Bill Craig, Richard Dawkins and the “Empty Chair”

Also, from what I have seen he is not as good at debate as Craig.
I read an article from Craig where he says Dawkins has told him he will never debate him.

You also know that even if he was comprehensively and utterly unable to respond to Craig, even if he was struck dumb every time he tried to say anything and a voice from Heaven said “I am God and I have shut his mouth” – his fan-boi’s would still claim he won..

Dawkins would be an easy win for Craig to debate Dawkins on theological or philosophical topics.

In a debate with Dawkins, Craig will start with his usual shtick – Dawkins will respond with a list of objections, all of which Craig has long practiced rebuttals too (because Dawkins won’t have bothered to much research).

Craig, I suspect, knows this, and so do most others… so it really seems the hoopla is about feeding Craig’s ambition to publicly slay all the giants of “new atheism” in debate – but honestly, its completely uninteresting and boring at this point.

It MIGHT be interesting to see Craig debate Dawkins on evolution or intelligent design – but that’s another area where Dawkins doesnt debate, and hasnt for years.

Will – I’d say the reason Craig wouldn’t debate evolution or any issue in biology is that he has never claimed any expertise in those areas. Dawkins, on the other hand, has held himself out as a competent authority in philosophy of religion.

Actually, correction, he mentions it in some cases, but only for things like moral origin theories etc. Ultimately, Craig doesn’t require any premise along the lines of “Darwin was wrong” or “macroevolution is false”.

This would leave Dawkins a bit short of material!

Will,

Craig debated whether ID was viable. That is to say, not whether ID was true, but whether it was good enough to be an option for biological study alongside Darwinian theory. Even in that debate, he admitted “I don’t know if intelligent design is true, I’m simply arguing it deserves a place at the table”.

Don’t know much about his involvement with the DI, but I do know that he’s no further into ID endorsement than John Lennox, who even expressed doubts about darwinism to Dawkins’ face in one of their debates, lol!

Grant,

I think you will find the Bible silent on the issue of evolution.

Evolution is a modern scientific discovery and the Bible is an ancient Theological text.
Whether evolution is true or not is up to Science, it matters not to Bible, or the faithful. Evolution being true does not mean there is no God or that there was no creation event.
This is one of those things that people need to hold loosely, and not dogmatise.

Grant,

A number of reasons. One; whether evolution is true or not is a scientific not a theological argument.
two; therefore it does not matter theologically whether evolution is true or not.
three; It seems illogical to make a theological objection to something that has no effect on “theological truth”.

If evolution proves true, what effect will it have?

It proves God does not exist? unlikely, and a weak argument for the non existence of God, especially when it is equally, if not more viable to assume the opposite.

So then..
Well, it means the earth is not young… who cares?

It means that evolution was created and guided by God… so who cares?

Really, as I said.. unless you have a scientific investment in the argument, as a Christian or Theist, you really dont need to care one way or another.
Biblical Exegesis, according to Dr Henri Blocher, can be informed by science only AFTER exegesis has been complete. At that point, if ones exegesis disagrees or conflicts with current scientific understanding it only then causes the Exegete to revisit his work to make sure it is done to the highest level possible.

Since it is unlikely science can ever, or would ever disprove God, since all things are created by God, we have nothing to worry about, right?

Grant, it’s shockingly naive to think that this boils down to two groups: Some willing to believe God’s word and the others unwilling.

Hi, Glenn. Where did I say there are only two groups? There are fundamental Christians, there are evolutionary atheists, there are theistic evolutionists, there are gap theorists, there are Raelians…

…and then there are fabulous debaters who do not profess great scientific understanding and whose arguments do not rely on evolution or the age of the Earth in any substantial way.

The question is – why should a man like this not believe and express the belief that God created the Earth in six days thousands of years ago? Why does he need to leave room for evolution? Because Dawkins won’t debate him if he is a creationist? Are there any good reasons?

Grant, that’s still two groups. Some of those people are willing to believe God’s word, the others aren’t (in your view).

Sure, there are other ways to divide people, but that’s not the issue. the point is, it’s clearly false to say that everyone who doesn’t share your view on creation is unwilling to believe what the Bible teaches. They just disagree with you about what it was meant to teach.

Grant,

You are trying to frighten me into believing you, by saying things like me not believing in “God’s word” if I should believe evolution to be true.
That’s the same kind of FUD Answers in Genesis and those kind of (cultish) people use to frighten people into not considering any other position.

Fact is, nowhere in the Bible does it suggest there can be no evolution. Even if you dont believe in evolution, which is fine, I’m not convinced it is true either way, the Bible does not preclude it. Evolution and the evidence for and against is scientific, not theological. Genesis is a theological recounting of how the universe came to be, not a scientific one.

Its a bit like arguing that hairy mcleary is a handbook on raising dogs, because it has stories about dogs in it.

Well, in a sense, no, nothing wrong with it. But, you would have to prove that the Bible is in fact a document containing a scientific refutation of the scientific theory of evolution.

But since the Bible is not a scientific document, nor does it make scientific claims about how things came to be, I would find it hard to believe.

Feel free to start proving it though. I’m sure Glenn is, as I am, waiting with baited breath.

(remembering that Evolution is not a theological or philosophical construct, but a scientific one, metaphysical claims resulting from the science are not a part of the discussion)

Hi, Geoff. I’m trying really hard to get my point across here, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

Dr. Craig does not profess to any great scientific ability. Why should he be required to provide a scientific refutation of evolution in order to hold onto a plain reading of Genesis?

What is wrong with him arbitrarily resisting evolution in favour of a plain reading of Genesis?

“it is in no way dishonest to say that six days utterly precludes the theory of evolution.”

Just so we are clear, I never once called that dishonest. What I did say is that honesty requires us to accept that this is a debate about what the Bible precludes. It’s not a debate about whether we should accept the Bible. Many Christian evolutionists say that they accept the Bible. It’s about what the source means, rather than about whether or not we are all listening to the source.

In other words: We must be careful to be honest in the way that we portray the claims of others. Their claim is not that the biblical message is false. Their claim is about whether or not the biblical message precludes their view.

