One of the most fascinating and important discussions going on in Christian circles today is the debate about an historical Adam. Was Adam myth or real? That debate has been going on for a while, but what’s forced it forward in recent years is Science.
One blurb for Peter Enns’ controversial new book, The Evolution of Adam, frames the dilemma thus:
“Recent developments in biology have indicated with impressive evidence that humanity does not go back to a single human couple. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong or that science is wrong?”
Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. However, traditional readings of Genesis, as well as the New Testament teachings of the Apostle Paul, appear to teach that Adam was a single, divinely wrought, entity, not a unique genetic pool. So how does the “Bible-believing Christian” resolve this conflict? Is it Science or Scripture?
BioLogos, a group of evangelicals who seek to integrate evolutionary science with faith), in Can science and Scripture be reconciled?, summarize their approach to such conflicts this way:
In Christian belief, God reveals himself in both the written book of the Bible and the created “book” of the natural world. Thus, the truths we find in scripture should not conflict with the truths we find in nature. Yet at times the two revelations seem to be saying contradictory things about how God made the world. Since God does not lie, the conflict must occur at the level of human interpretation: either a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in nature, or a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in scripture. Conflicts motivate us to reevaluate both interpretations. Christians may disagree on whether the scientific or the Biblical interpretation needs to change, but we can agree that God speaks to us in both revelations. (emphasis mine)
The problem with BioLogos’ view, as I see it, is that whenever there is a conflict between Science and Scripture… it is almost always the Scripture that needs re-interpreted. In other words, in their view, Scripture should be re-interpreted to agree with Science.
I realize this is a huge subject with lots of technicalities, nuance, and wiggle room. Something else: I’m not a scientist. As I’m assuming most reading this aren’t. Still, as a laymen (that group to whom the Bible was primarily written for), how does one approach such conflicts? Do we place the Ultimate Authority on Scripture or Science? When faced with a choice, do we re-interpret Science to agree with Scripture, or re-interpret Scripture to agree with Science?
Of course, it may not be as cut and dried as this. Which is what I’m hoping and why I’m leaving room in the Poll below for “a third way.” But in all honesty, I’m not exactly sure what that third way is. Some would say it’s allowing for paradox; that Adam was both real and myth. Others would say Scripture is authoritative when it comes to spiritual things, while Science is authoritative when it comes to scientific things. Which sounds good but has lots of problems — especially when spiritual things are mentioned in light of historical, scientific things (see: the Resurrection of Christ for starters). So I’d love to be an advocate for a third way, I’m just not sure what it is. And if you fall in that category, I’d love to know what it comprises.
So when it comes to apparent conflicts between Science and Scripture, do you ultimately place Scripture above Science, place Science above Scripture, or seek a third way?
Yeah I’m first! It’s the little things in life . . .
I’ve had a hard time with this, I’ve never really moved but I’ve felt the weight of different arguments. What I came to first was that, I don’t have access to the evidence one way or another, and I don’t have a PH.D, but I do have various PH.D’s each saying the evidence speaks their way. It’s like politics, out here, we have no idea what’s really going on.
But God didn’t design a system that was only accessible to the initiated. I don’t believe so. I think he made it so anyone anywhere in any case can find what they need to find him. With the faculties I already possess, I should be able to come to the truth, or enough now to sustain my faith.
The thing I’ve concluded with science is that it is a study (implying imperfect knowledge) of cause and effect. The problem is it assumes effect is always preceeded by cause. But if you’re always looking for a cause, you will never stop and you’ll find yourself in an infinite regression.
If I believe in God as creator (probably for other reasons than fear of the IR), then by definition no matter where I put Him, I am assuming something happened supernaturally. By definition believing in God as the Creator requires that AT SOME POINT something happened outside the scientific paradigm that created the scientific paradigm.
Even science points to this with Planck’s time, a time in the universe’s creation at which the laws of physics did not apply. What then governed? How did the laws come to force?
So for me, if I know that what is cause and effect, had to begin by something outside of cause and effect, then I know at some point I am no longer rationally looking for a cause. Writing offers a wonderful analogy. To write a good story the Author must have a consistent world, yet where must he begin? Does consistency mean he starts the morning before the inciting incident? What about the actions that shaped the character before they were born? Saying God is bound to tell the uni-verse (one verse, one story) from the scientific most basic point and then be bound by science) is like that.
Why does God making a consistent world (after it starts running) imply where he must begin? How could you even define where God had to begin? Does he have to start with Adam? Atoms? Electrons? Quarks? Why wouldn’t God be forced to begin with even a more basic particle that we know nothing about?
So if I know there is a break in the cause/effect chain, somewhere, what is the rational in assuming that science (the study of cause and effect) will be able to find it when the basic premise is that there IS ALWAYS a cause to an effect? I’m willing to trust that God is telling us plainly where the chain broke. Or rather started.
So nuances aside, if science based on an infinitely natural premise concludes flatly that some aspect of scripture is in error, I am inclinded to set that science aside until it corrects itself. Of course, there is some leeway for something that clarifies scripture without contradicting, but that interpretation has to allow the scripture to remain consistent with itself. We cannot take a word in one place and make it mean something it has never meant nor ever will again to make scripture clarify with science.
J.S. — Thanks for a very understandable, enjoyable comment. If you haven’t written science commentary before you should think about doing so. Seriously.
Thanks, but that’s as far as I can go on the subject. It’s fascinating, but other than basic premises, I’m out of my league.
Third way, all the way. Sort the real, testable, operations science from evolutionary origins religion that simply masquerades as “science.” They are not the same, and Christians show their scientific ignorance by acting as if they are.
But that’s not really a third way, Stephen. You’re saying that science must corroborate Scripture, right? And if not, science is wrong. Am I understanding you correctly?
I started to mark a third way, but I realized as you said, Mike, that I was actually saying I interpret science according to Scripture.
What I find to be cool is when scientific discoveries explain something Scripture says. For example, the God particle seems to verify the fact that there is indeed something that holds the universe together–which Paul said in Colossians and I believe the writer of Hebrews said also.
Today I read Genesis 1 and realized the God particle answers one of my long standing questions: day 2 God created space, as near as I can tell, since later Scripture says He placed the sun, moon, and stars there. I’ve always had a hard time with the idea of God creating a vacuum since verse two says He was working with something formless and void. Creating a vacuum from the void. Hmmmm. How much creation was that? Apparently a whole lot–the substance that holds all the rest together. Now that’s cool!
