Biologos is a major theistic evolutionists' organization. They assume that evolution is true and they assume that it is "science", but at the same time they profess belief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Like so many atheists, they have bought into deep time assumptions about the age of the Earth. As an organization, they are militant against young-Earth beliefs. I had stumbled upon an article that was written by this organization regarding them doing a literary analysis of Gen. 1-11.
The full article is found here. The author, specifically, is not identified anywhere in the article, but Biologos is taking full credit for it. Biologos' responses and statements will be in red, mine will be found in black. I will offer my conclusion of the whole thing in the end, also in black.
Biologos: Man from dust, woman from rib. A talking snake. Two mysterious trees. A massive flood. Confusion of languages. What do we make of these stories? Did it all really happen as described by the early chapters of Genesis? Is Genesis giving us accurate history?
Brian: He starts off with things he thinks aren't true because, to him, they sound too incredible to believe. As we would see, this making the argument from incredulity fallacy. "The talking snake" appears to be an implied strawman argument. No one thinks that the snake is speaking of it own cognition and with its own volition, but that the Devil is speaking through it. However, these last two questions were legitimate questions to ask in an introduction about the literary genre of Gen. 1-11.
Biologos: Any account of past events can be considered history. Genesis recounts past events—such as God’s creation of the world and human beings—so in this sense, Genesis is history. However, Genesis is theological history and uses figurative language in some of its descriptions. The author of Genesis is not interested in telling us how God created (in material terms) or how long it took.
Brian: In the first breadth, he admits Genesis is real history, but in the second breadth he denies it by claiming that it's all being conveyed in figurative language. This is called special pleading. He will have this kind of argumentation throughout his post. He says its "theological history" but then offers no demonstration of how that is so. Although, theological truths can be peppered throughout Genesis, this doesn't mean that the details are strictly about theology.
Also, "theological history" is still history. What about that term makes him think this denies the events and details as a matter of history? It seems that he is trying to set up a false dichotomy (the either/or fallacy), where if it theological, then it must be figurative, it can't be straight up history, but this is incorrect. John's Gospel is loaded with theological interpretations of historical events, but the theological spin John gives when he discusses these events does not mean that these events and details aren't historically true, and shouldn't be taken as literal historical events. The Biblical writers saw these theological truths grounded in the historical events (1 Cor. 15:12-19). So, even if this was the case, this would not justify a figurative interpretation of these events.
That last statement is weird. Why does he think that God is not interested in telling us how, or how long, He had created for in material terms? The author does not say, but whether just asserts his speculation as if it is fact, when it is not. Genesis states throughout the chapter what He had created, and how long it took to create everything. It is straightforward, using words like bara (create) and asa (made) to express this fact. Even if the text was not so clear, and it is, we would still have Ex. 20:11 which specifically tells us what God had created, how long it took to be created, and the fact that His Creation with six days of everything that he had made, and He rested on the seventh day. What the author had said here is obviously false.
Biologos: We believe Genesis is a true account that, like other ancient narratives, uses vivid imagery to describe past events. It is silent on the scientific questions we might wish it to answer [emphasis in the original].
Brian: Biologos claimed that they believe the account is "true" but they it used "vivid imagery" to describe past events. However, works of history didn't do this. If they did then how would we ever trust them. We would have no way of knowing if those events actually took place or not, or we would be left guessing their meaning. He must not just simply make assertions, but provide examples within historical works. Does Luke do this in Acts? Does the Gospel writers? What about Judges? What about the rest of the Pentateuch? Numbers? Exodus? Deuteronomy? Leviticus? These are all written in historical narrative. None of them do this. OK, what about other historical works outside of the Bible, do they do this? How about Josephus' Jewish Wars, Xenophon's Anabasis, Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, or Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War? None of these do that. The only time you find someone doing that is if it is some other genre besides history (such as Asaph's Fables). An author is welcomed to use figures of speech like we do in everyday conversation, but they wouldn't incorporate that imagery throughout the source. They are trying to convey what really happened. This last statement about "scientific questions" would be explored more below.
Biologos: A close reading of the text provides clues that indicate where a plain sense meaning is not intended. For example, in Genesis 1, there are three evenings and mornings with no sun, moon, and stars, so these are not regular days as we understand them (though they function that way in the text; they are literary days).
