Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, has written a paper for BioLogos called, “Creation, Evolution, and Christian People.” Pastor Keller estimates that “what current science tells us about evolution presents four main difficulties for orthodox Protestants.” Those areas concern (1) biblical authority, (2) the confusion of biology and philosophy, (3) the historicity of Adam and Eve, and (4) the problem of violence and evil. For the purpose of this post, I am going to excerpt his comments pertaining to the first area of difficulty. Keep in mind that Keller is not presenting “rigorous, scholarly arguments in answer to these questions” but rather “popular-level pastoral answers and guidance.” Click here to read the entire paper.
To account for evolution we must see at least Genesis 1 as non-literal. The questions come along these lines: what does that mean for the idea that the Bible has final authority? If we refuse to take one part of the Bible literally, why take any parts of it literally? Aren’t we really allowing science to sit in judgment on our understanding of the Bible rather than vica versa?
Question: If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?
Answer: The way to respect the authority of the Biblical writers is to take them as they want to be taken. Sometimes they want to be taken literally, sometimes they don’t. We must listen to them, not impose our thinking and agenda on them.
Genre and authorial intent.
The way to take the Biblical authors seriously is to ask ‘how does this author want to be understood?’ This is common courtesy as well as good reading. Indeed it is a way to practice the Golden Rule. We all want people to take time to consider whether we want to be taken literally or not. If you write a letter to someone saying, “I just wanted to strangle him!” you will hope your reader understands you to be speaking metaphorically. If she calls the police to arrest you, you can rightly complain that she should have made the effort to ascertain whether you meant to be taken literally or not.
The way to discern how an author wants to be read is to distinguish what genre the writer is using. In Judges 5:20, we are told that the stars in the heavens came down and fought against the Syrians on behalf of the Israelites, but in Judges 4, which recounts the battle, no such supernatural occurrence is mentioned. Is there a contradiction? No, because Judges 5 has all the signs of the genre of Hebrew poetry, while Judges 4 is historical prose narrative. Judges 4 is an account of what happened, while Judges 5 is Deborah’s Song about the theological meaning of what happened. When you get to Luke 1:1ff., we read the author insisting that everything in the text is an historical account checked against the testimony of eyewitnesses. That again is an unmistakable sign that the author wants to be taken ‘literally’ as describing actual events.
This does not mean that the Biblical author’s intent and the genre are always clear. Genesis 1 and the book of Ecclesiastes are two examples of places in the Bible where there will always be debate, because the signs are not crystal clear. But the principle is this–to assert that one part of Scripture shouldn’t be taken literally does not at all mean that no other parts should be either.
Genre and Genesis 1.
So what genre is Genesis 1? Is it prose or poetry? In this case, that is a false choice. Edward J. Young, the conservative Hebrew expert who reads the six-days of Genesis 1 as historical, admits that Genesis 1 is written in ”exalted, semi-poetical language”.4 On the one hand, it is a narrative that describes a succession of events, using the wayyigtol expression characteristic of prose, and it does not have the key mark of Hebrew poetry, namely parallelism. So for example, in Miriam’s Song of Exodus 15 we clearly see the signs of poetic recapitulation or restatement that is poetic parallelism:
“Pharaoh’s chariots and his army he has hurled into the sea;
The best of Pharaoh’s officers are drowned in the Red Sea.
