Evolutionary Creation — Chapter 2 — Beyond the “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate
In the second chapter of Evolutionary Creation, Lamoureux summarizes five basic protological categories: (1) young-earth creationism, (2) progressive creationism, (3) evolutionary creationism, (4) deistic evolution, and (5) dysteleological evolution. Although this chapter may appear on the surface to be a lesser chapter better relegated to the appendices, this would be far from the truth. Lamoureux uses this opportunity to cover the strengths and weaknesses of each approach—including his own evolutionary creationist position. As one who has run the gamut of protological categories (save deistic and dysteleological evolution categories), I find Lamoureux’s treatment to be extremely fair and, when discussing his own viewpoint, extremely humble as to the difficulties one may experience when weighing the evolutionary creationist paradigm against their own tradition.
Here are some highlights from the chapter, as well as some of my own comments and questions for discussion:
Young-earth Creationism
- STRENGTH: “The strongest argument for a six-day creation is that a literal interpretation is the natural and traditional way to read the opening chapters [of Genesis]. Undoubtedly, this view of origins is closest to that held by the inspired author of Genesis 1.”
- Most people investigating this topic would not expect someone who held to an evolutionary creationist viewpoint to admit this. It is true that the ancient Hebrews and modern-day young-earth creationists interpret Genesis 1-11 in almost identical fashion., as literal history and a literal account of origins. This begs the question: Did Jesus and Paul (as well as his apostolic peers) view Genesis 1-11 as literal history? If so, what does an evolutionary creationist do with the concepts of biblical inspiration and biblical inerrancy?
- WEAKNESS: “The greatest problem with young earth creation is that it completely contradicts every modern scientific discipline that investigates the origin of the universe and life.”
- Indeed. And can’t it be argued that the entire creation/evolution debate is merely a modern-day recapitulation of the 17th-century Galileo affair, in which the Church vigorously defended what they believed the Scriptures to teach, to wit, that the Earth was the center of the universe as well as the point around which all astronomical bodies revolved?
Progressive Creationism
- STRENGTH: “The strongest argument for day-age [progressive] creation is that it provides an approach to the origin of the world that employs both the Bible and modern science.”
- If one accepts the Bible as the Word of God, it is reasonable to assume that Genesis 1-11 concords with both science and history, especially since God is held to be the author of both the Bible and the cosmos; but does this approach move beyond the purposes for which the Bible was written (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17)? While mankind was still in its intellectual infancy, would it have been wise for God to upset the Hebrews to the extreme by revealing the inner workings of the cosmos? Do not we who have young children recognize that they may not be ready to know the “real truth” regarding the “inner workings” of our reproductive system? Do we not adapt the truth according to the level of their intellectual and emotional maturity?
- WEAKNESS: “The greatest problem with progressive creation is that it is a God-of-the-gaps model of origins. . . . Old earth creationists claim that natural processes are insufficient and cannot produce living organisms. . . . The difficulty with this understanding of divine action is that when physical processes are discovered to explain a gap once claimed to be where God acted, His purported intervention vanishes in the advancing light of science.”
- So what happens when science discovers a manner in which life could have originated through abiogenesis? Does progressive creationism and Intelligent Design disappear into the historical dustbin of theologico-scientific theories? One should be concerned, from a pastoral perspective, what can happen to the faith of an individual when faced with such overwhelming evidence that what was once “irreducibly complex” really isn’t.
Evolutionary Creationism
- STRENGTH: “The most compelling argument for evolutionary creation is that it embraces without any reservations modern science and biblical faith. . . . It meets the yearning of a scientific generation in search of spiritual meaning. In particular, evolutionary creation offers an intellectually satisfying worldview for those who experience God in a personal relationship and know His creation scientifically.”
- In this view—a tip of the hat to Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” principle—intellectual schizophrenia is nowhere to be found because it offers a unified synthesis of science and faith, to wit, that science and faith offer answers to questions asked within their respective domains—domains which interdigitate but don’t overlap.