Becky
I chose the third way because I think sometimes science corrects our misunderstanding of scripture and sometimes scripture corrects our misunderstandings in science.
Sally, can you give me some examples of how science corrects Scripture? Not just clarifies, but actually over-rules. If not, then it’s not a third way. Trust me, I’m not trying to be combative.
I don’t think science can correct scripture, but I think it can correct our UNDERSTANDING of scripture. So when it was discovered that the earth traveled around the sun, we realized that the verses in the Bible saying the sun runs rises and runs its course across the heavens, were poetry and not scientific statements.
Some of what we believe to be fact in scripture today, we may find out later is really hyperbole or some other literary device, I think. More often, though, I think science will reinforce scripture as we learn more.
That’s true, Sally, but I don’t think the possibility that we might misunderstand something means we shouldn’t interpret science by looking at it through the lens of Scripture. In some ways, saying we might be misinterpreting is paralyzing. We might be wrong, so we are better off not forming an opinion.
On the other hand, I don’t think we should be adamant about things the Bible is not adamant about.
Becky
Oh, I absolutely believe we ought to interpret science with biblical glasses on. But when science proves something, we shouldn’t refuse to look at our interpretation of scripture and rethink things. Science will never prove anything that God doesn’t want us to know. Theories, are just theories and we can ignore them. But solid proof ought not be ignored.
Men used to think the sun revolved around the earth. But science showed us that we misunderstood scripture.
Some men do still believe the earth stands still because the Bible says it stands still. I had a good friend, a Baptist minister, who introduced me to the geocentric pages on the Internet. http://www.geocentricity.com/
I don’t know enough about science to know if the earth is moving or not. I saw the pegs being knocked down by the pendulum at the Smithsonian when I was young. I don’t know why the pendulum is swinging, though. I’m guessing if the earth wasn’t moving the astronauts would all have died when they tried to re-enter our atmosphere, because they’d be entering at the wrong point, based on their faulty understanding of where the earth would be. I think we can look at other solar systems and see the planets orbiting the suns. But I don’t really know this. I have a poetic bent, not a scientific bent.
Because I have a poetic bent, though, I can understand that poets often describe things they see in an artistic way and not in a scientific way. So I have no problem believing the earth goes around the sun.
Likewise, if science proved that man evolved from monkeys I would accept that. It simply hasn’t been proven. Not even close.
That Man can be wrong begs the point. Man can be wrong about the things science “proves,” as that article Kathryn linked to shows. And certainly men have been wrong at points in history when they tried to make the Bible say something it does not say.
The lines of poetry, for example, that say the sun rises have always been poetry. That someone tried to make them a scientific treatise doesn’t mean that Scripture can’t be trusted or that science trumps Scripture. Mankind’s observations, whether about Scripture or about science can be in error; of that, there is no doubt.
But what’s the third way? To trust neither? I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, Sally.
As I understand the point of the question, it’s not saying, cling to your error no matter what the other side says–cling to Scripture even though science shows the sun doesn’t rise, or cling to your science even though Scripture says God raised Jesus from the dead.
Rather, I took the question to mean, when you look at the world, do you understand what is true based on the observation of man (science) or on the Word of God when the two say different things? I take it as a given that we come at both of those imperfectly. But I think it’s vital that we recognized the authority of Scripture, even in our imperfect understanding of it.
As I’m sure you know, in most things, I love “the third way.” Not here.
Becky
Katherine, not Kathryn Sorry.
But what’s the third way? To trust neither? I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, Sally.
My third way is to trust both. I’m suggesting that in some instances I believe science is useful in teaching us how to correctly understand scripture and sometimes scripture is necessary to teach us how to understand scientific findings.
I thought Mike’s question was asking which one we sided with when science the scripture were in conflict. I was saying sometimes I side with one and sometimes I side with the other.
I side with science when it says the earth is a sphere and doesn’t have four corners, for instance. And I side with scripture when it says Jesus was born to a virgin.
Sally and Rebecca, you are tracing the line of my personal struggles. Sally, you said, “I side with science when it says the earth is a sphere.” A couple points:
1.) The Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is flat, so it’s kind of a moot point to use that as an example of “siding with science.” For instance, Job spoke of the earth being suspended in space (Job 26:7) and Isaiah alluded to a spherical earth when he used the phrase “the circle of the earth” (Is. 40:21-22). A good little article on this subject can be found here: Did the Bible writers believe the earth was flat? All that to say, I don’t think this is a good example of science trumping scripture.
2.) What if the Bible DID directly teach the earth was flat and it was proved not to be? Then what? Those are the types of “contradictions,” if they can be established as genuine contradictions and not simply interpretative issues, that really grind. What if it could be “scientifically proven” (?) that Moses never existed, that the Babylonian captivity was a fraud, or that Christ was not bodily raised from the dead? Then what? Then who do you side with? It starts a domino effect…
3.) If the Bible can be disproved by science on crucial historic matters, how can it be trusted when it talks about something more complex, like God and the afterlife? If we say the Bible was wrong about the earth being flat, why should we concede it being right about how it was made? Furthermore, some theological issues are intrinsically tied to real-time historic events with “scientific” ramifications (the Fall, Noah’s Ark, the Passover, the resurrection, etc.). This is the crux of why evangelicals are loathe to concede science trumps scripture on issues, and why most of us on this thread really don’t believe science can trump scripture.
I’m kind of rambling, I know. Anyway, I’m completing my thought further down about the “third way.”
I think your comment clarifies my own thinking, Mike. I don’t believe history will ever disprove Scripture because I believe Scripture is true. Someone mentioned the recent archaeological evidence about King David, and that’s a perfect example. An absence of evidence is not proof, so it’s going to be practically impossible for secular history or archaeology to disprove Biblical history.
I also can’t go with Sally’s idea to trust science in some cases. How can you trust science and believe that Jesus and Peter walked on water? Or that iron floated, a shadow reversed directions, dew landed only on an isolated spot, Jesus multiplied bread or raised Lazarus from the dead? Scientifically those things aren’t possible. Scripture says they happened. Clearly one or the other must be true. So which am I to believe, the scientific principles that clearly and accurately indicate that these things can’t happen, or God’s word that said they did?
I don’t think we should trust someone’s misinterpretation of Scripture, however. That’s where I’m at with the “6 24-hour days” creation belief. People who cling to this as the way creation had to be because that’s what the Bible says are reading into the word “day” the “24-hour” part, because day 1, 2, and 3 took place before the sun, moon, stars, times, and seasons were created. Plus, the word translated “day” is translated “time” in other places in those earlier chapters of Genesis. In other words, I think 6-day creationists are willing to die on a sword that Scripture doesn’t require. That’s not to say that God might indeed have created in 6 days, but to state that this is the position Scripture takes is reading into Scripture more than is there.