There’s simply no need to get distracted by evolution. The Bible says nothing about evolution being false or true. It simply says that, one way or another, God made stuff! This doesn’t have to be suddenly making something appear; it could be the sheer omnipotent genius of starting off the universe in such a way that it’s natural processes would generate the desired result. The whole topic is fascinating, but it’s silly to get heated about it.

Remember, evolution actually is more important to atheists. It’s the only game in town if they want to drop the hypothesis of agency being behind the universe.

Grant why are you asking the same question?

Peter and I have both said that a “plain reading” of Genesis says NOTHING about evolution, nor should it. Whether or not evolution is real has nothing to do with the bible.

Wow… grant, so you think the reason Craig won’t change his mind and become a young earth creationist is that he fears Dawkins won’t debate him if he does that?

That’s insulting.

Grant,

We have answered this several times. A plain reading of Genesis does not preclude evolution at all.
Dr Craig, my self, and Glenn (I am sure) concur that Genesis 1 DOES say 6 days, and I know for myself, and probably Glenn (And I have no idea about Dr Craig) do not see any issue with Genesis 1 and evolution.

The problem is, it appears you do not have much of an idea of what a “plain reading” of the text means. Surely it means the understanding most likely intended by the author, taking into account its text, sociological context, historical context, the effect of redactors, etc etc etc etc…

I know glenn and I have studied it – we sat a few desks away from each other.. I’m sure Dr Craig has too..

Here’s what I posted on Dr. Craig’s Q&A page:

Greetings, Dr. Craig.

Is it unreasonable for a man who is not much trained in the sciences to arbitrarily reject evolution in favour of a plain reading of Genesis (where in a “plain reading” the words “Six days” obviously preclude evolution).

Something along the lines of the Existence of God podcast from 2011/04/04 (#26)

This came from a discussion here:
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/bill-craig-richard-dawkins-and-the-empty-chair/

I notice in your guidelines, number 7 says, “7. Questions about Young vs. Old Earth Creationism will not be addressed”. I do not believe I am flouting that guideline. 🙂

Thank you, sir.

Hope I get an answer. 😉

6 days does mean 6 days, I certain do not mean it does mean something else.
The story is not meant to tell you how many days it took, but from whence, and whom creation originated.

Go and read some proper biblical scholars on the subject, who are interested in what the text says, without being mislead by their particular metaphysical biases.

Grant, Dr. Craig does a fairly thorough treatment of the doctrine of creation in his first defenders series podcast. He exegetes the passage, talks about different interpretations and then wraps it up with his view. It’s pretty safe to say he doesn’t think a literal reading is tenable. Why are you pressing the issue so hard?

Hi, Geoff. I don’t know what’s got you so worked up, but this is really bizarre behaviour.

Go and read some proper biblical scholars on the subject, who are interested in what the text says, without being mislead by their particular metaphysical biases.

Do you really divide between who is “misled” and who is “proper” by looking at their reading of Genesis?

Thanks for the advice, but I’m not new to this. I know most of the reasons people give why they believe “Six days” does not mean what it says. One of the common responses is something like yours:

6 days does mean 6 days, I certain do not mean it does mean something else. The story is not meant to tell you how many days it took, but from whence, and whom creation originated.

…which is a complete self-contradiction. If “Six days” means exactly what it says then evolution is not compatible with the biblical account.

It matter not which is more important. It matters whether “Six days” is accurate.

Glenn, So it seems..

So what Grant really says is “It doesnt matter what the Author was saying, it only matters what I want him to say”.

Hi, Nathan. That’s not really much of an issue with me. If people want to believe evolution could have run its course in six days then I’m not going to stop them. 😐

Even a 6 day creationist needs to explain away the 6 days. Ever read “starlight and time”? A very scientific explanation of how 6 days are not really 6 days, because even the most hardened 6 day creation physicist can not deny there are just some things that dont fit.

NOTICE HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
(did you miss that?)
NOTICE HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
(or that?)
IT IS A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM NOT A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM.

The theologian does not really care if the earth is young or old, evolved, or not. All we care about is the reason it is here in the first place. And that is the story of Genesis, and you’re just making christianity look stupid by arguing about stuff that we dont need to argue about. Let the scientists argue about science. Lets stick to theology.

Adam sinned and was removed from relationship and intimacy with God, and no longer had purpose (gen 3) and subsequently all humans are born in his likeness (gen 5) – and are born into the world, purposeless and separated from God.

do you want me to put it in my own words or just quote genesis 3 for you?

3:6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

“And can you recount exactly what it was Adam did?”

Just so no tricks are being played here – I’m assuming that you mean what Adam did in the Genesis 3 account. Not what Adam did in history quite apart from the authorial intent, right?

Just making sure there’s no question-begging going on.

:chuckle: You dudes need to chill out. I’m not trying to trick yous into anything like that.

Does Genesis three describe what actually happened or was it something else that happened?

Both chapters now? We know something happened. Is that something described literally by the words we read, or was it likely something else happened and the words we see are meant to convey the truth by other means?

Grant,

My answer is the same as Glenn’s he just put it more succinctly.

The sin of Adam is a theological reality, whether or not Adam was a real person, head of a group of people, some one who signifies humanity in general, or just some arbitrary representative, it makes no difference. The POINT is what it says THEOLOGICALLY about God and humanity.

It is not meant to be, nor can it ever be (as Glenn pointed out) an historical, factual recounting of the fall.
UNLIKE the story of Jesus which is, at least in Luke, intended to be an historical account, and is factually verifiable.

What you have is an apple and an orange, and saying this apple is round, so is this orange, so therefore they must be the same thing. And the whole time missing the point that the apple and the orange are meant to signify something, not factually represent something.

Hi, Geoff.

When I read Romans 5 I get the very real impression that the author would disagree with you. Can you give some reasons why we should accept half rhe comparison as reality and half as an allegory?

