Evangelical "discussion" on the historicity of Genesis moves into new territory

Evangelicals have two schools of thought on the Bible.  (1)  the inerrantist-fundamentalism of conservative evangelicals, and (2) the "let's talk about something else--How 'bout those Broncos?" approach of evangelical moderates.

Conservative evangelicals affirm inerrancy forthrightly and with gusto.  Moderate evangelicals get fuzzy on the question, like Christianity Today magazine, for example, which sometimes gives you the impression that they believe in literalism, but never seem to come right out and openly try to defend it.

In terms of the general public, Biblical literalism is still held by about a third of the population, but this number has also been in decline for decades.

 

Evangelicals have long tried to paper over something of a division on the question of the historicity of Genesis.  So far, the biggest difference of opinion has been in regard to the age of the universe.  The hard-line position is "young earth creationism," which asserts that the universe was created around 10,000 years ago.  The softer position is "old earth creationism," which asserts that everything else about Genesis is literally true, except that "day" is to be understood as a metaphor.

"Old earth creationists" don't put it that way--they wouldn't use the word "metaphor"--but that's basically how it comes out.  They understand "day" to mean "eras" or "epochs," which it may, although that somewhat elides the "and there was evening, and there was morning" phrasing in Genesis which would seem to support the use of "day" as being a 24-hour day.  (Benjamin Warfield and A.A. Dodge, sometimes called the founders of modern fundamentalism, took an old earth position.  Literalists quite often understand Biblical passages in metaphorical terms, even as they deny they're doing that very thing.)

Evangelical discord is breaking out into new territory.  On Tuesday, NPR noted several evangelical scholars who are questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve.  In other words, they do not believe that the human race began with these two individuals.  

Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

"This stuff is unavoidable," says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. "Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have."

As belief in Biblical literalism continues to decline, the evangelical position becomes increasingly difficult in terms of demographics and marketing.  Will they continue to market to the broad middle, in which case they need to moderate?  Or, will they market only to the dwindling number of the like-minded?

My own view?  The word “Adam” is Hebrew for “earth.”  The word “Eve” comes from another Hebrew word that is associated with “life.”  Therefore, “Adam” and “Eve” together stand for “living earth people.”  

Furthermore, to say “let the earth bring forth” and “let the seas bring forth” is, in ten words, the basic theory of evolution.  God did not create directly, but rather indirectly, through the earth and seas.  This is nothing new, incidentally.  St. Gregory of Nyssa said that the world had been created “with potential” way back in the fourth century.

 

Comments

[Allen]

John, you continue to be a beacon of reasonableness in a vast sea of idiocy. Thanks for all you do.

Allen Campbell
Pastor, ELCA

[John Petty]

Thanks for your comment--I think.

pax, jp

[Allen Campbell]

I did not mean to imply that you are part of the idiocy. I appreciate your wisdom which is another way of saying that I agree with most of what you say.

peace

Allen Campbell