Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

http://humanityredeemed.blogspot.com/...

What do you guys think of my defense of theistic evolution?

Well done, Benjamin - a thoughtful, well-researched piece. I've written a soon-to-be-released book covering many of the issues you've touched upon. My take on the scientific value of Genesis differs from yours, but we find a lot of common ground. Let's check back with each other in 6 months.

Thank you. I’ve noticed in my research that there is quite a variety of approaches to interpreting Genesis, one particularly unique one that I’m researching now is John Walton’s functional approach. Its interesting that some scholars believe that the ancient Hebrews literally believed that there was a solid dome around the earth and that people think with their intestines and others believe these were just cultural sayings meant to express experiences rather than realities. It be interesting to hear your take on that subject as well.

One of the problems of writing things down for posterity is that posterity lasts a very long time while your cultural window for writing opportunisic garbage is fleeting. Can you imagine how dystopia will be regarded in the future?

How can one have death prior to sin entering in e world? The wages if sin is death. I don't see theistic evolution as theologically accurate, especially when one translates the Hebrew word for day which is "Yom" meaning a literal 24 hour day? Why do you reject 6 literal days?

Also Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve, as did Paul. If they were figurative why their affirmation if literal Adam and Eve. Jesus is the second Adam, if Adam was figurative why is Jesus the second of a figurative character, why reference Adam at all?If theistic evolution then is Jesus from an evolved Mary and is he spiritually evolved too? As far as appealing to the theologians, you can find respectful theologians like John MacArthur, R,C. Sproul, John Piper, Ravi Zaccharias and others. Your thoughts?

Phil, animals can't sin and therefore they are not punished. There had to be at least some form of death before the fall, even if it was just plant death. Either way, I don't see animal death as an issue with death before sin.
I personally believe the death talked about is separation from God and a spiritual death (your soul being destroyed). I don't believe Adam would have lived forever regardless of his sin.
As for the literal six day creation, I don't believe it matters. I personally don't believe in a six day creation that's been around 6000 years, though.

I meant to bring up Yom, too. I don't think anyone can say that it only means a 24 hour time span. Look at this article :
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yo...

I think the 6-day creation story in Genesis is clear. But I do not think the story measures a day as the time it takes for the earth to spin. Who knew anything about a spinning earth? Rather, it's the other way around; a day was always a day, but God put the sun and the moon in the sky to govern the daytime and the nighttime, and sent them trekking across the dome of the sky in concert with the already-existing 24-hour day.

Day 1 and Day 2 of Genesis take about 10 billion years, from the time of the Big Bang, about 14.5 billion years ago (bya) to about 4.5 bya when our solar system (including earth) was created. All of it was done by God and all in days, defined as a passage of time. Adam and Eve weren't divinely created until about 6 million years ago.

Robert, that is the Gap Theory, correct? I like that theory a lot, actually.

Ha! Ha! David, I wasn't aware it was a theory which had a name = I just try to line up Biblical events with a plausible scientific timeline to communicate with those on the science side of the Arts & Sciences continuum.

Phil, I believe Walton's view does believe that "yom" is 6 literal days but believes these days are used to portray creation as if it was being created and prepared like a week in the temple calender. So "yom" could be 6 literal days, yet NOT be literal days at the same time. (And correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read the book, I'm just going off of reviews.)

Also, Adam and Eve, aka a first human couple is no refutation of evolution either since there had to have a first pair anyhow. What Genesis is depicting is the fall away from the Image of God that they were given (whether God evolved them toward that point or however else God accomplished this is besides the point of Genesis, what matters is that we humans HAVE God's image as God saw fit). So Jesus affirming A&E is simply Jesus affirming the pair who fell from that image. Just because the creation narratives might be more figurative doesn't mean that there has to be no actual first human couple.

And an evolved Mary is nonsense, and also irrelevant to her role in the virgin birth. And Jesus being spiritually evolved is a non-sequitor.