You’re very insistent, Geoff. 😀

“From a theological standpoint, the bible presents Genesis as historical narrative”

The only reasons I have ever heard for this are: Just because. You say you need no argument, so you will not present one. You don’t present one, so you need not wonder why nobody finds your remarks persuasive.

You can :chuckle: away arguments all you like. If all you’re going to do is assert and chuckle, then that’s fine by me. 🙂

I predict that Grant will reply with something like: But I don’t NEED to defend anything. Surely I get to call my position the default one!

Glenn, you’re good. Give Harold Camping a call, he needs to know if October is correct 😉

So my prediction was correct.

Grant, are you familiar with the informal fallacy of begging the question? You’re doing it now, but like most who do it, you may not even be aware that it’s happening. Let me show you some examples:

‘ The bible says, “Six days” ‘ – Yes it does use those words. And? See, I know what’s going on in the background. You’re thinking – it says six days, therefore it is historical narrative in the ordinary sense. But we can all agree that it uses the phrase “six days” without assuming that it’s normal historical narrative. You’re making that leap in your mind and just assuming that everyone who sees “six days” will make all the same assumptions about genre that you are.

“It describes Adam as a real person and regards the things he did as real events.” – This is very obvious question begging. Yes, Adam is referred to and his actions are described. But the fact that you regard his actions as absolutely historical does not justify the claim that the Bible says that they were real events.

Let me ask you, Grant: If these events didn’t literally happen, and this is actually a story to describe theological realities, how do you think it would be written? Do you think after every event the writer would have to add “but not really”? Of course not, it would just be written like a straight forward story.

In addition to the above (and completely separate from it), Grant, here’s just a random question on one of the issues involved. You say this is normal historical writing. OK, in your zoology (assuming you have some general beliefs about animals), do you think that serpents are more intelligent and crafty than all the other animals, capable of conversing with humans?

Grant,

Answer my question, and in doing so you will find the primary “good” reason for not believing the way you do.

When trying to comprehend ANY literature one first attempts to define the KIND of literature it is.
So one does not read an encyclopedia expecting a science fiction novel, because one understands the literary form.
One does not, for example, read an autobiography expecting a detailed medical account of the birth of the subject, or a medical account of how their body changed over time.
One does not read a science text book on evolution and expect a narrative about the life of Thor.

So, tell me, what are the rules for determining whether a particular writing is historical narrative? And then, does Genesis 1 meet those criteria?

If you can not answer this question.. well..

Hi, Glenn.

You’re wrong. My argument is not a logical fallacy. Here it is again:
The bible says God spent six days creating the universe. Thus it is reasonable to believe that God made the Earth and all in it in six days.

Now, if you have good reason for me not to believe what the bible plainly says then feel free to share some good reasons. Good reasons do not include:
Having argued your case before,
Knowing which website I frequent,
Insisting that the bible is not a science book,
Predicting my responses,
Changing what I’m saying into a logical fallacy, or
Insisting that what it a reasonable position is a logical fallacy.

Hi, Geoff. It sounds like you have some reasons. Let’s hear them! 😉

“Here it is again.”

OK, well just read my reply again. Sorry, it’s a bit tiresome now.

While brushing off my answer (and making up rules against identifying your problematic assumptions), Grant, you also brushed off my question:

In addition to the above (and completely separate from it), Grant, here’s just a random question on one of the issues involved. You say this is normal historical writing. OK, in your zoology (assuming you have some general beliefs about animals), do you think that serpents are more intelligent and crafty than all the other animals, capable of conversing with humans?

Grant, believing that a totally literal interpretation is the correct one is not a fallacy, and nobody ever said it was.

Believing that we can conclude that a literal interpretation is the right one just because the story is there on the page, and if taken literally then you’re right, now that’s a fallacy. And it is the way you have argued.

Grant, Glenn isn’t saying it’s a fallacy to take the literal view as your default. I hope that’s clear. You’re the only one that is reading his comments that way.

The problem as I see it is that you are declaring that the genre of Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative, simply because you read it in a literal way. You are also saying that this is the right way, seemingly as a matter of fact, yet you haven’t stated any positive case to show that interpreting Genesis 1-3 in a literal way makes it a historical narrative. You need to be able to do this, irrespective of any evidence you may have against a positive case for an alternative position.

Now, if you have good reason for believing that Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative then feel free to share some good reasons. Good reasons do not include:
Having made that statement already,
Stating that you don’t need to defend your position,
Insisting that it is historical narrative simply because you say so,
Evasion,
Protesting that your questions haven’t been answered,
A logical fallacy.

Grant that’s a strange response, I never said anything about whether or not “it is reasonable to hold the literal view as the default”. You’re evading my request. You’re not allowed to do that.

You need to give your positive case for claiming Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative.

And remember, reading it literally does not mean it is historical narrative. If it is not historical narrative, then a literal reading may not be valid. If you want to take a literal view you need to be able to say why it is historical narrative, and that’s what you’re being asked to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Grant, you say, paraphrased,

“The bible says god created the earth, etc in 6 days therefore it is reasonable to believe God created,the earth, etc in 6 days”

I hope dearly that you understand that your argument for a “face value” reading of genesis is missing a premise that might connect the two assertions you made. It isn’t yet an argument. I also hope you’ll be willing to admit that any reading of an English translation, with no cultural context provided is not actually taking the original text at face value.

Geoff, would you see Genesis 5 as historic narrative? Why? Why not?

Damian,
Why is genesis 5 relevant?

We are talking specifically about Genesis 1 (and to some extent 3).

Grant, can you answer the question or not?

(when I said ‘ignore’ I meant ‘not take literally’)

Thanks Geoff. Do you have some kind of informal description of what rough methods you’d use to discover which texts to take literally and which to interpret as analogy? i.e. “we suppose that the trees of the fields don’t literally have hands to clap because 1. it’s in a poem, 2. there are no other references to people believing in trees with hands but we suppose that the author believed a donkey really actually spoke because the details of the story surrounding it are very specific…” etc

I’d love it if you could give me a rough outline of what methodology you use to distinguish so that I could go to any story in the Bible and be able to predict how you’d interpret it. Perhaps it would be useful for Grant to give his methodology too (because I’m sure he doesn’t believe in trees with hands and so doesn’t read everything literally)

@Damian.

