the equation. Jesus’ first coming solved the separation from God issue, and his second coming will solve the other nasty stuff, and usher back in paradise.

I guess my question is, if there wasn’t a paradise to begin with (as we would define it, no disease, no disasters, no comets striking the earth, no extinctions), will the promised echatological paradise be something we would agree is paradise?
Nick Altman - #6378

March 10^th 2010

Joe,

Must have missed those flicks. To clarify I don’t think he was a fundamentalist at the end of his faith life, but at eh height of it he was Mr. Fundamentalist (in the historical sense of course, not trying to use it pejoratively.)
Joe Francis - #6379

March 10^th 2010

Nick,

Thanks, but if he left fundamentalism, I assume he moved toward a more open creation view, which appears to lead many to have a conflict of faith over God’s character regarding the existence of natural evil…..what kind of God creates by death and destruction?....it would sure create a conflict in my mind.
Karl A - #6381

March 10^th 2010

Tying in with Joe’s (6379) post…
Another way of stating my question is, if the creation of the first heavens and earth involved millions of years of volcanic eruptions, violent plate tectonics, “nature red in tooth and claw”, what does that say about the creation of the new heavens and earth?
Gregory Arago - #6383

March 10^th 2010

Re: the ‘incarnational’ view of Scripture (#6357)

Gordon wrote: “the Bible is actually a product of a messy human process, and can be studied as such.”

Is this a difficult or controversial thing to accept for many American Christian Evangelicals (ACEs)?

This seems rather obvious to me, Gordon, so I support what you say.

My question was more about Dr. Enn’s sophisticated engagement or lack thereof with history. Was Jacob a historical figure? If we call the ‘studied as a messy human product/process’ approach to the Bible ‘literary’ rather than ‘literal’, then some of the symbolism opens up that might otherwise be obscured. Enns is clearly anti-literalism.

To suggest that ‘Adam is Israel,’ however, *seems* to likewise suggest a ‘historical disunity of humankind,’ on anthropological, philosophical *and* theological grounds. I’m sure Norm will have a theological response to this. As of yet nobody has spoken of ‘polygenesis,’ but I wonder if Pete goes that far, since he is defending and promoting ‘common ancestry.’

I still find the idea that ‘not-Israel’ equals ‘not-imago Dei’ highly problematic.
Gregory Arago - #6386

March 10^th 2010

There’s also 1 Tim 2: 13, 14 to deal with, in respect to Paul’s Adam, which someone here recently alluded to as a cause of great strife in his understanding of ‘evolution, creation and religion.’ This speaks to the relationship between women and men and the issue of being ‘formed first’ and being deceived.

~
I still don’t see why Joe needs a ‘young earth’ in order to promote his position. It reminds me of Mike Gene’s appeals to ‘design,’ which, no matter how hard he tries and how balanced he is, will never escape from negatively colo(u)ring him as “one of those intelligent design people.” I’ve suggested that Mike change his terms to avoid associations with the IDM.

Joe is not a geologist or cosmologist, which are the two main fields in discussing ‘age of Earth.’ That Joe is offering “answers to problems like Paul’s Adam and the problem of natural evil” has little or nothing to do with “the age of the Earth.” Yet his current position on geology and cosmology is what makes it very difficult to take him seriously as a source of knowledge or advice.

If you don’t like the label ‘Creation Science/tist’ then simply refuse to wear it and stop promoting it.
norm - #6396

March 10^th 2010

Guys,

The reason I read the scriptures theologically is that is the primary purpose and thrust. The closest analogy I can give you regarding this literary genre is to compare scriptures to an Aesop fable. It tells the story through Hebrew established symbolism that cannot be taken literally but are images representing coherent and consistent themes. One has to develop the skill to read it and interpret it in that manner or you will be chasing your tail looking under every rock and finding nothing rational there.

The study of ANE background is important but it is secondary to an investigation of the Hebrew theological intent which is what fundamentally drives scriptures. A good place to start is to learn the meaning of what Heavens and Earth represent. There are some good books out there by Preterist authors such as Gary Demar, and others in that community that have already begun that work to help one start cleaning up our literal mess. What you find is that H & E is an encompassing term that represents God and His people in Covenant and there was an old one under the previous dispensation and now there is already a new Heaven and Earth established. Has nothing to do with a physical paradise being created.
Karl A - #6397

March 10^th 2010

Norm, I figured you’d say something like that. (I do appreciate your input.) So what do you think will happen when you die?
norm - #6399

March 10^th 2010

Karl,

I hope some of my thoughts help stimulate thinking.

It’s pretty simple; when I come into covenant with God through Christ I become a child of God eternally. I put off the mortal man and clothe myself with immortal standing which means at my physical ending I continue with God in Heaven. I do not then have to enter the Hadean (Sheol) realm waiting for some future salvation as the OT saints were in Heb 11. Christ has destroyed that realm for the faithful so that there is no more waiting in the “dust of the earth” which simply points to mortal existence and demise without faith in God through Christ. See Dan 12:2.

Let me recommend a book that many of you might find answers regarding some of these issues. It’s called “Beyond Creation Science: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation”. It is a good basic introductory book that will probably change your perspective on how to read and understand scripture. It ties both the beginning and the endings together to illustrate the cohesiveness of scripture.

http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/
Martin Rizley - #6437

March 10^th 2010

Dr. Enns, It seems to me that “cognitive dissonance” stems from regarding the “assured results of modern science” as equally trustworthy as the teaching of Scripture. But why assume that the mainstream interpretation of the scientific data must be true? If someone accepts the supernaturalism of the Biblical worldview, why should it be difficult to believe that mainstream science has grossly erred in its reconstruction of earth’s ancient past precisely because it is interpreting all of the data through the lenses of pure naturalism? “We know that radioisotopes decay at a certain rate, therefore the rocks must be old.” I don’t see the difference between saying that and saying, “The soles on the Israelite’s sandals show no signs of wear, therefore they can’t be 40 years old!” or “There’s no food or water to sustain two million people in the desert for 40 years, so they couldn’t have survived in the desert.” But the Bible says that God sustained them and their clothing miraculously for forty years! Is that special pleading to “shore up” obvious impossibilities? No, it is simply believing the God of Scripture works in the natural world in ways that far transcend our understanding.
Gordon J. Glover - #6475

March 10^th 2010

Great idea Martin! And perhaps the earth really is at the center of the universe and the sun and stars really do orbit the earth, just like the bible says. To heck with stellar parrallax, Fouccault’s Pendulum, and the phases of Venus. What do all of these scientists know anyway? Why trust the modern interpretation of science when we the ancient Scriptures?

C’mon Martin. Do you really think God would create the world one way, then go to such extraordinary lengths to not only fabricate mountains of evidence to the contrary, but to erase the original data? And then why would God, after doing all of that, command his people to believe the original scenario that he went to such trouble to cover up? If this is a test of faith, then why wasn’t biblical cosmology also a test of faith? Perhaps the universe really does have a 3-tier structure?

Think about it.
Martin Rizley - #6488

March 11^th 2010

Gordon, What I “think” about God is really irrelevant, for “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile.” It is not for us to sit in judgment on God’s ways, but rather, to allow God to correct our thoughts about Him and His universe through the infallible teaching of His Word. As I have said in the past, I don’t think the Bible teaches the ANE cosmology you allege that it teaches; for example, nowhere does the Genesis narrative describe the “raqia” that God created as a ‘hard dome’—that idea is read into the text from other sources. Moreover, scientists have no one to blame but themselves if they reach erroneous conclusions about earth’s ancient past because of their refusal to let the light of special revelation guide them in their interpretation of general revelation. Who told them to interpret the data of the natural world through the ‘lenses’ of a strict and unyielding naturalism? Certainly not the God who causes axe heads to float and virgins to conceive and who stretches solar days to twice their normal length. He certainly didn’t tell them to reject miracle and supernatural causation out of hand as a formative factor in His universe.
Gordon J. Glover - #6490

March 11^th 2010

Martin,

What you “think” about how the Bible handles ANE cosmology is irrelavent. The plain fact of the matter is that there is no other cosmology found in the Bible but ANE cosmology.

