I Write The Posts That Make The Whole Web Read

I must confess. Last night I took the wife and a friend to see Barry Manilow. I know, I know, you don't have to say it. Not exactly my kind of musich. I had to run home and put on some David Bowie quickly. It's almost impossible to get "Copacabana" out of your head.

Yes, I heard every song from "Mandy" to "I Write the Songs". God help me!

But Manilow did fill up a stadium and put on a decent show. Not great or good but not bad.

Anyway, at least now I have built up enough capital with my wife to see Beck the next time he comes to Fort Worth.



I did hear a great joke. Manilow has a good sense of humor.



He said, pointing to himself, "This is what Clay Aiken will look like in thirty years."



Here is my joke. This is what Barry Manilow will look like in thirty years.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Plow Shears and Swords

Part II of a wonderful Discussion

Panis:

"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."

Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.

If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?

What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?

Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.

If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.

As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).

And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like “these are the generations of Terah…,” etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe “apocalyptic” events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.

Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."

No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.


Circenses:

"Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics."

Actually, your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is bad hermeneutics. Hermeneutical principles state that one should interpret what is written as literal narrative unless given a substantial reason not to (except for Revelation, of course, which is the other way around). There is no substantial reason to interpret Genesis 1-3 as figurative, allegorical, or "apocalyptic" (to use your own terminology) unless one holds to the JEDP theory of Genesis' authorship. Because there is not enough convincing evidence to support the JEDP theory (ask some OT profs in the seminary about this), Mosaic authorship should always be assumed.

I gave quite a bit of good reasons why Genesis 1-3 should be taken as “non-literally.” Whether or not someone thinks the reasons to be substantial is relative.

And, hey, whether JEDP or not, whether Mosaic our not, Genesis 1-3 can not be taken “literally.” Parts of Daniel are narrative and parts are Apocalyptic; whether or not the book was written all by Daniel or by more than one author does not change the fact that more than one genre is present in the book as we now have.

I have asked OT professors. Those who no longer teach at certain seminaries will tell me that Moses did not right all of the Pentateuch. Those who still teach at the seminary will avoid the question. Only one prof will say, “here is the evidence, what do you think.”

Genesis mentions people groups that were not around when Moses was alive. Philistines (10:14; 12:32, 35; 26:1-18) and Chaldeans (11:31).

Genesis 14:14 mentions the geographic location of the tribe of Dan which had not located there until well after Moses death.

What about the Genesis anachronisms? 12:6 says that “at that time there were still Canaanties in the land,” which indicates that at the time of writing Canaanites were no longer in the land, thus after the death of Moses. 36:31 speaks about “before any Israelite king reigned” which means that at the time of writing, Israelite kings did reign, thus after Moses and Joshua and the Judges.

Numbers 12:3 states, “Moses was the most humble man on the face of the earth.” Obviously Moses did not write this or he would not be the most humble man on the face of the earth.

Numbers 21:14 refers to the Book of Wars, suggesting that sources have been used.

Deuteronomy 34 deals with the Death of Moses.

That is just the intra-biblical evidence.

The Talmud writes, “Moses wrote his book AND the passage dealing with Balaam and Job.”

2 Esdras makes it clear that Ezra wrote and arranged much of the Pentateuch.

Nowhere does the Pentateuch claim that Moses is the author. His authorship is a purely traditional view. It usually comes from the desire of believers to know who wrote a certain book. If the author is not known then the main character is assumed to be the author (see Jonah).

Also, here is an excellent essay on JEDP. This theory has gotten much bad wrap from the really conservative, though most conservative scholars hold to it. The theory was not devised to discredit the Pentateuch but to defend what seemed to be apparent contradictions in the text. The scholars who devised the JEDP theory were trying to defend the Scriptures. And they did.

Regardless, inspiration and accuracy does not rest upon Mosaic authorship. The Holy Spirit spoke through the authors regardless of whether they were Moses or not. I happen to believe that Moses wrote a good deal of the material with immediate help from others. Other material was written later at different times by different people. At some point the material was brought together into what we have today. This whole process was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s just like evolution and the creation of man. It’s not the clean process we wish it was but the Holy Spirit is doing it none the less and the end result is wonderful.


If Moses is the author of Genesis (which he indeed is, as well as the entire Torah), then why would he write three chapters of "apocalyptic" writings that are meant to be taken any other way than literal and then conclude the rest of the entire Torah with literal narrative?

See my above comment on Daniel.

And how about Revelation? Apocalypse, Epistle, and Prophecy all rolled into one.


What is Genesis? It is history. Anyone who reads it from beginning to end can clearly see that. Why should Genesis 1-3 then be any different than a literal history narrative like the rest of the book?

History is it? It’s not a “date book”, it’s not a “science book”, but it is a “history book”? Why do you believe that? Where does it call itself a history? Do you believe that because it refers to historical events? Okay, so do many prophetic books, but we do not call them history. The book of Daniel refers to history and it’s apocalyptic. Revelation is historical in nature, albeit it’s a history that many believe has not yet occurred. It’s not “literal.”