I read the bible as historical narrative and when its authors break into song I try to take that in my stride. 😉

My question is along the lines of the discussion in Dr. Craig’s 2011/04/04 podcast, the Existence of God #26. Is it properly basic to accept what the bible teaches even without arguments against evolution? Or are there good reasons why I should not believe in “Six days” and “The whole Earth”?

Damian,

Do we believe the donkey _actually_ spoke? I dont know about that.

Books have been written on the subject so how can I do it justice by giving “rough methods”?
Why not read one of the versions of “How to read the bible for all its worth”, or “The hermeneutical spiral” or any one of those books.

I could dig out my “interpretative method” notes, but I would have to scan them, and I doubt they are legible.

I am assuming that you honestly did not know this, rather than dishonestly leading me down into some kind of “trap”.

no one says you shouldnt believe in 6 days or “the whole earth” – the author uses those words.

Its HOW you understand them that is the question.

Grant, I have questioned your stance that the literal view is always the default view, and you have declined to give any reasons beyond your claim that you’re justified in seeing it that way, and that is that.

I’ve also offered a reasonably clear explanation of how a non literal early genesis doesn’t imply the theological disaster in regard to the death of Christ that you appeared to be suggesting.

Now, in response to a pretty modest question, offered twice, I sense a solid brick wall. I get the feeling that answering this question would force you to reveal something that you don’t want to reveal. I don’t want to get back into the issue of your unwillingness to consider that your rather dogmatic stance on literalism as the default view doesn’t need any justification, because when we reach the point of people saying “just because – and that is that,” it gets a bit pointless.

I think the fact that you really don’t want to answer the question suggests that it may yield something interesting, so I will merely re-state it and just wait to see if you decide to answer it:

In addition to the above (and completely separate from it), Grant, here’s just a random question on one of the issues involved. You say this is normal historical writing. OK, in your zoology (assuming you have some general beliefs about animals), do you think that serpents are more intelligent and crafty than all the other animals, capable of conversing with humans?

If the question seems unfair or too hard then I guess that’s alright, Grant. But I am really curious now that I can see the question seems to bother you.

Grant,

I’ve already told you that it means 6 days..

Geoff, I’m not sure I’m interested enough to read a whole book on hermeneutics but I’ve never had anyone give me a clear definition of how it is they go about deciphering the Bible. Grant’s definition is about the clearest I’ve come across to date. But I do realise that it may be difficult to summarise and that a simple explanation such as Grant’s is not necessarily the most accurate.

What I do suspect however from talking to some Christians who hold to evolution by natural selection as the best explanation is that they’ve adjusted their hermeneutics around the scientific evidence whilst all the while giving lip service to their belief in the infallibility of scripture. A kind of ‘god-of-the-gaps’ with respect to Biblical claims where anything goes as long as there is no evidence to the contrary.

I’m interested in the hint you gave that you might not think that the donkey actually spoke. Many Christians I’ve talked to (even the liberal, evolutionary types) seem to accept that as literal. Perhaps this is due to the amount of detail that surrounds the story and the lack of scientific evidence to the contrary. Would you care to share how you interpret that story? I’d like to get an idea of which ‘unusual’ Biblical stories you believe and which ones you don’t and how you draw that line. (if you care to give me the time of course)

Perhaps these cases:
– Adam made from dirt
– the talking donkey
– the flood
– the plagues in Egypt
– the virgin birth (translation error?)
– ‘camel’ vs ‘rope’ through the eye of the needle (translation error?)
– Lazarus
– the dead out of their graves during the crucifixion
– the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus

@Damian.

All of those I take as real events apart from the camel through the needle’s eye which is quite obviously a parable of sorts.

@Glenn.

Six days precludes evolution and we have no argument.

@Glenn.

I see no disstinction between my “Six days or not six days” and your “Is six days literal or not”. Either way you need some good reasons, and they’re going to have to be extremely compelling, to convince me that I should not believe the creation week was 6×24 hours.

Damian,

To be honest I dont care to comment. I’ve studied Genesis 1-11 pretty much exhaustively, and not that passage, and right now I dont have the time to invest as I am studying James for a preaching series.

Glenn is right, I have been to seminary (bible college) and studied at bachelor level, and so have been introduced to the disciplines required to make sense of Scripture. Even then, I know very little compared to people like Glenn and Dr Flannagan. I cant just “give 8 simple rules” or make a passing comment on a forum like this. I have to actually go and do some research, and wrestle with the text in order that I get it right. It takes time, and most importantly, skill. Exegesis is an art, not a right.

Hi, Damian. The story works fine for me with “camel”, but I’d be willing to discuss the possibility that the author meant “rope”.

And, upon following your link, I see we have met before!

Nice to ‘meet’ you again. 😉

Grant, and you too. 🙂
I can glean from your answer that you’re not a “King James only” kind of Christian. You allow for the fact that the translation you have in front of you might be slightly flawed even if that flaw may have crept in before the selection of books and letters was given the big Thumbs Up&trad; back in c400AD. But would you go so far as to allow for the possibility of some embellishment around the story of the virgin birth? Or is that a step too far and off the table?

Geoff, thanks for your time.

Grant: “I see no distinction between my “Six days or not six days” and your “Is six days literal or not”.”

That’s too bad, because the difference is huge. Those aren’t my quoted words, of course, but the distinction is really obvious. I’m amazed to see you saying this.

Maybe quite a different kind of example will help – a children’s story: In Aesop’s fable of the dog and his bone, the word “bone” really, truly means bone, and the word “dog” really, truly means dog. The author was not messing with the meaning of those words.

However, that’s very different from saying that the author was literally teaching us about dogs and bones!

Are you a little more able now to see the distinction between the meaning of each word and the meaning of the story?

?!?

Glenn said,

The issue is not over the meaning of the words “six days.” The issue is whether or not we’re compelled to accept the account that describes six days as literally true.

I see no distinction in this case. I would most likely see a distinction in the case of an Aesop fable.