- WEAKNESS: “The greatest problem with evolutionary creation is that it does not embrace the traditional interpretation of the opening chapters of [Genesis]. . . . Consequently, evolutionary creationists contend that [Genesis] 1-11 is to be read in a very unnatural and utterly counterintuitive way.”
- I’m not sure exactly why Lamoureux puts it this way, especially considering the fact that he later explains that Genesis 1-11, to be properly understood, should be read in a literal fashion. We should embrace the traditional interpretation in its literary context. To fully understand Genesis 1-11, one should read the text in a natural and intuitive manner. What should be “very unnatural and utterly counterintuitive” for a Christian, however, is the rejection of Genesis 1-11 as literal history or a scientific account of the creation of the cosmos.
Deistic Evolution
- STRENGTH: “The most compelling argument for deistic evolution is that it offers a more objective approach to faith than conventional religions. . . . simple logic dictates that all religions cannot be true. . . . Deistic evolution attempts to avoid this problem by restricting the primary source of religious truth to logical analysis and modern science. As a result, subjective elements and personal biases are set aside, leaving religion to be as objective as possible.”
- There is certainly something attractive about being as objective as possible, and it is not difficult to see the problem that faces traditional sotereological exclusivism (cf. John 14:6 and Acts 4:12). One of the biggest challenges Evangelicals face is the problem of the fate of those who have not heard the Gospel and been given the opportunity to accept or reject it. How do Evangelicals surmout this problem without lending credence to the necessity of religious pluralism?
- WEAKNESS: “The greatest problem with deistic evolution is that a god who winds the clock of the universe and then leaves it to run down on its own rarely meets the spiritual needs of people.“
- What does one need with a dispensable deity? Deistic evolution, in my opinion, is functional atheism. Given my relationship with Jesus Christ (i.e., those “subjective elements and personal biases” that are part and parcel of my life experience), this isn’t a viable option for me.
Dysteleological Evolution
- STRENGTH: “The greatest support for dysteleological evolution [i.e., atheistic materialism] comes from the astonishing success of science. Modern society enjoys its fruits daily, and understandably atheists assume that the scientific method can be used to explain every aspect of life, including religion and morality. . . . In addition, atheistic evolution offers a reasonable explanation for an issue that has challenged men and women throughout the ages—the problem of evil. In a dysteleological world, this is not a dilemma because morality does not ultimately exist. Good and evil are only illusions fabricated by the human mind that have been projected upon reality.”
- Theodicy is, I believe, the a greatest problem for Christians of all origins persuasions. I honestly don’t have a particular stance on this and I’ve only just begun to research the issue. Any good books out there?
- WEAKNESS: “The greatest problem with dysteleological evolution is that it stands directly in the face of God and the First Commandment . . . . Atheists place themselves before God. . . . Another serious difficulty with dysteleological evolution is that it is a personal commitment to the belief that truth only comes through logical analysis and scientific investigation [i.e., positivism]. . . . Finally, atheistic evolution fails to meet the spiritual and psychological needs of men and women.”
- If I were an atheist, arguments #1 and #3 would have absolutely no impact on my thinking. Many atheists and agnostics whom I know are well-adjusted human beings who claim they don’t feel a need for a deity. Heck, even I don’t feel the “need” for a deity. I do, however, feel an irresistible call to enter into and maintain a personal relationship with God, who is just as real to me as my wife and children are. And then there’s my (subjective?) recognition that human beings are in desperate need of Spirit-filled assistance in overcoming their inherited selfish (read: sinful) nature and achieve pure, unadulterated selflessness. That being said, argument #2 (anti-positivism) would hold the most weight with me.
What are your thoughts on the various weaknesses and strengths of each position?
Deistic evolution, in my opinion, is functional atheism.
Agreed. 😉
Regarding the weaknesses of the dysteleological evolution stance:
Weakness 1: It stands directly in the face of God and the First Commandment.
