But, one might also take another approach. What if I were skeptical about the story of the HMS Titanic? What if I told you that these stories were so similar that it is obvious that the story of the Titanic was copied (and therefore fabricated), based on the story of the Titan? In light of having direct, eye-witness testimony until recently, and some incredible submarine technology which has sent back video and photos of the wreckage on the ocean floor, you would call me crazy. But, what if we jump forward a couple thousand years in time, or push the events back in time a couple thousand years? In other words, we put some historical distance between the events and our investigation. Let’s say we only find some fragments of paper from one of Robertson’s books which can be dated to around 1898 from which we reconstruct the story of the Titan. We have some other fragments of paper, maybe newspaper clippings, which date from 1912 from which we reconstruct some witness testimony of what happened at the Titanic scene? The situation seems a bit different now; this concept of copying takes on a bit more power.

This use of parallels to question historic events is the type of reasoning Christian apologists sometimes face concerning the life of Jesus. You might have come across people making the claim that other gods of the Mystery Cults, such as Horus or Mithras, were born of a virgin, on December 25th, died and were resurrected. Does this argument sound familiar?

The story of the Titan and Titanic isn’t really a good analogy, especially given the small historical time separation, however it does drive home an important point. Just because we have something earlier that appears to be a parallel DOES NOT indicate the latter was copied from the former! It doesn’t shed much light on an account being true or false either. Take another look at the Titanic story. Would anyone seriously claim it was just a legend or a copy-cat reenactment? Yet, it is seriously claimed by some, that the Biblical account of Jesus is just that.

In comparison to the Mystery Cult parallels brought against Christianity, the story of the Titan is a much closer parallel. Even so, taking a look at the flaws in my attempt at making the parallel above should help us think about the types of flaws we will find in the comparison of Jesus to the Mystery Cults.

First, the similarities are cherry-picked while the differences are ignored.

• For the Titanic, over 700 are rescued, while only 13 are rescued for the Titan.
• The Titan is 800 feet long, while the Titanic is 882 feet long, they differer in number of watertight compartments, lifeboats, weight, power, speed, etc.
• While both ships sank, exactly what they hit and how they sank varied. (The Titanic hit an iceberg, causing holes, the ship broke and sank; the Titan ran onto an ice-sheet which tipped it on its side, taking on water, it sank.)
• While the trip was in April for both, the Titan doesn’t list a date. It was also traveling in the opposite direction, though sank in roughly the same area.

Second, generalities are often used.

• I was purposely vague in how many survivors there were, saying the majority were killed.
• I was able to be a bit vague in the physical description of the ship to make them seem the same.
• By avoiding the details of exactly what happened, how the ships sank isn’t an issue.
• Picking the vague date of the month of April, and not listing the departure and destination keeps the discrepancy from being readily seen.

Third, due to the subject matter, some things will naturally match, but indicate no ‘genetic’ parallel.

• Wouldn’t a shipwreck at that time in history in the middle of the ocean generally have a minority of survivors? They didn’t have helicopters or as good of communication.
• The ships are actually fairly close in physical characteristics, yet if one were to conceive of a ‘biggest of some class’ one is likely going to be similar if at all being realistic, given the technology of the time period.
• If a ship hits some large object in the ocean, it will probably sink. It doesn’t have to be ice, but ice was a fear of the time (they simply thought these ships were going to be impervious to it). The routes where well enough established to be less afraid of rocks, which plagued previous generations of sea travel.
• These are two common destinations. Ships would take a similar path. In this time of year (spring), ice would be a big concern as it broke from ice shelves and flows.

Some of the bigger differences:

• The Titan was on the third voyage, while the Titanic was on the first.
• The Titan had 92 watertight doors, while the Titanic had only 12.
• The Titan was full, while the Titanic, fortunately, was not at capacity.
• The Titan hit the ice in foggy conditions, while the Titanic on a clear night with no moon.
• Traveling in opposite directions.
• Huge difference in number and percentage of passengers surviving.

All this considered, in the case of the Titan story and Titanic account, there is enough detailed similarity to make one a bit uneasy about simply writing the parallels completely  off. Yet, without some kind of prophecy or prescience, one will have to conclude the similarities are coincidence. We certainly know the Titanic story is true. With the Mystery Cults and Jesus, however, the parallels can, I believe, safely be written off.