Geoff says,

the “literal” understanding is the one the author intended.

I think the author intended to convey that God created the universe in six days.

Hi, Glenn.

It’d be much nicer if you’d just put your question in the terms of a reason why I should not accept “Six days” as meaning exactly what it says. That would answer my question which has remained unanswered since my first post here.

My answer is, “No”. And you are right about my reluctance to answer. I’m reluctant to answer because I do know that mamy passages refer to things in non-literal terms.

But I think that some things referred to in non-literal terms is not reason to believe everything must be the same. And I believe that something referred to in non-literal terms might also have intended literal value. And, most importantly, something referred to in non-literal terms must have definite and explicit meaning outlined in scripture.

The differences between “Six days” and the ssserpent are obvious. That the serpent is not literally wiser than other animals is no evidence that six days is not six days. That the serpent stands for Satan does not eradicate everything of the plain reading. And, most importantly, the serpent is names elsewhere in scripture and it is explicitly stated that Satan has this title.

I do prefer to keep these discussions simple which also added to my reluctance. We can discuss more in depth the nature of Genesis and its elements, but it would be nice if you could answer my question as I have yours.

Here it is again:

What are some good reasons why I should not believe Genesis says and means “Six days” such that six days precludes evolution?

Because the serpent is Satan.

Because scripture describes Satan as the serpent and deceiver of old – a liar from the beginning. This is good reason to accept that when Genesis talks of the serpent it is talking about Satan.

Do you have any good reasons why we should believe “Six days” means something other than what it plainly says?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The reasons I have for thinking the serpent refers to Satan were clearly known throughout history. I don’t know what reason you want me to give that will “sell the farm”. The reason I have given you is completely reasonable.

And still we have no response from your side to my question.

You have no way of knowing that the answer I gave was unavailable. And even if it wasn’t available the truth remains – the serpent was not a simple animal. And the literal reading has some value regardless of the availability of a fuller explanation.

And without the explanation, what were they to think? What meaning and value does the story have if it does not mean what it says? I believe you’ve shot yourself in the foot here. You deny the full explanation to the ancient Hebrew reader of scripture and advocate – what? Certainly not that they take the words at face value!

And you’re continuing to ignore the question asked of you in favour of raising every other issue. What is wrong with a man believing six days refers to 6×24 hours?

We can discuss all these issues in depth if you wish, but only if you give good reason to do so.

The bible explicitly describes Satan as the serpent.
But every time Adam is mentioned he is a real man.
Every time the tree is mentioned it is a real tree.
And every time six days is mentioned they are six normal days. And all four are mentioned oitside of Genesis.

You may well be justified in believing that these things are not what they are always referred to. But to be convincing, you need reasons. And until yoi provide good reasons, I am justified in sticking with what the bible clearly teaches.

Interestingly the hebrew word translated “serpent” comes from a root meaning–to hiss, whisper a spell, enchanter. This could give some explanation as to why the ancients hebrews werent objecting to the story by saying “snakes cant talk”, maybe they didnt think the story ever said that snakes do talk.
While i dont agree with Grant’s tendency to take everything literally as though Genesis was a 21C court report, it seems to me Glenn that your arguments dont leave much room for divine inspiration and/or relevation. So where do we think divine inspiration/relevation fit in when discussing creation, the flood, tower of Babel etc?

Grant, Glenn gave the apparent conflict with chapter 2 to be a reason to revisit your chosen interpretation. I’m not trying to take sides here, I’d really like to see this conversation move forward because it interests me. Grant, how do you reconcile the two accounts, as chapter 2 explicitly contradicts the order of chapter 1, not simply as a convenience or by supposing chapter 1 as I’ve heard the argument go. The second chapter explicitly contradicts the first by saying that the animals were made after Adam, in the “day” that God made the earth, and that they were made after Adam because it was “not good that the man should be alone.” So how do you, in the absence of scientific reasons and using only the text before you, aim to maintain your reading without affirming that the text was not well constructed, or poorly redacted, etc.

Glenn, no i am not saying that at all.
Rather that while i dont think that Genesis teaches that God made the creation in 6 contiguous 24 hr periods i also think that when we get to see things face to face rather than dimly in a mirror [as Paul the Apostle says] we will find that God has been completely honest and factual in His account of creation [within our limited ability as humans to comprehend] and as such the Genesis accounts will be more than just stories carrying some truth.
I think of Genesis in terms that CS Lewis once used when comparing the veracity of a pen and ink sketch of a landscape with a full colour movie of the same landscape compared again to actually being there. The pen and ink sketch can be completely truthful representation of the landscape but is severely limited by the medium involved. Nevertheless as long as we remember the limitations of the medium we can trust such a sketch to be true provided we have reason to trust the artist.
Am i making sense? I think Grant limits himself too much to black lines on white paper, but in the same way some of your replies leave me wondering if you cant imagine the full colour landscape. No offense is implied or intended, its just that i have always thought we can give God more credit than having to rely on fiction to carry His truth.

Damian:

It also seems that others haven’t really given him a clear reason why he shouldn’t (strange that no one has put forward the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary as a reason to doubt?).

On the contrary. So far there have been two quite compelling (in my view) reasons. I am assuming that Grant wouldn’t accept the scientific case, so it would be worthless for me to appeal to that.

Here are the two strong reasons I have given – Reasons that appeal to grant’s own worldview:

1) Reducto ad absurdum.

In the first line of reasoning, I have argued that to read Genesis in the way that Grant is reading it leads to unacceptable conclusions; conclusions that Grant would never accept. This strikes me as a good reason for Grant to be less certain in his almost dogmatic stance.

I pointed out to him that even without any coded references to the serpent being Satan, Old Testament believers did not literally think that serpents are craftier than all other animals or that they can talk to humans. This is because they knew full well by observation that this is not true. I didn’t get to bring this point out because Grant was throwing up unsuccessful objections that had to be addressed first (e.g. from much later Scripture in Revelation 20, which is a very unclear case at best), but the point here is that if we can observe facts that show an account isn’t literally true, then we should not believe that it is.