Brian: His mistake here is assuming that if the Sun is not around, then a "day" cannot exist, but this faulty for a number of reasons. It is not required to have the Sun to make a day, but whether, instead, you just need a rotating planet and a light source. God called light into being in Genesis 1:3. Everyone agrees that the planet started rotating at the moment of Creation. So the days prior to Day 4 were literal days. We have extrasolar planets that revolve around a quasar, but the planet still has days to it. Plus, what do you do for Days 4-6 which do have the Sun? Also, what do they mean by a "literary day"? Are they suggesting that they are "days" only in the literature, but not in historical reality? This seems to be more rhetorical nonsense coming from Biologos.
Biologos: Or consider Genesis 2:7, when God forms Adam from dust and breathes into his nostrils. This language must be somewhat figurative, because we know from other passages in the Bible that God is Spirit with neither hands nor lungs.
Brian: This is using what is called anthropomorphic characteristics. Because God is transcendent, is spirit, and has no body, language is often used to describe God with human characteristics in order to make God more comprehendible to people. This type of language is used for God all throughout the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament. Apparently, the writer hopes to make you think that the context didn't literally happened if such language is used to describe God in this way. What about John 10:28-29 which says: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (ESV). Does this mean that this text is figurative and we can lose our salvation?
The writer of this article is assuming that is the Bible uses this language of God even though God does not have a "body" as we do, this must mean, according to his thinking, that anything which surrounds this text, including its context and anything that God does, says, or is said about God, must be nonliteral, but this doesn't follow logical. Even in the case of a figure of speech, the context is always held as literal. For example, if I say something cost me an arm and a leg, I am using a figure of speech called a hyperbole, which is an over-exaggeration to make a point. It wouldn't really make the point if I said that and the thing in question cost me a quarter. God still moved air into man's lungs and made him alive even if we do not fully understand all of the mechanics of what that would look like.
Biologos: Genesis is the inspired word of God, but no human observer was present during the creation of the world, and God did not simply dictate a transcript of phenomena or events to the author of Genesis. Inspiration does not work that way.
Brian: The first half of the writer's statement is absolutely true. No body was there at the Creation of the world, except God. God was an eye-witness to these events and He told Moses how long He created everything in (Ex. 20:11). This would also include secular scientists, which Biologos is relying on even though they were not there to observe these things happening. However, God was there, and He does tell us in His Word how he did it, and how long it took for Him to do it (Gem. 1 and 2; and Ex. 20:11).
The second half appears to be a strawman argument. We don't claim it was "transcript" to Moses, or any Biblical writer, but whether God revealed the truth of it to Moses. Such as Him speaking directly to Him on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 20:11). However, it not being "transcripted" to Moses does not have anything to do with its literality nor its historicity. The fact that God inspired the Gospels now means that not being "transcripted" to them that everything in them must be nonliteral? Would the skeptic hold to such a view throughout the rest of the Bible? Doubtful, in which case the writer would now be guilty of special pleading.
Biologos: In Genesis 1, we have an Israelite author’s account of God’s creative acts communicated to an Israelite audience. We believe that the understanding of the narrator in Genesis is God-given and therefore we accept it as offering an authoritative and true understanding of the world. However, it was not intended to enable us to reconstruct the creation events according to the scientific understanding of today or meet the demands of our modern worldview.
Brian: This is another strawman argument. None of our arguments among young-earth creationists claim that we must understand the Bible as a modern text, nor do we claim trying to understand the Bible's Creation Week in accordance to a "scientific understanding of today" either. The author has merely presupposed that "Evolution" and the age-of-the-earth issues are "science issues" when they are not. Anytime you deal with a past event, or events, they are always assessed through historical evidence, not scientific evidence. When you asked what happened in the past, or how old something is, this is a historical issue NOT a scientific issue! Because the Bible is a book of history, these are the right kinds of questions to ask of it, and can help us provide those answers of what happened in Biblical history.
Biologos: Asking about history is asking about genre.
Brian: This is true.
Biologos: Often when people identify Genesis as history they are arguing against identifying it with other genres (such as myth) or other forms of literary packaging (such as poetry).
Brian: This is also true.
Biologos: They might think that identifying Genesis as myth or poetry undermines or compromises its truth claims. But truth can be conveyed through a variety of genres or literary packages. We need to ask how Genesis delivers its truth claims—what the narrator’s intentions are.