“Moreover, scientists have no one to blame but themselves if they reach erroneous conclusions about earth’s ancient past because of their refusal to let the light of special revelation guide them in their interpretation of general revelation.”—Total nonesense! Where would we be if modern science were held captive to the science found in the Bible?
Bruce Russell - #6500

March 11^th 2010

>>> —Total nonesense! Where would we be if modern science were held captive to the science found in the Bible? <<<<

For one, they would believe in the resurrection from the dead, the great day of final judgement, and the future glorious transformation of heaven and earth. Scientists have no evidence to support any of these things.

The believe in supernatural miracles does not hinder our capacity to observe and harness natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine, etc.

Your observance of nature should give you a clue as God’s eternal power and divine nature, not your own capacity to divine a creation story opposed to the one revealed by Scripture, and thus subvert the apostolic gospel narrative.
Gordon J. Glover - #6507

March 11^th 2010

Bruce,

I don’t disagree with anything you said. But you missed the point I was making to Martin. The everyday science in the Bible reflects the most up-to-date understanding of the time and place the Bible was written. It’s cosmology, it’s biology, it’s geography, it’s botany, etc… are all “frozen” in ANE times, which is what we should expect. After all, the scriptures had to make sense to the original authors and their immediate audience.

My point to Martin is that when it comes to science, we can’t treat the bible as the last word on the subject. Otherwise, we would be paralized when it comes to updating our working knowledge of creation as we learn more about it.
Harry - #6508

March 11^th 2010

Martin, if the Bible is such a useful foundation on which to build scientific understanding, then why do those working within such a framework produce next to nothing? Andrew Snelling admitted at a creationism conference a couple of years ago that the movement had no better explanations or models since the publication of the Genesis Flood. Likewise, creation biology has come to a grinding halt because of the researchers’ inability to explain the genomic data. The most up-to-date paper is still Todd Wood’s from 2006 where he challenges others to explain the human:chimp genomes from a creationist perspective. This, as he admitted in a post this week, has still not been done, and there does not even appear to have been basic progress. I repeat the question; if this is such good way to conduct science is it so apparently unproductive? ‘Naturalistic’ science meanwhile continues to make discoveries in all areas at an incredible rate.
Martin Rizley - #6516

March 11^th 2010

Harry, I would like to know the precise quotation from Andrew Snelling in which he denies any significant advance in the development of creationist models since the Genesis Flood. His own “catastrophic plate tectonics model” represents a signficant advance over earlier creationist theories about possible mechanisms God may have used to produce a global flood. I have a hard time believing that Snelling would not regard his model as an advance over earlier models. Would you not agree that the Bible provides the only solid foundation on which to build scientific knowledge, since it alone provides the theological rationale for confidence in the orderly nature of the world around us. That’s why we can develop medical and other technologies—because we can count on the world to function in an orderly way. That also explains why creationists and mainstream scientists do not differ at all in their approach to ‘operational’ science, because both operate on the assumption of order in the natural world. When it comes to “historical science,” however, one’s view of God will definitely affect how one approaches the data. (continued)
Martin Rizley - #6519

March 11^th 2010

Mainstream science, in its study of the ancient past, operates on the assumption that God either doesn’t exist (the universe is self-explanatory, self-organizing, and self-directing); or that He is irrelevant to the study of earth’s history (He may have made the universe, but leaves it to run on its own). Thus, nature is in a state of “absolute equilibrium.” The universe is a uniformity of causes and effects operating in a closed system. Creationists, on the other hand, operate on the assumption that God has intervened at certain key moments in the past—at the time of creation, the flood, the Exodus—producing effects in the natural world by miracle. Nature is therefore in a state of “punctuated equilibrium:” that is, it conforms generally to certain predictable patterns, but not absolutely, for its ultimate submission is not to law but to the Lawgiver, who is subject to no law of any kind. His sovereign will, not natural law, determines how matter ‘acts.’ Creationists say that historical science must take into account this miracle-working God, and not use the data of natural world—interpreted through naturalistic lenses—to “rewrite” the Bible.
Gordon J. Glover - #6529

March 11^th 2010

“When it comes to “historical science,” however, one’s view of God will definitely affect how one approaches the data.”

Absolutely 100% WRONG!

The BioLogos team and its contributers adhere to the same creeds and confessions as the Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists. It has nothing to do with one’s view of God. It has everything to do with one’s view of the Bible.

If you think the Bible spoke to questions of science that were beyond its time, and if you fear that if the science in the bible is found to be dated would undermine it’s authority on matters of faith, then you will reject any scientific conclusion that doesn’t agree with your specific interpretation of Scripture.

However, you if allow the biblical authors to draw from their common notions of the world around them, and you trust that an honest study of the created world can reveal truth, then you do not feel threatened when modern science contradicts traditional interpretations of Scripture.
Gordon J. Glover - #6530

March 11^th 2010

“Creationists, on the other hand, operate on the assumption that God has intervened at certain key moments in the past”

Martin, that sound nice (like Hope and Change), but it fails miserably (like Hope and Change). Even these events would leave some evidence behind—but there is absolutely nothing. So in addition to believing that God worked outside the laws of nature to create the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago, and that he worked outside the laws of nature to flood the earth about 2500 years ago, you must also believe that he performed miracles to ERASE all evidence of these events and plant fake evidence of an entirely different scenario—all the while commanding his people to believe that which he erased all evidence of?

Is that what you believe, Martin?
John VanZwieten - #6537

March 11^th 2010

But He did leave the evidence of the Grand Canyon, which was obviously carved by the floodwaters as they receded.

(Sorry, just have to laugh at myself for buying that “evidence” from YECs)
Harry - #6538

March 11^th 2010

Martin here are the slides from Snelling’s talk;
http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/creationism/DSC00413.JPG
http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/creationism/DSC00412.JPG

What YEC organisations present to their non-scientific followers, and what the researchers within the movement say when speaking from a scientific perspective are two very, very different things. Their stance with regard to genomics is a prime example. They present arguments on their websites that Todd Wood has already refuted within the YEC research literature.
John VanZwieten - #6541

March 11^th 2010

Harry,

What you say is quite true about the different messages. I recently attended what was billed as a “scientific/genetics case for intelligent design” seminar at a nearby university. The same speaker was presenting at a church the next day. Several slides from the church presentation somehow made it into the science presentation, which caused considerable consternation for the speaker, who kept saying “I wish I hadn’t included that slide today.”

Thanks for the links.
Martn Rizley - #6544

March 11^th 2010

Gordon, You cannot separate your view of God from your view of the Bible, since the Bible claims to be the very Word of God. If, however, you believe that the Bible is filled with historical and/or scientific errors because God was not able to overcome the limitations of Israel’s culture in revealing Himself to them (an assumption refuted by the fact that God spoke in an audible voice to the Jews on Mt. Sinai, making specific reference to the six days of creation), then we definitely have a different view of God and the way in which He communicates propositional revelation to men. You speak of “science in the Bible.” However, there is no science in the Bible; science is a modern discipline that was unknown to the Hebrews. What one finds are records of historical persons and events that carry scientific implications. I just finished preaching on the Flood and I was struck by the detailed way information given in that record concerning the exact timing of the flood, its duration, the height to which the waters rose—not the type of details you find in a ‘just so’ story. It clearly purports to be an event of history, and that is just how I presented it.
Gordon J. Glover - #6545

March 11^th 2010

Martin,

“If, however, you believe that the Bible is filled with historical and/or scientific errors because God was not able to overcome the limitations of Israel’s culture in revealing Himself to them…”—it’s not that God was not able to overcome the limitation of Israel’s culture, it’s a question of did or didn’t he. Obviously, he did NOT, because there is not on thing in the Bible that transcends the scientific knowledge of the Ancient Near East.