The deep waters covered them;
They sank to the depths like a stone.” (Exodus 15:4-5)
On the other hand, as many have noted, Genesis 1’s prose is extremely unusual. It has refrains, repeated statements that continually return as they do in a hymn or song. There are many examples, including the seven-time refrain, “and God saw that it was good” as well as ten repetitions of “God said”, ten of “let there be”, seven repetitions of “and it was so,” as well as others. Obviously, this is not the way someone writes in response to a simple request to tell what happened.5 In addition, the terms for the sun (“greater light”) and moon (“lesser light”) are highly unusual and poetic, never being used anywhere else in the Bible, and “beast of the field” is a term for animal that is ordinarily confined to poetic discourse.6 All this leads Collins to conclude that the genre is:
“…what we may call exalted prose narrative. This name for the genre will serve us in several ways. First, it acknowledges that we are dealing with prose narrative…which will include the making of truth claims about the world in which we live. Second, by calling it exalted, we are recognizing that…we must not impose a ‘literalistic’ hermeneutic on the text.”7
Perhaps the strongest argument for the view that the author of Genesis 1 did not want to be taken literally is a comparison of the order of creative acts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 shows us an order of creation that does not follow a ‘natural order’ at all. For example, there is light (Day 1) before there are any sources of light–the sun, moon, and stars (Day 4). There is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any atmosphere (Day 4 when the sun was made) and therefore there was vegetation before rain was possible. Of course, this is not a problem per se for an omnipotent God. But Genesis 2:5 says: “When the Lord God made the earth and heavens–and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, because the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.” Although God did not have to follow what we would call a ‘natural order’ in creation, Genesis 2:5 teaches that he did. It is stated categorically: God did not put vegetation on the earth before there was an atmosphere and rain. But in Genesis 1 we do have vegetation before there is any rain possible or any man to till the earth. In Genesis 1 natural order means nothing–there are three ‘evenings and mornings’ before there is a sun to set! But in Genesis 2 natural order is the norm.8
The conclusion—we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way. In Exodus 14-15 (the Red Sea crossing) and Judges 4-5 (Israel’s defeat of Syria under Sisera) there is an historical account joined to a more poetical ‘song’ that proclaims the meaning of the event. Something like that may be what the author of Genesis has in mind here.
So what does this mean? It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. Of course, it doesn’t teach evolution either, because it doesn’t address the actual processes by which God created human life. However, it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old.9 We arrive at this conclusion not because we want to make room for any particular scientific view of things, but because we are trying to be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.
End Notes
4. Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964) p.82
5. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (IVP, 1984) p.33.
6. Blocher, p.32.
7. C.John Collins Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006.) p.44.
8. Meredith G. Kline, “Because it had not rained”, Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1957-58), pp. 146-157.
9. There have been numerous convincing arguments put forth by evangelical Biblical scholars to demonstrate that the genealogies of the Bible, leading back to Adam, are incomplete. The term ‘was the father of’ may mean ‘was the ancestor of’. For just one account of this, see K.A.Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, pp.439-443.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:51 pm | #1
(Reposted from prior thread on multiple constituencies)
Dear Steve Drake,
Let me save you some time in refuting and rejecting Tim Keller and David Carlson on this particular issue. Read the following:
“So how does Keller establish that Genesis 1 should not be taken literally? His prime argument is that the order of Genesis 1 contradicts that of Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, Keller claims, “there is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any atmosphere (Day 4, when the sun was made) and therefore vegetation before rain was possible.” On the other hand, Keller argues, Gen.2:5 states categorically that God did not put vegetation in the earth before there was an atmosphere and rain. Since Genesis 1 and 2 contradict, they can’t both be taken literally. According to Keller, the natural order is the norm in Genesis 2. Hence, he concludes, it is much more likely that we should read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2, rather than in Genesis 1.
Keller sums up this section:
“It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. …it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old. We arrive at this conclusion not because we want to make room for any particular scientific view of things, but because we are trying to be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”
What are we to make of this?
Suppose, for the moment, that Keller is right: Genesis 1 and 2 do conflict, with Genesis 2 having the historically reliable order of events.
On Keller’s own reading of Gen.2:5, there are two reasons for lack of vegetation: no rain and no man. This entails that Adam was created before vegetation. Following the account of Genesis 2, we would then have to conclude that also animals were created after Adam (indeed, how could animals exist without vegetation?).
Yet this, if anything, makes things much worse for anyone trying to reconcile Genesis with evolution. Not only is the order worse but also the timescale is even more condensed than that of Genesis 1: now all living things are created in just one day, rather than in four. Keller, perhaps prudently, says nothing about such embarrassing consequences of his exegetical logic.
But, do Genesis 1 and 2 in fact conflict? Most commentators think not. Let’s take a closer look.