Becky
Becky
I believe I’ve been misread over and over and over. If I ever said that science can disprove scripture, please forgive me. That was never my intent. I tried to say–and in fact I did say–that science can change our UNDERSTANDING of scripture. I’m not sure why this is so hard to hear.
I believe in miracles, which are things that God does that go against what we know to be scientifically true. Any Christian who doesn’t believe in miracles can’t be a Christian, obviously, because you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be a Christian.
Mike’s question was asking if we ought to rethink out UNDERSTANDING of scripture when science proves our UNDERSTANDING to be wrong. For instance, when science proves that the earth revolves around the sun or the earth is not on pillars and it doesn’t have four corners. (Mike it doesn’t matter that the Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth, many people have UNDERSTOOD it to teach that.)
I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t imply that I don’t believe in miracles or suggest that I believe science trumps scripture. I don’t believe that at all. I simply believe that we shouldn’t be a bunch of idiots saying, “The Bible says we can drink poison and handle snakes, so by golly that’s what we’re going to do.” Science says if you drink poison you’ll die and science is right. Some people MISUNDERSTAND scripture.
That has been my only contention all along. Mike’s questions were about INTERPRETATION not about TRUTH. He didn’t ask if science was true and scripture false. He asked if we should REINTERPRET scripture when it conflicts with science. I said, sometimes, yes we should. Sometimes our INTERPRETATION is wrong.
You, Becky, also think that sometimes our interpretations are wrong.
As far as I can see we’re in complete agreement on this issue.
I don’t think I’m misreading you, Sally. And I’m not saying you don’t believe in miracles. My pointing out those scientifically impossible things was to illustrate that a person who believes Scripture to be true, is choosing against science at some point. So which science should be believed instead of Scripture and which science is subject to Scripture because of the miraculous?
At some point there has to be an authority.
But I’ll say again–and this does seem to be overlooked–believing a misinterpretation of Scripture is not believing Scripture. Believing the Bible says something when it does not, is not believing the Bible. Hence, the 6-day creationists are believing something that might be true but by no means conveys precisely what the Bible says. So too with handling snakes and believing the earth is flat.
Becky
I just re-read Mike’s post to see if I’m missing something. He said Do we place the Ultimate Authority on Scripture or Science? When faced with a choice, do we re-interpret Science to agree with Scripture, or re-interpret Scripture to agree with Science? That’s the question I’ve been trying to answer. I don’t know how “rethinking our understanding of Scripture” fits into that.
In my last comment, when I said “So too with handling snakes and believing the earth is flat” I didn’t mean, so too those might be true, but rather, so too those do not precisely convey what the Bible says.
Becky
So which science should be believed instead of Scripture and which science is subject to Scripture because of the miraculous?
Who said science should be believed instead of Scripture?
Did I say that?
I don’t know why I would have said that because I don’t believe it. I’ve never believed it.
If I believed that I would have chosen 1 instead of 3.
You may say you are not misreading, but I am not lying to you. I simply don’t believe that science trumps scripture. But you continue to think I’m saying that science should be believed instead of scripture. I don’t know how to communicate any more clearly. Please believe me. I don’t think science should be believed over scripture. I merely think, as you do, that science should be believed over our MISINTERPRETATIONS of scripture.
I just re-read Mike’s post to see if I’m missing something. He said Do we place the Ultimate Authority on Scripture or Science? When faced with a choice, do we re-interpret Science to agree with Scripture, or re-interpret Scripture to agree with Science?
We can’t answer about a conflict between ultimate authority because there never will be a conflict between nature and scripture. Both are given by God and both are absolutely true.
Science is our interpretation of nature. Science is what we think we know about nature.
So when what we think we know about God’s world is at odds with what we think we know about God’s word, the conflict is with our understanding not with God’s word or God’s world. Sometimes our understanding of the word is wrong and sometimes our understanding of the world is wrong.
How do we know which time is which? The same way that God’s sheep know his voice. Holy Spirit tells us.
It’s not like we Christians are smart enough to figure this out and men like Hitchins aren’t smart enough. It really has to be that God give us faith. I don’t see any other answer.
I’ve always had a problem with the either/or scenario. When there is an apparent conflict I think BOTH views need to be re-examined. I have no problem with the notion that much of the Creation story in Scripture is metaphorical. It does not weaken my faith or reduce the infallibility of Scripture in the least. At the same time I think science needs to come to grips with the idea that some of the unknown causes they have been searching for may well be “And God said…”
But mostly I guess I’m just content to let the mystery be a mystery. I don’t need to know all the answers. Like the 2D creatures in ‘Flatland’ I have no expectation of understanding the third dimension. Paul tells us we ‘see through a glass darkly.” I don’t think this just applies to ‘spiritual’ matters. There is a great deal about everything we will never understand until we can view it from God’s perspective. That isn’t going to happen this side of the next life and I’m personally content with that.
I realize this of no help at all to those with a need-to-know and a need-to-be-right but it’s where I am.
In the 42 years I’ve been alive:
Eggs have bounced back and forth several times from “will kill you” to “superfood”.
Cholesterol has been redefined and its effects studied and restudied.
Pluto has been demoted from “planet” to “some other space thing that looks kinda like a planet but is definitely not a planet”.
The smallest particle in matter has gone from protons and electrons to quarks and neutrinos and whatever else.
There are a thousand other examples I could give, but they all add up to the point that -humanity is still learning-. The one evolution of which I am utterly certain is the human knowledge base.
So I’m not so fussed if what they think they know now appears to contradict God. In fact, whenever these topics come up now I usually just say “Pluto”. That covers it.
Katherine, what a great answer! I love this. Spot on!
(And eggs were in the news again last night–worse than tobacco, they said.)
Becky
Third way: Wait for science to change its mind.
The argument about Adam is flawed anyway, because all present human life came from Noah’s three sons and the Table of Nations. You can go to the library and find at least 70% of the names on the Table of Nations in other history books. You don’t need to be a super scientist to figure that out.
I love to draw dinosaurs, and I follow the latest discoveries with interest. They’ve changed their minds on dinosaurs a jillion times. For instance, Triceratops has been declared Not a Species. It was a younger version of Torosaurus. Same with Nanotyrannus. It was a young Tyrannosaurus. Or when they found that mummified duckbill and had to rethink everything we know about dinosaurs. Again.