When a missionary goes to far-away place to preach the Gospel, they must communicate within the contex of their audience. It’s not that they are unable to communicate to them they way they communicate to your or me, it’s that they must accommodate their message to the langueage / culture of their audience.

Would we expect anything less of God when he communicates to us?
John VanZwieten - #6548

March 11^th 2010

Gordon,

Good point about missionary communications. I’m sure many Christians would be truly shocked by a literal translation into english of the scripture as presented to some peoples. (But then again many are shocked just by a free translation like The Message.)
Martn Rizley - #6550

March 11^th 2010

Gordon, Missionaries obviously attempt to communicate to their target audience in ways they can understand, but that does not mean that they must affirm erroneous cultural concepts in the interest of communicating truth. For example, a missionary working in a tribal culture does not need to agree that a child’s fever is caused by an evil spirit and call for the shaman in order to identify culturally with the people. The God of the Bible is a God of truth. He cannot lie. Therefore, if He told the children of Israel in an audible voice that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, then that is what He did, and that is what those who purport to be messengers of God must affirm. Whether or not those days were all of 24-hour duration is a separate question, but God said on Mt. Sinai apart from the agency of any man that He made the made the world in six days, then rested; and since He cannot lie, that is what we must believe. But what place does God’s resting from the work of creation have in an evolutionary scenario, which sees evolution as an interminable process from the big bang to the collapse of the universe?
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6564

March 11^th 2010

Paul’s Adam was the first adam. Paul’s Christ was the last adam.

For those who claim adam = man, I have one question. What are you?

If you claim to be a man, you have falsified your own assumption. Adam does not equal man.

In typical ancient style, not just ANE, the first X is the first man of that tribe, a man named X. Therefore, Adam was the first Adamite, the first man of his tribe. That is the standard usage.

In Genesis 4, we have the Cainite genealogy, the descendants of their first man Cain.

In Genesis 5, we have the Sethite genealogy, the descendants of Seth. Both lines are Adamites.

Abraham was called and Eberite (Hebrew) a descendant of Eber. And on it goes.

The Jews (Judahites) were also Israelites, Eberites, Sethites, and Adamites.

What reason is there to read anymore than this into the accounts?
Martin Rizley - #6573

March 11^th 2010

Jeffrey,
Very good point. Clearly, the Scriptures present Adam as the first human being, with other human beings, both Sethites and Cainites, descending from him. The genealogies of Scripture would seem to settle forever the question of Adam’s historicity, were people not reading the text through the lenses of their own MWR culture (modern Western rationalistic) culture, which says that there could not have been a first man; therefore, we must “reinterpret” the obvious and wrest the Scriptures in the process.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6578

March 11^th 2010

No Martin,

The Scriptures do not present Adam as the first human being. They present Adam as the first human being that Scriptures are concerned with. All those human beings that were before Adam or concurrent with Adam get little mention. Whether they were residents of Eden, or Nod, or lived elsewhere, they got little mention.

Just like the millions of people who survived the flood got little mention. Of those millions, only Cain’s descendants and the Nephilim are mentioned. Just like the thousands of servants that Abraham and Jacob had got little mention.

You believe they were not there because of your modern, Western, rationalistic culture.

I suspect most here do not have Adam as an ancestor. I certainly don’t.
Gordon J. Glover - #6579

March 11^th 2010

John VanZwieten - #6537—good one! Lol.
Martin Rizley - #6580

March 11^th 2010

Jeffrey, I completely misunderstood your earlier post, although what you say about Adam being the first of his tribe, I quite agree with; only, I believe Adam’s “tribe” is the entire human race! That Scripture views Adam as the first man is evident from his name. The name Adam is related to the Hebrew word “adamah” meaning ground, land, or earth; this points to the fact that Adam had no ancestor, but was created directly by God from the substance of the ground. Whereas those in Adam’s genealogy are said to be the “son of” some other human being, Adam alone is said to be the “son of God,” meaning that he had no ancestor, either human or bestial. He was created directly by God, who first formed Adam’s inanimate body, then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life so that he became a living soul. There was no life in the body of Adam before this divine inbreathing; therefore, he did descend from another living creature. He was God’s special creation, the father of the human race. . .and yes, that means he is your ancestor, too, Jeffrey! That’s why you need the redemption provided by Jesus, the last Adam.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6584

March 11^th 2010

Martin,

Then why did Adam say, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh?”

Is the Church the Bride of Christ? Was Israel God’s Bride?

In Revelation 21, The new H&E is the Bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem. Heaven and Earth is a group of people. The Sea is a group of people. The Sea becomes part of the new Heaven and new Earth.

That is the way Scripture uses Heaven and Earth and Sea. It is not a cosmology. It is a culture.

Adam came from the dust of the earth. The earth came from the sea. They were all people.

Were the disciples inanimate before Jesus breathed on them? (John 20:22)
Martin Rizley - #6588

March 11^th 2010

Jeffrey,
I’m afraid that I can’t follow you in what seems to me like a “hyper-spiritualizing” of the text of Genesis. To treat the creation narrative as an elaborate allegory of God’s “creation” of Israel from the “sea” of humanity seems to overlook entirely the way that this narrative is viewed by other biblical authors in both the Old and New Testament. They clearly view God as the creator of the physical universe, who created the entire human race from “one blood”—the blood of Adam, through Noah and his sons. Paul viewed the human race as fallen in Adam—that is, fallen in the first man, through the transgression of that first man. Jesus spoke of God having instituted marriage when He made made man “male and female” at the beginning of history. There are countless other examples that show that the biblical writers understood the creation narrative to be a straightforward account of historical events, not an elaborate allegory of God’s creation of Israel. So, I’m sorry, but I just can’t follow your allegorical approach to these chapters.
Martn Rizley - #6644

March 12^th 2010

Harry,
I looked at the links you gave. I was somewhat disturbed by the fact that there is nothing at all on the web page to identify the source of the quotes, just two photographs of “anonymous” charts. If Snelling did prepare those charts—which nothing on the web page indictates—, it seems to me that he is not saying no progress has been made on developing a creation model since the publication of the Genesis Flood. He is saying, rather, that there is still no consensus on many of the issues among creationists, and that none of the models out there are “complete” in the sense of answering all the questions one might possibly raise about the existing data. Many creationists have admitted as much in the past; but like all quotes, these need to be taken in the context of the larger presentation that was given—something the website fails to do. It simply ‘snatches’ a couple of charts from a “power point presentation” that Snelling allegedly gave and posts them. I suspect that, if one were to have access to the entire presentation, the tone might be somewhat more balanced and positive.
Harry - #6651

March 12^th 2010

Martin, those slides are from the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008. I just included them as they are what you asked for, the rest of the article by a mathematics professor who attended it can be found here.

I particularly enjoyed the part about how Snelling thought creationists focused too much on the evidence. This view of ‘science’ which you seem to advocate seems to me to relegate it to simply a bunch of opinions held by individuals groups, with no real explanatory power, and people essentially saying the evidence is irrelevant. What about those who are trained in science and pseudoscience.
Harry - #6652

March 12^th 2010

Correction:ignore previous post

Martin, those slides are from the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008. I just included them as they are what you asked for, the rest of the article by a mathematics professor who attended it can be found here.

