Tag Archives: Creationism

June 10, 2015

Tim Keller on Interpreting Genesis

By Clarke Morledge

New York City pastor, Tim Keller, offers a different approach than the one I put forward on how Genesis 1 relates to Genesis 2. Keller argues that Genesis 2 is actually historical narrative and that Genesis 1 fits more into a poetic genre, as opposed to a straight-forward historical narrative.

Keller may be right. The point I want to make is that different believers can look at some of the non-essential interpretation matters in Genesis differently, and they can still agree on the big picture, namely the essential doctrines concerning the knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the Creator, as well as who is humanity in relation to that Creator.

I call these the great “who” questions of faith: Who is God? Who is the Creator? Who is Man? These “who” questions are in contrast with the “how” questions: How did God create? How long did it take God to create? How does Genesis 1 relate to Genesis 2? The “how” questions are still important, but they pale in comparison to the great “who” questions that the Bible seeks to address.

The following short video by Keller demonstrates some of the challenges in determining the appropriate context and genre of this very ancient passage of the Bible in early Genesis. Keller and I both affirm that no one takes all of the Bible completely literally, and he gives his brief analysis as to what type of interpretive “grid” should be used when reading the Bible. We can still debate the smaller questions, but let us keep in the front of our minds the big picture.

I would highly recommend Tim Keller’s book Reason for God as a great book to give to a non-believer or believer who is struggling with these issues. Here is a quote from the book, around pages 93-94, that explains more in detail Keller’s approach to interpreting Genesis, and interpreting the Bible in general:

“Christians who accept the Bible’s authority agree that the primary goal of Biblical interpretation is to discover the Biblical author’s original meaning as he sought to be understood by his audience. It has always meant interpreting a text according to its literary genre. For example, when Christians read the Psalms they read it as poetry. When they read Luke, which claimes to be an an eyewitness account (see Luke 1;1-4), they take it as history. Any reader can see that the historical narrative should be read as history and the the poetic imagery is to be read as metaphorical.

The difficulty comes in the few places in the Bible where the genre is not easily identifiable, and we aren’t completely sure how the author expects to be read. Genesis 1 is a passage whose interpretation is up for debate among Christians, even those with a “high” view of inspired Scripture. I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event. When reading Judges 4 it is obvious that it is a sober recounting of what happened in the battle, but when we read Judges 5,  Deborah’s Song about the battle, the language is poetic and metaphorical. … I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a “song” about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened including Genesis 1. But it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be. That isn’t true of any human communication.

What can we conclude? Since Christian believers occupy different positions on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message should one think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution.

That last part shows some real wisdom that followers of Jesus should keep in mind at all times. Contrary to some well-intended yet misguided approaches, I do not need to debate the age of the earth or even the scientific theory of evolution with a non-believer. Instead, I should focus first on the central claims of the Gospel: Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen from the dead.

6 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Topics

June 5, 2015

Does Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict One Another?

By Clarke Morledge
The Naming of the Animals, by John Miles of Northleach 1781-1849 (media credit: sothebys.com)

The Naming of the Animals, by John Miles of Northleach 1781-1849 (media credit: sothebys.com)

One of the most common objections to Christianity is the claim that there are contradictions in the Bible when it is interpreted literally. In many cases, these supposed “contradictions” are not contradictions at all. Differences in details can be harmonized in an acceptable way. However, there are examples where harmonization is not necessary. Such harmonization becomes irrelevant once we have a better appreciation for the intent of the author. We may be too hasty in our judgments about “contradictions” because we fail to understand what the Biblical author is trying to do. Here is a case in point.

In Genesis 1 , one finds the classic expression of God creating the world in six days. There one finds a progression of creative acts, such as the creation of vegetation, starting in verse 11, and then of animals, starting in verse 20, culminating with the creation of humans as the last step,  in verse 26.

In Genesis 2, beginning at verse 4, one reads what appears to be a new narrative. It is as though the story of creation is being retold in a different way, focusing on the creation of humanity, with the purpose that humans were created for work, as with the tending of the garden, and the need for humans to have companionship with other humans, most notably described by the institution of marriage. It was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve (verse 18-25).