As for the theologians you mention, why throw their names out there instead of mentioning what their actual arguments are? And are they well-aquiainted with evolutionary theory and evidence as well as thorough exegesis of the literary and historical background of Genesis? Or are they reading Genesis as if it was written by post-ancient literalists reading modern science into an ancient, non-scientific text?

The first living organism, roughly homologous to a cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) was created by God 3.8 bya. It was far too complex to be created from swirling chemical activity in the primordial ooze. This was the first organism because it could nourish itself through photosynthesis which helps because there was nothing else around. God created all other photosynthetic algae because a by-product of photosynthesis is oxygen which was crucial for the early atmosphere and the creation of subsequent life.
Almost immediately, evolution commenced with non-crucial (to God's plan) bacteria like hyperthermophiles (hot springs dwellers) arising. That divinely-created crucial organisms and evolution-created niche fillers arose simultaneously should come as no surprise to any Bible scholar with a scintilla of scientific aptitude.

David wrote: "Robert, that is the Gap Theory, correct? I like that theory a lot, actually."

Actually Gap Theory is a bit more complex than simply a long span of time between Genesis 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3. Gap Theory (aka ruin/reconstruction theory) is a specific form of old earth creationism that is NOT consistent with theistic evolution, and carries with it some pretty heavy theological baggage.

Gap theory says that God created all the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. This first creation was where prehistoric man and animal life comes from in the fossil record. So dinosaurs, Cro-magnon man and all the rest were part of this first primordial/prehistoric creation. Gap theory suggests that God could have taken as long as he wanted to create different species of life, but regardless, a "beta" version of human was alive at some point during this time span

In Genesis 1:2 there is some controversy surrounding the term "was", as in "The earth was formless and void". Some scholars believe the word is better translated "was made" so that the verse reads "The earth was made formless and void". So we have a first creation in Genesis 1:1, a destruction or deconstruction in verse 2 and then a reconstruction or reconstitution of the earth in verse 3.

So the "gap" is verse 2. This view of creation was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. It's quite a complex theory, even attempting to explain where demons come from through employing this theory of creation (demons are the disembodied spirits of ancient man who died in the destruction of the original creation). It's a weird theory.

Thanks for the information on that, Andrew. I hadn't read too much on it so I didn't realize there was more to it. Any book suggestions?

Andrew =
Thanks for the information on Gap Theory - I think I'll pass on that one. The only gap in my effort to reconcile science with Genesis would be from 14.5 bya to 4.5 bya where the remnants of the Big Bang were cooling, requisite elements were being formed in Supernovae, and God was piecing togerther the Universe with gravity as superglue and the speed of light as a constant for whatever reason He did it?????

So robert if you are adopting this sort of concordism how do you reconcile the scientific consensus about the order of life arising from the earth compared to the biblical one ? Any form of gap or day age theory only allows for an old earth it doesn't allow for full blooded evolution.

The scientific consensus is wrong about life arising from the earth, but right that there is a form of evolution.

Ok but what is your view on the order of creation how can genesis be true if it is also true that the first life on earth was in the seas not plants on the land on your view?

Genesis states the indisputable organisms that God created. In my view, He created quite a few more including the first one-celled organisms and the entire line of primates from old world monkeys on up. I'll leave Kingdom fungi and the insects to evolution (there are other creeping things besides insects). It threw me that God created birds so early, but then it occured to me He wanted to keep insects out of the Garden of Eden, but still have a pollinator for his fruit trees. (Deep Woods OFF would not have been available to Adam and Eve!)

It stretches my imagination to believe that the authors of Genesis were worried about bugs and pollination in the garden of Eden.

Not mine - God was in control then, as He is now.

Lee - as is the case in much of your research of 1st century authors, they may not understand the implications of all they write about, but they are compelled by an unseen hand to dash it off anyway.

God really played with the heads of his scribes, didn't he?

It was either that or write it Himself!