I particularly enjoyed the part about how Snelling thought creationists focused too much on the evidence. This view of ‘science’ which you seem to advocate seems to me to relegate it to simply a bunch of opinions held by individuals groups, with no real explanatory power, and people essentially saying the evidence is irrelevant. What about those who are trained in science and advocate geocentrism because of how they view the Bible? What about other religious groups who decide to interpret ‘science’ in light of their scriptures? If science is not ultimately decided by the evidence, and the ability to tell competing models apart, then what is the point of it? It seems to me this is the defintion of pseudoscience.
Martin Rizley - #6656

March 12^th 2010

Harry,
The problem with what you are saying, Harry, is that “evidence” is never interpreted from a position of neutrality by observers who are philosophically or religiously “neutral.” Every human being has fundamental commitments of a “religious” character concerning the nature of ultimate reality, and those commitments shape the way we ‘read’ the evidence and determine which explanations of the evidence we will find acceptable. Now, I believe that the fundamental religious commitment of the Christian is to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has revealed His divine nature, redemptive plan, and moral will in writings that claim to be of divine inspiration. The believer has arrived at this conviction, not through the power of his own reason or intellect, but through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who has conferred to the child of God, through the “opening” of his spiritual eyes, an unshakable conviction concerning the infallible truth of the Christian revelation. It is in light of that fundamental conviction that the Christian interprets everything in the world around him, including the data of the rocks (continued).
Martin Rizley - #6658

March 12^th 2010

(continued) Now, no one, to my knowledge, no one denies the fact that a very strong case can be made that the universe is very, very old if one ‘reads’ the data of the natural world through the lenses of naturalism. That is because certain features of the earth’s surface, such as layers of igneous rock “sandwiched” between fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock layers, would have taken many hundreds or even thousands of years to form, based on the known, present-days rates at which solidifying lava cools. But the key phrase here is “based on known, present-day rates.” If one assumes that these rates have operated uniformly in the past as they do in the present (the principle of uniformitarianism), then one must conclude the earth is quite old. Such an assumption is unquestionable for the naturalist, for he views the physical world as something that runs “on its own” in an unsupervised manner. God, if He exists, never intervenes to work outside the framework of natural laws that He has established for the ordinary functioning of the universe. Therefore we cannot appeal to miracle as a possible cause of anything (continued)
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6661

March 12^th 2010

Martin,

Do you disagree with my words about heaven and earth in Revelation 21?

My approach is not allegorical as you claim. I have used the definitions Scripture gives. I have treated the text as Scripture indicates John understood Genesis. It fixes contradictions that many see when viewing Jesus’ words and Paul’s words the way you do. All those things you believe prove your “literal” work just fine with my “literal” view.

Where I use biblical definitions for words, you use your MWR (as you called it) definitions. You make assumptions about what the text should be about, then match your definitions accordingly.

Demonstration: What “world” was John talking about in John 1?

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

The world Jesus came to was his own people, first century Jews in Palestine. The Jews were suppose to recognize him. The Romans and Greeks didn’t have Scripture. No one could or should expect them to recognize Jesus. My naked ancestors in the British Isles never even saw Jesus. Never had a chance to recognize Jesus.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6662

March 12^th 2010

Martin, (cont)

The world that did not recognize Jesus was his own, those that did not receive him. That is the world that was made through him. John is not talking about two different entities here, just one. Jesus’ own people, the world.

The book has a Jewish context. Not an all humanity context. Every man in verse 9 was every Jew in Palestine. Not you and me. Not my ancestors in Britannia.

You view the text with modern eyes. Try viewing the text as John wrote it and meant it. John was part of Jesus’ culture and was closer to the culture that wrote Genesis than we will ever be.

Blessings.
Martn Rizley - #6663

March 12^th 2010

For the full-blown supernaturalist, however, those strictures put on the interpretation of the data simply will not do, for he knows (based on his fundamental belief in the miracle-working God of Scripture) that God is by no means limited to work within the realm of natural law in shaping the geological features we see in the world around us. For example, at the time of the Flood, God could well have hastened miraculously the rate of cooling of igneous intrusions so as to bring about rapid stability to the earth’s crust after the devastation wrought by the Flood. If God could cause a mature almond plant to bud and blossom on Aaron’s rod overnight, then He could certainly cool and harden (for example) the thousand feet thick Paliisades material of northern New Jersey in a single day. There is nothing in science itself to preclude this possiblity, since science looks at what is, not what could be (that is, what God could do). So the fundamental question every professing Christian must face is this—will I allow the evidence of the rocks interpreted in a naturalistic framework to overthrow the clear and perspicous teaching of Scripture, or will I allow the teaching of Scripture to determine how I read the rocks?
Gregory Arago - #6664

March 12^th 2010

Martin,

I too, accept a ‘historical Adam’.

But I don’t (and nor do *most* living Christians) for a second accept a literalistic, sola scriptura, ‘young earth’ pseudo-interpretation of the Bible, that only a dyed-by-their-signature, bureaucratically-controlled, anti-freedom-to-interpret, professor of English literature who is *not* a scientist would ever promote.

Have you studied natural-physical sciences at any time in your life, Martin?

These NPS disciplines offer knowledge valuable to people who live in God’s kingdom that all Christians would be wise to at least honestly consider, aside from the propaganda that is promoted in various American evangelical churches.

Gregory
Martin Rizley - #6666

March 12^th 2010

Jeffrey,
I agree that the term “world” is used in different way in Scripture, but in every case, the context (both the immediate and larger context of Scripture) must determine what is meant. God so loved the world (the fallen race of mankind) that He gave His only Son to redeem sinners. But John tells us not to love the world (that is, the evil world system). So your point is well taken that words do not always have a meaning which is “obvious.” Still, it seems to me crystal clear that God is the Creator of “all things”—not just His own people (Revelation 4:11, Psalm 104). When God told Israel to keep the Sabbath day because ‘in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day’ it frankly seems incredible to me that anyone would seriously believe the Israelites understand God to mean, “For in six days I created you!” Of course He created them as a people, but God is clearly speaking of a larger reality here—namely, the creation of the entire cosmos, both the things above (the heavens) and the things below (the earth and the seas).
Martin Rizley - #6668

March 12^th 2010

Gregory, When you ask me, “Have you studied natural-physical science at any time in your life?” I wonder if you would ask the same question of Kurt Wise, who got his Phd. in geology studying under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, or Andrew Snelling, who is a practicing, professional geologist who got his Phd. from the University of Sydney? Would you accuse them of ignorance of the facts, as you accuse me? But it is a common tactic for those who oppose creationism to accuse their opponents of being ignorant of the facts. As I pointed out, however, the difference between creationist and anti-creationist is not necessarily a difference in the degree of factual knowledge that each possesses, but rather, the approach one takes to interpreting the data. The anti-creationist is committed to interpret all the data within the framework of uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past; God never acts to shape any geological feature by immediate, supernatural intervention.) This is not the only way to read the data, however; and from a Christian perspective, serious questions must be raised about assuming a strict, naturalistic view of God’s working in earth’s ancient past.
Harry - #6673

March 12^th 2010

Martin, the whole purpose of science is to remove as many biases as possible so that the assessment of the data is as neutral as possible. Trying to force the data to say something it doesn’t will simply not work in the long run, it will be exposed by peers and ultimately rejected. With regard to the geocentrists, are they doing science too? They are apparently interpretating the evidence in light of what they say the Bible says. They too have training to the PhD level in the relevant sciences.

The facts are the facts and do not depend on interpretations. The earth and the rest of the planets either orbit the Sun, or the Sun and the planets orbit the earth. Both of these cannot be true. Do you not think science can have something to say on this?
Harry - #6674

March 12^th 2010

... cont

Likewise, the earth is either 4.6 billion years old or it is not. Humans and chimps either share ancestors or they do not. There was either a recent genetic bottleneck across all groups of organisms or there was not. There was either a migration out of the middle east by all of these organisms or there was not. Surely you agree science can assess these claims.

Both Snelling and Wise are on record as saying they would believe in a young-earth even if there was no scientific evidence for it. Are they really doing ‘science’?
Bruce Russell - #6678

March 12^th 2010

Gordon:

Help me understand your theory of knowing ultimate reality…because when I read Genesis 1:3, it says “Let there be light.” Not until Genesis 1:14 do we read “Let there be lights…to separate the day and the night.” Then in Revelation 22:5 we read…“Night will be no more, and they will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, because the Lord God will shine on them, and they will reign forever and ever.”

Doesn’t this teach both moderns and ancients that light and life are not dependent on the laws of the existing physical world…the sun, moon and stars? And doesn’t the biblical cosmology of the future present a universe that while in some ways continuous with the present—it is the same world glorious transformed—isn’t it true that there is no naturalistic way to explain the prophesied transformation into glory? Does that make it harder to believe?

