In what way, exactly?
If you truly believe that selecting this bit of the OT as incredibly important to understand clearly because you think that eternal salvation is dependent upon your interpretation of it, what could possibly be more important in your mortal life than reading and understanding it in the language in which it was written?
Or is this really just a disguised political stance?
Might some of YOUR ways be incorrect, Jonathan?
I totally agree @Mercer. It is not a “cop-out” but an insistence on taking Scripture seriously, if that is in fact what is what the YEC cares to respect in this dialogue.
I consider it a cop-out in the way that your comments appear to be an attempt to justify the decision to avoid seriously considering the Scriptures citing lack of ability to understand the original languages and assumption that the English translation is hopelessly inaccurate as reasons for doing so. The distortion is just that. The scriptures are just as clear and reliable in a faithful English translation as in a Hebrew Old Testament manuscript. Otherwise, did you mean something different by your comment? (As @swamidass’s interpretation of it was pretty much the opposite of my own. 
@Mercer, eternal salvation is based in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to take away the sin of the world and rose again, giving eternal life to all who believe in Him.
John 3:16-18 (ESV)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Once again, I am ready to discuss the points I raised in my earlier post when they are ready.
You are putting words in our mouths @J.E.S. I’m just saying that we might sometimes come to an incorrect interpretation because we didn’t see the original language. Moreover, I can produce specific examples we can study together. This is a valid way of improving our understanding of scripture, and it does not mean the English translations are hopeless. Nor is it an excuse.
Here we go, @J.E.S can we please keep the apostatizing to a minimum.
That isn’t what he is doing. I agree with him there. Let him speak.
I did nothing of the sort, Jonathan.
If you disagree, where, exactly, did I advocate avoiding seriously considering the Scriptures, or avoiding anything? I find your use of the straw man fallacy here to be deeply offensive, as I take Scripture seriously.
Yet despite your claim, sincere scholars and people of deep faith have honestly disagreed on those translations and meanings for centuries.
So who, exactly, decides which English translations are faithful and which are unfaithful? Wouldn’t one have to be fluent in the original languages to make such a determination?
I have an idea. Maybe you should ask questions before issuing judgments.
I agree. It is definitely not based on one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. What exactly is your point in resorting to that after putting false words in my mouth?
I did nothing of the sort, @mercer and @swamidass. I was simply sharing how @mercer’s comment came across to me, as he requested. And yes, @mercer literally requested clarification, so he can’t accuse me of putting words in his mouth:
I even asked @mercer if he meant something different by his comment, showing once again that these attacks are completely unfounded.
Faithful English translations are no less the Word of God than the original Hebrew. However, I certainly do not think that studying the text in the original language is a meaningless pursuit either.
Are you implying that no English translations are faithful and reliable?
@Patrick, remember that Jesus died for you too! 
At any rate, Christ’s death and resurrection are central to Theology (the tag of this thread, thanks to @swamidass).
Once again, I did not put false words in your mouth (as I explained earlier). If you meant something different by your comment, please say so (because you really haven’t clarified yet, other than to accuse me of “putting false words in your mouth”).
Once again, you are coming across as not taking the authority of scripture seriously. ALL scripture is breathed out by God. Genesis sets up the doctrine of Creation as well as providing important insights into the doctrine of Redemption. @mercer, are you advocating Gospel reductionism?
Finally, I would like to hear from @swamidass and @AllenWitmerMiller about my behemoth comment earlier, before it gets buried in other posts. Don’t feel like you have to respond to the whole thing in one post, though. Feel free to tackle whichever part you want.
It would only come across to you that way if you view yourself to be infallible.
Again, you are setting up yourself as the arbiter of what is faithful to the Hebrew when you don’t know Hebrew. How does that work?
That doesn’t make sense if you truly believe that there are faithful English translations that are just as good.
Of course not. Why aren’t you answering my question? Who decides what is faithful? Some guy who doesn’t even know Hebrew?
Not at all. I’m not taking YOUR claims of authority seriously. Your rhetorical sleight-of-hand is very obvious.
You are claiming that your mere interpretation, derived from another interpretation, is simply and magnificently “the clear Word of God.” That is very arrogant, particularly when you can’t be bothered to read it in its original language, while for centuries people of true faith have disagreed even when they go to much more effort than you do.
I have no idea how theistic evolution “judges scripture” anymore than “theistic gravity” or “theistic photosynthesis” allegedly judges the scriptures.