Science keeps proving the Bible right, actually. Like when archeologists found an inscription referring to the House of David and it rocked the scientific world, because they don’t believe in David. All we have to do is take the third option and wait for Science to change its mind. They do change they minds about every ten years anyway. We don’t have to be afraid.
I’ve actually heard scientists never actually change their perspective. Old scientists die and new scientists show up =)
Hah!!
Look what just showed up in my newsfeed. ANOTHER “oops, we scientists have been wrong forever” story.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5935630/we-were-totally-wrong-about-the-suns-shape-until-yesterday?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Science is man’s attempt to understand what God has done. What some today consider science is conjecture and unproven via the defining elements of science itself. Scripture is King in all things. I don’t think it’s a matter of “re-interpretation”. It’s a matter of starting with truth. Either you believe the Word in its entirety or you don’t. JMO.
As stated in another place, I think for someone who believes in God as creator of the world we live in, there are three options when these seeming disagreements come up.
One, a misinterpretation of Scripture. For instance, did you know that the Hebrew word for “Adam” is man? And the same word is used consistently all through the first three chapters, and it is purely the translator’s contextual decision on when to start translating it as “Adam” rather than “man”? So there is certainly some room in the Genesis account to see Adam as being all mankind in a metaphorical/allegorical manner. After all, the whole first chapter of Genesis is a form of Hebraic poetry.
Two, a misinterpretation of the scientific data. The use of inductive reasoning is built, to some degree, upon deductive reasoning. That is, if this and this and this is true, because we’ve observed it, it supports the likely probability that conclusion X is true. You have to deduce from induced evidence, and sometimes those conclusions are wrong.
Three, there is information we don’t have yet which would totally change the scientific conclusion. Inductive reasoning, by definition, is based upon a probability that such and such is true, never 100% certainty, because there is always the possibility that new evidence would change the conclusions. For instance, at one time, it was “scientific fact” that the sun revolved around the Earth. Then they discovered new evidence which suggested otherwise, and the conclusion changed. Happens all the time, as evidenced in some of the comments in this thread.
My personal take? Whether Adam is metaphorical and reflects a whole race of people at one time, or whether he was a specific person in history, makes little difference to my faith. What God did, is what God did. It doesn’t threaten the authority of Scripture. Only threatens the authority of human reasoning and knowledge.
If Adam is not the first Adam, in whom all mankind fell and died–like all the animals, Adam also begat children after his own kind so they were born dead in their sins–then how is Jesus the second Adam. If in Adam we didn’t all die, how will we live in Christ? (1 Cor. 15:21 & 22)
The Apostle Paul can still take the theological truth that in Adam all die (isn’t this a universal observation? that we are born into sin?) and contrast this with the truth that in Christ all will be made alive (that is, all who are born into Christ, not simply all humans). The truth stands whether Adam was a literal person or not – if you’re human, you are born and die in sin. If you’re born into Christ, you will be made alive.
The problem I have Lyn, is that the analogy is a one to one comparison, and it breaks down if you compare mythological man to actual man. In fact, it opens the door to the concept that Christ was also a mythological man.
1 Cor. 15:45 is an example:
In addition, Luke’s genealogy of Christ went all the way back to Adam. Again, a mythological Adam would undermine the very point that the book of Luke emphasized–the humanity of Jesus.
Becky
We’ll likely disagree on this one. I’m simply not convinced the comparison necessitates a literal Adam. As humans, we’re merely living beings; as Christians we become spiritually living beings. This is the theological truth the Apostle Paul is communicating. Now what it means that Paul actually _believed_ that Adam was a literal figure in history is a different matter. But for me, I’m with Rick above, “Whether Adam is metaphorical…makes little difference to my faith….It doesn’t threaten the authority of Scripture.”
If Scripture is not the Word of God, good for doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness, etc, and if it does not speak authoritatively where it does speak, then we have to hope of salvation from the God who revealed Himself in those Scriptures.
To put it very bluntly: if Adam is not a historical figure from whence sin entered the Earth and all men fell in Him, then Jesus is a liar and the record of the New Testament is fallacious.
As to science, we can see and try to explain how things work today and in so doing present a reasonable argument for the laws that govern the natural world. As such, operational science is a valid expression and allows for advancements in technology.
Historical science, on the otherhand, is a faith based enterprise for both creationists and evolutionists. The evolutionists stems from a naturalistic worldview while the creationists should be based upon a biblical worldview.
Third way: Watch to see how it all plays out and if I die first, ask Him when I get there.
Third way…as described by Katherine & Kessie.
Reinterpreting either science or Scripture in the face of an apparent conflict is almost always a knee-jerk reaction. Give it time. Let the God-given human intellect keep questing and probing. Exercise patience and take the long view. The paradigm will always shift again, and it’s madness to move towards or away from faith every time new research is reported.
If Christian theology is actually true, then it has nothing whatsoever to fear from good science. If Science is conducted in the spirit of truth, then (I believe) it will eventually lead us to nothing but a far richer appreciation of just *how* God created this masterwork.
The third way comes from understanding neither Science nor Scripture has the absolute definitive truth. One does not need to be right the other wrong, both can be wrong, both can be right, because each is a constantly shifting struggle to interpret the world as best we can, an interpretation that over time is revised and changes.
The empirical nature of Science means that they’re much more likely to be the ones charging ahead revising that interpretation, most adherrants to Scripture advocate an unchanging nature and interpretation thereof, which is why Scripture always seems to be the one lagging behind.
We must stop thinking of Science and Scripture as opposing forces and come to realise, as Jabez Sunderland wrote back in the late 19th century:
“Well does ex-President Porter of Yale say: ‘The Physicist, the Evolutionist, and the Agnostic of the present day are all theologians, speculating, affirming and denying, concerning matter and mind, duty and sin, the mystery of the universe, its origin, its end, and its signification. Is there anything beyond the present? and, if so what is it? Is there any life besides the life in the body? and, if there is what is its nature, its evidence, and the conditions of living it well?’”
I voted “a third way” because I wasn’t sure if either of the others properly encapsulated my view. So I feel like I should explain what I mean by “a third way” in a comment.