2) Parsimony / arbitrariness

In the second line of reasoning, I have pointed out that if grant interprets Genesis 2 in the same way that he interprets Genesis 1, then his version of the creation story loses parsimony, since those two accounts simply cannot both be literally true. Therefore he is being arbitrary to take one as literal history but not the other.

You may not consider these reasons clear or persuasive, but I do.

Ugh, damien. No psychoanalyses please. In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe the bible is special, but my reasons for raking the line of thinking that I do is that I’d prefer to avoid being culturally chauvinistic in my interpretations of ancient writings. Perhaps these ancients didake the scripture the way you suggest, but it stands to reason that they wouldn’t as well. It’s probably more reasonable to think that they didn’t. Glenn, please correct me if I’m wrong, here, but socrates use and critique of myth might be one good example of how at least one important old guy tended to read stories like those in the early parts of genesis. Since genesis contains conflicting accounts, and stories that parallel other ANE myths, it is more probable that these folks thought these stories served a different purpose than a historic one. We mustn’t be so quick to write off these past folks as such a credulous bunch. Presupposing higher levels of credulity in the past is probably a bad place to start your hermeneutic.

And Jeremy, I don’t think the issue would be god relying on fiction, as such, but He did have to communicate some things to pre-scientific folk that had a different way of talking about things (sometimes in a way we think of as “lying” or fictitious). That’s my quick take on the issue.

Glenn i was trying to be very careful not to imply that you impugned God’s honesty.
So i agree Genesis is not a scientific treatise on creation, that is has as its primary purpose to reveal to us how we come to be in the relationship to God and each other that we are, and that this is the truth.
However and also, i believe Genesis to be literally true in the same way that a pen and ink sketch can be a true [but clearly thoroughly limited]representation of a 3D full colour landscape. I see Grant missing the picture because he is fixated on the idea that black lines must be the whole and only truth, but given divine inspiration and revelation by God i am confidant that what limited facts are presented will turn out to be correct rather than fictional when we have full knowledge and context.

Jeremy, so when you use the sketch analogy, are you saying that Genesis 1 is literally true, but lacking in detail?

Sometimes metaphors, clarify, and other times…. they do something else. 🙂

I would say that Genesis 1 as well as the Garden of Eden story actually don’t tell us (literally) how things got the way they are, but they do literally tell us that they are this way, by way of a story.

Apologies for the messed up quoting. 🙁

Hi, Matt. I don’t see any necessary contradiction as there are not any rigid constraints placed upon the chronology in Ch2. Check out vv8-9:

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God planted a garden, God made man then God made trees? Clearly this is not a chronological account. But not everything has to be chronological, right? 😉

Now in the case of naming the animals, we have this:

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Now if we understand the difference in style between ch1 & ch2 we can easily infer a couple of things. We can infer that God’s consideration of what is “not good” to be a consideration made before He created man. We can infer there is no chronological meaning to the order of things presented in v19 as we know Adam was made last.

Can you see anything wrong with my reading?

Genesis 1 is a chronological account.
Genesis 2 analyses a few details in a non-chronological account.

Well no, you certainly do not have that option.

Chapter two gives clear explanations of why the animals cam after Adam, and then for why Eve came next. This reply clearly fails.

If anything, the facts would make chapter two a less likely candidate for a chronological account. So you’re still in a position where you have very obvious reasons for not taking Genesis 1 literally, with no clear rationale for your hermeneutical choice (and it really is a choice you’ve made – a choice in need of excellent justification).

Hi Matt and thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
But first, a personal note. It seems that any time we interact you take quite an aggressive stance but there’s really no need to. You and I are just two people trying to make sense of the world and civility helps.

Now for some perspective on the reason for my question in the first place. I see in front of me a panel of five people (now six if I include you) who seem to have slightly (or vastly in some cases) different takes on just how to interpret the stories and characters and author’s intent in the book of Genesis. The ‘six days’ is taken literally at one end and as an analogy at the other. It seems that some at the analogy end don’t even see Adam as an actual historical person but more as a representation of mankind.

I then read later in Genesis an account of Adam and his offspring and the ages at which they had children and at which they died. The problem is that these ages are way out of whack with how we understand the way in which biology and the world works. Perhaps not impossible but to most people very, very unlikely to be literally true.

My hunch about how these ages came about is that the story got exaggerated along the way. (i.e. “my grandpappy was a miner and was 7 feet tall with shoulders as wide as a pickaxe”, “my great-grandpappy was 8 feet tall and had hands as big as shovels”, etc). Of course I don’t know much about interpreting ancient writings so it’s quite possible there are other more parsimonious explanations.

Most (all?) Christians I’ve come across believe the Bible to have a kind of divine stamp of approval and balk at the idea that it might contain the very human and un-godlike attribute of exaggeration, lies or mistakes. If true, this creates a bit of a problem for those Christians who have interpreted the creation story non-literally and then face the prospect of a fairly black and white account of a literal person who seemed to live for a literal age (albeit incredibly long). I’m interested in who here actually believes that Adam lived for 930 years. It seems that you don’t and that your explanation for why you don’t is because the writers were trying to indicate that he lived a long time ago? Am I interpreting you correctly? Or are you saying that they were boosting the numbers to give them importance?

If you’ve got time to spare I’d be interested in hearing a little more detail of your explanation for your belief that Adam didn’t actually live for 930 years (or are you one who doesn’t believe that there was a literal Adam too?).

And I’m still interested in whether the other Matt, Glenn, Grant, Geoff and Jeremy believe that Adam lived for 930 years.

And just to be contrary, “Yes”. 😉

Damian … what law of biology is broken by having people live for up to a thousand years?

It was you who suggested science as a good reason not to accept Genesis as it is written, right? I know why theology students would not want to jump straight to this reason with me, but it is the discussion that would crop up immediately with an atheist.

For all my reading I’ve only come across a few things that could be called “laws” of biology. Life always comes from life being one and the first axiom of biology being the other. But nothing that says people could not have lived for 900+ years.

Cheers.