Certainly there is no comprehensible evidence apart from the Bible of the future resurrection. Why do you expect to find comprehensible evidence of God’s supernatural special creation? Also, why is it surprising that any human directed assembly of evidence of earth’s origins points to near infinity?

Bruce Russell
Bruce Russell - #6681

March 12^th 2010

Gordon:

I think the young earth creationists are wrong in thinking that they can create a convincing sample of evidence that the earth is young. I think God created the universe with a convincing appearance of near infinity because he wanted to display His eternal power and divinity. A created world that appeared only six thousands year old would look plastic, Lego like. Our modern technology has given us a sliver more knowledge than the ancients had of God’s creation. There is vastly more to learn. We must humbly seek to gain the knowledge of God and His universe understanding that its appearance reflects the eternity and divinity of its creator.

Therefore, if I were an atomic physicist I could easily seek the age of the oldest rock in the universe without shaking my faith in the Bible. God is not being deceptive when He leaves evidence of near infinite time scales. He is declaring his eternal power and divinity.

I think your view of science is similar to that of many young earth creationists. You present a man-centered arrangement of the evidence. But the physical laws you trust in are not eternal, as the resurrection of Jesus Christ demonstrates.

Bruce
Martin Rizley - #6684

March 12^th 2010

Harry, You say “The facts are the facts and do not depend on interpretation;” but I believe that is philosophically naive. All facts are interpreted facts, and the interpretation we find plausible depends on the worldview framework out of which our interpretation emerges. We are not the supreme interpreters of any fact, however, but only the reintepreters of facts that have been infallibly interpreted beforehand by God Himself, the sovereign Creator of heaven and earth. We are to regard the Bible as God’s infallible interpretation of reality—a divinely inspired revelation of truth that speaks only the truth concerning God, man, sin, redemption, as well as the creation of man, the fall, the flood, and other key events of history. Jesus chided his disciples for being “foolish and slow of heart to believe everything the prophets had spoken.” So whatever interpretation we make of any fact at all in any sphere must be agreement with God’s prior interpretation of those same facts, or our interpretation is most certainly in error.
(continued)
Martin Rizley - #6685

March 12^th 2010

The problem with geocentrists is their exegesis of the Scripture. They are insisting on an interpretation of Scripture that is unwarranted by sound principles of hermeneutics, and that leads them to distort facts in the natural world, as well. I commend them, however, for recognizing Scripture as the supreme measure of truth, infallible in all that it affirms; and I agree with them that no “fact” of science can ever overrule what God has plainly revealed in Scripture, since science is knowledge built “from the ground up”—fallible because it is based on the fallible observations of men; whereas Scripture represents knowledge “from the top down”—infallible truth revealed by God which can never be overturned by any ‘discovery’ that man makes. The Scriptures cannot be broken. There is a character of infallibility to the Word of God that is not shared by any science textbook or any human writing. So if the ‘scientific consensus’ conflicts with the plain teaching of Scripture at some point, then it is the scientific consensus, not the Bible, which is in error. Why would any believer disagree in principle with that statement?
Gregory Arago - #6696

March 12^th 2010

“The problem with geocentrists is their exegesis…however…” - Martin Rizley (layperson)

So, you are also a geocentrist, Martin?

And are you also anti-old earth? I.e. do you reject almost the *entire* field of geology?

“if the ‘scientific consensus’ conflicts with the plain teaching of Scripture at some point, then it is the scientific consensus, not the Bible, which is in error.” - Martin

The above statement will keep you out of ‘legitimacy’ for the 21st century.

Wouldn’t you prefer to be heard than to be avoided as culturally-backwards? Surely cooperation can be found?

Other Christians have found a better balance between science and religion. I encourage you to seek such a balance too.
Martin Rizley - #6697

March 12^th 2010

Harry, One further point. You ask if Snelling and Wise are really doing “science,” because they are committed to uphold the plain teaching of Scripture, regardless of what anomalies they find in the physical world that may seem to contradict the Scripture’s teaching. I think the answer to that question depends on how you define science. If you accept the current definition, “Searching for naturalistic answers to naturalistic phenomena, ” then obviously, they are not doing science. But if you take the older definition of science, “The systematic study of God’s creation,” then yes, they are doing science, but on a radically different footing than that found in any secular institution, for they are presupposing the entire truthfulness of Scripture in what it teaches. Based on that fundamental assumption, they are looking at features in the material world—such as fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks—and are asking the question, “Given what we already know about the past based on the teaching of Scripture, what possible mechanisms could God have used to produce these features?” Their theories are then tested by making predictions that are confirmed or falsified through further research, like any scientific theory.
Martin Rizley - #6699

March 12^th 2010

Gregory, I believe that the entire Western world is in a state of appalling cultural, moral and spiritual decline, so if people who feel “at home” in this age of apostasy find me “culturally backwards,” I really can’t worry about that too much, any more than a Christian living in a Muslim country needs to worry about being “out of step” with his culture. He may be the only person in his village who knows the truth about God—everyone around him may view him as an “oddball”—but that doesn’t make him wrong and the majority right. C. H. Spurgeon once said, “Long ago I ceased to count heads. Truth is usually in the minority in this evil world,” and that’s just how I feel about modern attacks on the teaching of Scripture in the name of science. I regard such attacks as “science falsely so called.” Moreover, I don’t think science and religion need to be “balanced.” I believe that theology is the “queen” of the sciences and provides the only solid epistemological foundation for research in any of the sciences—social, political or physical. Science is a “subset” of theology, in that theology is the study of God Himself, science the systematic study of God’s material creation and how it works.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6701

March 12^th 2010

Martin,

You have the Apostle John changing his definition of “world” every other chapter. Yet every verse works just fine with the one meaning, Jesus’ own people.

“Jesus’ own people” was the creation.

“Jesus’ own people” were created trough Jesus.

“Jesus’ own people” did not recognize Jesus

For God so loved “Jesus’ own people” that He sent His son.

One definition works. This is the way John saw his “world” and used language. You change the meaning of “world” from verse to verse and think you understand. But you are forcing a 1st century document into a 20th century culture. Read it in its own culture. Read it the way John defines and uses his words. The context of these passages are all nominally the same. One meaning of world suffices for all of them.
Gregory Arago - #6727

March 12^th 2010

Three very specific questions were asked to you, Martin. Are you willing to have dialogue or not?

Here they are (from #6696):
So, you are also a geocentrist?

And are you also anti-old earth? I.e. do you reject almost the *entire* field of geology?
Martin Rizley - #6730

March 12^th 2010

Gregory, I am not a geocentrist, because I believe the Bible contains phenomenological language. When it speaks of the sun rising and setting, it is giving a description of the world as it appears to human sight; it is not making a cosmological statement about the structure of the universe. The Scripture’s descriptions of the natural world are simple observationa statements, not scientific or pseudo-scientific statements, so there is no foundation for saying that the Bible teaches a geocentric cosmology. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that God made the world in six twenty-four hour like days. By that I mean that the six periods of creation were determined by the rotational cycles of light and darkness, each day being composed of a day and a night, a period of light followed by a period of darkness—just like the days we experience. I am not dogmatic about the exact time frame involved for several reasons: First, the first three days were not solar days in the sense of being days “ruled by the sun.” Second, the first day began in a period of initial darkness that could conceivably have lasted a very long time. Third, we have an example of God stretching a natural day to twice its length in Joshua 10 (continued)
Martin Rizley - #6737

March 12^th 2010

Regarding my view of geology, I take with a grain of salt the historical reconstructions of earth’s history by geologists who reject the Bible’s teaching on a global flood, because the theories they promote are all based on uniformitarian assumptions (the present is the key to the past). That is to ignore the fact that God has intervened at key moments in the history of the earth to do “mighty works of power” in which He has acted outside the realm of natural law to produce results in the natural world. At the time of the Exodus, for example, He sustained Israel in the desert miraculously for forty years. During that time, the soles of their sandals did not wear out, so that if you examined them after their forty year trek in the wilderness, you would have seen no signs of wear. They would have appeared like new sandals, when in fact, they were forty years old! Now, if God can make old things appear young, He can also make young things appear old. In other words, He may have acted supernaturally to produce geological features that appear older than they actually are. For example, He may have greatly accelerated the rate of cooling igneous intrusions at the time of the flood(Continued).
Martin Rizley - #6741

March 12^th 2010

(continued) The naturalist assumes, on the other hand, that God either could not or would not do such things, for in that case, they say, God would be deceiving people. However, if God has clearly spoken in His Word about His “mighty works” in the past, then we are only deceiving ourselves if we refuse to receive His testimony and if we refuse to read the data in the rocks in light of that inspired testimony.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #6745

March 12^th 2010

Martin,

You assume that God does things that God did not say he did. You then make your assumptions into Scripture.