Look at the Gospel of John. It is a gospel, right. It is a “history of Jesus”? It begins by talking about Jesus as a “word” and a “light” that “‘tabernacles’ among us” (1:14). John uses these same terms for Jesus in Revelation. Is Jesus a “literal” “word”? Is He a “literal” “light”. Is the Lord a whole bunch of electrons that can be warped by gravity? Or is it a figurative term to describe a truth of Jesus? John begins his gospel in pre-history, in eternity. No one was around to witness this event and so we have this incomprehensible relationship and event in a manner in which we can understand it.

Heck, look at chapter 2 of John’s gospel. He has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry. All the other gospels have it at the end. John has reshaped the chronology of the event to suit his theological purposes.

But let us say that Genesis is history. What type of history is it? Why does it mention what it mentions? Why does it not mention other things? I believe that if we call it “salvation history” then we have a better grasp of what is going on. Heck, I think the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is “salvation history.” Even the apocalyptic passages of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation are apart of “salvation history.” It is interesting that the Bible begins and ends with an apocalyptic format. Pre-history and post-history are given in apocalyptic forms because no one was there or is there to see it. The events have to be theologically symbolized for the audience.

I have been in discussion with believers who object to my preterism. They do not believe that my apocalyptic interpretation of Revelation is correct. They wish me to take it “literally” at face value. I tell them that I am. I say that the genre is apocalypse, epistle, and prophecy and I interpret it in like manner. I ask them to interpret the 7-headed beast “literally” and they say “it symbolizes this.”

I actually do interpret Genesis 1-3 literally (notice the absence of quotes). The literature is apocalyptic history and I interpret is as such.

Further evidence of your bad hermeneutics is provided by your cutoff of chapter 3. Chapter divisions in the Bible are not in the original manuscripts, as I'm sure you know. Clearly from a reading of chapter 3, one can see that the story in chapter 3 extends all the way into chapter 4 (after all, we are talking same characters with the same names here). Therefore, using your own hermeneutical principles, chapter 4 must be "apocalyptic" as well, for you have no substantial reason to make a cutoff from "apocalyptic" to narrative between chapters 3 and 4.

That’s right. I take the entire 1-11 of Genesis to be apocalyptic. The only reason that I didn’t mention any other chapters but 1-3 was because we were speaking of evolution as it relates to creation, which means 1-3.

If you say chapter 4 is "apocalyptic," you're more than welcome to. However, as careful hermeneutics show, chapter 4 can be nothing but literal narrative, especially with chapter 5 being an entire genealogical chapter based upon chapter 4.

Well, if we do take these genealogies as literal then the creation of Adam was just 6,000 years ago. That is going to come as quite a shock to the Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese.


As for the Moses' use of wordplay substantiating your argument, it really doesn't. One can easily find wordplay in literal narrative portions of the Bible as well (take a look at the Tower of Babel narrative in Hebrew, for example).

See above. Yep, Tower of Babel is apocalyptic.

And speaking of Hebrew, I find it particularly interesting that you neglected to indicate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:4 where the word, toledoth, is used, indicating a literal translation of: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created...," the same way the term is used later in the Old Testament in passages like "these are the generations of Terah" etc. It describes actual time, actual people, and actual events. It is clearly a history term. If you would like to devote some study to finding anywhere in the Old Testament where it is used to describe "apocalyptic" events, Circenses, be my guest, as I would be interested to know where such usages occur.

I neglected many things out of space and time. My objective was to show how plausible is my interpretation that chapters 1-3 are not “literal.”

Toledoth does not indicate a literal translation. It’s a book or chapter title. If we take the term “literally” then it designates that this book (5:1) is about the descendants of Adam, or it designates these particular people are the descendants of whomever (6:9, 10:1, 10:32, 11:10; etc.).

But what about the verse you, Panis, referred to? "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." (2:4) Wow, who are the descendents there? How can the heavens and the earth have descendents? I guess we can’t take that to “literally” mean that the heavens and the earth have “literal” descendents. My NASB translates this verse “this is the account.” My NIV does the same. The NRSV and KJV translates the verse “literally” as you have.

Genesis 1:1 says the book is about beginnings. Notice toledoth does not appear at the beginning of chapter one. Toledoth can mean “descendants, results, proceedings, account of, generations, genealogies. It appears to depend on context whether it refers to actual “descendents” or “an account of” something.

Let’s look at Revelation. 1:1 clearly states that this book is an Apocalypse. Therefore, we must assume the whole book to be an apocalypse. But in 1:3 it is said to be a prophecy. In 1:11 it is suggested to be a letter.

It’s quite dubious to claim that toledoth designates “actual time, actual people, and actual events”.