Consider the idea that Mithras was a parallel to Jesus. First, we don’t even have any text concerning Mithras to give us details. What we know about Mithras comes from interpretation of wall murals. I guess they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but depending on who is looking at the picture and what presuppositions or intentions they bring, those thousand words might be quite different. Second the supposed similarities are huge stretches and everything else is ignored. For example, it is said that Mithras also had 12 disciples and was born of a virgin. The 12 disciples idea is drawn from the images where the zodiac signs surround Mithras. It is quite a stretch to link this with Jesus disciples. Mithras was born out of a rock. I suppose rocks are generally considered virgins!? Mithras was a saviour who sacrificed himself to save the world? Well, he slayed a dangerous bull, if that counts

Other things about Mithras are crude generalities or things we would simply expect to find when talking about a deity. For example, he is said to have celebrated a ‘Eucharist’ such as Jesus’ Last Supper (and consequent Communion or Eucharist of Christians). There is a bit of truth to this, as Mithras followers did celebrate a fellowship meal, however so did just about every religious group in this time and place. In other words, the assumption that Christianity is unique in the generalities of a fellowship meal is the mistake in thinking here. Or, take the concepts that Mithras was a great teacher or performed miracles. These are simply things we’d expect to find within just about any religion involving a deity. These kind of claims may be unique to Christianity in being true, but they aren’t unique claims of religions in general.

One could look at any of the other Mystery Cult figures and offer a similar analysis. This is only scratching the surface. If you do a bit more research, the absurdity of this kind of parallel claim will become even more obvious. Bruce Metzger, renowned New Testament scholar, gave the following advice when looking at supposed parallels.

“Some of the supposed parallels are the result of the modern scholar’s amalgamation of quite heterogeneous elements drawn from various sources.” “Even when the parallels are actual and not imaginary, their significance for purposes of comparison will depend upon whether they are genealogical and not merely analogical parallels.” “Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.” ⁽³⁾Bruce M. Metzger, “Considerations of methodology in the study of the mystery religions and early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review 48 no 1 Ja (1955), p 8-10.

On Metzger’s last point, for example, consider that it is said Mithras followers celebrated on Sunday. While this may be true, it is true in Rome, from post-Christian times. In other words, it certainly looks like Mithras followers copied this from the Christians, not the other way around.

For more great information on these Mystery Cult claims and the problems with them, put forth in an easy-to-read, but well-researched manner, see Jim Wallace’s excellent set of articles at PleaseConvinceMe.com. On the left side, look for the pages on Mithras, Horus, and Osiris, as well as pages on the historical evidence for Jesus ⁽⁴⁾Jim also mentions this Titan / Titanic link in these articles.

Also, while I have only looked in a cursory manner so far ⁽⁵⁾We’ll cover this in depth in future articles., I have noticed similar assumptions and sometimes problems when considering the (quite popular) view in Old Testament studies about parallels between Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview and religious ideas, and the Book of Genesis. While there are certainly valid parallels present (with Genesis often acting as a polemic), they are often overdrawn and imposed to indicated a genetic link in the ‘development’ of Genesis and other texts of the Old Testament. We (and everyone else) need to be much more careful when we make such parallels.

Marilynne Robinson issues just such a warning with a modern day context when she speaks of scholars analyzing our culture from the distant future. She says, “They will ponder our holding great civic elections on Tuesday, and our expressing ritual gratitude for Friday, confident that Norse polytheism flourished among us.” ⁽⁶⁾Marilynne Robinson, “No other gods,” Theology Today, 63 no 4 Ja (2007) p 429.

Statistics on Titan and Titanic pulled from (among others):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan
http://www.light-eternal.com/Titan.htm

Image credit: Black Country Living Museum – The S.S. Titanic – sign by ell brown (cc, some rights reserved)

The post The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels. appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job is a book written by scientist, pastor, and astronomer Hugh Ross. ⁽¹⁾see Reasons.org While it is, in some sense, a commentary on Job, it is also a considerably different treatment than I have run across before. Most people who analyze Job immediately jump into the suffering Job experienced, God’s sovereignty, or something along those lines. While these would certainly be primary themes of Job (Ross acknowledges this (22) ⁽²⁾parenthetical number references are book page numbers and spends some time on these topics), the point of this book is to ‘read between the lines’ a bit more to see what else we might discover; and discover, Ross does!