There is only one clear miracle in the flood account and two possible miracles.

The one clear miracle, someone got a weather report right, 120 years in advance.

The two possible miracles, the animals coming to Noah and the door of the ark closing.

No other miracles in the entire account.

The account claims that the total depth of the flood was 15 cubits. That 15 cubits was enough to cover the high “har” (typically translated hills or mountains). It does not say that the water was the depth of the highest mountain plus 15 cubits as YECs typically claim. It does not say that the mountains grew up out of the flood waters either, another typical YEC claim.

YECs invent thousands of miracles to explain their view. They imply millions of miracles.

You are deceiving yourself with your extreme either-or view and your refusal to receive His testimony that there were very few miracles invoked in the flood event.
Martin Rizley - #6748

March 13^th 2010

Jeffrey,
I believe in the economy of miracles, by which I mean that true miracles—events involving a suspension of natural law—are extremely rare in the course of history. Most of the time, God governs the universe in regular, predictable ways that make life possible to live. If there were no orderly patterns in the natural world, we could not learn how to cure disease, build rockets to the moon, develop aerospace technologies, mass communications, etc. So miracles are extremely rare in the economy of God. However, I do believe there are certain unique moments in the history of redemption in which God “lays bare His mighty arm” and performs works of power that involve a whole complex of miracles. The event of the flood required many miracles to “pull it off,” many more than we have recorded in Scripture—but then, that was one of those unique moments in history of which I am speaking (continued).
Martin Rizley - #6749

March 13^th 2010

Likewise, the Exodus event involved many miracles to “pull it off,” many of which are mentioned only in passing—such as the miraculous preservation of the Israelite’s footwear, their miraculous physical sustenance in the desert, their deliverance from snake venom by the brass serpent, their guidance by the pillar of cloud and fire, to name a few. So it seems to me quite in keeping with what we know of these “special” moments in history that they all involved a whole cluster of miracles which are only hinted at in the Bible, if mentioned at all. If that is true, then it seems likely that the event of the Flood would have involved many, many miraculous works of God of which we have no biblical record. There is no question that the coming of the animals to Noah was a miracle—that sort of thing doesn’t happen in the ordinary course of nature. The sudden triggering of all the fountains of the great deep and the coordination of that event with the opening of the windows of heaven was also miraculous. Rain which lasts 40 days is miraculous, and so on. So I am not exaggerating the number of miracles required by an event as “impossible,” from the standpoint of naturalism, as the biblical Flood.
Gregory Arago - #6762

March 13^th 2010

You answered 1 1/2 out of three questions Martin.

If I understood your long answer to short questions:

1) You are not a geo-centrist.

2) You’re not sure if you are anti-old earth or not. You might believe in a ‘young’ earth, i.e. you wrote “God made the world in six twenty-four hour like days.” What does ‘like’ mean - wriggle room? Your use of the word ‘period’ leaves some confusion as if you might also accept an ‘old’ earth.

3) Though you are not a geologist, you reject the geology of any ‘naturalist’, even if they are really smart and work at the top universities and laboratories in the world. Naturalist = bad. If the geologist in question is a religious person (which you seem to equate with ‘cannot be a naturalist’), and especially if they’re a Christian scripture-literalist, then you will perhaps trust their geology, as long as it fits with your interpretation of Scripture, which is the ultimate measure of Truth.

Am I in the ballpark here?

Oh yeah, and sandals can look new, even if they are in fact old.
Martin Rizley - #6773

March 13^th 2010

Gregory, The term twenty-four hour “like” days is meant to highlight the fact that the days of creation were both like and unlike the days that we experience. They were not identical to our days in every sense. That seems obvious from the text. How were the creation days unlike our days? Well, the first three days were not “ruled” by the sun, because the ‘light bearers’ had not yet been “formed” and “placed” in earth’s sky. We have never experienced days not ruled by the sun, so we cannot dogmatic about the duration of such days, because the 24 hour duration of our days is based on earth’s rotation in relation to the sun as the source of light. The first three days were unlike our days, in that sense. They were not solar days. On the other hand, they were like our days in the way defined by verse 5—each day was composed of a single day and night, involving one complete rotational cycle of light and darkness, with a morning and an evening. So I am not dogmatic regarding the issue of the duration of the creation days (especially the first three), since I have no way of knowing the precise duration of non-solar days. (cont.)
Martin Rizley - #6776

March 13^th 2010

This position is sometimes referred to as “young biosphere creationism,” for while it leaves open the possibility of an old earth and cosmos (old in terms of the duration of time that the earth and cosmos have been here), it sees the fossil record as best explained in terms of a global flood, since the fossils are a record of catastrophic death and judgment on a global scale. Evidence of cancer, carnivory, and animal suffering in the fossil record suggest that it was laid down after man fell into sin. However, since the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, it doesn’t surprise me that most geologists, having no faith in the Bible as an infallible record of God’s works, reject the bibical record of the Flood. That rejection predisposes them to embrace a uniformitarian approach to the science of geology—one that discounts in an “a priori” manner the possibility that miraculous divine intervention has played a role in shaping the earth. So, yes, I take with a grain of salt the historical reconstructions of those geologists who reject the Bible as an infallible revelation of truth, refusing to be guided by its teaching in their own geological research.
Martin Rizley - #6777

March 13^th 2010

Gregory,
By the way, sandals would not look “new” if you had been walking around in them over hot burning sand every single day of your life for the last forty years! Moreover, God says that the Israelities’ garments did not wear out, either: “Your garments did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years” (Deuteronomy 8:4). I would call that pretty miraculous!
Karl A - #6842

March 15^th 2010

Martin, just one small point from a non-scientist (so take my words with a grain of salt): it seems you are equating naturalism with uniformitarianism but I don’t think that is accurate. For example, the current consensus position from scientists who follow methodological naturalism is that the dinosaurs were mostly wiped out by a catastrophic meteor strike. I wouldn’t think many geologists would likewise reject evidence that floods or other natural phenomena can change things pretty dramatically in short periods of time. (But these geologists do generally reject a worldwide flood for because of evidence that has been discussed in other recent posts.)
Martin Rizley - #6845

March 15^th 2010

Karl,
Your point is well taken about the difference between naturalism and uniformitarianism. Naturalism can be a methodology or a philosophy. Philosophical naturalism is the belief that “nature” is all there is. The “natural world” is self-explanatory, self-organizing, and self-directing, subject to no higher power outside itself. In a natualistic worldview, natural law is absolute. “Nature” must conform to natural law because those laws are eternal and can never be suspended. Methodological naturalism, on the other, is an approach to studying the natural world that looks for “natural” explanations of “natural” phenomena; invocation of supernatural causes (causes outside the natural world) is “out of court” in scientific research conducted by the principle of methodological naturalism. Uniformitarianism is the belief that, when it comes to interpreting the natural world, the present is the key to the past. That is, we take our knowledge of known observable processes, and interpret the data in the natural world in that light, to explain how various features in the natural world have come into existence (continued).
Martin Rizley - #6846