Grant,

There aren’t really any laws in biology (I tell undergrads there is one law: organisms don’t care about what you think they should do), even “life from life” has exceptions (viruses aren’t alive most of the time, certain organisms have evolved from cancer cells…) and there is nothing called the 1st axiom of biology.

But you can’t leap from “not impossible” to “justified to believe” – at least not on scientific grounds. The fact that no one lives to more than ~ 120 in modern times is pretty good evidence that individuals living to ~950 is extremely unlikely (about 50 standard deviations away from life expectancy today, which would be about a 1/10^500 chance of happening if we were being generous as saying life expectancy was normally distributed, it’s not).

Now, of course you can say that Adam was created especially to live for a long time and entropy didn’t work in the garden of eden and he had all these other biological systems to deal with cancer or whatever. But that’s nothing to do with biology, the truth is you believe these things (Adam being real, the earth being 6000 years old etc etc) in spite of science ( you must, because scientific evidence makes them extremely unlikely) so why try and justify these beliefs?

Life from life I see as a good start for a law – cancer cells and viruses are easily shown dependent on larger organisms (or cancer patients)

Most wasps are utterly dependent on caterpillars to live. But they are still alive all the time. Viruses aren’t alive all the time. Cancer cells aren’t dependent on cancer patients to live, some have escaped mammaliam bodies and become new forms of life (this one starts a definition war I have no desire to get into, I’m just trying to show you it’s not as clear cut as you think).

And there is a first axiom of biology. It’s just not very well known nor widely accepted.

Well, what is it?

There are probably a couple of others contenders. Crick’s terribly named “Central Dogma” seems to be true for all life, and I’d argue change and perhaps even increases to complexity are bound to happen when biology is left to itself.

I’m not sure I can answer for David as to what he thinks I was referring to when I said that there was overwhelming scientific evidence but I can tell you what I was referring to when I said that: the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Of course if there is an all-powerful God then it’s entirely possible that it made everything in a very short amount of time with the appearance of age. But then it’s also possible that it made everything 100 years ago and we’d all be none the wiser too. The overwhelming scientific evidence would still point to an earth that was over 100 years old. And over 10,000 years old.

Yes, further to Geoff’s point about the problem of light taking hundreds of thousands (even billions in some cases) of years to reach us some YECs will try to claim that perhaps light was faster back then. But SN1987a completely demolishes that attempt to shorten the age of the universe.

Seems an earlier comment of mine was eaten by wordpress. Here’s the short version.

Grant, your reading of Genesis makes claims about the physical world. Science is the way we learn about the physical world, and, to the extend that it’s possible to do so, those claims have been disproved (examples being the age of the universe, the age of the earth, our relationship to chimps and the rest of life, the fact we don’t descend from only two ancestors who were the only people alive at the time…). It’s up to you to decide if a god that is trying to trick us all with these facts is good theology.

And I’ve always wondered if literalists think that god was actually tired from all his creating and had to take a day off after it? Seems a bit… odd.

Hi, Damian and David.

I’m sure you’d both agree that it’d be unbecoming of me if I were to answer your question, why is it unreasonable to believe in billions of years with, “All the evidence is against it”. Thankfully you also gave a reason – the starlight problem. I reckon that is about the most compelling reasons there is against the YEC model.

Hi, Nathan. You might have missed post #31.

Thanks.

Hi, Nathan.

Post 32 suggested I had to take everything literally when I have never said any such thing. Post 33 I couldn’t really understand so I left it alone.

To clarify again – I read the bible and accept the plain meaning unless there is good reason to do otherwise.

Genesis 1 describes six days with evenings and mornings. If you have good reason why I should not adhere to this simple understanding then let’s hear it.

Genesis 2 describes some of the days from ch1 in more detail and in what is clearly not meant to be a chronological account. If you have good reason why I should believe it describes something else then let’s hear it.

Got any good reasons?

It is obvious, Nathan. Genesis 2:8-9 says:

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

If we read that chronologically it goes:
God made a garden.
God put man in the garden.
God made trees.

Not to mention the fact that God puts Adam in the garden again in v15.

It just doesn’t work chronologically and I’m fairly bemused at all the insistence that it must be. O_o

@Jeremy. Did you know the number for Eve is about 6,000 years if one works solely with human DNA and does not also work with ape DNA?

Grant, you can have a garden without trees (I have one), so that’s no barrier to taking chapter 2 literally. Garden first, then trees later, no problem there.

Come on, just say it. The reason that you don’t take chapter 2 as literal history is that would ruin your ability to take chapter 1 literally.

Or you could come up with a good reason.

Grant.

That is simply untrue.

@David

“In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal “MRCA” (most recent common ancestor). In other words, she was the woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.”

I do understand that this doesnt preclude the existance of other people, but it is still interesting. All women alive today descend from one woman, and likewise all men alive today descend from one man who lived much later than the woman. May not be right but still sounds like Eve and Noah.

Do you really think the possibility that a garden does not have trees is a good reason to reject the plain reading of a whole two chapters?

No, when did I ever suggest anything so silly?

That was your idea, not mine. You were claiming that the plain, chronological history given in chapter 2 should be rejected because gardens (in your view) must have trees, so it didn’t make sense for God to make a garden, then place Adam in it, then to plant trees.

But now you’ve changed your mind on that. Great, we’re making progress. Now, can you find a new reason to say that Genesis 2 isn’t meant as chronological, literal history? By my count, your reasons are now at zero, and you’ve got a problem. See, if you don’t have any reason to deny that Genesis 2 is literal chronological history, then you do have a reason to deny that Genesis 1 is.

I’ll wait for your reason.

Jeremy,

Maybe, but

(a) there were other people alive at the same time as mtEve who have descendants today
(b) there were people alive before mtEve who have descendants today
(c) Coalescence to a single shared common ancestor is an inevitable result for any gene in any population. So it’s hard to see how the coalescence of mtDNA or Y-chromosomal DNA to a single individual is evidence of… well anything really.