My view is definitely that Scripture has the authority, not science. But at the same time I do not feel like I “reinterpret” science either. I simply study creation (no, I’m not a scientist, but I can read, and I can see 😉 ) in light of what I know from scripture. I’m also of the belief that the evidence does not speak for itself. Meaning that “scientific” discoveries made by people that do not hold a high view of scripture are skewed by their faulty worldview because they do not view their environment in light of Truth. And since people’s observations are based on their presuppositions, I have no reason to except a lot of their speculations (such as that things evolved from a common ancestor).
So I don’t reinterpret science to agree with scripture, I see it in light of scripture, and when I don’t know the answer, I use scripture as a guide for what conclusions to hold, along with educating myself on the subject.
Perhaps the gap is still too wide to reconcile. New scientific discoveries are continually made that “correct” old understanding. And part of this question may be answered in the original post. The Bible is written for the layman — and not just that, the layman throughout the ages. Even back when people thought there were only four elements. If you were writing a book about something as complex as creation, how would you explain it to someone with no knowledge on the matter? Are you going to go into specifics, or just say “I made this, and when I was done, then…”
When I bake a cake, do I say I made it, and let it stand as that, or do I describe the mixing of ingredients and the exact chemical changes that take place from being exposed to heat. Regardless of the changes, it was still me who made the cake. And, when I placed it in the oven, I knew when I pulled it out it would be a cake and not a turkey.
Maybe we don’t know enough about science, and maybe the Bible is too vague on the specifics. Perhaps the purpose of the story of creation was to establish God as our creator with authority over the universe giving a broad overview and not getting into the details. So perhaps what we’re calling reinterpretation of scripture is simply clarification of something vague.
When God spoke man into existence, that tells me He commanded it and it happened. But it doesn’t tell me that man spontaneously appeared, grew out of the ground, or if a giant tornado swirled up a whole bunch of dirt and spun it into the form of a man, etc… I just know that God did it.
Likewise, in Genesis, what does it mean that God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind,” we have some clarification “according to their kind” but also ambiguity “Let the land produce.” What does that mean? Why not word it “Let there be living creatures to dwell upon the land…”
I don’t really have answers for any of this, but it’s something I think about a lot, as evidence by my pondering post.
I agree with so much in this commentary. Katherine, Kessie, Shawna, Sally…
BTW, I have a degree in science. And the biggest thing I learned in college is that a show of confidence goes a long way. Scientists SPEAK as if they have the answers. They don’t. And as many have said here before, they are constantly proving each other and themselves wrong by new “discoveries.”
I am siding with Ray Bradbury on this one:
“…science is no more than an investigation of a miracle we can never explain,
and art is an interpretation of that miracle…” (The Martian Chronicles)
I have noticed that many people, Christian or not, don’t see the difference between when science disproves a theory and when a theory is refined. When general relativity was formulated, it didn’t prove Newton’s law of gravity wrong, it refined and built upon it. When the big bang model was first proposed, it completely replaced the steady state theory. So my point is that some may be suspicious of science because they don’t necessarily understand the science or have dug deep enough. It’s like any other subject, we can’t leave our critical thinking hat in the closet. In other words, test everything, an expect to find many some things valid. Too often people take an extreme: Accept everything they hear or nothing at all.
Creationists embarrassed me until I attended secular colleges and studied carbon dating, cytochrome C charts, workings of the cells and body, examined lines of descent, etc. and lost my faith in evolution. I read Stephen J. Gould, expecting that he will convert me back, but none of his arguments convince me. If you want to say that God directed evolution to produce, I won’t argue because there is no other mechanism that works.
Understandings of the natural world continually change. Interpretations of Scripture change. Scripture is true. The world is true. I see through a glass darkly.
“So how does the “Bible-believing Christian” resolve this conflict?”
The first they can do is not automatically start wringing their hands or condemning science. People have the tendency of not examining issues closely. What does the other side say? In this particular issue, there are far more lines of evidence pointing to the single-pair ancestors. For example, see Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care by C. John Collins or Who was Adam? by Fuz Rana.
“So when it comes to apparent conflicts between Science and Scripture, do you ultimately place Scripture above Science, place Science above Scripture, or seek a third way?”
None of the above. God created both the Bible and science, so they must agree. Any conflicts are a misinterpretation of one or the other. (Maybe some would consider this the third way, but I like to call it the original way before the extremes took over.) Do both the Bible and science speak about the same things? Mostly not, but there is overlap. There has to be. The Bible writes a lot about nature and seeing God’s fingerprints in it. Most people don’t get past Genesis, but there is more about creation outside of Genesis (especially in Job, of all places).
People, Christians and non-Christians, have both spent so much time fostering the science vs. religion fallacy, that it takes a lot of time to unpack and examine all the issues, problems, bias, history…etc. I devoted about half of a book I wrote years ago on the subject. It’s amazing how much science supports Christianity, if one takes the time to delve deep into it. And it does take time. Don’t rely on pamplet theology or article soundbites.
Hey Mike,
Great poll question. Here are some rapid fire thoughts.
1. I am great with letting science inform my reading of Scripture, particularly in places where the Bible does not speak. Take the age of the earth for example. The Bible says nothing on this topic, everything else God created was mature, and I have no idea how old a mature earth is. I will not disagree with just about any number on the age of the earth and I do not see how it affects my reading of the Bible in any way.
2. I disagree with Enns, but at least one thing that he realizes is that it is impossible to hold to both evolution and inerrancy because of the testimony of Jesus and Paul. Enns tries, incorrectly in my opinion, to rectify this by saying that as 1st century men they were wrong. That does not work for me, but to abandon the traditional reading of the beginning of Genesis in favor of a literary or mythical interpretation you have to deal with the theology and doctrine that the New Testament bases on a view that the Genesis creation account is historical in nature.
3. I understand the pressure on people, particularly those in academia, to buy into interpretations of science that portray certain beliefs as inerrant. But today science tells us that global warming may kill us all, and not so long ago science was warning us of the coming global ice age. Science is subject to just as much interpretation (if not more) than the Scriptures.
To me it doesn’t matter if the Bible is right or Science is right. It doesn’t affect my ability to be a good Christian. As a Christian I understand that my purpose is to love God with all my heart, soul, and mind and love my neighbor as myself.
But Ricardo, how do you know what it means to be “a good Christian”? If it’s from the Bible, then being confident it’s “right” before you do so should be tantamount.
By being a good Christian I meant a person who does the things that Christ thought us.
Very interesting discussion. Nothing to add. But for those who are interested in reading about the integration of Scripture and science, a VERY interesting website is reasons.org. These are “old earth” Christians, all of whom are scientists from different disciplines, plus they have a theologian/apologist who deals with epistemology. Even if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool “young earth” Christian (as I was), you will find this site encouraging. Highly recommended.