You are right, this is not a concern to most atheists because if there is no God, well, then there is not a problem by not worshiping him. This is an issue for the apostate, however. There can be a great deal of anxiety wondering if you might be wrong, because if you are, it can’t be good!
Weakness 2: Personal commitment to the belief that truth only comes through logical analysis and scientific investigation [i.e., positivism].
There is no absolute truth, but there are subjective and collective truths. We interject beliefs about what we perceive to be true throughout our lives, and they are malleable. This “dynamic truth” makes many people (and it sounds like you as well) queasy because it is usually cast as flippant, but laws, morals, and “truths” can be quite obvious, instinctual, and persistent. Furthermore, how does this allowance for “dynamic truth” as I’ve dubbed it differ from what theists call “progressive revelation”?
Weakness 3: Atheistic evolution fails to meet the spiritual and psychological needs of men and women.
This is quite the projection! And like #1, the materialist assumes there is no mind-body problem. There simply is no spirit outside of the body so “spiritual” needs are equivalent to psychological needs — and there is science that can explain and attend to many of those needs.
I find it interesting that Lamoreaux finds the weaknesses of YEC to be scientific, those of PC to be the structure of the argument (God of the Gaps), while the weaknesses of EC and DE are theological. (I leave aside “dysteleological evolution”, though the weaknesses there for Lamoreaux are clearly mostly theological.) There are theists, including evolutionary creationists, who find YEC to be as flawed theologically as it is scientifically, and the same to be true of PC where one must invoke an intermittently interventionist deity.
On first reading I’m intrigued by your phrase (or Lamoreaux’s?) “… domains which interdigitate but don’t overlap.” I’m not sure that can be sustained on further analysis, but it’s interesting.
From Lamoreaux’s quote about dysteleological evolution’s weaknesses:
Another serious difficulty with dysteleological evolution is that it is a personal commitment to the belief that truth only comes through logical analysis and scientific investigation [i.e., positivism].
That’s not what I understand the current state of affairs to be. Logical positivism in the philosophy of science has been essentially extinct for the last 40 or so years. I’d amend that sentence to read:
“… reliable knowledge only comes through logical analysis and scientific investigation,” where “reliable knowledge” means statements about the world, and explanations of it, that are at least semi-independent of the particular subjective beliefs of a given person.
That doesn’t deny that other sorts of beliefs — e.g., religious beliefs of one sort or another — can be of utility in given instances, but does deny that they are general.
Finally, I take exception to this:
In a dysteleological world, this is not a dilemma because morality does not ultimately exist. Good and evil are only illusions fabricated by the human mind that have been projected upon reality.”
That’s simply false, even a bit silly. Morality obviously exists and is not an “illusion,” even in societies that have never heard of Jesus Christ and/or the Judeo-Christian tradition. And it’s far from an illusion: it’s very real. Lamoreaux is here begging the question: building into his description what has not been established. And it’s a false description. I suggest that he (and you) read some Larry Arnhart for one approach to a Darwinian basis for morality.
re: “Undoubtedly, this view of origins is closest to that held by the inspired author of Genesis 1”
This is what I like about Denis (and maybe what some others don’t like 🙂 ) .. he states the most salient points as bluntly as he can .. no wiffley-waffling. I would want to qualify the statement somewhat with “scientific view of origins”. Theologically, I’m not sure Ken Ham etc. is anywhere close to the original Hebrews (then again, I suspect my view isn’t close either .. a few thousand years of change will do that 🙂 ).
Thanks for the post. It’s nice to get a preview of the book before I pick it up for myself.
As for recommended books on theodicy, I would suggest having a look at “Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution” by Daryl Domning and Monika Hellwig. The book is primarily written by Domning, a Catholic paleontologist, and in it, he explains how he reconciles original sin (or ‘original selfishness’) and moral/physical evil with an evolutionary origin for humanity. I highly recommend it.
It strikes me that I may be misinterpreting Lamoreax’s remark that
In a dysteleological world, this is not a dilemma because morality does not ultimately exist. Good and evil are only illusions fabricated by the human mind that have been projected upon reality.”