Note, first, that Keller claims Genesis 1 has vegetation (Day 3) created before the atmosphere on Day 4. Yet Day 4 relates only the creation of the Sun, moon and stars, placed in an already existing sky. Surely the creation of the atmosphere occurs on Day 2, when God created heaven (sky or atmosphere) to separate the waters. Further, there is no specific mention of rain–or its absence– in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 we are told there was no rain but, rather, the earth was watered by an edh, an obscure Hebrew word which is usually translated as mist, spring, waters of the deep, or flood. Umberto Cassuto (Commentary on Genesis, 1961, p.104) argues it refers to springs.
Note, also, that Gen.1 and Gen.2:5 do not refer to vegetation in the same terms. Genesis 1 refers to the creation (Day 3) of “plants (eseb) yielding seeds” and fruit trees. Gen.2:5, presumably referring to Day 6, states, “when no bush (siah) of the field was yet in the earth and no small plant (eseb) of the field had yet sprung up.”
As Cassuto (1961:100-102) remarks, Gen.2:5 does not say all vegetation was absent. It refers only to two special types of plants. The siah of the field refers to thorns and thistles, which require rain to propagate, and which did not exist until after Adam sinned; the eseb of the field refers to grain, which requires human cultivation (it occurs again in Gen.3:18), and which had not yet sprung up or sprouted. James Jordan (Creation in Six Days, 53-54) takes a similar position. We note, en passant, that the fact that the eseb created on Day 3 had not yet sprung up or sprouted on Day 6 speaks against a day-age view.
In sum, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The fact that Dr Keller goes out of his way to invent such contradiction belies his professed commitment to remain true to the text. It undercuts his denial that he is motivated by scientific pressures. Dr. Keller seems more concerned to deconstruct Genesis–to leave room for secular science– than to honestly exegete it. Given such a cavalier approach to Scripture, it is not surprizing that Keller sees no problem reconciling Adam with human evolution.”
Read it all at Genesis Versus Tim Keller.
August 13th, 2010 | 1:16 pm | #2
[This is adapted and expanded from the thread on "multiple constituencies," as it pertains directly to Tim Keller's argument.]
My experience has been that one does not need the sun, moon or stars in order to have light. For example, the computer screen you are reading this on ~ is it backlit by the sun, moon or stars? No. When you flip on a light switch, are you turning on the sun, moon or starts? Of course not. So when God spoke light into existence on day 1, that does not require that He must have created sun, moon or starts then. He is perfectly capable of calling light into existence apart from those bodies.
Also, you do not need to have a sun in order to have an evening and a morning. You simply need a light source. Again. God spoke light into existence on day 1.
Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that there was no atmosphere for the plants on day 3. God created the firmament on day 2 and the atmosphere could have been created along with or by that. It need not have waited until day 4 for the creation of the sun, moon and starts.
There is nothing contradictory in any of his unless one has assumed a priori that this is to be read as natural evolutionistic process instead of a supernatural act of act of creation.
Genesis 2:5 should be read in the context of Genesis 2:4 and the rest of Genesis 2. Genesis 2:4 says “These are the generations [Hebrew, elleh toledoth] of the heavens and the earth when they were created. This phrase, elleh toledoth (“these are the generations”), is used ten times in Genesis and it always introduces what happens next, what proceeds from the subject, although it may offer a little explanatory recap.
For example, in Genesis 5:1, we read “This [zeh, a demonstrative, like elleh] is the book of the generations [toledoth] of Adam,” then briefly recaps Adam was made in the likeness of God and that God created male and female and blessed them. Then it lists the generations that proceeded from Adam.
In Genesis 2:4, we find the elleh toledoth formula followed by an explanation of how God created Adam from the dust of the ground ~ that is, from the earth. Then what did God do? He placed Adam in the Garden. Genesis 2:5 is to be understood in that context.
Look at the language of verse 5. “before any plant of the FIELD was in the earth and before any herb of the FIELD had grown.” The word for “field” refers to cultivated land. IOW, a Garden. On day 3 of creation, God created grass, herbs bearing seed after their kind and trees yielding fruit after their kind. But that does not mean that God created every plant on that day ~ especially since the Bible goes on to explain that the plants and herbs OF THE FIELD (that is, the domestic, cultivated varieties) did not exist until the day God created Adam (day 6).