But let us say that toledoth is a history term. That the historical event has been given in an apocalyptic manner does not negate its historic truthfulness. Look at Revelation. It is an apocalypse and is historically true (see above). That Revelation has been given as an apocalypse does not negate that it is true in a historical sense.

Lastly, you neglect the fact that the statements you alluded to in chapter 2 of Genesis can easily be taken as a more detailed account of day 6 in God's creation. This obviously makes much sense, because the creation of man is obviously the emphasis of chapter 2, not the fact that God "formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air..."

Even if we accept your view that chapter 2 is more detailed account, the details are not in “literal”, chronological order. So what you must say is that chapter one is the correct chronological order but chapter two is for emphasis not in the correct chronological order. So Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, rearranged the material in chapter two to make a theological point rather than a literal point. Because, according to chapter one, man was not literally created first but, for theological emphasis, he was created first in chapter two. Regardless, the author is not being “literal.”

Some professors have told me that chapter 2 is the correct chronological order but chapter one has been theologically structured and not “literal”. So there is a variety of opinions on the matter on all sides.

No offense, Circenses, but I don't think your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is correct (which is fine, as I'm sure you don't see mine as correct, either). You say you held to such a position concerning the chapters before you came to believe in evolution. That's fine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that your interpretation of those chapters certainly corroborates your evolutionary beliefs.

Don’t worry, Panis; no offense taken. Like I said, as long as people understand the theological truths of the story, I do not care whether they believe it to be "literal" or not. It’s like that OT verse that talks about the Day of the Lord when soldiers will beat there swords into plow shears. The passage speaks about a time when peace will be upon the land. Many, many have taken this verse to be about the millennial kingdom where all the promises made to racial and political Israel will be fulfilled. This verse specifically refers to the ancient practice of those preparing for war to beat their plow shears into swords. When the Day of the Lord comes, the reverse will be true. Now many, many people take this verse "literally" and say that “yes, by that time we will be using swords and plow shears. And if anyone thinks that we won’t be using swords for war then they don’t believe the Bible to be true.” It’s a poetical principle, that’s it! Is it truth? Yes, when the Day of the Lord comes war will cease. That’s all it means. And whether one interprets the verse "literally" or figuratively, that is the meaning that comes through to all. But we quibble over swords and plow shears. And people lose their jobs.

My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as pinnacle of God’s creation. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that male and female are equal by creation and that only the fall of man has changed this. It is Chris that redeems this creation (yes, women can be pastors). My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view of man as a holistic being of body, soul, and spirit. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that there is no intermediate state in heaven for believers after they die and until the resurrection. We just lay in the ground and turn to dust. My interpretation of this passage corroborates my view that evolution, gravity, strong force, weak force, light, electro-magnetism, atoms and strings, are so wonderful that there existence only make sense if there is a God who ordained them.

A Good and Timely Discussion

Panis Question:

Yes, it is clear that the student was a little confused. As you pointed out, if he truly wanted "balance" as he stated, he would not have had a problem with errancy views being taught alongside inerrancy views. I think that he was trying to sound accommodating in his letter, but ended up inadvertently saying that what he really wanted was for certain viewpoints to be taught. I'll make a few comments about each.

Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue. If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.

Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.

2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.

Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.

Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.

Thus, Circensis, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?

Circensis Answer:

Inerrancy: When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture, any academic institution which receives money from the SBC has no business undermining the basic doctrine of inerrancy. If the issue at the college is one of whether or not certain professors hold to inerrancy, then it is a viable issue.

First, we do not yet know that the 25-30 yr old doctrine of inerrancy has been undermined. All we have is a college student making weak allegations. Four sub-points.

A) As we have previously learned, a believer can be faithful, fruitful, Bible-believing, believing the Bible to be true, infallible, inspired, the Word of God, but if he does not hold to inerrancy then he can be dismissed.
B) There are four or five different versions of inerrancy. Very few SBC believers are inerrantists so in the strictest sense. The term has never been sufficiently explained by the SBC. Therefore, anyone can be called an inerrantist at anytime if you probe their beliefs long enough. All you then do is flash the “errantist” label and someone is dismissed.
C) Because inerrancy is such a misunderstood term we then have to distinguish it from the notion that textual variations appear in the Bible. For all we know professors at Carson-Newman simply disputed the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11. This kid may have heard that and thought it inerrancy. I am hoping that someone set down with him and asked him exactly what he deems to be the errantist teachings at C-N. But 1) since I think this Tennessee Baptist actions are political in nature and 2) the student has not yet demonstrated any evidence to support his claims other than the quickly refuted evolution claim, I, therefore, do not yet believe that such errancy views exist.
D) And this is an important point. None of the Baptist Faith and Messages including the big 2000 BFM says anything about inerrancy. If the Bible Battles of the resurgence was all about the issue of inerrancy then why did they not put inerrancy in the 2000 BFM? All they did was remove a few words that said that Jesus was to be criterion for which the Bible is to be interpreted. They took Jesus out! The only other major thing they did was to codify that women could not be pastors, a completely unbiblical law. That is the reason so many people left in 2000-2001. But inerrancy, not in there.

