The Bible and Science Debate: How Shall We Interpret Genesis?

McGrath: “It’s not about the authority of Scripture, it’s about the interpretation of Scripture.”

One of the guys said that Genesis 1 not intended to be an account of material origins. I half agree because there is more to material stuff than material stuff. When Genesis 1 says, “In the beginning…” we need to ask, “The beginning of what?”

Great piece. I have to agree with the speakers and am often teaching that that scriptures are not 2 dimensional, as modern readers would like to make it, but fully dimensional in the character of God. Our Sunday School class will often get to the context of what is written by discussion of frame of reference and culture at the time…. what was the narrative of the full work not simply the prooftext. I don’t want to teach this to prove my point but so that we might see the fully dimensional truths of God as displayed in the scriptures….. and sometimes we don’t have an explanation because we are not fully dimensional but limited///// the time will come when it will all be revealed to us when we are in the presence of His Glory….. until that time, we see dimly as in a mirror,,,,,, Thank you for sharing…..

Thanks John!

An excellent listen. I also agree John that Ken Ham is quite divisive, he is a fixture at the home school conventions I attend and he calls out by name and institution those who are “false teachers”. I found it quite disturbing. Having said that I have no problem with those who hold to a YEC position, it is the militancy that accompanies it that is problematic. Also, I could listen to N. T. Wright all day, his book on the resurrection is on my long list of books to get to.

These scholars are not re-interpreting but recovering the way the ancient faith church actually read the text before the modern debates. The irony is the “older” views are not the literal renderings modern readers appeal to in this case.

that sounds interesting – my reading has centered around inerrant readings of scripture from 6 day creationists to framework hypothesis folk but have always had some problems stretching that as far as theistic evolutionists. What I wouldn’t do, though, is make it a necessary definition of orthodoxy. In the same way, I wouldn’t stretch pre-millennialists views on other viewpoints as errant because “you have to jettison the plain truth of scripture to believe otherwise”.

Ian I am also one who holds to an inerrant text, but I take more of a big tent view on Genesis one,believing there are various possible literal interpretations. I know there are many who hold a high view of scripture and yet consider themselves theistic evolutionists. I am respectful of those who hold such views, Tim Keller and Francis Collins come to mind. What I do have a hard time with is how that type of position is compatible with a high view of the text. I suppose their reasoning may be similar to what is on the video clip. I like Kellers position because he takes it reluctantly, essentially saying if forced to take a position that is the one he would take. The bigger picture for the non believing world is arguing that God created, not the mode or timeframe by which he did so.

As a theistic evolutionist since my days in Wheaton’s biology dept (early ’80’s) and a seminary student, I can answer John Appleton’s question. We’re asking questions of the text that the original audience would never have considered. The point was not “How did God create?” but “Who created and in whose image are we made?”. An image of a god had the authority to do the God’s work as his representative. Remember that Moses was writing to people who had endured generations of slavery and had been taught that people were created from a mixture of blood from a rebellious god and dirt because the gods were tired of having to obtain their own food. Pharaoh was a god, so their entire reason for existence was to serve as his slaves. Also, there has been some fascinating scientific work done recently. It appears that “Y Chromosome Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” existed at the same time, contrary to what scientists had thought. And comparative biology shows that the blood clotting cascade shows evidence of evolutionary changes. Cool stuff!

I’ll let Denise Murphy Plichta answer her question but authority and interpretation are not the same as you know John Appleton. I’m reading Jack Collins from Covenant Seminary myself. Quite a good defense of a first human Adam while he embraces a great deal of modern/ancient reading of Genesis 1-3 it seems.

There’s no reason why they could not have evolved, although I’m unwilling to say that God didn’t create them as Gen 2 says. After all, he’s allowed to do whatever he wants! On the other hand, to purport that God made things appear different than they actually are makes him a deceiver, which is contradictory to his character. Assuming that the evolutionary model which the scientific evidence points to is correct, at some point there was a switch from non-human to human. That first pair are the ones upon whom God imparted his image, breathed into humanity, and made a covenant. If progressive creationism is the same as punctuated equilibrium, that’s the view which the evidence pointed to when I was a Wheaton student. Now we’ve filled in many of the gaps, so that theory no longer best fits what we see.

Narrow is an interesting term, I suppose his view would qualify as such, in one sense. But then, much of scripture speaks of a ” narrow” way, does it not?

The narrow way is Jesus not your reading of Scripture.

Excellent scholarly video, puts things in proper perspective.

John, you are correct in your thinking; however, the presence of dirt implies that death had been occurring. Furthermore, what Adam and Eve immediately experienced was not physical death but spiritual. There’s also the question of how Eve would have had any clue as to what death was if she had never seen it. I actually taught through Gen 2-3 in the past few weeks, and we noticed several times that Adam and Eve were behaving like young children: running around naked without shame and giving excuses which confirmed their guilt (“we hid because we were naked” in spite of having covered themselves).

I find all this interesting and helpful, but please don’t look down on my simple summation that “God said, and it was”. I love intellectual conversations where thoughtful people discuss from a seasoned humble perspective. The best minds are still wrestling with this 40 years after I began searching for clarity within the various interpretations. Thank you all for sharing your insights.

Thank you very much for sharing this. I really appreciate what they are saying here, and think that this kind of perspective can really help many Christians have a more healthy faith and witness!