So Genesis 2:5 is not a contradiction of Genesis 1; rather, it is an expansion on Genesis 1. Just as every use of elleh toledoth in Genesis introduces a new section that expands on a previous section, so also, its use in Genesis 2:4 indicates an expansion upon Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is not to be in isolation from Genesis 1, nor is Genesis 1 to be read in isolation from Genesis 2. They are not two different accounts from two different sources that are then clapped together. They are both part of a unified whole, meant to be taken together.
If one has assumed a priori that these are two different accounts from two different sources, then they might appear to be contradictory. But taken as a unified whole, where one sections expands upon the previous section (as can be demonstrated throughout the book of Genesis in the use of elleh toledoth), and noting the context (the creation of Adam and placement in the Garden of Eden) and the use of the language (“field”, Hebrew sadein Genesis 2:5), I find there is no contradiction between the plain language of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2.
Though I appreciate the ministry of Tim Keller, I do not agree with him about Genesis 1. His reasoning falls apart under examination.
August 13th, 2010 | 1:32 pm | #3
I love how the same people who argue for the plain and simple understanding of G1 must apply such gymnastics to G2 in an effort to make them work together.
My experience has been that one does not need the sun, moon or stars in order to have light. For example, the computer screen you are reading this on ~ is it backlit by the sun, moon or stars?
Thats plain and simple? God had a big lcd backlighting his work? Was that the middle light he skips telling us about in G1 since he already created the greater and lessor light?
August 13th, 2010 | 1:45 pm | #4
Aha. The real contradiction that needs resolving is between Genesis 1 & 2 (where the objectives of the accounts are different, therefore the approach in the text [the genre or style] is different).
Let me suggest something: there is no formal passage of time implied (let alone fully stated) in Genesis 2. There is no temporal sequence given. What is given is something else — the order of all things. That is: the way in which God demonstrated and thereby establish His authority over all things.
If that’s not the case, and my explanation here is “gymnastics”, please someone: tell me how long it takes the account in Genesis 2 to unfold. Is there any markers or signals at all? If not, why not?
August 13th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #5
I find it interesting that Mr. Benson asks the question to which ‘genre’ Genesis 1 refers to, implying that it belongs to the genre of liturgical poetry, as if by stating this case, it is in fact truth. In asking this question he obviously ignores the scholarly research by Steven W. Boyd, Th.M, Dallas Theological Seminary, Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognate Studies, Hebrew Union College, who gives a clear and concise case on the genre of Genesis 1 to be grammatico-historical prose based on the use of the actual Hebrew verb tenses for historical narrative prose and not liturgical poetry. The Hebrew verb tenses used in Genesis 1 indicate an historical literal account and has three parts, according to Boyd: Part 1 based on statistical analysis of the Hebrew verb tenses, part two, a literary argument, showing that the authors of biblical events believed they were referring to real events, and part 3 is the argument from the doctrine of inspiration. For further confirmation, please consult: ‘Coming to Grips with Genesis’, editors Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. and Thane H. Ury, Ph.D.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #6
David Carlson,
Still waiting for your reference on the Tim Keller quote you referred to in a previous post. Will I be seeing that anytime soon?
August 13th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #7
Frank!!!
You’re back! I’m just glad to see that you’re back in the thick of it. OK, continue.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #8
Dale Coulter,
Glad to see you have moved to this other thread in escape of my question on the “Dryer-Fresh Smell” thread as to how you can justify belief in evolution from an historic orthodox Christian position: i.e., justifying the doctrines of death, the Fall, the Curse, and the Atonement, from ‘Scripture’, reconciling them to your evolutionary position. I hope we can resume our dialog, and that you can support your position from Scripture.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #9
I should say that my excitement at your return in no way indicates that I concede my argument. However, there are other matters before this blog now; and, in any case, I will make my argument elsewhere.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #10
Dale Coulter,
Am I that much of a threat to you, that you won’t even attempt to engage me with Scripture in defense of your view that evolution is God’s way of creation. Wow, didn’t think I had that much power over you , brother. Are you cuttin’ and running because you have nothing to say? Or is the intimidation factor to much?