If there are professors there who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they need to be terminated, simply by the virtue that the college is funded with SBC money. This was the crux of the conservative resurgence argument. The money of the SBC constituency was going to pay the salaries of those who did not believe the same way as the majority of Southern Baptists.

Again, we would be firing people for holding a position on inerrancy that the 2000 BFM does not address. But let us trace the history of this issue about SBC money.

1) SBC agency employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
2) Then seminary employees were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.
3) Then missionaries were told they had to sign the 2000 BFM.

Now all of these events did not happen at once but over a period of a short time. Now an association in Georgia is requiring its churches to sign the 2000 BFM. Other state conventions are considering the same thing. And, now, we have a state convention considering having its college profs sign the 2000 BFM.
Questions:

1) Are the all of the above events and considerations a good thing? If so, why?
2) Should the SBC require all churches to sign the 2000 BFM? If so, why?
3) And here is a big one. Should the SBC require all seminary students who receive SBC money to sign the 2000 BFM?
a. Why should a seminary student receive SBC money for his education if he will then go out and preach what is contrary to the majority of Southern Baptists and undermine the doctrine of inerrancy? They are the future pastors of America.
b. Should students be allowed to opt out of the SBC money we each automatically receive? Every SBC seminary student receives SBC money.
c. If a seminary student who receives SBC money and signs the 2000 BFM but subsequently comes to believe women can be pastors then can that student be forced to repay the money he has taken or should he be dismissed from his seminary? Perhaps he should be put on some form of probation until he agrees to drop his heresy.
4) Where will this all end? Should all members of a SBC church be required to sign the 2000 BFM?


Evolution: 1. When talking about the age of the Earth, the truth of the matter is that it does not matter. The Bible was never intended to be a "date book" by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth. Who cares how old the Earth is, anyway? The bottom-line is that it was created by God. The only reason the 6,000 year-old and 10,000 year-old theories came about was to try to combat an aspect of evolutionist teachings that taught the Earth is millions of years old. Nevertheless, the Bible dating people as well as evolutionist scientists both forget one key thing: both views are nothing more than theories and each are improvable.

The age of the earth does not matter? The bottom line is that it was created by God? Okay, then evolution or “creationism” does not matter; the bottom line is that man was created by God.


2. In terms of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, the answer is cut and dry with regards to man. One simply cannot reconcile a belief in macro-evolution with regards to man with Genesis. In Genesis, the fact that man is made in God's image after animals and that man is made with the breath of God clearly are distinguishing marks of man from the animals of the Earth. Saying that man evolved from life forms which God created earlier than man cannot be substantiated with the Genesis account. Clearly in Genesis, man is in a special position in God's hierarchy. Saying that he was formed using already created lower life forms undermines God's purpose of specifically designating him at such a high position of having dominion over the animals as well as the ability to have personal fellowship with God.

Some would argue that the Genesis creation account is not literally what happened, but is rather just symbolic or allegorical in nature, thereby trying to find a way to reconcile scientific theories of man's origins with the Bible. This argument has to simply be rejected, however, for the days of creation in Genesis are clearly numbered. "This was created after this was created after this," etc. With such precision noted, taking the Genesis account as figurative or allegorical is simply bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, the view of the creation account being figurative or allegorical necessitates a rendering of the events in the Garden of Eden as figurative or allegorical as well. As is attested in the New Testament (by Paul), that is simply false.

Can one hold to evolutionist teachings and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Absolutely. Can one hold to macro-evolution with regard to man's origins and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Yes, but it seems to create quite a conundrum; for if Genesis says what it says, the macro-evolution of man cannot be true. Yet, if one believes science in regards to man's macro-evolution, then Genesis has to be wrong (unless you try to "fudge" and say that the creation account in Genesis is figurative or allegorical). Most inerrantists who believe in macro-evolution are in such a category.

Thus, Circenses, since you are an inerrantist, do you believe in man's macro-evolution, and if so, do you hold that Genesis is figurative or allegorical?

Yes, I do believe in macro-evolution. Do I hold that the first three chapters are figurative or allegorical? Hmmm.

I have heard the term described as figurative, allegorical, or mythical. All of these are loaded words that are good in some cultures and not-so-good in others. “Mythical” is acceptable in German but not so in English. Ask Ralph Elliott. But let us use a term that carries the same function as the above but not the same cultural baggage. I choose to call the first three chapters of Genesis “apocalyptic.” Yes, the term “apocalyptic” is more appropriate.

Look at other parts of the Bible where apocalyptic literature is used. Parts of Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, and most of Revelation. All of these are apocalyptic. Why? Well, look at Revelation. No one is around to see beginning of Glory, the end of the old creation and the start of the new. These events had to be “revealed” to John. The same is true with the beginning of Genesis. Moses (or JE) was not there to see these events and these events had to be “revealed” to the author. In both cases, figurative language is used. Neither are strictly “literal” as we conceive it today, or do we actually believe the anti-Christ is a REAL beast with ten heads and seven heads? Is Satan ACTUALLY a dragon? Or are these simply images and figurative language to express what would be incomprehensible to first century people. No one takes Revelation “literally.” No one.