If “ultimately exist” means something like “exists independently of the humans that display/talk about it”, as, for example, we all (except extreme solipsists) believe that planets and stars exist independently of the humans that observe them, then he’s right: Atheists do not (or at least this atheist does not) believe that “morality” has some sort of independent existence. I think Lamoreaux (and theists like Collins with his Moral Law) are committing a serious category error when they attribute an independent existence to morality.
I retain my dislike for Lamoreaux’s “illusion” language, though. Is “the English language” merely an illusion because it doesn’t have an independent existence comparable to that of planets? Planets exist whether humans observe them or not; the English language exists only if there are speakers/readers of it or artifacts bearing inscriptions in it.
Good review, Mike.
It seems that in Lamoureux’s handling of the various views, he uses his once-held fundamentalist views as the basis for his analysis. When RBH observes that “There are theists, including evolutionary creationists, who find YEC to be as flawed theologically as it is scientifically” I say “Yes, and count me among them!” I cannot agree that a strength of YEC is that it is “the most natural way to read” the opening chapters of Genesis, nor that ECs read those chapters in “an utterly counterintuitive way”.
I get the idea that Lamoureux is targeting fundamentalist YEC people, and so throws them a lot of bones. And this may be the case. But if so, I cannot agree with your finding that his “treatment [is] extremely fair”.
On theodicy, may I recommend David Bentley Hart’s The Doors of the Sea. I read it in a single sitting (I couldn’t put it down!). You can read my review here. Happy reading.
Deistic Evolution? Atheistic evolution? Since when do scientific facts need adjectives like deistic and atheistic? Please don’t pollute science with those words. Magic fairies have absolutely nothing to do with any branch of science including evolutionary biology. There can be no supernatural explanations in science. Science says nothing about medieval religious beliefs, including the childish belief in Mr. God.
I’m a little disappointed in this statement.
“STRENGTH: “The strongest argument for a six-day creation is that a literal interpretation is the natural and traditional way to read the opening chapters [of Genesis]. Undoubtedly, this view of origins is closest to that held by the inspired author of Genesis 1.”
Lamoureux’s work I find helpful as I stated in the first review, but the above statement is not well founded in my opinion. I’ve seen too much Jewish and early Christian literature that contradicts that idea to be led to that conclusion.
One may simply read the Barnabas Epistle dated 1st century AD to see that the Jewish and early Christian concepts dating before the end of the first Century were not reading Genesis 1 in a literal methodology. They were reading it in a Hebrew theological end of days understanding. It had nothing to do with the literal as it is obvious that the author explains to his audience the correct theological interpretation that had been passed on to him. What this means is that theology was the expected purpose of Genesis 1to many of antiquity. They were not as unsophisticated theologically as we might think they were.
Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.
Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. HE MEANETH THIS, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; FOR THE DAY WITH HIM SIGNIFYETH A THOUSAND YEARS; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. THEREFORE, CHILDREN, IN SIX DAYS, THAT IS IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS, EVERYTHING SHALL COME TO AN END.
Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and SHALL CHANGE THE SUN AND THE MOON AND THE STARS, THEN SHALL HE TRULY REST ON THE SEVENTH DAY.
It’s obvious that this early Christian author didn’t buy into a literal reading of Genesis chapter one. What confuses most folks though is the statement that he makes comparing the day to a thousand years. Many believe he is stating it as a literal thousand years but he is simply repeating a well know Jewish theological statement from the Book of Jubilees concerning Adam’s death.
Jubilees 4:29 … Adam died, and all His sons buried him in the land of his creation, 8 and he was the first to be buried 9 in the earth. 30. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; “for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens” and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: “On the day that ye eat thereof ye will die.” 1 For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.