Of course, science can’t render proofs and “disproofs” on anything, including the resurrection.
Also, science can’t somehow prove that something is impossible. Scientists can certainly report on what they have observed—and scientists can certainly remind us that the resurrection of a human being has not been observed by them. Yet, that doesn’t tell us that resurrection is somehow thereby rendered impossible. Science is the not the best way to go about evaluating theology.
An understanding of evolutionary processes is vital in many areas of medicine. I know professors who teach evolutionary biology fundamentals at medical schools. However, I do recognize that you are not alone in admitting “I don’t understand” how evolutionary biology is “on the same scientific level as medicine.” Lots of people don’t understand evolutionary processes.
Indeed. I think you are missing Joshua’s point. Have you considered that Genesis 1 and 2 are, similarly, a matter of perspective in communicating to the people of that culture in terms they could understand?
Virtually every seminary and Bible college textbook I’ve ever seen! That includes every fundamentalist school in the USA and Canada that I’ve ever visited. Look at most any OT Introduction textbook. The Historical Books of the Bible have long been the designation for the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (plus various Apocrypha books.)
I didn’t either. Joshua @swamidass certainly did NOT set up “a hierarchy of truth and accuracy between Biblical accounts.”
Are you implying that because the parables Jesus told were not accounts of historical events, that makes them less true and less accurate? You are the first person here (that I’ve noticed) who has introduced the concept of “hierarchies of truth and accuracy” concerning the Bible.
When we recognize that Genesis 1 is a different literary genre than the Book of Joshua or Judges, that is NOT an assignment of different levels of truth and accuracy! You are making a straw man argument, arguing against something nobody here (to my knowledge) has ever claimed.
And why does that matter? I’ve also heard some atheistic evolutionists interpreting the Gospel of Matthew as a contrived set of stories about a Yeshua who never actually existed. So what? Those aren’t my views. Various people of various descriptions have been heard saying all sorts of things. Or are you making a guilt-by-association assertion which falls under the flawed Genetic Fallacy argument?
What eisegesis are you talking about? I don’t know of anyone here who claims that they have found evolutionary biology described in the Bible.
Why?
(1) As to “evolutionary philosophy”, I have no idea what that would be. Please define what you mean. (Of course, if nobody here espouses “evolutionary philosophy” instead of evolutionary biology, it potentially becomes a foundation for a straw man argument and is entirely irrelevant to our discussion in any case.)
(2) You are making these assertions so the burden of proof is on you. I don’t affirm any “evolutionary philosophy” so I have no need nor interest in proving anything about it.
No. I don’t believe the Bible describes evolutionary processes so I can’t be accused of eisegesis in finding such processes in the Bible.
I don’t “throw out” any scriptures. So, once again, this is irrelevant to me. If others are doing so, you need to confront them with your arguments.
I hope that you are not taking the position that those who don’t agree with your favorite interpretations of the Bible are thereby “throwing out” any scriptures. Ken Ham makes that argument often. It is not a convincing one.
If someone is indeed “throwing out” the Bible or parts of it, I would be prone to agree with you that that is heresy.
This sounds like the well worn argument “My interpretations of the Bible are valid. Yours are extraneous and invalid.” and “My view is clearly taught in the scriptures while the views of other Christ-followers who disagree with me clearly are not taught in the scriptures.”
And who in this forum has judged the Bible “guilty” of anything? Can you provide specific quotations?
Who among the Christ-followers on this forum has thrown out the Bible as irrelevant? Please be specific.
Who here has called the Bible an anachronism?
I have not read this entire thread so please provide the quotation so I can read it in context.
Of course, I don’t make any of those claims about the Bible so I’m the wrong person to ask for a response to your post.
I wish. Many years of experience in Christian academia tells me otherwise. Even on the same evangelical seminary faculty, the “correct interpretations” differ. And in Bible translation work, there are often multiple “correct interpretations”.
Tell me, how did you determine that your interpretation is the correct one and the others are wrong—especially in a roomful of ministers who disagree with one another and yet are agreed that your interpretation is wrong? (Yes. I’ve directly observed such scenarios over the years.)
I appreciate your idealism and optimism. But I don’t believe you are infallible in your methodology while all other ministers who disagree with you are automatically wrong. (And just for the record, I’m an ordained minister known to apply the “ministerial use of reason”. I can assure you that it hasn’t always saved me from errors in my exegesis and hermeneutics. I’m just as earnest as I was at age 35 but years of study have brought me to some interpretations which are quite different from those of the younger me. Indeed, I’m quite embarrassed at some of my positions of years past.)
Of course they have, just as many born-again, devout, godly, passionate Bible-loving ministers and theologians have extensively studied God’s scriptures and have advanced degrees representing their seniority in the study of the Bible, those ministers and theologians still come out with incorrect interpretations of it. So I’m not following your reasoning here.
It sounds like you are simply saying, “My ways of interpreting the Bible and God’s creation are right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong.” Please explain what gives you an edge over your equally Christ-loving and Bible-loving brethren.
@AllenWitmerMiller I think for example @J.E.S would say @pevaquark was arguing for a magesterial use of reason. I would probably agree.
Individuals can and do “judge scriptures”. Theistic Evolution doesn’t judge anything.
Everyone must apply what they know about language, culture, and life in general—and, yes, science—in interpreting the scriptures and every other document. Every text engages the reader in such ways. If that is what J.E.S. means by “judging scripture”, then I wouldn’t argue with that. But I get the impression that his definition of “judging scripture” describes something far more ominous.
When I read John 10:7 where Jesus says, “I am the door.”, I apply what I know about people and doors to determine that Jesus is not a “literal” door. [I put _literal_ in quotes because I’ve become so weary of the common confusions over the meanings of the word _literal_ that I wish the word could be retired entirely in favor of some new synonym.] That is not “judging scripture” in some demeaning or condescending way. I’m evaluating all relevant data to determine the author’s intended meaning. I bring all that I know to that task, including my knowledge of the English language, the Koine Greek language, human morphology/anatomy, and even carpentry. In no way does that make the Bible “judged” in some nefarious way, nor does it make the Bible inferior to linguistics or biology knowledge.
As for @pevaquark, I will leave it to him to explain and defend his position.
POSTSCRIPT: Imagine two readers engaging Aesop’s Fable of The Fox and the Grapes. The one person says, “Foxes don’t talk. Therefore, this fable of Aesop is untrue. I trust what I know about zoology more than I trust Aesop.” The other reader says, “I agree that real living foxes don’t talk. But this story is true on another level.” Both readers recognize that the ancient text is not a zoological textbook. Both readers have engaged their human reason, including their knowledge of zoology. Nevertheless, they have “judged” the text quite differently.
How about “really, really literal”? I’m sure that would hold up well.
That speaks volumes about how little you understand about evolution (which we don’t capitalize).
In fact, we know far more about some evolutionary mechanisms than we do about some drug mechanisms. As for the drug mechanisms we do understand, many if not most side-effects are a result of the proteins with which the drugs interact being “designed” by an iterative process that produces partially-overlapping functions–that in no way suggest an intelligent designer.
I don’t think the Scriptures teach that one is more prone to errors in interpretation of the book of nature than the book of Scripture. I don’t think there are any warnings about a wrong scientific understanding outside of getting the wrong gods through natural theology arguments (Rom 1). But plenty of warnings about wrong understandings of scripture.
Greetings! I hope you all had a blessed Thanksgiving!
@mercer, I have never appealed to my own authority (or even claimed to have authority, for that matter). I simply seek to give an honest account of what the Scriptures actually say (looking at the authorial intent and what other Bible passages have to say concerning the verses in question).
It appears that you just conceded my point.
I use Scripture to interpret Scripture. I’m not the one who is arrogant, as I just follow what the text says (in other words, I use a ministerial use of reason). For example, verses like Exodus 20:11 show the authorial intent (and correct interpretation) of Genesis 1-2. This verse (and others) shows us that the days in Genesis are supposed to be interpreted as literal days. However, if one believes that the use of their own enlightened reason and extraneous evidence is the best way to judge Scripture, that would be arrogant indeed.
At any rate, I would still say that Theistic Evolution (well, most brands of it) is a textbook example of the magisterial use of reason. Extraneous considerations are employed which undermine the clarity of what the scriptures actually say, which may lead to eisegesis (allegorizing the text, dismissing the literal authorial intent etc.) or judging the Scripture “guilty” and throwing it out as irrelevant, calling it an anachronism in this “scientific” age.
@AllenWitmerMiller, thank you for your response!
If photosynthesis or gravity cause you to interpret scripture differently, that would be a magisterial use of reason (as you would be using photosynthesis and gravity as external criteria to judge the scriptures). I’m pretty sure that I’ve addressed this before…
If you say that Evolution isn’t proven, then why are you so convinced by it?
Case in point. Well, actually, science should definitely not be used to “evaluate” the clear words of Scripture.
I believe that I understand evolution and how it is supposed to have worked reasonably well. Numerous people have directly observed what is known as microevolution. Of course, we have not observed the hypothetical extrapolation known as macroevolution (or abbreviated simply “Evolution”), even if we have tentative theories and stories as to mechanisms and possibilities regarding how it might have happened. But I digress.
Also, accusing me of not understanding something isn’t an argument. It’s an ad hominem attack. Let’s focus on the arguments and the topic, shall we?
Genesis 1-2 is the account of the Creation of the world. It tells how and when God created. Genesis 1-2 is recorded history, not a matter of perspective. Other Bible passages (remember: interpret Scripture with Scripture) show that Genesis should be interpreted this way as well. Otherwise, are you implying that some parts of Scripture (such as Genesis) are anachronisms in this modern culture and scientific age?
How can you say the above, and then say this:
It appears that you just did. Saying that Genesis, a historical narrative, is somehow less “historical” than Joshua is setting up a hierarchy of truth and accuracy between Scriptural accounts, as both accounts in question are the same genre.
No. You are comparing apples (historical narratives) and oranges (parables). I’m using a figurative expression here, of course .
Seriously? I am vehemently against “setting up hierarchies of truth and accuracy” between Biblical accounts. Some Biblical accounts are understood differently, but just because a different interpretation is applicable in one place does not mean that it is applicable in another (i.e. if Jesus spoke in parables, that does not mean that you can say that the whole Bible should be understood as a parable).
The history in Joshua and Judges begins in Genesis. Anyway, the “genre” talk seems to open the door for a lot of eisegesis, especially since Genesis is obviously meant to be taken as history (like Joshua). Once again, I can provide solid Scriptural evidence for my opinion if you like (it’s not just “my interpretation”).
Once again, this was my answer to a question you asked. The “Genesis allegory” thing is an example of theistic evolutionists using eisegesis (as in, they are reading intentions into the text that really aren’t there). I’m not making a “guilt-by-association” argument directed at you at all (for that matter, I wasn’t even making an argument. I was answering a question).
I believe I have explained this earlier (repeatedly).
At any rate, there is no Theology of Evolution found in the Bible…But there is a Theology of Creation (from Genesis to Revelation).
The reason that I say the burden of proof lies on Theistic Evolutionists to prove that the Bible and Evolution are compatible, non-contradictory, and even complementary is because they are the ones making the assertion that two seemingly contradictory things are non-contradictory.
I, too, agree with evolutionary biology: Microevolutionary biology. I will now define what I mean by “evolutionary philosophy.” Evolutionary philosophy is the dubious idea that microevolutionary principles, when extrapolated over eons of time can, theoretically, account for the diversification of life on earth from “simple” organisms. Of course, the term “Evolutionary philosophy” covers this entire idea, including its implications regarding philosophical considerations as well as the rewriting of historical timelines (such as those found in Genesis [and the rest of the Bible]). But, once again, I digress.
I am pretty sure that you had a reasonable understanding of what I meant by the term “evolutionary philosophy.” If you don’t affirm that, then you probably agree with me about more things than we initially realized and this discussion is kind of pointless. At any rate, it appears that you chose to major on my terminology in an effort to dodge the point I was trying to make (about Theistic Evolution and the burden of proof, which I believe I have addressed yet again earlier in this post).
How about “irresponsibly drastic reinterpretation,” then?
First of all, it’s not “my favorite interpretation.” Scripture should be used to interpret Scripture, and this principle definitely applies to Genesis. Only if Theistic Evolutionists reject the eisegesis/irresponsibly drastic reinterpretation crutch, will I say that they are “throwing-out” Scripture.
If you can show me that your views on Creation (that is, an Evolutionary Creation) are clearly taught in the Scriptures (as opposed to my own), then I will concede the argument and agree with you. However, it does appear that my views are clearly taught in Scripture while you have agreed that there is not a shred of Scriptural evidence supporting Evolution (furthermore, if someone said that there was, you would agree that it is eisegesis).
I think you know what I mean. At any rate, my remark was meant as a description of a general methodology, not an accusation directed at any specific persons on this forum.
First of all, I am mostly referencing Genesis here. That aside, I am mentioning those individuals (not mentioning any names) who might say things such as “that Genesis is a ‘counter-myth’ to the pagan creation myths in the ancient world” or the “The first part of Genesis is derived from other Ancient middle-eastern legends” and use those ideas as excuses to not take it as serious, literal history. “Gospel reductionism” regarding Genesis would also be this.
This would be the result of the theistic evolutionary eisegesis and/or heresy described earlier.
Of primary importance to me is to remain faithful to the intended meaning of the text. Thus, if the roomful of ministers can show me with Scripture and sound reasoning that I am in error, I will gladly give up the argument.
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss these difficult and controversial issues politely.
I would be the very first to admit that I am not infallible (however, the Scriptures are). My methodology is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, so if you have a problem with that, please take it up with the author of the Bible, not me.
I believe I have already explained this. Feel free to tell me if you desire further clarification.
@swamidass…It’s been a while since I had correspondence with @pevaquark…Oh, wait! He responded! 
Why not simply read the text (considering the authorial intent) and look to other relevant Bible passages which make that intent all the more clear?
What does that have to do with the historical narrative of Genesis 1?
Thanks for joining us, @pevaquark!
I agree with you here:
However, Evolution is an example of where a wrong scientific understanding has led to a wrong understanding of scripture.
Thank you all for the responses, and I hope I have managed to come across in a gracious manner!
I agree with much of what you have said up to this point. One should not interpret scripture based on modern science, because the authors had no access to such things. The proper options are to accept that the clear meaning is true, and therefore science is wrong, or that science is right, and therefore that scripture is wrong. Where we differ is that you prefer the former while I prefer the latter. I don’t think we disagree, therefore, in rejecting magisterial uses of reason on scripture. We differ on whether there should be ministerial uses of reason on science. Would you agree about our disagreement?
Anyway, I would say that evolution is an example of where a correct scientific understanding has led to a wrong understanding of scripture among those who insist that the two must be reconciled.
If you disagree with others about authorial intent, how are you not appealing to your own authority?
In what way, exactly? My point is that since neither of us is fluent in Hebrew, neither of us is capable of identifying a faithful translation among all of them.
So how does that concede your point? It places your identification of faithfulness in the hands of
That’s circular. You are being very arrogant, as you disagree with others who take the identical approach and have different views. Moreover, many of them are not reading an all-too-fallible human interpretation (translation), they go to the trouble of reading the text in the language in which it was written. Even then, people of good faith and great learning disagree and don’t resort to your circular reasoning.
No, you really don’t. You are substituting creationist tropes.
Leaving it is the digression, and all you’ve offered is a creationist trope. What are the mechanistic differences between micro and macro? Why are nested hierarchies a prediction of common descent and not of special creation?
Not even close to being true. Perhaps you should read up on the term before flinging it around. That also says a lot about your allegedly superior understanding of the Bible.
Well, I would probably say it differently. If I am not mistaken, you have advocated a magisterial use of reason regarding Scripture (while I advocate a ministerial use of reason). These are theological terms, so a good way to talk about our disagreement would be this:
@John_Harshman rejects Scripture in deference to Evolution, @J.E.S rejects Evolution in deference to Scripture.
In theology, a magisterial use of reason is “judging Scripture on the basis of reason and evidence.” I am pretty sure that all science is evaluated on the basis of reason and evidence, so I think we would both agree that a magisterial use of reason regarding science is better (although this is probably a misapplication of the term).
As I have said, Exodus 20:11 is just one of the verses that show the authorial intent of Genesis. Once again, I am not appealing to my own authority.
In the way that you agreed that there are faithful English translations of the Bible:
It’s actually not circular. Exodus 20:11, as I have said before, is one of the verses of Scripture that can be used to find the correct interpretation (in this case, the authorial intent) of another part of Scripture (Genesis 1). I am pretty sure that those who come to different conclusions on this do not take an identical approach to mine.
Come to think of it, this is actually a moot point unless you bring up specific verses that you believe to be translated incorrectly. If you do that, we can look at the original languages and discuss different translations. If you do not do that, then I suggest that you drop this line of argumentation.
I, personally, am highly sympathetic to these “creationist tropes” (as you call them).
@mercer, if you want to discuss theology and the theological problems of theistic evolution, that would indeed be the topic of this thread. If you want to argue about the many scientific problems with evolution, please take it to a different thread. Thank you.
Perhaps you should simply stop using this logical fallacy (or anything that looks remotely like it) and address the arguments instead. That would make this thread much more enjoyable for all!
This is a non sequitor. That is, if it isn’t also another ad hominem attack.