Now let’s turn to Genesis 1-3. “Apocalyptic” is an acceptable term. God had to “reveal” these events to the author and communicate the theological truths in a way that both people 4,000 years ago and today could understand. Incidentally, however we interpret Genesis 1-3, literal or apocalyptic, the theological truths still come through. This makes the issue a mute point in my estimation, but it shows the power and wisdom of God.

So what evidence do I have that makes me think that Genesis 1-3 are apocalyptic in nature?

First, it is interesting that chapters 1 and 2-3 are separate pieces. Whether you believe they were written by the same person is immaterial. We know these are separate pieces because the creation events in either chapter are in different chronological orders.


1:11 – God creates trees and plants and vegetation (3rd day).
1:20 – God creates fish and birds (5th day).
1:24 – God creates beasts and then God creates man in His own image, male and female He created them (6th day).
2:2-3 – God rested from his creating (7th day).


2:7 – Lord God forms man (adam) from ground (adamah).
2:9 – Lord God creates trees out of ground; no shrubs or plants on earth before man (2:5)
2:19 – Lord God creates beasts and birds from the ground (adamah).
2:22 – Lord God creates woman from man’s rib.


Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics.

Notice how in 1:24 beasts and man were created on the same day. Notice in 2:7 and 2:19 that both man and beasts were created out of the same stuff (adamah). Both are called “living creatures or souls or beings.” The exact same Hebrew words are used nephesh hayiyah. What is the difference between man and beast? Man is called adam because he came from adamah, the animals were not so named. Man was created in the image of God, animals were not. Whether you interpret this passage literally or apocalyptically, whether you interpret this passage as instantaneous or a process of millions of years of evolution (directed by God) the result is the same. Man is created in God’s image. Man is not degraded in either interpretation, the exact opposite is true.

I have asked my professors to explain the different chronological orders of these two chapters. They soon admit that the first chapter is probably meant to be taken more figuratively than the second chapter. I ask, why can’t the reverse be true? I do not get an answer.

Notice in verse 2:9 that God “caused to grow every tree.” The trees did not instantaneously appear. There was a process for the trees “to grow”. Nevertheless, God caused the process. Notice in 2:19 that God “forms every beast”. “Form” like “grow” can involve a process. Notice in 2:7 that God “forms man”. In Isaiah 44:2, the same word is used for “form” (yatsar). Notice the Isaiah 44:2 passage: “The Lord formed you from the womb.” Now wait a second. A person is formed in the womb by male sperm and female egg and forms over a nine-month period. Just ask my friend, Travis. Why is God saying he formed someone in one’s womb? Perhaps because he created the process by which all people are formed in the womb. We all say that we are God’s creation despite the fact that we admit that we were created differently than Adam.

We are not quibbling over whether or not God created man and the animals, rather, we are quibbling over processes of that creation. We are quibbling over whether God created man over a long period of time or over a day.

Now, look at the Hebrew words used in chapters two and three. Poetic and figurative language is used. Man (adam) from ground (adamah). Female (ishah) came out of male (ish). Eve (chavvah) is mother of all the living (chay) (i.e. men come from women). The serpent was crafty (arum) and the man and woman are naked (erum). The puns are flying left and right. The author is using this pun language to make theological points about man and his predicament. None of this would make any since if it was written in any language other than Hebrew.

Look at chapter one. In 1:7-8 God is separating waters (mayim) from waters (mayim) and making one the heavens (shamayim).

The deep, the firmament, these are ancient middle eastern cosmogony terms that describe a world that no one believes exists. Are these terms found in the narratives of the Bible? No. They are found in the poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible, where they can be figuratively understood.

These three chapters are full of the language that we find in poetic and apocalyptic literature. None of the straight forward language that we find in the Abraham narrative is there.

And let us ask the tough questions: Where did Cain’s wife come from? Where did Seth’s children come from? He must’ve had a wife, where did she come from?

These are reason why I think the first chapters of Genesis are best interpreted as apocalyptic. Nevertheless, a literal interpretation does not necessarily hurt. The same theological truths come forth just the same. You state that “the Bible was never intended to be a ‘date book’ by which we should try to ascertain the exact age of the Earth.” I am maintaining that the Bible was never intended to be a science book by which we should try to ascertain the exact processes by which God created. The bottom-line is that man was created by God in His image.