Brian: The first part of his statement is a partial truth and the other a partial strawman. We do see the genres of "myth" and "history" set at odds with each other because how both of these are defined, but we do understand that truth claims can be conveyed in different ways. For example, the book of Psalms is Hebrew poetry, but we still see it as truth conveyed in poetic form. A good example of this is in the case of Messianic Psalms such as Psalm 22 concerning the righteous sufferer. However, this does not mean that all genres are equal to propositional truth claims like in the case of history. In fact, "myth" is the direct opposite from history. This is why when someone claims something as myth, we know they are not referring to something that historically happened. It would be equivalent of someone claiming that fiction is equivalent to truth when it is clearly not, but whenever we express this the person then assumes we are saying that truth claims can't come in other forms such as figures of speech, which we are not saying.
We should always ask what the original writer intended, of course, but this is not what theistic evolutionists do. Many of them tries to eisegetically insert their ideas about ANE texts back into Gen. 1-2, which was foreign to how Moses would've understood it. However, if Moses writing in historical narrative, which all of the evidence shows, then we know what Moses intention was: to convey literal history. To say otherwise would require evidence equal to or greater than the evidence we have in favor of Genesis 1-11 being historical narrative, which the other side does not carry.
Biologos: The book of Genesis packages its truth claims largely in narrative, interspersed with genealogies.
Brian: This is true. Narrative is synonymous with historical narrative. However, what Biologos doesn't understand is that this means that writer understood, as well as his Jewish audience, that what he was presenting is being understood as literal history. You don't find narrative in Hebrew poetry.
Biologos: Chapters 1–11 describe the founding of the human race, leading up to God’s covenant with Abraham. Chapters 12–50 recount significant developments in the story of Abraham’s family, the ancestors of Israel, thus providing the backdrop to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai. The early events described—including the side-by-side accounts of creation (ch. 1–2) and Adam and Eve’s primal act of disobedience (ch. 3)—are the opening episodes of the human story that lead to the story of Israel.
Brian: So far so good. This is a good start to a good summary about these chapters. However, if he doesn't want to recognize these events as literal events in human history, then where is he going with this?
Biologos: We can benefit from investigating how narratives in the Old Testament and the ancient world packaged truth related to past events. Even when their narratives deal with real events, the events are narrated as a means to a theological end.
Brian: This statement reveals his agenda. He is assuming that the ancient world only was focused on a kind of theological truth rather than a historical one. Although this claim is false, theology and history, as already mentioned before, are not exclusively mutual of each other, so he is setting up a false dichotomy. Also, theological is not synonymous with nonliteral in the first place. As already pointed out "theological history" would only be able to work is if their theological truths were based upon real historical truths. If the theology was based upon something that didn't really happen then theological belief would be meaningless. For example, Jesus sacrificial offering is a theological view sense it brought about our eternal salvation, but this view would lose all truthfulness if Jesus did not historically died as a sacrifice in the first place.
Biologos: Narratives—ancient or modern—are rarely bare chronicles of events as they happened. Take a reality TV show, for example. When an episode is filmed, multiple cameras are used to capture many events and conversations. The director then selects, arranges, and edits the raw footage to produce a coherent story consistent with the show’s agenda. Neither the director nor the viewers would expect to be able to reconstruct the raw footage from the finished product. The situation is similar in any historical account, which is a selective telling of events to serve a particular purpose. The case is no different with ancient narratives such as Genesis.
Brian: False. He has set up a false analogy fallacy, a logical fallacy by which you create a false analogy as you make the comparison. A TV show is not the same as Hebrew historical narrative. In Hebrew historical narrative they do chronicle events as they happened. Exodus and Numbers for example. Look at Acts, or even historical works outside of the Bible. If it is history, especially Hebrew historical narrative, chronicles events as they are happening. The one exception are ancient biographies because they are trying to paint a specific literary portrait of the person they are about, but even then some of their content are chronological. Modern historical works usually narrates them in order, unless otherwise stated. Hebrew historical narrative always states history with chronological order to it. He seems to assert his claim here, but offers no examples of this except Genesis, but this is circular.
Biologos: Ancient authors were more interested in the meaning of events rather than the details of the events. In that sense these narratives are not like most modern historical narratives. If we were to try to reduce their recorded event to a series of propositional truth claims, we would miss the entire point of their narrative [emphasis in the original].
Brian: Once again, this is false. This is how the preface of Thucydides' History of Peloponnesian War, Book One, is stated:
And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detailed tests possible. My conclusions have cost me some labour [sic] from the want of coincidence between accounts of the same occurrences by different eye-witnesses, arising sometimes from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other. The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.1).
It sounds to me that Thucydides would disagree with Biologos. This is how Luke's preface starts out:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk. 1:1-4, ESV).