Jubilees dates to the 2nd century BC and this saying concerning a day as a thousand years was well known by Jews and early Christians alike. Peter quotes it in his second letter (2 Pet 3:8) and John uses the infamous 1000 years in his Revelation writing to highlight most probably the same idea that the Barnabas author was putting forth. The Barnabas author is basically saying that the 6th day of creation is as a 1000 years. Genesis 1’s 6th day was the last day of creation before the Sabbath rest according to Barnabas. It was the day that the Image of God was imbued upon faithful men. John is most probably referencing that last 6th day when he talks about the 1000 years.
Notice how the Barnabas author understands Genesis 1’s image discussion was directed toward the faithful believers after Pentecost which is the last day of the creation week.
Barn 6:12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, “Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.”
I really am surprised that Lamoureux makes such a statement with the extensive writings of the Jewish Rabbis and early Christians contradicting that rationale.
Meredith Kline’s literary framework understanding if it only recognized the eschatological 1st century end of days twist would come somewhat closer to how the Pre AD70 Jews and early Christians read Genesis 1. Then again not all Jews would have understood the scriptures correctly unless they had eyes to see and ears to hear and trusted Jesus and the apostles in their teachings.
Norm
Tom,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As usual, I really appreciate your presence on my blog.
Calling progressive revelation “dynamic truth” is an interesting concept, and one to which I should give more thought. However, I like Lamoureux’s suggestion that we need to learn to separate theological (“real” or “absolute”) truths from the incidental vessels in which they’re found, i.e., ancient science and mytho-historical anchors. (Did I just coin a phrase?)
While the vessels in which theological truth are transmitted can (and should) be dynamic in order for theological truth to transcend cultures, I see theological truth as much more rigid if not unbending.
Since we have to admit that we know nothing about the true nature of God except that which this God reveals to us- must we not assume that God must have evolved if we choose an ‘evolutionary creation’ view
Brian
RBH,
I find it interesting that Lamoreaux finds the weaknesses of YEC to be scientific, those of PC to be the structure of the argument (God of the Gaps), while the weaknesses of EC and DE are theological.
Great observations. I was going to mention it myself, but I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone else noticed it.
You and Steve are also correct that YEC proponents, while reading correctly Genesis 1-11 as literal history, fail to really understand the theology of those opening chapters as the ancient Hebrews did. They swallow a camel while straining at a gnat, miss the forest for the trees, ad nauseam.
The “domains which interdigitate but don’t overlap” comment is mine, but may very well have been acquired through previous conversation with Tom. Don’t really remember. Regardless, I see the domains as a pair of interlocking hands: the fingers don’t occupy the same space, but they reinforce each other, creating a much stronger vessel than cupped hands.
Ryan,
Thanks for the book recommendation. It’s already on my Amazon wishlist, where it might remain as a result of its $90 price tag. (I may even have it linked to my Amazon store.)
Cliff,
Thanks for your book recommendation as well.
I get the idea that Lamoureux is targeting fundamentalist YEC people, and so throws them a lot of bones.
I believe that the book is most definitely geared toward convincing the Christian believer, rather than convincing the non-believer. Although he uses the anthropic principle to argue for the existence of God in later chapters, I see it as more of a tool to encourage believers that their theism is rational. Personally, I don’t buy the anthropic principle.
But if so, I cannot agree with your finding that his “treatment [is] extremely fair”.
By my comment, I was meaning that he was being fair in providing the reader with strengths and weaknesses for each view, including his own, not that the strengths and weaknesses were objectively accurate or correct. I certainly took issue with some of them.
bobxxxx,
I won’t delete your posts, but I do ask that you treat my and others’ beliefs with respect, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
There are a number of atheists and agnostics that frequent these discussions and none of them indulge in childish behavior as you do. (Kudos to Tom, RBH, Brian, etc.)
It’s not what you say; it’s how you say it.
That being said, if you don’t want to hear terms like “deistic evolution,” go surf the Internet elsewhere.
Thanks for playing.
Norm,
I’m a little disappointed in this statement: “STRENGTH: ‘The strongest argument for a six-day creation is that a literal interpretation is the natural and traditional way to read the opening chapters [of Genesis]. Undoubtedly, this view of origins is closest to that held by the inspired author of Genesis 1.'”