You guys are great! There’s some terrific comments here. I don’t tell you often enough how much I learn from you all.
I wanted to clarify what I noted above: Many of us who are claiming a “third way” ultimately believe Scripture trumps Science. Which means it’s not a third way at all. I’ll pick on Kessie (sorry K 😉 ). Kessie said,
“Third way: Wait for science to change its mind… Science keeps proving the Bible right, actually. Like when archeologists found an inscription referring to the House of David and it rocked the scientific world, because they don’t believe in David. All we have to do is take the third option and wait for Science to change its mind. They do change they minds about every ten years anyway. We don’t have to be afraid.”
For the record, I agree with Kessie that “Science keeps proving the Bible right.” This is one of the great things about this debate: there’s oodles of evidence on our side. However, this isn’t a “third way.” This simply puts off what we HOPE to be true. In other words, because we believe Scripture is God’s Word and cannot lie, the mistakes are on Science’s end, not God’s. Science will eventually come around to “our side.” This is not a “third way.” This is the “first way” + time.
It should also be pointed out that Christianity employs scientific method to bolster its validity. One of the huge turning points in my faith was when I read Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I can remember feeling cheated. “How come no one ever told me about the vast number of biblical manuscripts we possess, far more than any other ancient historical document? How come no one ever explained the compelling evidences for Christ’s Resurrection, an event that changed our earthly calendar!?” Then there’s things like extra-biblical evidences, historical harmony, prophetic accuracy, eyewitness testimony, Jewish scholarship, not to mention existential applicability. But despite all this “evidence” that we were dealing with an extra-special document, I still needed faith to believe it.
I think that’s still the bottom line.
My reasoning goes like this: If the Bible is true, Science cannot help but validate it. But because science is (1) “Flawed” (i.e., constantly changing, growing, correcting, updating, revising itself), and (2) Employed by Flawed individuals (who make mistakes, bad choices, have agendas, big egos, preconceptions, and prejudices), it is healthy and wise to distrust and/or be suspicious of science. This doesn’t, however, justify trusting Scripture above Science. Nevertheless, I’ve made that choice.
All that to say, a REAL third way would be more like the one that BioLogos employs, one that allows for Science to actively overrule Scripture, at least force “re-interpretation.” It is the uncomfortable integration of choice 1 and 2 on the Poll. So Science is right about Darwinian evolution but Scripture is right about us needing to love our neighbors. But that’s the choice most of us really won’t concede, which is why choice #2 isn’t being selected. We’re saying “third way” but when it comes down to it, we won’t re-interpret Scripture to fit the latest findings. Either that, or a third way is one that, as several here have alluded to, tolerates metaphysical paradox. Adam was BOTH a specific individual and a Myth. Or a Biological Tribe and a Representative Individual. Science and Scripture are simultaneously true and we must simply concede to live in paradox. If I am in the third camp, I’d probably be here. But at the moment, I have far too many questions about such a position to claim “third way.”
Lots of thoughts, here. One, if science contradicts Scripture, and it is a real contradiction, then as I said before, it is one of three things, which I won’t bother repeating. But lets take a real contradiction as an example. In Genesis 1, God creates the light before He creates the source of the light, the sun and stars. Light created on day 1. Source of light created on day 4. Meanwhile, on days 2-3, the earth and plant life are created absent stars and sun, just light existing…from somewhere, we’re not told.
Now, reading this as a straight narrative, the story is all out of order. While, sure, it is possible for God to create light without a source (theologically, we’d explain He is the light), but why would He do that? Why not create the source of the light and then the light together? Well, from a scientific point of view, this can’t happen. But Christians “re-interpret” what it literally says to explain away these seeming scientific contradictions. And who knows, some may be right.
But the problem is Genesis *does not* tell us *how* God created, other than that He spoke it into existence. But He doesn’t go into detail about the process at all. And why would He? It wasn’t his goal to explain physics to us, that is even now beyond our understanding, much less ancient Hebrews who would have no chance of grasping the how. And the how wasn’t even important. It was the *who* and the *why* that is important. God didn’t bother trying to get the *how* right in a scientific sense, because that would have distracted from His message. So details like in what order God created things is not what He is trying to get across here. And that is where we usually mess up. By treating Genesis 1 as a modern day scientific narrative instead of what it is.
And what is it? It is Hebraic poetry. Which is primarily a rhyme of thought. You see this in Proverbs and the Psalms. They will often say things more than once, in doubles or triplets, and either have similar thoughts said from slightly different angles, or contrasting thoughts.
In the same way, the order of creation is a poetic order, not a narrative order. Each of the 6 days of creation stand in parallel to each other. Days 1 & 4 match up, and 2 & 5 match up. The first shows the creation of the environment, while the second the creation of the inhabitants of the environment. Day 1, light and the universe. Day 4, suns and stars. Day 2, sky and water. Day 5, sky and water life.
Days 3 & 6 follow a similar pattern but with some twists. Day 3, the creation of land as opposed to sea. Day 5, the creation of the animal life on land. But here is where the twist comes into play. Because both days 3 & 6 have two sections. The second section is the creation of the bridge, linking the creation together into one whole connected to God. On the second section of day 3, God creates the plant life, which is both attached to the inanimate life of the earth, but also has the life like unto animal life, thus linking the inanimate to the animate. The second half of day 6, God creates man, linking the newly created world’s life with divine life, being created in the image and likeness of God, while still firmly part of the animal life. And God emphasizes the creation of man as the pinnacle of His creation, by stating the creation of man in His image and likeness three times, in three similar ways. Then the seventh day when God rested stands apart from the parallel structure, emphasizing it as unique and special.
When the order is viewed poetically, it totally makes perfect sense. When we stop trying to shoehorn Genesis 1 into a scientific textbook framework, it stands on its own two feet and neither dismisses the authority of Scripture, nor contradicts science. Rather, is shows the internal cohesion of God’s creation, the primary points God wanted us to understand about how our life is linked with the whole of creation, and with Him. And what we lost at the fall was that Adam and Eve really did die on the very day they ate the fruit. Because the divine life they were created with died in them, and all they were left with was their animal side, creating the condition of being controlled by our animal passions. And that is what Christ came to fix.
Now, I don’t call that a “re-interpretation.” I call that the *correct* interpretation. And the fact of the matter is, especially when it comes to minor details in Scripture that the agnostics and atheist like to point out where Scripture is out of sync with science, it very well may be a case of miss-interpretation. In which case that would not be a re-interpretation, it would be correcting a *wrong* interpretation.