Now, what about Paul? Nowhere does Paul say that the Genesis 3 story should be taken “literally”. Nowhere does he directly say that this story should be taken “figuratively”, except in Romans 5:14 where he says that Adam was a “type” of Him who was to come. Paul is fond of typology; he uses it extensively in Galatians 4. Paul has no problem using typology to figuratively speak of Adam. Regardless, whether or not we take Paul to speak of Adam figuratively or literally, the same spiritual truth comes forth. If anywhere in Paul’s writings, he speaks of Adam and events surrounding man, the literal or figurative nature of the story is unimportant. What is important is the theological truth that Paul is preaching. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truth of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel. A pastor preaches upon the apocalyptic truths in the beast and whore in Revelation.

I believed in the figurative or apocalyptic view of Genesis 1-3 a long time before I believed in evolution. I came to the conclusion that these chapters were apocalyptic and not “literal” from reading the Bible itself and not from science. Only some time later after I came to realize what the author of Genesis 1-3 was doing did I subsequently read Christian authors and scholars (many who were/are SBC leaders) who approached evolution in a manner that appealed to me and coalesced with my understanding of Scripture.

Actually, I do not care at all whether someone believes or disbelieves in evolution. I have never attempted other believers to see it my way. Whether someone believes in evolution or not is as relevant as someone believing in Einstein’s general relativity. My only beef comes when people like this student and others attempt to get others in trouble for their beliefs. Only then do I step up. My interest is not that others believe my way on this issue but that others allow others to have differences of opinion on evolution.

This student and those who are backing him have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. I am afraid they are going to use evolution (1925 BFM), Genesis (1963 BFM), and inerrancy (2000 BFM) to force professors to adopt the 2000 BFM. I think all of this is about power and control. Why? Because neither the 1925, 1963, or the 2000 BFM address evolution, Genesis, or inerrancy. These are just hot-button issues in the SBC that people use to get more control over others. Not me.

Quote of the Day

"It's easy to misinterpret someone to be speaking out of both sides of their mouths when they are actually just two-faced." - Neal August

Oxford Trip 2004 IX: The Streets of Edinburgh

I realized this week that it has been a month since I last posted pictures from my Oxford Trip. I thought today that I would cease my slackness and resume.

When we last posted, I was on my way to Scotland. We had just left Grasmere and were now entering Edinburgh. Unfortunately, I had not had a cup of Starbucks in two days.

On one fine day, I, in my typical fashion, broke away from my tour group and set out on my own to see the sights. I had just finished reading a great selection of Kierkegaards religious writings, Provocations, and wanted to exercise my Christian freedom and independence. Also, I was debating within myself the importance of soul freedom and creedalism.

When my group began to flounder on which directions to take to see the sights and where these sights were at and where we were and how we could get anywhere I then decided that Kierkegaard was right and the crowd is wrong. Yes, I decided to assert my soul’s competency and set off on my own in my own direction.

After a few block in my own direction, I found a Starbucks. Yes, this would be a good day.

My first picture is of this wonderful Presbyterian Church. Inside a young minister was playing a grand pipe organ. I requested Benny and the Jets but he declined.



As you can see from the reverse side, the church is undergoing some renovation. I wonder if they’ll put statues outside?



Here is the arch above the door to the Presbyterian Church.



Here is one of the streets that leads up to Edinburgh Castle.



And, of course, here is the ubiquitous quilted piper. It was quite windy that day … It’s twue! It’s twue!



I’ll continue this soon. Childe Roland hopes to reach Edinburgh Castle soon.

Cultured Weekend

Had a cultured weekend. I have caught up on all of my projects this semester so I thought I would take time to catch up on all the artistic aspects of life.

First, instead of watching the absolutely dreadful Saving Private Ryan (yes, I know it’s almost heretical to say so) I decided to watch the much, much, much better D-Day film, The Longest Day.



Not only is this film historically accurate but it is both enjoyable to watch. Also, the film does not include buckets of blood and quantities of cursing. But more than all this, The Longest Day is aesthetically pleasing in a way that Saving Private Ryan could never be. Sorry, Spielberg; you still only have three masterpieces on your belt.

Second, I finally was able to watch the French animation film, The Triplets of Belleville.



This was a really good film and well worth the rental price. There are some absolutely sublime scenes, one in particular. Most of the characters don’t speak so if you don’t know French you can still know exactly what is going on.

Here is the plot: A bicyclist is kidnapped from the Tour de France by mysterious gangsters; his grandmother travels to the city of Belleville (which has a sardonic version of the Statue of Liberty in its harbor), where she tracks him down with the help of a musical trio gone to seed, the Belleville Triplets.

Some have said that “every scene mixes the silent comedy of Jacques Tati and Buster Keaton.” I think this is an accurate observation. But many have said that this film is nearly indescribable and must be seen to be fully appreciated. This comment is probably true as well.

I would recommend it.

Next, I have been listening to one of Bob Dylan’s Christian albums, Slow Train Coming. It made a stark difference from last weekend’s album, Ritual De Lo Habitual, by Jane’s Addiction.



This album is good but not great. There are some real good songs on them, especially the title song.