March 15^th 2010

Now, it seems to me that there is an inherent conflict between a Christian worldview and all three of the concepts described above. First, Christianity is diametrically opposed to philosophical naturalism, because we most emphatically believe that “nature” is not all there is. There is no such thing as a “natural world” that is self-explanatory, self-organizing, and self-directing. There is only God’s created world, which remains subject to His overruling control at every point. Nature must conform, not ultimately to any “law,” but to the Lawgiver, whose sovereign will is supreme. ‘Natural law’ is a term to describe the way God ordinarily governs the world around us—but those ‘laws’ are descriptive, not prescriptive. Any time God wills, He can direct the creation in different ways; there is no ‘law’ that prevents Him from doing so. As a result, science conducted according to the principle of methodological naturalism is valuable only in a limited sense. When we are trying to understand the ordinary processes by which God governs the created world generally, such a methodology is useful. (cont.)
Martin Rizley - #6847

March 15^th 2010

But if we want to study the history of the created world, we run into problems; for when it comes to ‘natural history,’ a commitment to strict methodological naturalism, for all practical purposes, leaves the miracle-working God out of His universe! That is, it refuses to acknowledge the possibility that divine miracle may have played a role in the formation of some of the physical features in the world around us. No Christian should buy that lie hook, line, and sinker—for that is to fall into an attitude of practical atheism! God most certainly is free to perform miracles in His world, and the Bible says that He has done so. The Flood was a miraculous event, so it is likely that some of the geological features formed by the Flood event were formed miraculously. For example, God may have miraculously accelerated, at the time of the flood, the rate at which solidifying lavas cooled. Finally, the concept of ‘uniformitarianism’ also conflicts with a Christian worldview, for to say “the present is the key to the past” is to overlook the fact that God did miracles in the past which He is not doing now. If we refuse to acknowledge Him, we are bound to err in our interpretations of the created world around us.
Dale - #6849

March 15^th 2010

to Gordon re: #6545 - I think you are spot on in underscoring the missional nature and purpose of Scripture. It was not the purpose of God to set down scientific, metaphysical, or even systematic theological categories; it was his purpose to provide a revelation sufficient to accomplish his redemptive mission. While he does not address the issue we are discussing here, i.e. Paul’s Adam, the Adam of Genesis, and the reality of human ancestry, Christopher H. J. Wright sets forth a missional hermeneutic of Scripture in his massive and magisterial The Mission of God.

You are very correct to point out that there’s really no point speculating whether or not God rose above ancient near eastern science - the text tells very clearly that he did not do so. A missional hermeneutic is helpful in reminding us that God’s purpose in Scripture is primarily redemptive.
BK - #6923

March 16^th 2010

We can miss the essential point that Paul is getting at if we focus too much on the material/scientific problems. This becomes quite clear when we consider all of 1 Corinthians 15:35-57:

“The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”

continued…...
BK - #6924

March 16^th 2010

Yes, Paul considers Adam as the first man, as did just about everyone until around 150 years ago, and many still do. Also, many believers now consider Adam to represent early humanity at the time when humans first were able to use their minds to consider God. Either way, we must consider the full message from Paul in this passage. Our broken relationship with God is a spiritual reality. Our naturalness is of this earth, but, at some point, the possibility of a relationship with God became a reality. Paul tells us that the fullness of this relationship with God can only come through a spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. We are natural creatures through Adam (or through evolution) but spiritual creatures through Christ. Can a person fully apprehend the really essential point Paul is making here, regardless of the position taken on Adam/evolved humankind?
Martin Rizley - #6940

March 16^th 2010

BK, As I see it, the gospel itself is altered when the literalness of Adam is denied, for our problem as human beings is not metaphysical. By that I mean it is not that we have evolved to a point where we may now choose either to cling to our ‘animal’ past and go on living on a bestial level or to embrace a higher, ‘spiritual’ way of living—for in that case, we would essentially be our own saviors, with God’s help. We would be the ones choosing to go ‘higher up’ or choosing to stay ‘lower down’—living on an animal (natural) level. That is not man’s dilemma, according to Scripture. Our problem is not metaphysical, but ethical. We are born into this world as fallen sinners, alienated from God already by virtue of our having been born in Adam. ‘In Adam’ we are born not only guilty but depraved, with a corrupt nature that is incapable of doing good. Our problem is not simply that we are sinners, but that we are ‘in Adam,’ and as long as we are in Adam, we are hopeless. We do not have within ourselves the power to choose to live on a ‘higher plane’—to go ‘up’ on the evolutionary scale—for we are dead in our sins (continued)
Martin Rizley - #6942

March 16^th 2010

The good new of the gospel, however, is that God has chosen to send His own Son into the world to act as the last Adam. Christ ‘undoes’ the effects of the fall by proving to be faithful where Adam was unfaithful; by choosing to submit to God’s will where Adam rebelled. By His perfect life and substitutionary death, He has redeemed a great host of sinners from death and judgment by taking upon Himself the death and judgment they deserve. As a result of His labors, many will be constituted righteous in the very same way they were constituted sinners—that is, through the representative action of another. Our hope of salvation lies in our being ‘unplugged’ from Adam and ‘plugged into’ Christ. This takes place when we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ by a living faith. So we are not at all our own saviors. It is not a matter of us choosing to cling to an animal past or to live according to the potentialities of an ‘evolved’ nature. That is a false gospel. The true gospel speaks of a God who saves sinners all by Himself by unplugging them from Adam and plugging them into His Son. We are saved through the obedience act of another, just as we were lost through the disobedience of another.
Robert - #6947

March 16^th 2010

I always find it interesting when Christians refuse to believe something the Bible says something that doesn’t square with science. It seems odd because the starting point for our faith is the resurrection! Hasn’t science proven that people die and don’t raise from the dead? If it hasn’t been proven, it surely goes against what has been discovered. By the way, I do believe in the resurrection.
BK - #6973

March 16^th 2010

Martin,

Thanks for your response. This may surprise you but, after the first sentence, I agree with everything you said, and well said it is too. My choice of words must have been poor for you to conclude that I consider humanity’s problem to be metaphysical. My point is that the position stated in your opening sentence “the gospel itself is altered when the literalness of Adam is denied” is not really the only one, nor did you really come to grips with why you think it is. Let me try again, fully realizing that as an evolutionary biologist I don’t really have the words or theological training to avoid getting stuck in the ooze once again. continued…....
BK - #6974

March 16^th 2010

Since we got here through biological evolution, the spiritual human being had to begin sometime after our brains were capable of conceiving something like God. This spiritual side is, in fact, God breathed. We were placed by the Creator in a creation that was in some mysterious way separated from Him, even though it was His creation and He sustained it - the possibility of our sinning was there from the beginning. I suppose it to be related to free will, which is also a gift from God. Our spirit was/is divorced from God because of His holiness. The gulf between us and God is measured by His holiness and justice relative to our serious lack of the same. Indeed we must look to Him to get out of this lost spiritual state. continued…......
BK - #6975

March 16^th 2010

“First spiritual humans”, whether Adam or some discrete stage in our evolution, appeared here in this world - a place spiritually out of harmony with God (when this fault happened is another story). The nature of this “first spiritual human population” is indeed mysterious, but so is Adam’s. It seems clear from Genesis that a choice confronted humans, though this also is a mystery, just like salvation is. The potential must have been there to make the right choice, but our nature as creatures of this world led to the wrong choice. The larger point is that this mystery repeats itself for every human being, not just the first ones. We all put ourselves first, we all try to ignore God, we all need to be spiritually revived, and power for this revision is from God not ourselves. Presenting this as a story about a tree, a tempter, a man, a woman and God in a garden does not make the spiritual reality any more or less mysterious or real. continued….........
BK - #6976