(and it’s all humans alive today that descend from mtEve, we all have mitochondria even if you and I won’t pass ours on)

Grant, you are not reading before responding. Take the time to see precisely what is being said here:

I have pointed out that You can’t take Genesis 1 and 2 both literally, so you’re being selective to just choose to take 1 literally for no reason.

You said that you’re justified doing this because chapter 2 isn’t chronological.

You were then asked for reasons for saying this.

You then said (you – not I) that because chapter 2 said that God made a garden, then put Adam in it, then planted trees, chapter 2 can’t be chronological (commennt #57).

I pointed out that you can have a garden with no trees, so this is not a good enough reason not to take chapter 2 as not being chronological (comment #61).

All clear so far.

But then things got wonky. In comment 64 you changed your stance, and now accepted that OK, you can have a garden without trees after all, but that’s not a good enough reason to overthrow the plain meaning. Wow – that was so left field it was surprising. After all, you were the one who was trying to overthrow the plain meaning of chapter 2 because of the alleged problem of having a garden without trees (before you accepted that this was not a problem).

I tried to point this out to you in comment 67. I pointed out that you have surrendered you argument about the order of the garden and the trees, so you needed a new reason to overthrow the plain chronology of chapter 2.

And now you come back to me saying that you don’t accept that there is a plain, chronological history given in chapter 2.

Grant – I know you don’t. That is the whole point of our conversation at this point. I have been repeatedly asking you to give reasons for saying that genesis 2 is not plain, chronological history. You’re rejecting the plain reading, and you are refusing to give any reasons. OK, you did give one, but you’ve now agreed with me that that’s not a good reason anymore, so I’m still waiting for a reason.

Now we’re in a hilarious situation. You’ve got zero reasons for denying that Genesis 2 is normal history, yet you challenge me: “Do you have any good reason why I should think it is chronological?” However, you seem to be absolutely dogmatic in believing that genesis one is normal literal history, and yet you haven’t given one single reason for that stance.

This is just crazy.

Hi, Glenn. I’ve never claimed that I read according to the ‘literal interpretation’ you’ve ascribed to me.

I think I’m justified in accepting ch2 as a analysis of some details from ch1. I think you’ve used too many words to describe my approach that simply need not apply.

Why?

Why not? Ch2 is clearly a quite different style to ch1. Why should I accept your assertion that it is “written like a continuous narrative” when it changes style so dramatically?

@Glenn. You’re a real patient guy. 🙂

@David.

First, have you actually read that commentary? It’s hard to see how your statement jibes with the whole article in context…

The author doesn’t accept the 6,000 year figure because she has further studies that incorporate ape DNA that yield the 200,000 year results you referred to.

Yeah, the article is 99% against what I would say. But that’s not really relevant, is it?

Second, would you say mutations are usually beneficial, bad or good? The standard YEC argument is that they are usually bad news, and of course, bad mutations don’t survive. So, for instance, if you measured the rate at which new mutations arose in a population it’d be much larger than the rate at which new mutations take over the population (the mutation v the substitution rate). So, are most mutations are bad or did ‘Eve’ live more recently that we thought?

Depends what you mean by mutation. If you’re talking about any and every alteration in the genome from parent to child then the vast majority of them are not properly defined by the term mutation.

I would first suggest that the actual number of random changes, changes that are not intended or accommodated for by the genome, is much smaller than what is generally accepted.

If mutations are defined as random and unplanned changes to the genome, they are always bad for the child populations. They are never good or neutral.

Hi, David.

It might help if you do not fall into the trap of over-attributing the things I present as being set in stone for me.

If the 6,000 year old number from Ann Gibbons is based on faulty analysis then I’ll happily concede the point. I just thought it was an interesting addition to your discussion.

And you say you meant mutation in the way every single person that uses the term means it. Does that mean you agree with what I said?

Hi, Nathan. And contrary to your analysis, I think Genesis 1 is very obviously a chronological account and it is very obvious that Genesis 2 is not chronological. I don’t see any reason to question the veracity of my hermeneutic over this.

Genesis 1 – In the beginning…
God sees the light is good, Evening and morning for Day 1.
Evening and morning for Day 2.
God sees the dry land is good, Evening and morning for Day 3.
God sees the plants are good, Evening and morning for Day 4.
God sees the sun and moon are good, Evening and morning for Day 5.
God sees the animals are good, and that the completed work is very good, Evening and morning for Day 6.

Genesis 2 – The history of the heavens and the earth when they were created…
There was no rain, only mist, God made man, God planted a garden, God put man in the garden, God made trees grow, There were four rivers going out from Eden, God put man in the garden again and said not to eat of the tree, God made animals and asked Adam to name them, God made Eve and they were not ashamed.

Clearly the only way all this can make for rational reading is if ch2 is a non-chronological retelling of ch1 with more details. It seems very obvious that these two accounts are from different original sources. These distinctions would justify a different hermeneutic for each. But, note! I do not have a different standard for reading each. For both I say I accept what they plainly teach, unless there is good reason to think otherwise.

Both chapters explicitly or implicitly support creation in six, 24 hour days. And so we return to the question that started this all – How am I not justified in sticking to a plain reading of Genesis and rejecting out of hand the case for evolution?

So genesis 2 is not chronological because genesis 1 is?

Nope.

You’re saying (implicitly) that the text has a plain meaning to a 21st century westerner and then assuming that stance is a valid place to begin your interpretation.

I think it’s OK to assume we might be able to make sense of God’s word. Is there something wrong with that assumption?

OK Grant, so now you say that clearly chapter 2 can’t be chronological history, because if it were, then chapter 1 wouldn’t be!

That’s all I was looking for. Thanks.

Well I don’t know what to say, Nathan. When we have a clear chronological basis for a story, I see no reason to get all confused when details get added to it in a non-chronological manner.

For me, it just makes sense that ch1 is chronological and ch2 is not. And I have given some reasons for this – but it seems kinda like explaining why water is wet.

The plain reading leaves me with no terminal conclusions to a plain reading. If you’ve got some reasons then I’m willing to hear them. But it seems I have my work cut out trying to convince you that I’m just reading and accepting what I read.

Peace. 😉