Actually, my Greek and New Testament recommended the album in class Friday. He alluded to Dylan’s song “Gotta Serve Somebody” and then recommended the whole album.

Next, the wife and I went on Friday night to see Robert Zemeckis’s new film, The Polar Express, starring Tom Hanks.



This was a really, really good film that I thoroughly enjoyed. The more I have reflected on the film over the past three days the more I have concluded that what I saw was a great film. Yes, the level of animation is suburb. Yes, the acting is good. But the story is great. It is magical and dream-like. It’s almost like a Kafka film for kids. I would highly recommend it.

Also, the wife and I rented Solaris. This was the 2002 George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh version. Not the original 1972 Andrei Tarkovsky version. Yes, I actually watched a remake. Well, I haven’t seen the original version yet.



This is not an action film. There is no action in it. This is a slow moving film about philosophy, morality, and other intriguing subjects that necessarily killed this film at the box office. I readily understand why this film was considered a flop. Which, by the way, makes it a good film to watch. I enjoyed the film and enjoyed pondering the possibilities the film raised. It’s quite existential.

But two problems did I have with this remake.

1) I do not like Soderbergh’s technique. His hand held camera jumps around to much when it should be more fixed.

2) I really did not need to see George Clooney’s bottom. Didn’t he used to have a tattoo?

I would recommend this film despite the two above points. More than anything, I now want to see the original.

Finally, I watched what is becoming one of my favorite films, The Thin Man, starring Myrna Loy and William Powell.



I like how Amazon reviews this film: “The intoxicating chemistry and repartee between the oft-teamed William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles--America's favorite soused detectives--is fully 100-proof in the marvelously witty Thin Man movie. You simply won't find more delightful movie company than Nick and Nora. The title, of course, refers not to Nicky the dick, but to the mysteriously missing scientist he and his lovely partner set out to find. Powell and Loy deliver their sparkling dialog with giddy enthusiasm (and occasionally slurred speech) in this rapid-fire, three-martini suspense comedy directed by famously speedy W.S. Van Dyke and adapted from the novel by Dashiell Hammett.”

In this film the wit is as dry as the martinis. Both Powell and Loy exhibit some of the greatest on-screen chemistry ever and pepper the film with some of the greatest dialogue ever and a great appreciation for God’s gift of alcohol.

[Editor’s Note: The author and editor of Panis Circenses is not currently imbibing adult beverages and doesn’t plan to while he is still attending seminary, which is why he has to watch The Thin Man to vicariously enjoy this particular gift of God.]

In other words, this film is a treat for all.

And this morning, after I finished my devotions, drank my cup of coffee and proceeded to write out this post, I listened to Led Zeppelin’s live album, How The West Was Won. Really great!



This is by far the best live Led Zeppelin album. It is better than the BBC sessions and it makes The Song Remains the Same sound like The Dave Clark Five. I would recommend this album for all classic rock fans.

So this was my weekend. I would mention my visit to the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History but why spoil and otherwise pleasant post. I would mention my weekly watch of Britcoms but that is a constant. The only thing that I will mention is that I am going to see Barry Manilow this weekend. Don’t laugh. I’ll let you know how that goes.

Incredibly Important

A very nice review worth posting.



By Frederica Mathewes-Green

How do you make a kids' movie that adults can stand to watch — and watch over and over again, once it comes out on video? One approach is to load it with references to pop culture, so everyone can feel fashionably knowing. But five years later those same refs will be unfashionable, and in a couple of decades incomprehensible. Or you could go for plenty of gross stuff, bathroom jokes and double-entendres. That might amuse the less-mature segments of the grownup audience, but it wears mighty thin on repetition, and makes responsible parents uncomfortable.

Is there any solution? Well, how about an enthralling plot, compelling characters, genuine humor, and a stirring message? It's so crazy it just might work.

That's the strategy that Pixar Studios has followed for the last ten years. From their first feature-length animation, Toy Story (1995), through A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc, and last year's blockbuster Finding Nemo, Pixar has put more effort into developing complex characters and thought-provoking themes than many a live-action movie.

Pixar sets the bar high, and this latest film sails over it like a speeding bullet. I went expecting to screen a kids' movie, but gradually the fact that I was watching an animation melted away. The wall of the theater melted away. As the plot unfolded, revealing unexpected dangers and surprises, it looked worthy of James Bond. And as the pro-family themes appeared (middle-aged boredom, temptation, fidelity), it looked worthy of James Dobson. Yes, this is a superhero action movie about the sanctity of marriage. As Mr. Incredible's daughter Violet (voiced by Sarah Vowell) tells her little brother, "Mom and Dad's life could be in danger. Or worse-their marriage!"