August 13th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #11
Dale Coulter,
A lot of use in your post above about ‘probably’. I’m sorry Mr. Coulter, but probability doesn’t cut it with me. Can you speak at all about anything with ‘certainty’?
August 13th, 2010 | 2:58 pm | #12
Mr. Drake: I have not willfully ignored the scholarship of Steven Boyd. I am simply unaware of his scholarship. If we are honest, everyone can find a scholar who argues his point of view. Boyd argues a point of view that resonates with your reading of Genesis 1 as “historical narrative prose.” Walter Brueggemann, arguably America’s most prominent Old Testament scholar, argues a point of view that resonates with my reading of Genesis 1 as “liturgical poetry” (see my latest blog post if you care to read about this point of view). Without having read Boyd, I can already say that I am skeptical because questions about “historicity” are impossible to answer with the first creation story (Gen. 1:1-2:4a). The Book of Genesis, finalized during the sixth-century exile, was probably not written to provide Israel a historical account or primitive science. On the contrary, it was written to liturgically articulate Israel’s faith in the Creator. If you were an exiled Israelite, history or science would not provide much consolation. Israel found solidarity by singing its “awe and wonder about the glory and goodness of God’s creation.”
August 13th, 2010 | 3:05 pm | #13
Steve Drake,
I’m not trying to escape anything. I stopped our dialogue for three reasons:
1. It would take us too far away from the original topic of the post, which, out of respect for the author of the original post, one should not do
2. As your list of topics indicate, it is simply too much to attempt to adjudicate in a medium designed for short bursts of thought
3. My argument was taken from the patristic writers and you want me to draw all the links to scripture, which I could, but again, this medium does not allow for it. You’re appeal to a single essay by a single author as somehow
Finally, I have never once spelled out my position with respect to science. What I have attempted to do is defend BioLogos’ position because I think it has merit. I do not think Christians (as a group, not any single Christian) do themselves any favors by automatically ruling out some position as being “anti-Christian.”
I have also attempted to argue that one can be an orthodox Christian and hold BioLogos’ position.
The history of Christianity tells me that it takes a long time to sift through philosophical options. We are in the time of sifting with respect to these relatively recent scientific ideas. To shut down debate during this time without a rigorous airing out of all the issues is premature in my view.
Sorry Christopher for this detour. I will try my best to avoid it in the future.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #14
Also, Steve Drake, my comment #9 was in reference to Frank, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:08 pm | #15
Dale Coulter,
Wow, seems like some shenanigans going on here. Who’s manipulating the order of our responses on this post? My response to your ‘I have not willingly ignored the scholarship of Steven Boyd’ came after your post of this same, and yet in above chronological order it’s as if I responded before you sent that post. Chris Benson, are you manipulating the order in chronology of who posts and then who responds to that post. Something definitely fishy going on here.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:14 pm | #16
Dale Poulter,
Yeah, sure, I believe your comment #9 was in reference to Frank #4, but somehow it followed my comment to you in #8, which then followed in your comment #9, even though you didn’t give a heading as to who it was addressed to. Seems like you were referring to me Dale, your denial to the contrary.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:16 pm | #17
OK, now I’m confused. I never wrote comment #12; Christopher did. So, I’m not sure who you are responding to except that my name keeps appearing as the target.
I wrote #7 & #9 in reference to Frank Turk because of a post he wrote last night. Your response #8 slipped in before I could post #9 so I assumed that you thought my #9 was directed at you. In the meantime I was attempting to compose another response to your #8. This response is #13. When I posted it, I saw your responses #10 and #11, which I assumed was directed at what you thought I had said to you in #9. Hence I wrote #14.
So, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #18
Steve Drake,
If you doubt my veracity in representing my own intentions, then how could we possibly get anywhere in a dialogue?