My former denomination, and though there is no official statement, I think it is mostly understood this way in my current body, is the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Which means that in all things pertaining to our salvation, Scripture is inerrant. IOW, when God inspired the various writers to write, He wasn’t so concerned with correcting any and all their various wrong cultural and “scientific” errors unless they were of such that it would pervert and misconstrue the Gospel and ultimately, our salvation.
So if a writer said somewhere (though I’m not aware of it) that the earth was flat and we’d fall off of it, and now we know scientifically that it is not true, that would in no way invalidate the authority of Scriptures. God wasn’t interested in correcting everyone’s scientific fallacies in the Scripture. Did they get a lot right, probably most? Yes. But it still isn’t meant to be treaties on science. And such a contradiction, if one finds a real one, means nothing unless you can show that it would result in a gross misunderstanding of salvation and perversion of the Gospel message.
Now, I believe that there was a historic Adam and Eve. They might represent a bigger group or something, there is evidence for that idea. But I accept the plain meaning that they existed. As most of the Church Fathers have through the history, and other writers of the Scriptures. But let’s assume for a moment that there wasn’t. That it was just a generic title to represent man and woman in a metaphorical attempt to convey the facts that God created the world, why He created it, and how we are in the current state we are in despite that, but that such individuals never existed.
Was Jesus “lying”? No, not necessarily. Look at it from God’s point of view when Jesus was saying those things, if Adam and Eve didn’t really exist as individuals. You’re making a point. Are you going to go into a long explanation of to them of how Adam was just the world for “man” (which they would have already known, speaking Hebrew at the time) and that it was representative of man in general, but not a real person, and explain what really happened, “Well, see, it was like this….”? No, you’re going to stick to your point. Rather than correcting an assumption they had made about Adam, which had nothing to do with their salvation and would have pulled them off Christ’s point that did have to do with their salvation. It isn’t that Christ would have lied. He simply opted not to correct their incorrect assumptions to make His point rather than get sidetracked into a debate of whether such was true or not.
So, if we stand before God and discover Adam wasn’t a real person, are we then going to say to God, “Well, you lied to me. Send me to Hell instead!” I doubt it. Whether Adam was real or not has little to do with my salvation. I believe he was real, but I’m not going to dump the faith if science definitively proved he wasn’t real, or I find out in heaven he wasn’t. Because, I don’t think that fact is important in whether I’m saved or not.
Contrasted to Jesus being a real person, yes, that is important to my salvation. And I trust that God ensured that was totally correct. And totally correct that He really did rise from the dead. And to discover that wasn’t true would effect my salvation and the Gospel message. So I consider that to be infallibly true as related in Scripture or else, the whole purpose of Scripture is trashed, and I should forget about Christianity and go do my own thing.
But because a writer of the Bible might say something that is unscientific? Who cares whether God saw fit to correct him before he wrote that down? My salvation isn’t dependent upon whether a Biblical writer thought the sun revolved around the earth or not, and whether God didn’t prevent that view from seeping into the Scriptures.
So, when I say that there can be instances of Scripture being “corrected” by science, because of our miss-interpretation of it, usually through a view that says every jot and dot must be accurate in all human disciplines or else it all unravels like a thread being pulled from cloth. That would only be true of God’s purpose in writing the Scriptures was to be accurate in all those details, and I’m not convinced from Scripture that this was His purpose. Rather, through Paul, He lists His purposes very clearly:
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
(2Ti 3:16-17 ASV)
Notice the goal of the teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction. To establish righteousness and enable us to do “every good work.” It says nothing in there about the purpose being to get all our scientific facts correct. So we should stop trying to make Scripture fit that mold.
Sorry for the long post. 🙂
Sorry, Rick, I couldn’t let this go. Not necessarily? I don’t think there’s any way of reading the Bible and arriving at the idea that Jesus might have lied, He being the perfect Lamb of God, the One in whom the fullness of Deity dwelt.
As further food for thought, consider that the sun and the moon and the stars are NOT the source of light, only among the sources of visible light–electromagnetic radiation.
Why is it “theological” to say that God is Light, especially since He says there will be no need for sun, moon, or stars in the new heaven and earth because He is the light?
My guess is we are too quick to “spiritualize” the Bible and not let it stand for what it actually says.
Becky
Sorry for any confusion there, Becky. The “not necessarily” would be referring to the need to interpret that Jesus was lying. Not whether he was or not. If Adam didn’t ever exist as an individual, I don’t think it is necessary to interpret that Jesus was lying in what He said about Adam. Rather, He chose not to go into the need to correct a wrong assumption as that would have distracted from his point, and would accomplish nothing. He was taking what they know and teaching them truth by it.
But, as I said, I think Adam existed as an individual. Only that if he didn’t, I don’t think that invalidates the Bible because of it.
And, I did interpret Genesis 1 according to what it actually says, the way it was written. It would be those forcing it into a narrative/science framework that would be not letting Scripture stand as written. I don’t think what I did was “spiritualize” it at all, but put it in the framework as written and giving us the information it intended to give us. Whether God created light and then four days later created the source of that light, or what the composition of the light was on day one compared to day 4, or the corresponding sources of each light, is irrelevant. But only as written, the sun and stars are linked with the creation of light, so there is no need to go into theological explanations as to how they could be separate. Understood as written, it makes perfect theological and scientific sense. It is only when you force it into a “Here’s what happened in chronological order” narrative that it goes haywire scientifically and logically, and you have to come up with more complex explanations as to what happened. And then, your study of it misses the whole point of the passage, which wasn’t to tell you in what order God created stuff in as much as to tell you how they are all linked together in Him.
Thanks for the explanation about Jesus and lying, Rick. Of course, I’m not sure how people taking that stand get around the implication that the Holy Spirit is a liar, since He inspired Scripture. Luke, for example, clearly indicates Adam to be the person of origin in Christ’s geneology. Was the Holy Spirit lying or is Scripture not inspired by Him? Since this isn’t your position, I don’t expect you to know how they might answer such questions, but these are why I would not be OK with that view.
And, I did interpret Genesis 1 according to what it actually says, the way it was written. I was actually referring to Jesus saying I am the Light of the World.
The other thing that I think is valid to consider about the Genesis account is that our understanding of the universe is still so partial. Scientists still don’t really know what light is, so how can we say God didn’t create it before these objects from which we see light emanating? Then too there’s the Platonic idea that Perfect Chair exists of which we but see the shadow. So might God have created the idea of Light before He created objects conveying light?
There are way too many possibilities for us to dismiss the Genesis narrative as “poetry,” in my view.
I personally think understanding Genesis needs to start with settling the question whether or not we think God can in fact do things beyond our comprehension. If so, then I think we can settle back and take His account of creation for what it is–full of questions, not fitting neatly into what we might expect, but true nonetheless, reflecting what happened as much as who caused it to happen.
By the way, I’m surprised that the question about water never seems to come up in these discussions. In the Genesis account, we don’t have the mention of God creating water. Separating it, yes, but not creating it. So clearly this is not a “how to” manual.
Becky
Becky, I don’t claim to know how they would answer that either, but I would assume it would be along the same lines. Adam represents the start of mankind, whatever that was number-wise. It fits as “the beginning” of man and is shorthand for that. God inspired Luke to write that, and didn’t see any point in inspiring Luke to give a breakdown of what that really meant. Something like that would be my guess. God figured knowing or not knowing that wasn’t important. Isn’t lying, just not feeling the need to correct every misconception man might have in the Bible. Otherwise, the Bible would contain several volumes, and probably not have room enough for even a library to hold them all. 😉 Communication is simpler if you take what people know, and go from there, even if what they know isn’t 100% accurate.
Also, I don’t think anyone can ignore the fact that Genesis 1 is written in a Hebraic poetic structure. It would be like taking Proverbs as absolutes when they aren’t intended that way. Of course one can come up with all sorts of rationals why the order is the way it is in Genesis if they want to ignore the structure of force it into a chronological Western-style narrative. And they aren’t necessarily wrong or impossible for God to do, should He so desire to do that. And for all any of us know, He very well may have. All I’m saying is the simpler answer is to see that those obvious parallels are a poetic construction and when you put it in that order, it makes perfect logical/scientific sense as far as the order goes as well.
I do believe God could have created the essence of light before He created the sun and stars. No problem for God. But logically, why would He bother to do that…create the light before the source of light. I should add, that one of what we say God’s natures is, is light. “I am the Light…” Created light, however, is a different deal. If it was divine light, God wouldn’t have to create it. It has always existed. But it says He spoke it into existence.
But when you see the parallels of the creation of the environment paralleling the creation of life in that environment, it makes sense of the relationships. And the order of creation matches. How do you know God didn’t intend for us to see those parallels and that’s why He inspired it to be written the way it was. If one ignores the literary context of Scripture, one tends to miss-interpret Scripture.
And I would also suggest many people seem to pick and chose what verses to take “literally” and which to interpret metaphorically. That started with Zwingli when he decided Jesus didn’t really mean we were supposed to eat His body and drink His blood. And for over 500 years, Christians have been divided on that point. But the most literalist of Scripture interpreters won’t take those words literally…because it conflicts not with science, but their own theology.
Anyway, interesting conversation. Scripture is inspired by God and is infallible. But the men and women who interpret it are not. What can often come across as our “plain reading” of Scripture is only because of theological, philosophical, and cultural assumptions we bring to the table. Assumptions that the original writers of those documents never shared.
I think the poetic view of Genesis is popular in circles tired of the science vs. Genesis debates. It allows people to sidestep all that, but also think it removes depth from the account. The poetic narrative also assumes that no one has figured out a coherent Genesis/science fusion. This isn’t true. It is true that Genesis isn’t a scientific document full of every detail of creation. There are patterns in it, but also amazing details.
Take the supposed light contradiction, a popular complaint from skeptics. Science states early Earth was thickly clouded and we all know light can pass through clouds, but no Sun or Moon can be seen. Interestingly enough, when these bodies are mentioned appearing later, the Hebrew seems to suggest that they had already been created earlier. Coincidence? Or fingerprints of inspiration? What other Near East creation accounts happen upon details like this? Not that the bible writers didn’t ever write from their cultural context. Yet even when they did, it was in a different way than their contemporaries.
“[the poetic view] allows people to sidestep all that, but also think it removes depth from the account.”
Hardly. It adds significant theological depth to the account that would have been missed otherwise, as I’ve already shown. And it appears folks may be taking “poetic” to mean not factual or something. Same facts, “Here’s what God created,” only saying the order it is presented in is structured in a poetic fashion to parallel and contrast the thoughts of concerning the interlinked aspects of creation. It doesn’t mean it is spiritualized, fictionalized, or not factual. Just not a textbook format.
“The poetic narrative also assumes that no one has figured out a coherent Genesis/science fusion.”
No, it doesn’t assume that. Sure, I can come up with all sorts of explanations for the straight narative if I want to ignore the poetic literary framework it was written in. But the point is, what’s the point of it? I can show why it would be understood as a poetic construction (both in style and organization similar to other Hebraic poetry) and why God had it put that way. What point was it for God to tell us what order He created things in? What theological truths about man and God and our relationship does that knowledge add to us. What depth is there really in such an approach? What difference to my salvation does that knowledge make?
I can tell you what the knowledge from the poetic construct tells me about my salvation. That seems a much more important reason to know that knowledge than in curiosity of thinking God was concerned that we got the order He did it in right. Are we to assume there is going to be a test on this before we can enter the Pearly Gate? 😉
I don’t care whether Genesis 1 matches our scientific knowledge. So I don’t chose the poetic construction because I want to avoid scientific problems. The fact it makes more sense of them is secondary. I chose it because it is written that way, and it makes a lot more theological sense and understanding of where I fit into the God’s plan.
Whether you believe it or not, many do choose interpretations like this to avoid the science debates. I don’t recall saying you do. The problem is that focusing on one level of Genesis over the other, one will miss the very theological depth you are talking about. One only gets part of the picture when looking at the literary framework, just as if one only looks at the science part. There have been a rash of books on Genesis lately and each seems to want to put Genesis in one box and not unpack everything it may say to us. The proof of that is that there are more verses on creation outside of Genesis, yet most never discuss these in examining Genesis.
“What point was it for God to tell us what order He created things in? ”
As proof that he wrote it. It’s the fact that the writer of Genesis got it right many centuries before the rest of mankind figured it out. Did he know he was getting it right? I doubt it. That’s why its inspired.
There was little concern in the past about Genesis, at least compared to modern times, but now when it is a focus of skepticism, Genesis reveals another level of its inspiration. That may indeed impact someone else’s salvation. For people looking at Christianity from the outside, this science side that you “don’t care” about may be their door in.