The book aims at a general audience, including Christian and non-Christian. It is written at a level which should be accessible to nearly anyone. As to what the book hopes to accomplish, Ross says, “My hope in writing is that readers will find this book’s focus on the science and creation content of Job a liberating experience in answering their questions and concerns about the Christian faith, in healing divisions within the church, and in challenging nonbelievers with evidence they’ve never yet considered.” (13) I believe Ross accomplishes this goal.

This is not going to be a typical book review, where an argument is followed through each chapter to the conclusion. I did not notice such a progression. This could be because a) there isn’t one, apart from the above overall goal, or b) that I missed it because I listened to it as an audio book ⁽³⁾I had the Kindle ‘read’ the book into a MP3 file on my computer, then I put this on my iPod. It seems to be a great way to get through a book, as I’m a slow reader, but I’m … Continue reading; a first for me. What I will do instead is talk about some of the themes into which Ross groups his discoveries and investigation, and then talk about some of the discoveries I found to be most profound.

The Prologue shares Hugh’s personal story of the ordeals and suffering he and his family underwent while he was writing the book. Aside from being a nice opportunity to get to know the author a bit better, it highlights the opportunity we sometimes have to learn and grow in the midst of suffering. Hugh notes that it impressed him greatly how, “Job did not waste his suffering.” (10)

The chapters of the book seem to be the points Ross is drawing from Job, organized into categories such as: today’s issues, timeless questions, new questions, creation-day controversies, other Genesis controversies, uniqueness of humanity, the ten nepesh animals, soulish animals and lessons we can learn from them, dinosaurs, the problem of suffering, and more.

One of the big points this book makes is that parts of Job can be seen as a backdrop to Genesis and other books of the Bible. (17, 19, 33) Job was likely earlier than Genesis (in a literary sense), even though Genesis begins at an earlier event (creation). If true, this would mean that the original reader of Genesis would have been familiar with Job. (32) If we insert some of the detail we find in Job into the Genesis account of creation, we begin to clear up some of the controversies between the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution views. For example, Job can help us clear up what appears to be a problem with science and the sun not being created until day four. Speaking about Job 38:4, 9, Ross says, “Darkness initially pervades the surface of the deep (Gen. 1:2) not because the sun and stars hadn’t yet been created, but rather because Earth’s primordial atmosphere was like a thick blanket that prevented light from penetrating to the surface of Earth’s waters.” (82) This is just one of a number of issues, such as death before the fall, interaction with the Young Earth view of dinosaurs, when and what plants came on what days, or the special ways in which humans differ from the animals, that Job speaks to. It is also interesting that if Job is the earliest book of the Bible, it would be the earliest mention (and a clear one at that!) of our need for a Redeemer. (40)

Speaking of animals, their discussion makes up a large portion of this book. In one section, Hugh recounts interactions he had with animals while hiking in very remote parts of British Columbia, and how their behavior differs from animals who have had interaction with fallen humanity. (135-136) Part of the point of this is to illustrate that morality is something unique to humanity. Another fascinating section involves the ten nepesh animals found in Job 38 and 39. Ross considers why these ten animals are specifically mentioned and ponders what we might learn from their importance. For example, goats are very easy to tame, and the first animals to be domesticated. While some other animals beat goats in production of various resources, goats are the best in one animal. In more recent times, goats have been used to create fire-breaks or to stop the spread of invasive plant species, as they are so effective in their cleaning of the vegetation, even in places humans would have a hard time taking machinery. (154-155) Another example is the ostrich. (159-161) Among the many interesting facts about this animal, Ross indicates the importance it would have had to early humanity (the use of it’s eggs and egg-shells), but also the importance it could have for us in the future. Ostrich meat could be produced much more cheaply than beef (half the price of our least expensive meat, turkey), but is quite nutritious and less damaging to the environment to produce than beef. Ross notes that domesticated cows produce more greenhouse gasses than the combined vehicles of the world. (65)

There are many fascinating ties pointed out between Job (and the Bible) and science in this book. While they are intriguing to me, a bit of caution should be advised. Some of the ties seem a bit speculative. By this, I mean that Ross often draws some correlation between a passage and what we are discovering in science, where the two harmonize nicely. But it isn’t always the case that one would draw this out by exegeting the passage. I don’t see this as a problem, other than considering Ross’ enthusiasm, it can sometimes seem more like the latter. An example of this would be looking at Job 38:19-20 and the discussion on the discoveries concerning dark matter. (60-63) The passage certainly does seem to treat light and darkness as things (they reside in places), but I’m not sure how if it were poetic license it would contradict the centuries old idea of darkness as absence of light (as Ross notes). It, then, wouldn’t necessarily be making a claim about reality. Another such example, which is more persuasive to me, is in how often the Bible speaks of God ‘stretching out’ the heavens and what we now know about Big-Bang cosmology. (56) This is consistently illustrated throughout Scripture and could certainly have been stated differently. It is a bit too-conveniently compatible with the science. In general, though, what Ross does is show how science and Biblical revelation are compatible, especially at the points where skeptics often attack.

I appreciate Dr. Ross taking this type of look at Job as it grounds the book in history and reality. Too many tend to take away the big themes, but consider Job a story or fable (even in circles where this isn’t explicitly stated). Because of this, they overlook a lot of what is actually there. This also invites the question of why all this extra detail is given if it is a fable only meant to convey the primary point. It would be a bit like looking at a van Gogh, and saying, “Forget all that other stuff; it is just a painting; the important point is that there are stars in the sky.”

Ross presents a great deal of research on the background of Job and the figures (Job’s friends) involved in the debate. Even considering that I am seminary educated and wrote a paper on Job in one of my Old Testament classes, much of this was new to me (I’m not sure whether this says more about my rigor as a student or the research Ross conducted, but I’m confident nearly everyone will learn something new 🙂 ). Also, gaining an understanding of the magnitude of the debate and what was at stake, one begins to understand why God accepted Satan’s challenge (something troubling to most who seriously read Job). I also appreciated the level of respect Ross paid to Job’s friends and their counsel. The background Ross provides adds dimensions to them and the book of Job as a whole. It is too easy to write them off as bad friends, incorrect on the counsel they give, and to fail to pay attention to their part of the discussion.

One of the possible shortcomings of the book (aside from endnotes; I hate endnotes; footnotes please!), may be that the book often diverges from Job to make points of the broader Reasons to Believe (RtB) model. This may turn some off who want to stick entirely to Job, or those who don’t agree with the RtB position. For everyone else, I think it enriched the book making it more helpful to both Christians and unbelievers than the subject at hand indicated when they began reading. It helps to see how everything fits together.

Another potential problem is that the book includes so many points that some of them are handled too superficially. While nearly any subject can be expanded on, given enough space, such a brief handling can leave the reader (especially the skeptic) with the idea that the point wasn’t well established. They might think that what Ross presented is all that there is to say. An example of this was the handling of ANE (Ancient Near East) cosmology parallels with Genesis. (76-78) It is often asserted that Genesis was never intended to portray real history, but instead was only a literary device written as a polemic to concepts found within ANE cosmology. This cosmology, it is said, was shared by the Israelites, so they wrote about what they knew. Ross includes a diagram and brief explanation of ANE cosmology, but then spends only about a page dealing with the supposed mention of the brass dome of ANE cosmology in Job. While the explanation is good, it barely touches the major controversy. I was left wanting a brief explanation of how Job, Genesis, and other places in Scripture support non-ANE cosmology, while still interacting with it at points. Essentially, I found myself wanting more depth at some points (knowing there was more), lest the skeptics feel they have won. I recognize the size considerations book publishers impose, but would have chosen to trim some of the other longer areas down in order to expand these points.

Overall, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job was a very enjoyable book. It was written at a level which nearly everyone can grasp. While it left me wanting more at points, it peaked my interest for further study. It also left me feeling like I couldn’t end this review, as I have barely touched on a few of the many-dozens of points this book makes. Agree or disagree with Ross, I would highly recommend giving this book a read. It is a delightful blend of personal experience, analysis of Job, possible ties to science, and explanation of aspects of the Christian narrative and worldview.

Note: A free copy of this book was provided for review by Reasons to Believe. ⁽⁴⁾That said, I ended up buying it on Kindle so I could listen to it, as I was finding it hard to get dedicated reading time. It is a book I want in my electronic collection anyway!

The post Book Review: Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Dr. Hugh Ross appeared first on TilledSoil.org.

Photo:fossil frog by kevinzim

While some apologetics issues remain the same through the ages, such as, ‘Did Christ rise on Easter morning?‘ or ‘Does God exist?‘ many depend on specific challenges Christianity is facing at a specific time. This article aims to equip you to answer one of the hottest apologetic topics Christians face today, creation vs evolution. And, this topic can often be as heated (or more so) between Christians than between the Christian and unbeliever.

Yet, it does not need to be this way. With a bit of education on the subject, everyone should be able to discuss it without all the heat, even if they ultimately disagree. Sadly, because of this heat, many have chosen to avoid the details, focusing only on what Genesis 1 is ultimately about. I think this is a crucial mistake for Christian apologetics.

By the time you finish this article, you should have a basic foundation on which to build, as well as have a bit respect for the positions others hold.

That said, a few points need to be made before digging in. First, this issue should NOT DIVIDE Christians. It simply is not a mark of whether someone is a Christian or not. The real debate here is between creation (or theism) and naturalism, not different possible methods of creation. Part of the reason this discussion does get so heated between Christians, is usually that they think the other group isn’t taking the Bible seriously enough. This could be the case, but should not be assumed. I have met people from each camp who take the Bible VERY seriously.

Much of the importance of understanding this debate is to be able to clarify it to people outside of Christianity. Most assume a Christian will be a ‘Creationist’, and by that, they mean Young Earth Creationist. Many believe these Christians are opposed to science, progress, technology, etc. They also often fear that Christians want to take over the science classroom to train students about Christianity. If these fears were true (and they sometimes are), these people have a legitimate concern. By properly understanding the positions, you can explain your position in an intelligent manner. Even if you end up being one of those ‘feared’ Young Earth Creationists, you can distance yourself from the main things these people are afraid of: you are fine with science, properly understood; you don’t want to force Christianity on anyone; and you can pull out your iPod to show them you indeed do embrace progress and technology. 😉

I won’t be going into great detail on any of the positions. There will be future articles with more details on each position. It is also important to note that TilledSoil.org does not have an official position, yet it will become obvious which position this particular author is most convinced of at this time.

Be sure you are familiar with the range of what people can mean by the term evolution before continuing on. Please see our previous article on this: https://www.tilledsoil.org/2010/08/12/evolution-understanding-the-term/

Four Basic Positions

There are actually a lot of different views on how life came about and has changed over time, however, they can be roughly summarized into four main categories. Below, I have listed each category, along with a brief characterization. Then I have listed some potential advantages and disadvantages of each view. Finally, I have listed a figure associated with that view.

Young earth creationism (YEC): 7, 24 hour days; ~6000 year old earth; literal, historical Genesis

+ thwarts naturalistic evolution – helps explain some possible science anomalies uncovered from time to time – seems to match a natural reading of Genesis – solves pre-fall problems with death and natural ‘evil’ (earthquakes, etc.)

– hard to square with mainstream science (or OEC people might say, the ‘book of creation’) – seems to call God’s nature into question (would God trick us?) – requires what might be a literalistic reading of Genesis – tends to create a major division between mainstream science and Christianity.

(ex: Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis ⁽¹⁾Note: AiG (especially Ken Ham), sometimes seems uncharitable towards other organizations & Christians who do not share his/their view – in a manner which TilledSoil.org does not condone. … Continue reading)

Old earth creationism (OEC; progressive creationism): day = period of time; earth billions of years old; literary, but historical, Genesis

+ allows for a historical reading of Genesis – squares Scripture with much of mainstream science – better covers the entire Biblical witness

– danger of tying scientific discovery too closely to a particular interpretation of Scripture – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical division lies – requires what some see as interpretational gymnastics

(ex: Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe)

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation): God is involved with the evolutionary process (how and to what extent varies greatly in this view) – a metaphorical understanding of the first chapters of Genesis

+ allows for complete (or at lest indisputable) agreement between mainstream science and Scripture

– requires some theological gymnastics – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical divisions are.

(ex: Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos.org) ⁽²⁾Another source which does a better job of addressing the theological implications is “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution” by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. … Continue reading

Naturalistic evolution: life came about by chance (they would dispute this term), then was driven forward through natural selection – God is irrelevant to the conversation (though many in this camp would be atheists, or at least agnostic)

+ for the naturalist… no need for god / super-natural – is thought to allow pure ‘science’ with no dependencies on other disciplines such as philosophy, theology, etc.

– opens a can of worms in many areas if the conclusion is that there is no God – contradicts Christian belief – explaining evolutionary ‘convergence’ is a problem – natural selection needs life to begin with.

(ex: Richard Dawkins, biologist, atheist, author of “God Delusion“)

This ‘chart’ should be pretty easy to digest and contains the basics. I am now going to comment a bit on each. Again, it will probably be obvious which viewpoint I prefer. However, you should examine the evidence for each and draw your own conclusion. Also, don’t worry if you do not understand some of the +/- points. They are mainly to give you a starting point for conversation.

Young earth creationism is a view pretty familiar to most of us. They generally believe that roughly 6,000 years ago, God spoke creation into existence. Each day of God’s work in the Biblical text of Genesis 1 was what we know as a 24-hour solar day on earth. Often this view is labeled as ‘Creationism’. It is one form of creationism, but we need to remind both outsiders and young earth creationists that ALL Christians believe in creation, even the theistic evolutionists (whether they realize/admit it or not!). Their primary concern seems to be that other views do not take Scripture seriously or trust the miraculous capacity of God. They rightly recognize the danger of naturalistic evolution, but sometimes pick their battles against it out of (in my opinion) misunderstanding.

Young earth creationism is often seen as a ‘literal’ reading of the first chapters of Genesis. However, I think that might not be entirely accurate. There is the fact that Genesis is a different genre than a ‘science text’ or a ‘writing of history’ (as the evolutionary creationist would argue), but I mean something a bit different. I am talking more about a careful reading of clues which are right before us in the Bible. Some of these include: that Genesis isn’t the only description of creation in the Bible (cf: Job, Psalms, etc.); there is no day and night on the 7th day; Adam must have worked extremely quickly and been incredibly impatient (cf. Genesis 2:23). There is also an issue with the interpretation of Hebrew ‘yom’ or day in English. We will address this later, but these points should clue us into the fact that the debate is a bit deeper than ‘literal’ vs ‘non-literal.’ (note: regarding science, some in this camp seem to be quite hostile towards it, almost taking an anti-intellectual stance, while others take it quite seriously and insist that mainstream science is in error… once these errors are corrected, the Bible and science square quite well.)

Old earth creationism (or better Progressive creationism to differentiate them from theistic evolution, as they also believe in an old earth) is a view that is kind of mid-way between young earth and theistic evolution. They try to take both the Bible and science seriously. They do not see a problem between Genesis 1 and what mainstream science has discovered (for the most part), other than some of the conclusions which science has imposed on the data out of a naturalistic worldview (i.e.: macro evolution, etc.). They believe the earth is billions of years old, and that the ‘days’ in genesis can be explained as periods of time in God’s creative work, centered around major events. They do believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, but that it must be understood within its genre and in context to the entire Biblical record (which they see to actually be reading it even MORE literally than the young earth creationists). In other words, a young earth reading is seen to be more ‘literalistic’ than literal, missing things like context, a proper understanding of the range of Hebrew words, genre of the text, and many details of the text itself. For example, expanding on an above point, how is it that in one 24-hour day, Adam worked the garden, examined all the animals to see if any would make a suitable helper, named them all, underwent an operation, and then said (in the Hebrew), “at long last” upon seeing Eve. I suppose the awe and love he must have felt gives him some poetic license there, but that seems to be stretching things a bit!

One of the primary problems with a progressive creation view is the idea of concordism. This is something both young earth and progressive creationists utilize, to the dismay of the theistic evolutionists. It is the idea that you could actually match up Scripture and science (or that they ‘concord’… exist in harmony). Theistic evolutionists do not generally see Genesis as historical or scientific in nature, so there would be no reason to try and ‘read into them’ these kind of ideas. They would say that Genesis is only meant to teach theological concepts, and the other groups are imposing this concordism onto the text. The reason this becomes a problem for progressive creationists, is: where does one stop? How much of what Scripture says is trying to be scientifically descriptive, and when is it, in fact, only making a theological point or simply anthropocentric language (from our human point of view, like sun-rise, sun-set). Another problem is that if progressive creationists tie too much of what is said by the Bible to science, then a discovery in science might cause major problems and embarrassment to the view (ex: the Galileo incident around heliocentricity… though this story is often gravely misrepresented). In my opinion, it isn’t a black and white divide. Most of the time, when we recount a story, we’re going to be including some science in our historical account. It won’t be text-book science, but it will reveal scientific details if considered carefully. This would be closer to what I see as going on in Genesis.

Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism as some prefer) is a view that Genesis 1 teaches us nothing of scientific importance. The point is that God did it, not how. They will agree with the naturalistic evolutionist at many or all points, right up to the unknown cause behind everything; God. Essentially, evolution, even in the broadest sense of common descent and origin of life is good science; but God is somehow driving it (either directly, maybe through quantum mechanics, or though how it was ordered at the start; the design for it all to unfold was ‘baked in.’ In their view, this may be seen as a greater display of God’s power than the other views.). This view seems quite safe and is held by major popular scientists, such as Francis Collins. It allows concordism with just about everyone in the scientific world. At the point where they (science and faith) might disagree, science supposedly can’t reach anyway. The problems with this view are not so much that they miss something important the Bible has to say in Genesis; I agree with them that the main point of Genesis is theological, not scientific. However, by accepting much of what naturalistic science is saying about humanity, they might be missing something important Genesis has to tell us theologically (which might also inform our science). If you ask some theistic evolutionists about ‘the Fall’ and sin, and have theological training, you might be shocked at what you hear.

The theistic evolution view is easily the most commonly accepted view in scholarly and scientific circles today. I think it is so for a few reasons. 1) Many aren’t familiar with the detailed views of progressive creationism, so they don’t even consider it as an option. 2) Modern Biblical criticism has greatly undermined the idea of the historicity of Genesis 1-11. 3) It seems on the surface to be a very safe stance. ⁽³⁾I don’t make these points lightly or to simply pick at theistic evolutionists. In talking to a good number of them (even experts who have written books on the subject), I find they do not know much … Continue reading

One crucial point in the debate is the use of the Hebrew word ‘yom’, or day. Just like the English word, it has a broader range of meaning than 24-hour solar day. It can mean sunrise to sunset; a 24-hour day; the afternoon; an indefinite (but not infinite) period of time; reference to a range of time (the days of Noah); proper noun with an event (Yom Kippur – Day of Atonement), etc. This is further complicated by the fact that Hebrew has no other words to differentiate as we would in English (ie: day vs epoch). Hebrew vocabulary is quite limited, so you have to figure out meaning by context. Certainly that there was ‘evening and morning’ could push us towards the 24-hour view, if it were not for the literary, poetic nature, as well as the other problems with this view mentioned above. The point is, concerning day, a 24-hour day or a period-of-time day are both literal readings of the text.

There are a lot of difference between views on this topic and a great amount of complexity involved. However, it can all be boiled down to four basic categories which are not too hard to summarize. If you can do this, you can defuse a lot of the tension within the church. You might also be able to gain the ear of someone who has written off Christianity based on a false assumption. It is important to get some of the terminology down here, such as ‘evolution’ or ‘transitional form’. Hopefully, if you are interested in this topic, this article will be only the beginning for you. However, if not, at least by understanding the above, you will have many great opportunities to be a peacemaker.

The post Creation vs Evolution – 4 views appeared first on TilledSoil.org.