I’m kinda disappointed that you didn’t read that statement carefully enough! 😉
All of your relatively late Jewish and early Christian interpretations of Genesis 1-11 do not necessarily have any bearing on determining the correct view of origins “held by the inspired author of Genesis 1″ or by the ancient Hebrews themselves. Those late Jewish and early Christian interpretations are separated from ancient Hebrew culture by millennia.
I really am surprised that Lamoureux makes such a statement with the extensive writings of the Jewish Rabbis and early Christians contradicting that rationale.
Why on earth would Lamoureux use those late interpretations to determine what the Hebrew culture originally believed about origins? Shall we delve into Philo’s interpretations to really know what Genesis means? He’s nearer to the era that produced Barnabas and Jubilees than the ancient myths that informed the Hebrews’ origins stories.
How familiar are you with John Walton?
Since we have to admit that we know nothing about the true nature of God except that which this God reveals to us – must we not assume that God must have evolved if we choose an ‘evolutionary creation’ view.
Not necessarily. If I trust in the Scripture as the inspired word of God, then I should take seriously the claim that God has no beginning and will have no end.
Mike,
Thanks for the response.
I agree that the Hebrews in general may not and probably did not understand Genesis. But Mike the idea that the original Genesis author or authors and the prophets did not understand the theological message that they were writing concerning Genesis 1 just does not make any sense. Now I realize we can get into a great debate on who wrote the five books of the Torah and when it was written but let’s assume for simplicity sake that Moses did or he directed it under his tutelage. If Moses wrote Deut 32 the “Song of Moses” which is a picture of the beginning and the ending of God’s old covenant creation then it seems that he also would have understood the theological message of Genesis 1 his first book.
Mike the theological understanding of Genesis and the Torah was understood by the prophets and the apostles to a large degree. There is no indication that Paul went off on a tangent and considered Genesis strictly about a physical creation. This information was understood by at least a segment of the Jewish religious leaders as it was passed on from generation to generation. I have no disagreement that the people at large didn’t understand it but the idea that the author did not understand theologically what he was writing seems misguided. I just do not know how one can make a sound case for that assumption.
The reason Lamoureux can use these late date Jewish and early Christian writings is that they were basically correct in their theological interpretation of Genesis 1. If they had been way off the mark theologically then yes they should be discounted. If these writers understood the theology of Genesis 1 then it goes to show that it was understandable by at least a segment of folks and for sure the original author grasped what he was penning.
Mike, I’m well aquainted with Walton as I have his Genesis commentary along with Waltke’s, Cassuto and H. Blocher to mention a few. I’m well read on much of ANE background and understand that influence well especially upon the Genesis writer. What helps me tremendously though is I recognize the full Preterist perspective of scriptures and apply that hermeneutic to the Old and New Testaments. I think we can over emphasize the ANE background as it should be done with the idea that the authors were most interested in putting forth their theological position first and foremost. Paul Seely a writer on ASA basically agrees with my premise that the authors were more concerned with the theological purpose of their writings.
Also if you have never read Cassuto’s “The Documentary Hypothesis” you should pick it up and read it as it’s a short but very informative book concerning the analysis of OT scripture and what the authors intent was regarding his writings.
Norm
Apologies for the late response, Norm.
I agree that the Hebrews in general may not and probably did not understand Genesis. But Mike the idea that the original Genesis author or authors and the prophets did not understand the theological message that they were writing concerning Genesis 1 just does not make any sense.
I’m not quite sure how you got here. I don’t believe either of those statements. I believe the ancient Hebrews did understand Genesis 1-11, exactly as it was intended. It contained their myths, after all. I also believe the ancient Hebrews perceived the theological truths just fine, despite being wrapped up in their myths. It’s today’s Christians who miss the forest for the trees, failing to grasp the theology and making ancient science the most important message to be drawn from the text.
There is no indication that Paul went off on a tangent and considered Genesis strictly about a physical creation.