March 16^th 2010

Neither the nature of our biological connection to this earth nor of our spiritual relationship with God should be ignored or denied. Always, however, the timelessness of the spiritual message of the Gospel must be considered more important science’s current (ancient or modern) understanding of the natural world. As a biologist, it annoys me when believers don’t seem to be interested in the wonderful insights of modern evolutionary biology, and even feel threatened by them. As a believer, it really concerns me when Christians come to harmful misunderstandings because they appear to place too much emphasis on their own view of the natural world and too little on the essentially spiritual message of the Bible. That is why the more measured discussions of these pages are so important.
Martin Rizley - #6989

March 16^th 2010

BK,
I really do appreciate your recognition of humanity’s helplessness in sin and our need of Christ’s redemption. I agree with you that human beings were confronted with a choice at the beginning of human history in which they had to acknowledge God’s supreme authority over their lives by freely and willingly bowing to that authority. They had to show their recognition of dependence on God by submitting to His revealed will. Sadly, however, they rebelled against God’s authority by believing the lie of Satan and disobeying God’s will; at that point, I believe, their minds were darkened and their wills became enslaved to sin. Moreover, the consequences of that first sin passed onto their descendants in such a way that no human being, of himself, can find his way back to God, or restore himself to a state of spiritual liberty and peace with God. For that, we are dependent on the Good Shepherd to come and find His lost sheep. Our condition is therefore very different from the original condition of our first parents before the fall. (continued)
Martin Rizley - #6990

March 16^th 2010

They were free not to sin, for their nature was pure; the image of God in them was by no means marred or sullied. That is not true now. Human beings in their natural condition are not free not to sin; the image of God in us has been vitiated; and until Christ takes the initiative in rescuing us from this condition, we remain enslaved to sin. As Jesus put it, “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. . .If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” So the fall is not just a story to describe the existential experience of every person who passes from youthful innocence to the adult experience of a violated conscience. It was an actual historical event by which man’s legal status before God, as well as his spiritual nature, was radically altered. We do not become sinners by mere imitation of our parents; we are “born in sin,” with a fallen nature inherited from our first parents. That is why I believe the doctrine of a literal, historic fall is essential to a biblical understanding of the biblical gospel. Because our sin problem does not begin with us; it began long before we were ever conceive, when our first parents rebelled against God.
BK - #6994

March 16^th 2010

Martin,
You are correct, The Fall, or perhaps more correctly our pre-Fall condition is clearly the point where I have the greatest difficulty with my case. The unbridgeable moral distance between God and humans - unbridgeable, that is, without divine intervention working through faith, is a position that could be compatible with any version of first human actors, don’t you think? No mechanism is needed to explain the faith-based position that we are not spiritually pure enough to stand before a Holy God. That boils down, I think, to our view of God. But, how did evolved humanity first come to be in a blissful relationship with a Holy God? How blissful was that relationship? Was the sin that caused Adam and Eve to fall already in them or did it only enter when they had dealings with Satan? Not that these questions are any easier to grapple with by reading the Genesis account. In Part II of his series, Dr. Enns seems to be heading in the direction of this problem by asking about our traditional views of how Paul interpreted Genesis. Let’s listen and continue to think and discuss.
Martin Rizley - #6995

March 16^th 2010

BK, One further thought. You say that you are “annoyed” by the way many conservative Christians reject the ‘inisghts of modern evolutionary biology.’ But surely you understand the reason why so many Bible-believing Christians reject belief in common descent? It is because the Bible speaks so plainly of God creating the different basic kinds of creatures, with each reproducing ‘after its kind.’ That doesn’t preclude biological variation within limits, but it does preclude the idea that all creatures evolved from a single original life form. Moreover, most conservative Christians (myself included) believe (as one creation ministry puts it) that “the Bible presents a simple but historical account of actual events, and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. . .” Most reject the idea “that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Scripture.” Historical research (scientific or otherwise) that ignores or contradicts biblical teaching is thus seen as unreliable, lacking empirical demonstration and (more importantly) biblical support.
BK - #7010

March 16^th 2010

Martin,

No problem. I gave up many years ago trying to “argue” biological facts. It’s challenge enough to teach them to a university class, despite their depth and beauty. I know lots of fine Christians, and I am sure that you are one, who do not accept the biological view of origins. I also know many fine Christians who do. This is really one of the points I was trying to make. Christian six-day creationists and evolutionary biologists, not to mention some Christian brothers and sisters who can barely read or write, can live effectively under the daily guidance of the same Savior and walk the walk full of grace. This fact can help us keep our interpretive puzzles in the proper perspective. God Bless.
Martin Rizley - #7015

March 16^th 2010

BK,
Would you at least agree with me that no theory of origins which is based on the physical data found in DNA or the observable similarities of bones, organs, etc., found in different species is free of assumptions? That is, all ‘facts’ are interpreted facts, and the interpretation always reveals certain underlying assumptions that are being made by the interpreter—assumptions that are of a philosophical or religious nature? Would you agree with that? Would you agree that all scientific endeavor is built on a particular philosophy of science?
Martin Rizley - #7064

March 17^th 2010

BK, The reason I ask that question is to point out that one’s beliefs about the past may be quite plausible and convincing given our epistemological assumptions—but if those underlying assumptions are mistaken, what we think we “know” may not be true at all. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said about his “liberal opponents” that they were not ignorant, they just happened to know a lot of things that weren’t so. Now, it seems to me that some of the things of which you feel so certain in the realm of evolutionary biology—those things which lead you to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis—are built on the philosophical assumption that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently of his revelation in Holy Scripture. But what if that is a false assumption? What if, to arrive at a true picture of earth’s past, we need to factor in—in addition to the data of DNA, homology, etc.— the simple but accurate account of primeval history given in Genesis 1-11? We have to connect all the dots given to us by God, instead of just some of them, to get a true picture of earth’s past. Would they not change the picture we see?
Rob Kashow - #7099

March 17^th 2010

About 800 comments here, so if someone else has asked this I apologize… but, what if Paul was wrong? Will you tackle this possibility in other posts?
BK - #7248

March 20^th 2010

Martin,
Assumptions; of course, we make them all the time. One has to start somewhere. Equally important are the questions we derive from our assumptions. Good assumptions usually lead to good questions. All useful advances into unknown territory are based on asking the best questions. With real assumptions, we are prepared to change them when our investigations reveal facts that seriously challenge them. If it cannot be changed, the “assumption” should be called a statement of faith. Since, through faith, we believe that God speaks through His word and has spoken by that means to widely different peoples and cultures for at least 3000 years, we really can’t call this an assumption because we are not prepared to modify it. We do, however, make some assumptions (hopefully not statements of faith) about our interpretations of Scripture and, more to the point of this blog, about the methods we us to interpret Scripture. New understanding from both biblical scholars and scientists continually challenge us to test our interpretive assumptions. So, I agree, we first need to make a list of the positions we insist on holding as statements of faith and what positions we will allow to remain “simply” assumptions. Continued…...
BK - #7249

March 20^th 2010

As for the questions concerning biological origins, which are way off topic for this particular blog, I refer you to two of the best recent biology books written for the non-biologist, with sufficient rigor to satisfy the most critical biologist.
1. “Life Ascending. The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution” by Nick Lane, W.W. Norton and Co., 2009.
2. “The Machinery of Life” 2 Ed. by David S. Goodsell, Springer Science, 2009
Dan - #7302

March 21^st 2010

Isn’t the point true, whether Paul thought Adam was an historically real figure or not? I have no training in theology at all, but a high school English student (at least when I was in high school 40 years ago) would recognize the passage in question as an obvious typology that makes a truth claim of its own regardless of the fact that Adam was not Jesus and Jesus was not Adam!!
Joe S. - #7614

March 25^th 2010

Hi Pete, I appreciate these posts. I’m also grateful that there is a place where these things can be discussed.

One quick question on post sequence. What post is Paul’s Adam (Part 2)? It’s not clearly linked on the right side of the site here. I may use these for a course and I want to make sure I refer to the posts in proper sequence. Best, Joe
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Paul’s Adam (Part I)

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment