Why think that the writer's of Genesis could not have believed in a difference between the way things were in the beginning and the time they wrote Genesis? Your argument form isn't clear to me. So let me try to clarify my argument. My claim is a modest one: No, these chapters can be plausibly interpreted figuratively. This function of myth is called etiology, and Genesis is full of etiological motifs. Further, I showed that myths are often figurative in nature, not to be construed literally, and I gave some extra-biblical examples, including examples from the Ancient Near East.
So the question naturally arises, are the narratives of Genesis meant to be taken literally? It is characteristic of myths, by contrast, that those who tell them are untroubled by different versions of the stories which are inconsistent with each other, since they need not be taken with a sort of wooden literality. The author of Genesis seems utterly unconcerned to iron out the inconsistencies between chapters 1 and 2 that commentators have struggled with for centuries.
Under each of the two points I give multiple examples, so that even if any one example is not probative, together they constitute a good cumulative case for non-literality. Consider the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in Genesis The author of Genesis had just described God as a transcendent Creator of the entire physical realm in Genesis 1. But is it plausible? It is preposterous to think that it never rained during the Jurassic Age, for example. But, of course, the author of Genesis had no such knowledge.
Ancient knowledge by ordinary people, grounded in such perception, is in that sense on the same level as ours. The Bible speaks to ordinary people in ordinary ways, and such communication is valid. The second myth is the myth of progress. This myth says that our modern Western societies are superior to the past, not only technologically, but socially, morally, and spiritually.
The third myth is the myth of easy understanding of other cultures. The ancient Near East contained multiple cultures, changing and interacting over hundreds of years, and the evidence left for us to examine is fragmentary. It is easy to underestimate the challenge of thinking through what a whole culture is like, and to impose oversimple descriptions, when it comes to issues like ancient views of the world as a whole.
Ancient societies had intense interest in the spiritual world, and this interest may dominate, rather than physicalistic accounts of how the world works. Halfway through the book, you provide a helpful outline of the hermeneutical principles advocated in Interpreting Eden. This list of 15 principles seems like a trustworthy roadmap for any pastor, student, or scholar to follow.
But if you had to choose, is there one that stands apart, under which the others should be subsumed, and why? VSP: A difficult question. Biblical scholars and theologians, as well as ordinary people, can be unconsciously influenced by the elite, who have abandoned God in favor of a predominantly mechanistic picture of the world.
This modern view gives us a world in which God is either nonexistent or involved only at a private, psychological level. And in all the topics people can go off the rails if they unconsciously absorb the predominant views coming from prestigious Western institutions like the universities and the media. Or do they have more to tell us and thus to refine our comprehension of the Creation event? The question is what kind of relations these are. Or can God speak his own message that differs?
Is there a difference between the truth in religion, offered in the Bible, and the many counterfeits, ancient and modern? Or is all religion merely a human response to a vague sense of the transcendent? I maintain that it makes a difference if we believe in a God who rules and speaks. In addition, my book brings up the issue of the genre of Genesis.
But when we say that, does it immediately answer all the questions? The difficulty is that there are a variety of ways of timing the length of a temporal period. In the present providential order, we have many regular rhythms that intertwine with each other nicely. But the six days in Genesis 1 took place before all the elements of the present providential order were in place. It is easy for a variety of modern views too quickly to read back into Genesis 1 details of the patterns that belong to the present order.
You provide four substantial appendices at the end of Interpreting Eden. VSP: The summary view says that Gen. I believe that the summary view has much less in its favor than many interpreters have thought. Ultimately, what is at stake for the church due to our handling of Genesis, in terms of her relationship to the world, her own health, and her understanding of God?
With that rejection naturally comes the rejection of the idea that God created the world in a series of steps, and that he is intimately involved in the world ever since, both in ordinary providential rule over the world and in miracles. It tells who God is, and also who we are, human beings created in the image of God and now fallen and sinful. The redemption of Jesus Christ, which is the crucial message of the Bible, makes sense only within the framework of understanding who God is and who we are.
Finally, what are you working on now that we should anticipate reading in the future? I hope also to have a book on Redeeming Our Thinking about History. Thank You Vern Poythress! I disagree. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins.
Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist. The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received.
In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.
That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.
Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand. We believe Genesis is a true account that, like other ancient narratives, uses vivid imagery to describe past events. It is silent on the scientific questions we might wish it to answer.
Clues to the original intended meaning can be found in the style of language, the genre of literature, the original audience, and the historical and cultural context. Humans appear very late in the history of life. The fossil record clearly shows that many creatures died before humans appeared. The seven-day pattern in Genesis 1 is a literary device that serves the theological purposes of the author, rather than revealing information about the chronology of natural history.
Part Six in the Uniquely Unique mini-series. We take stock of one more distinguishing feature of humans—the image of God. People on all sides of the creation debate are convinced the other sides are doing it all wrong.
After taking part in many conversations where people talk past one another, BioLogos forum moderator Christy has noticed a few recurring themes. In the final part of his four-part series, J. In this excerpt from their new book, geologist Gregg Davidson and theologian Ken Turner shine a spotlight on Genesis One as theologically rich literature first and foremost. Early Christian Thought Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Later Christian Thought There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1—2 later in history. He writes, The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.
0コメント