Norm, please. Paul’s understanding of Genesis was, in all likelihood, very close to that of the ancient Hebrews. I believe that he, too, understood Genesis 1-11 to be literal. At the same time, however, he may have had deeper insight into the theology of Genesis 1-11 via inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, he understood Adam and Eve to be real, historical people.
I just do not know how one can make a sound case for that assumption.
I don’t know either. You’re attributing these odd ideas to me, and I can’t, for the life of me, figure it out.
The reason Lamoureux can use these late date Jewish and early Christian writings is that they were basically correct in their theological interpretation of Genesis 1.
Who says this? You?
I’m well read on much of ANE background and understand that influence well especially upon the Genesis writer.
I don’t mean to be mean-spirited here, but your ANE background doesn’t show one bit. It is completely absent from your argumentation.
I think we can over emphasize the ANE background as it should be done with the idea that the authors were most interested in putting forth their theological position first and foremost.
I don’t think you quite understand what I’m getting at. You can’t overemphasize Genesis’ ANE roots. It was much a part of its creation as was the Holy Spirit who inspired its writers to express truths about Himself. Fully human, fully God. Inspired. Very “incarnational,” if you will.
Paul Seely a writer on ASA basically agrees with my premise that the authors were more concerned with the theological purpose of their writings.
Agreed. The purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to differentiate Hebrew theology from that of the surrounding cultures. Why else would they write Genesis? But show Seely some of the theology you attribute to Genesis and he’ll distance himself from you faster than you can say, “Shibboleth.”
Also if you have never read Cassuto’s “The Documentary Hypothesis” you should pick it up and read it as it’s a short but very informative book concerning the analysis of OT scripture and what the authors intent was regarding his writings.
Thanks for the recommendation! I’ll check it out.
Hi Norm,
I appreciate your comments. You write:
Mike, I’m well acquainted with Walton as I have his Genesis commentary along with Waltke’s, Cassuto and H. Blocher to mention a few.
Walton and Waltke are friends (had lunch with Bruce 3 weeks ago) and I’m very familiar with Blocher. These people are concordists, and my central argument, as Mike will point out in chapters 3-7, is that it this hermeneutical approach simply doesn’t work.
You also add:
Paul Seely a writer on ASA basically agrees with my premise that the authors were more concerned with the theological purpose of their writings.
Paul is my closest colleague in hermeneutics. He read the manuscript of EC and had very few problems. In fact, it was in his living room that I came away with the idea that ancient Near Eastern motifs (ancient scientific & historical paradigms) were recycled in Gen 1-11. Of course, the purpose of Scripture is to reveal inerrant Messages of Faith, but this is done using an ancient vessel—the science of the day and the history of the day.
Best,
Denis
Denis,
Thanks so much for the response. I have been keeping an eye on your work for the last year or two and I must say I was excited when I heard of your work and then found you on the ASA site as well. I am duly impressed with Seely also and find his opposing the concordist approach on ASA most beneficial. I am leaning toward agreement with much of what the two of you are presenting concerning the background ANE work on Genesis, I find your insights provide me with some very thought provoking issues to contemplate.
Denis let me recommend another recent book on Genesis that also takes the scientific concordist approach of Genesis to task. I would like to send you a copy if that would be appropriate. Mike has their book listed on this site under “Beyond Creation Science” where he makes a few observations. I was invited to write their introductory “foreword” in the book as I was a very interested participant while they were writing it.
I’m definitely going to order your book as I can see that it will continue to fill some critical background for my work on a systematic theological approach toward understanding Genesis. I believe Mike and I may be seeing our approaches from a glass half empty or half full mentality and we probably agree more than disagree when it gets right down to it. I simply am looking at Genesis 1-11 in a theological exploration which also requires an extensive background knowledge which your book should help provide.
Denis thanks again for the response and let me know if I may send you a copy of “Beyond Creation Science”. By the way you can explore the book and some articles and reviews at their web site. I’m sure the authors would welcome your critique of their approach as well.
http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/
Blessings
Norm Voss