The problem for many people is that Adam first shows up in Genesis 2 in verse 7, with a garden planted in verse 8, and then animals are fashioned from the ground to bring before Adam as potential companions in verse 19. One thing that jumps out is this question: if in Genesis 1, animals were created before humans, and in Genesis 2, animals came after Adam was created, is this not a contradiction? If this is the case, how can you trust the Bible if it has contradictions like this?

There are many who believe that the early chapters of Genesis in their entirety are intended to give us a play-by-play, chronological account of God’s creative activity from the perspective of a human eyewitness observer writing down these events as they happened. Imagine, if you will, that the writer of Genesis is acting like a modern journalist with a video camera in hand, making written observations as they occur, from a vantage point where they can see all that is going on. This is driven by a principle some call “the literal interpretation of Scripture.”  Nevertheless, this “literal” view raises the prospect of a contradiction, between the order of God’s creative activities, between chapters one and two of Genesis. Can such a difficulty be resolved?

While it might be possible to harmonize the narrative details of Genesis 1 and 2 chronologically, I can not help but wonder if there is a better way to look at this. Is this really a type of “contradiction” that needs to be resolved, or is it simply a difference intended by the author for a different purpose?

Continue reading

15 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Topics

April 18, 2015

The Groaning of Creation in Romans 8:19-23

By Clarke Morledge
Christians and the call to care for the earth.

Christians and the call to care for the earth (Image credit: Catholic Web Services)

Earth Day is coming up soon, and Christians who are called to engage the culture are faced with how to respond to the call to care for the earth. But what does the Bible have to say about it?

In what sense does the whole of creation; including plants and animals, cats and dogs, rocks and weather systems, await the complete fulfillment of God’s plan for redemption? The Apostle Paul appears to be addressing this issue in Romans 8:19-23 (ESV):

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

It covers a lot of areas related to environmental concerns, everything from the question of natural evil (why are there earthquakes and hurricanes?), to hot topics like global climate change, to the question of whether or not your pet dog will be in heaven. It is as though Paul is connecting God’s ultimate redemptive plan for humanity; i.e. the revealing of the sons of God, with the full revelation of God’s purpose for the created order. But before that day comes, the creation is subjected to futility. Hence, we will live in a world where the creation groans in frustration as in the pains of childbirth.

I have been working through Romans 8 along with our small group, and the passage just jumps out at me with questions. There is a lot of theology here for the thinking person, so please indulge me to ponder a bit on this blog post. As a little taste, I would like to refer you to part of the “Great Debate” between Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism feature on the John Ankerberg show, highlighted some time ago on Veracity, or you can simply skip the video and read on…


Continue reading

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Apostle Paul

February 9, 2015

What About the Cavemen?

By Clarke Morledge
Some of this Veracity blogger's distance relatives, or just a really bad TV show from the 1960s? (It's About Time).

Some of this Veracity blogger’s distance relatives, or just a really bad TV show from the 1960s? (It’s About Time).

One of the most persistent challenges in trying to reconcile Biblical truth with the findings of modern science is this: What do you do with the cavemen?

The mainstream scientistic consensus today is that there have been human-like creatures discovered in the ancient fossil record that predate humans like you and me. Names such as Cro-Magnon man, homo erectus, and the neanderthal fill our imaginations with images of semi-ape, semi-human creatures hobbling or running around with crude tools, making grunting noises, many of them living in… well… caves. My wife thinks I must be related at times to these creatures, particularly when I get out of bed in the morning, bumping into things when I am barely awake!!

But seriously, could it be that these brute creatures are related to us, we homo-sapiens, or is such a concept alien to the teaching of the Bible? Does the existence of these creatures insult or even undermine the Christian concept of the special status of humanity’s uniqueness?

News within recent years suggests that there is some evidence of actual interbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals thousands of years ago, as in this story from the British Natural History museum:

So what does the Bible have to say regarding creatures like the neanderthal?
Continue reading

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

February 6, 2015

Old-Earth Creationism vs. Intelligent Design: What is the Difference?

By Clarke Morledge

We have pointed folks to a lot of resources regarding the creation/age-of-the-earth/evolution debate here at Veracity (just go to the main blog page, scroll down to where is says “search” and type in something like “creationism” and click GO, or go to our 2013 Symposium page for starters).  But in my discussions, some get confused over a few of the terms used by different Christians in the debate.

One nagging question concerns what is the difference between “Old-Earth creationism” and “Intelligent Design.” The difference between “Young Earth creationism” and the “Old-Earth” view should be pretty straight forward:  the “Young Earth” view holds that our planet is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, whereas the “Old-Earth” view is consistent with mainstream science regarding the age of the earth in terms of millions years.

The “Old-Earth” view differs from “Evolutionary Creationism” in that the “Old-Earth” view does not accept the idea that humans are a product of biological evolution, instead affirming that all humans are descended from a literal, historical Adam and Eve, specially created by God in a uniquely different creation event. In contrast, “Evolutionary Creationism” accepts the mainstream scientific consensus, yet nevertheless affirming that it is the God of the Bible who used the process of  biological evolution to give us human beings, though there is quite a debate among Evolutionary Creationists as to the exact role Adam and Eve play in all of that (are Adam and Eve historical persons, or are they symbolic somehow?).

Sometimes you will hear “Evolutionary Creationism” referred to as being “Theistic Evolution.” But most evangelical Christians in the Evolutionary Creationism camp are moving away from the “Theistic Evolution” term because it does not boldly emphasize the Biblical concept of creation strong enough. Many who believe in “Theistic Evolution” believe in a “God,” but not necessarily the God of the Bible.

But what about “Intelligent Design?”

“Intelligent Design” is mostly opposed to “Evolutionary Creationism,” viewing the process of Darwinian evolution, particularly of man, as being completely inconsistent with the notion of an Intelligent Designer.  “Intelligent Design” as a movement in general is a bit wary of the Young Earth view that rejects the old age of the earth. So does that mean that “Intelligent Design” is the same thing as “Old-Earth Creationism?”

Not quite.

There is indeed quite a bit of overlap between the two positions, but there are important differences. “Old-Earth Creationism” self-consciously is about defending a high view of the Bible.  “Intelligent Design” as a movement, on the other hand, is not necessarily identified with the Bible or Christianity. Sure, there are evangelical, Bible-believing Christians who believe in “Intelligent Design,” such as Stephen C. Meyer, author of the best selling Darwin’s Doubt, but there are also many other proponents of “Intelligent Design” who do not embrace Biblical faith, such as popular author Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification church (or the “Moonies”).  The following video by Krista Bontrager, affiliated with the Old-Earth Reasons to Believe apologetics ministry, tells you more about it, in a language you can grasp from the bottom shelf.

As might be implied from the video, the “Intelligent Design” movement, particularly as it is articulated by the folks at the Discovery Institute, makes some helpful arguments that should be engaged by thoughtful Christians. However,  “Intelligent Design” is not explicitly tied to a Biblical concept of creation as are the three dominant models: Young Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism. For that reason, while I fully affirm”intelligent design” (notice the small letters), I am not entirely excited about “Intelligent Design” (large caps) as a movement that Christians should uncritically embrace. I do not believe, as some Intelligent Designers speculate, that the Intelligent Designer of human life may have been some super extra-terrestrial life form. I also have friends of mine in the New Age Movement who subscribe to a type of “Intelligent Design,” but who nevertheless reject the Biblical teaching of a distinction between the Creator and the Creation.

In my view, Christians should be about winning others to the God of the Bible as the Creator, not just to some nebulous concept of an “Intelligent Designer,”, though I can concede someone might be persuaded of the existence of an Intelligent Designer as a type of first step in their journey towards Christ. Instead, I believe that Scripture is quite clear: God created humanity, and this God of the Bible created humans, male and female, in the image of God. We may debate exactly how God did the Creating, and over what type of timescale it happened in, and what role (if any) evolution has in this, but there should be unified agreement among followers of Christ that it is God, and God alone, who created us.

Can someone give me an “AMEN?”

17 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Apologetics