Now that we're in a post 11/2 universe, the themes of The Incredibles look downright prescient. Early on, there's a knock against the notion of a right to suicide, of all things. Mr. Incredible, a blond, hawknosed powerhouse with a chest the size of a Volkswagen, flies to catch a forlorn citizen who leapt from the top of a building. But the citizen suffered a wrenched neck in the process, and as his lawyer exclaims, "He didn't ask to be saved, he didn't want to be saved," so Mr. Incredible is being slapped with a wrongful-life suit. The idea catches on, and resentful, tort-happy rescuees file so many suits against their heroes that the good guys must go into hiding. It's a federally funded "Superhero Relocation Program."

Fast-forward 15 years, and Mr. Incredible/Bob Parr (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) is reviewing insurance claims in a pinched fluorescent cubicle he could wear as a suit. His wife, Elastigirl/Helen Parr (deliciously voiced by Holly Hunter) is a full-time mom. Daughter Violet is a shy teen, the kind who wants to disappear, and does — that's her superpower. And son Dashiell (Spencer Fox) can run so fast that — well, you'll see. That leaves baby Jack-Jack, who "doesn't have any powers," they say.

If the first point will discomfort euthanasia enthusiasts, the second will do the same for nanny-schoolers. While public schools across America are eliminating honor rolls and honors classes to spare the tender esteem of low achievers, Bob Parr gripes that "They keep inventing new ways to celebrate mediocrity." Young Dash wants to go out for sports, but his parents have discouraged him, because his superpowers would reveal the family's secret. And maybe it wouldn't be fair? "Dad says our powers make us special," he protests to his mom. "Everyone is special, Dash," Helen says. "Which is another way of saying no one is," Dash mutters.

Bob is dying to get back into the superhero game, and it is a sultry invitation to defeat a rebellious robot that gets him, and eventually his whole family, into trouble. You'll be well rewarded to learn the rest in a theatre seat, but let me make one more point about Pixar movies overall.

Most kids' entertainment is about kids. Pixar movies are about adults. They show children what adults are supposed to do — to be brave and self-sacrificing, to defend children even at risk to themselves, to give even in the face of ingratitude. This is wise because, after all, children aren't going to remain children. Just as we encourage them daily to grow in the practical skills of adulthood, they'll need these kind of skills too if they are going to be faithful, responsible spouses and parents.

Many kids sitting in theater seats don't have a daddy like Nemo's, who would go to the end of the ocean to save their lives. They don't have a daddy like Dash and Violet's, who can be crushed only by the thought that he has lost them, and whose strength rebounds instantly when he learns they need his help. These kids don't have daddy-figures like Woody and Mike and Sullivan, who love and guard the children who enter their care. They don't have a daddy like that, but one day they may be a daddy like that, or have a clear idea of the kind of future daddy they need to marry. If this is all that Pixar has done, it has done a most eminent thing.

Musical Interests

While I am thinking about rock music, allow me to post top ten best rock and classic rock bands:

The Beatles
Cream
The Doors
ELP
The Grateful Dead
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
Yes

Alice in Chains
Jane’s Addiction
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Phish
Primus
Radiohead
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Smashing Pumpkins
Stone Temple Pilots


And how about the best rock albums of each generation:

Pet Sounds (The Beach Boys)
Revolver (The Beatles)
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (The Beatles)
“The White Album” (The Beatles)
Abbey Road (The Beatles)
The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars (David Bowie)
The Doors (The Doors)
Frampton Comes Alive (Peter Frampton)
All Things Must Pass (George Harrison)
“Zoso” (Led Zeppelin)
Houses of the Holy (Led Zeppelin)
Physical Graffiti (Led Zeppelin)
McCartney (Paul MccCartney)
Ram (Paul MccCartney)
London Town (Paul MccCartney)
Pipers at the Gates of Dawn (Phish)
Dark Side of the Moon (Phish)
The Wall (Phish)
The Pros and Cons of Hitch hiking (Roger Waters)
Amused To Death (Roger Waters)
Tommy (The Who)
Quadrophenia (the Who)
Freak Out (Frank Zappa)


Mellow Gold (Beck)
Odelay (Beck)
Mutations (Beck)
Everybody Else Is Doing It So Why Can’t We (The Cranberries)
No Need To Argue (The Cranberries)
Bigger Better Faster More (4 Non Blondes)
Use Your Illusion (Guns N’ Roses)
Nothing’s Shocking (Jane’s Addiction)
More Noises and Other Disturbances (The Mighty Mighty Bosstones)
Don’t Know How To Party (The Mighty Mighty Bosstones)
Nevermind (Nirvana)
Definitely Maybe (Oasis)
(What’s The Story) Morning Glory (Oasis)
Ten (Pearl Jam)
Junta (Phish)
Rift (Phish)
Billy Breathes (Phish)
Tales From the Punchbowl (Primus)
The Bends (Radiohead)
OK Computer (Radiohead)
Kid A (Radiohead)
Blood Sugar Sex Magik (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness (Smashing Pumpkins)
Superunknown (Soundgarden)
Core (Stone Temple Pilots)
Purple (Stone Temple Pilots)
Temple of the Dog (Temple of the Dog)