It also seems that Luke would disagree with Biologos as well. In referencing writing correct history, and what his intentions are, Josephus writes:
Those who undertake to write histories do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another, for some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to show their skill in composition, and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely; others of them there are who write histories, in order to gratify those that happened to be concerning in them, and on that account have spared no pains, but rather go beyond their own abilities in the performance; but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity; nay, there are not a few who are induced to draw their historical facts out of the darkness into light and to produce them for the benefit of the public on account of the great importance of the facts themselves with which they have been concerned. Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for sense I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusions it had, I was forced to give history of it, because I saw that others perceive the truth of these actions in their writings (Josephus, Antiq. 1:1-4, Preface).
It doesn't seem that Josephus agrees with them either. They may be assuming this because the Greeks had no true concept of history before Herodotus, but that was the Greeks not the Jews. Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) world had no true concept of history until the Israelites came to the land of Canaan, then they introduced history writing to it. Before then, the ANE had no true concept of history. This is why they often confused myth and history. However, the Israelites did, this is why they was able to bring history writing to the ANE because they came out of the land of Egypt, which was not apart of the ANE, and the Egyptians did have a concept of history writing, this is why their buildings are covered in this Egyptian history in hieroglyphics. The Jews would've learned how to write history from them since they grew up in that culture for the next 400 years.
It also seems to me that he is setting up another false dichotomy. There is no reason they can't both be focus on the details and the meaning of those details as well. His last statement carries his absurdity even further. If it is in historical narrative, then the point would be to present literal history in the form of propositional truth statements. So, it is him, not us, that is missing the point of what Moses is saying here. ANE works were written in Akkadian poetry while Genesis is written in Hebrew historical narrative. Not the same kind of literary style.
Biologos: When ancient narratives are interpretations of the past, they are generally not written simply to describe the past. Rather, they serve the present. Their work may be based on real events and real people, but their narratives do not explore “what really happened” in the style modern readers tend to expect. Rather, ancient narratives address the world of the narrator’s time, shedding light on that world and providing a perspective for the hearers to embrace. It is this perspective on the world, not the details used to reconstruct the events of the past, that the narrator wishes to convey to his audience.
Brian: This is both false and a red herring. As already demonstrated, there were many people within the ancient world who were concerned with "what really happened" despite what Biologos claimed. If this was not the case, then we would know nothing from ancient history short of the people who lived it and some highlighted events, but nothing within the narrative would be true. Also, this makes no sense. How can these accounts be based on "real events and real people" if the things within the narrative is false? This claim is self-refuting, and a red herring. It is irrelevant on how other people perceive history, it is only relevant how the Israelites perceived it, and if Genesis is written in historical narrative, then it is presented as real literal history, this would include its details within its narratives. Combine this with the fact that the Israelites had an actual concept of history and history writing (Numbers, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.) means that they were presented real literal history, in both the narrative and in the details. So far, the writer of this article has failed to present us with any examples of this claim. Is this because he has none?
Biologos: Let’s apply this approach to one of the most famous stories in Genesis: the story of Noah and the Flood, found in Genesis 6–9.
Brian: Oh, yeah, let's. This is where he tries to use his approach to the literary style of the book of Genesis on the Genesis account of the global Flood, thinking it's going to work. Let's see what he says about this event in his article.
Biologos: The Genesis Flood story is likely based on a set of even more ancient stories about an actual catastrophic regional flood event in the ancient Near East.
Brian: This is false, and he asserts this without proof. However, Moses wrote Genesis in the 1400s, but the series of Tolodoths in the Genesis account shows that it is based upon even earlier literary sources, but not ANE literatures. It is very likely these other Flood stories have the Genesis account at its common core of them, and fundamental and absurd details such as the boat being the shape of a cube and the story is about one person's search for immortality, whether than wrong-doing by the world in Gilgamesh seems to indicate these stories are distorted versions of the original. There are many other fundamental details in them that differ such as them being written in Akkadian poetry and the Genesis account of the Flood being found in Hebrew historical narrative. The Genesis account holds the true version of the Flood, whereas these other accounts are poetic and distorted versions of it that were distorted over time. Needless to say, however, they do have a core essence of it preserved in them, but as a whole, the Genesis account is the original and true account, in every detail of this event.
He must be assuming the Documentary Hypothesis view for the authorship of Genesis, but this view, itself, is void of evidence, and reveals an ignorance of ancient history. It also ignores incredible evidence of Mosaic authorship such as claims within the text, claims by Jesus Himself, and evidence that this text was written by someone intimately familiar with ancient Egyptian history, culture, and language of the 1400s.
Secondly, when these flood legends which are all around the world are polled, over 99% of them are global, including Gilgamesh. Where is he getting the idea that these other ancient account tell of a "regional flood" when this is found virtually nowhere? I am not certain if this is a deliberate deception or not, but at best it reveals an ignorance of these flood legends, and at worse, an intentional deception. How can anyone who knows about these accounts claims that these are in any way "regional" to say the least?
Biologos: These older legends were part of the cultural backdrop in which Genesis was written. The inspired author is re-casting these older stories using ancient literary conventions, in order to teach about the seriousness of sin and the merciful love of God for his creation. The story, based on a past flood event, is told using hyperbolic language to serve these theological points.
Brian: Once again, he offers no evidence for this. Instead, this is pure speculation. Also, once again, these stories don't predate Genesis. The Pentateuch, including Genesis, was written after the Exodus event and when they were lost in the wilderness for 40 years before they had ever moved to the NE world. They were raised in Egypt, so they had a real concept of history, before they were ever exposed to the ANE. These accounts of the flood in ANE texts are found in Akkadian poetry, which is not the same as historical narrative.
What ancient literary conventions are they using? There is no evidence they are using hyperbolic language. An hyperbole is a figure of speech, as mentioned earlier, that uses an over-exaggeration to make a point, but where does Biologos thinks they over-exaggerated at? Again, he seems to be hoping you take his assertions at face value without any evidence or demonstration for them.
Biologos: Like all of Genesis, the Flood story is part of God’s revelation to humankind. It informed Israel’s understanding of God’s relationship to creation and to Israel as his chosen people. This is a revelation of God to the people of Israel, not a revelation about the bare facts of science or natural history. In trying to reconstruct the details of “what really happened,” many have missed the theological point of the story.
Brian: No, Biologos is setting up another false dichotomy. The writer can both convey theological information while presenting literal historical truth as well. This is the point that I think Biologos is missing. His claim about this doesn't present the "bare facts of science" is another strawman argument. We don't claim that it does, but, once again, Biologos has assumed that "Evolution" and the age-of-the-earth issues are "science" or "scientific issues" when they involve a past event so they are not actually apart of "science" as Biologos means it. However, Genesis is recording natural history. So far, Biologos hasn't proven otherwise. Since the text is in Hebrew historical narrative that is exactly what they are presenting, so they are concerned with "what really happened" despite what the writer of this article claims. It seems to me that Biologos wants to admit that this is apart of the inspired Word of God, and that this text is, indeed, historical narrative, but do not want to admit that it is using literal language to describe what really happened, but this is what all of the evidence shows us!
Biologos: The narratives of Genesis focus on conflict and resolution. God’s purpose from the beginning is to have his presence fill the earth; humans are to image God and subdue the earth, i.e., bring about order and fruitfulness in creation (Gen 1–2). Conflict enters the story when humans rebel against God (Gen 3). Shalom [peace] is shattered, and the earth is cursed. Further degeneration takes place (Gen 4–6) until God brings judgment and mercy (Gen 6–9). Humans then attempt to restore God’s presence (Gen 11) before God launches his own initiative to re-establish his presence on Earth (the covenant).
Brian: Yes, and every bit of this depends on the literality of history presented in the narrative. If the narrative was not literal, then none of these meanings from the text could be ascertained. These truths get their truthfulness from the literal historical narrative, but these truths are not hidden. If the text was nonliteral, then these "meanings" must be guessed at rather than documented. This writer has now contradicted his entire argument.
Biologos: Genesis 1–11, then, is the founding story of humanity, ending in crisis. These narratives give a real and true assessment of God’s initial purposes and the human plight. Genesis 12–50 is the founding story of the nation with whom the covenant is eventually made at Sinai. The covenant establishes the relationship to Abraham and his descendants, provides the structure for living in God’s presence, and lays the foundation for God’s presence to be established on earth.
Brian: All of this is true, but in what way, if any, does this shows that the text must be figurative or, in some other way, nonliteral? If anything, for any of this to be true, the narrative must be literal history. Once again, his claim here contradicts his entire argument up to this point.
Biologos: All narratives have purposes and perspectives.
Brian: And no one claims differently. He seems to be assuming that having a purpose in writing means that it must be understood as nonliteral, but this is not the case. Each one of the Gospels had a purpose in which they were writing. This has been known by scholars, theologians, and evangelicals for a long time, but does this mean you shouldn't take anything they say as literal history? If Biologos says "no" then they are special pleading, for they will not apply this criteria consistently. This is the start of his conclusion, which hasn't started off very good, but given the rest of this article I am responding to, it doesn't surprise me.
Biologos: Genesis is a collection of ancient narratives, written and compiled by those who share the culture and literary styles of the ancient world.
Brian: Partially true. It is an ancient work, and no one says differently, but as assumed by this writer in his entire article, he thinks we are gaging this literature by modern standards, but this is false. We are gaging it by the ancient standards of how the Israelites wrote ancient Hebrew historical narrative. Since ANE literatures is written in Akkadian poetry, Genesis is not written in the same literary style as these other literatures, and therefore should not be gaged accordingly. Secondly, it is simply false when he claimed it was "compiled by others who share the culture." It's a literary work written by Moses. You have to contrast the texts with ancient Hebrew historical narrative to understand how they wrote history. You can't compare it to other ancient literary works because they could be in a different literary style, and they are a different people group from the Israelites. Even Akkadian poetry is not exactly the same as Hebrew poetry, so this broad-stroking technique is just flawed.
Biologos: Like the narratives of their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, these narratives eliminate all details except those the narrator thinks are important to shape the message for his particular purpose.
Brian: This is eisegesis. You do not import outside ideas into the Scripture. This is a major exegetical no-no. Again, ANE literatures were written in Akkadian poetry, not Hebrew historical narrative. Also, not only is he trying to eisegetically importing the views of these other type of literature into the Scriptures, but his interpretation of these other texts as well. By the way, even if Moses was selective about the information that he presented, this wouldn't mean that the information that he does present isn't historically and literally true, but there is no evidence that Moses was delimiting this information, so Biologos is speculating here.
Biologos: The creation narratives are not included in Scripture so that we can receive a direct transmission from God about the phenomena of pre-human history; they are there because the inspired author’s interpretation of his present situation, through his narration of the events of the past, reveals truth about God and God’s purposes.
Brian: This makes no sense. They were trying to reveal truths about present situations by using "past events" that never really happened? Why does Biologos not think that God wants us to directly know about Creation? Once again, they're speculating. They haven't provided a shred of evidence for this.
Biologos: The truth of Genesis must not be judged by whether we can use it to reconstruct the “plain facts” of creation. The author wrote about past events (e.g., creation of the cosmos and humanity, humanity’s initial innocence and rebellion), but did so using evocative imagery. While all Christians can read the Bible profitably, our theological understanding is enriched as we learn more about the original audience and cultural context of Genesis. In turn, we see the continued significance and relevance of the text for our own lives.
Brian: This is more speculation. What evidence does this writer have for thinking that Genesis is written using "evocative language" (emotional language used to remind someone of something else)? He has not provided any evidence for this, only assertions, and sense we have reached the end of his article he has ran out of time to provide any. Everything we know of Gen. 1-11 reveals that it is in the same style of Hebrew historical narrative (its use of a series of waw consecutives in Gen. 1, its use of genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11, its use of Hebrew finite verbs, etc.) is found in these first eleven chapters, and it is of the same style as Gen. 12-50, Hebrew historical narrative.
Conclusion: This article that Biologos published on the Internet was truly a waste of space. They made constant assertions but provided no evidence nor examples. They try to commit eisegesis with ANE texts, and they made numerous errors in reasoning such as strawman arguments, special pleading, and red herrings. They failed at every turn to provide us with evidence and a demonstration of their position, even though they had ample opportunity to do just that.
They tried to apply their approach to the Flood, but claimed factual inaccuracies, and more eisegesis and non-evidential assertions. He also failed to count for the fact that there are flood legends all around the world, not just the ANE, and most of them global, including those in the ANE literature, not regional. Even when applied it failed, and showed that this particular writer had no concept and understanding of how ancient writers wrote, and should've not been speaking on topics they did not know about. Without any evidence, this article had lots of assertions, errors, and logical fallacies, but mo substance. If I was this person's college professor, and he went after me with this article as a research paper I would've failed him, making constant corrections with my red pen, the same one I would've written a big fat "F" on his paper. The arguments in this paper was just that bad, and I don't think this writer could consistently hold to this view and method with the rest of Scripture. It just would've never held its own.
Opmerkingen