You do realize that there is a lapse time between composing a post and posting it? In the time it takes to write a response someone else can post without you realizing it because you’re not refreshing your browser while you’re writing. It’s that simple. No obfuscation; no mendacity.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #19
Well Dale,
Then all the more reason to state who you’re addressing your post to. I.E. your #17 above does not have an addressee. Who are we to take that you are addressing this to? Frank, me, whoever?n Please make sure to include in your heading who your primary target is of your email. It’s that simple, never post a message without addressing it to someone.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #20
Steve Drake,
Both #8 and #9 were posted at 4:40, with #9 obviously referring to Frank. You’re really being a bit over-bearing, and (having not read through your dozens of comments) I can only hope that your reading of Genesis is more nuanced than you’re reading of Dale Coulter’s comments.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #21
Dale Coulter,
Mea culpa. My response in #11 was in answer to Chris Benson #12, but chronologically I saw Chris’ response before I responded in my response about ‘probably’. So on the website, I saw Chris’ response #12 before I wrote my response #11. Does that make sense. One minute Chris Benson’s response #12 is after my response #10, and I attributed that to you. but some definite shenanigans going on here people. Chris, you manipulating the order of responses to make yourself look good?
August 13th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #22
David Carlson,
I think I can perhaps see the source of some of your confusion. He does not understand the historical/grammatical approach. He thinks these are gymnastics:
1. Understanding a passage within the near context (e.g., understanding Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 within the context of each other).
2. Understanding a passage within the context of a text within its book (e.g., understanding Genesis 1 and 2 within the context of the entire book of Genesis).
3. Understanding the structural elements of a book (e.g., understanding the recurring element, elleh toledoth and how it operates within the book of Genesis).
4. Understanding the meaning of words and phrases in a text and how they related to the context (e.g., understanding the meaning of “of the field,” that it refers to a cultivated land and relates to the Garden of Eden in the immediate context).
But none of these are gymnastics. They are not extraordinary interpretive measures, or extraneous to the historical/grammatical approach ~ they are standard elements of that approach. I have made not appeal to anything but what is in the text and its context.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can be read quite cohesively together by the historical/ grammatical approach. Whether one likes that approach or prefers another is a different matter, and it is fair enough if someone prefers a different approach.
Regarding the light ~ God called it into existence on day 1. The text does not require us to understand it as the light of the sun (the greater light in relation to the moon) or the moon (the lesser light in relation to the sun). It is merely your assumption that it must be so.
Your objections are silly and unsubstantiated and do not constitute any sort of meaningful argument. It is merely plugging your ears with a la-la-la.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #23
Wow, Steve W. you’re back,
Please explain how ‘your’ reading of Genesis supports an evolutionary scenario?
August 13th, 2010 | 3:48 pm | #24
Steve Drake,
It’s over now. I think we’ve clarified everything between us. I’ll let Christopher answer the question about the relationship between #11 and #12.
Part of the challenge for me is that I have three wonderfully active children running around my house. Sometimes I leave posts partially finished and then return to them. In a fast moving blog, you can post and realize that you’re several steps away from your intended interlocutor.
In any case, with respect for Christopher, I’ll let you and others discuss his post. As for me, I need to return to class prep.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #25
Dale Coulter,
I can appreciate the three active children running around the house, for me it was quite a few years ago now. May the Lord bless you as a father to these children in training them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
But son, please consider the admonition from the apostle Paul to Timothy “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
August 13th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #26
Benson,
Why do you say Genesis was written so late? What’s the proof? Are you saying the same is true of all of the law? If so, are you saying that the Hebrew people lived the Law from Moses’s time but it wasn’t written down until later? Or are you saying that the Law (meaning the books) is mostly mythological?
I mostly agree with you about everything else you’ve said, but that part doesn’t sound right to me.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #27
Orthodoxdj: I’m merely passing along what Brueggemann said about the dating of Genesis. Not having read enough about the scholarship on dating, I’m ill-equipped to determine where it’s a majority or minority view.
August 14th, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #28
The Turk is back! I thought you had left us forever.
August 16th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #29
I find the literal/poetic question to be an unnecessary disjunction. I see many overtones of mystery in the Genesis account. For me I find ‘creationists’ and ‘evolutionists’ err in trying to say too much about what is properly a mystery.
Only God is the master of history.
My control text:
Ecc 3 9-15
What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.
I know that whatever God does,
It shall be forever.
Nothing can be added to it,
And nothing taken from it.
God does it, that men should fear before Him.
That which is has already been,
And what is to be has already been;
And God requires an account of what is past.
I guess I am a mysterian.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact