tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post4031943737588903609..comments2024-02-14T03:38:31.560-05:00Comments on An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Factors involved in the shift to Evolutionary Creationism: My Story and YoursSteve Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-75990480135684308072008-05-18T23:31:00.000-04:002008-05-18T23:31:00.000-04:00Hi Walt, There is a lot behind your question. A f...Hi Walt, <BR/><BR/>There is a lot behind your question. A few comments first: <BR/><BR/>1. I think the key question you are getting at is this: Can someone who accepts the scientific consensus for biological evolution, also agree that the scriptures are inerrant. A related, although somewhat different question, is whether Gen 1-11 is even intended to be historical narrative. The simple answer is yes, many evolutionary creationists would agree with statements that the scriptures are inerrant, and to the second claim that Gen 1-11 should be interpreted as history. See my post at: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-genesis-1-11-historical-many.html for some discussion of this. <BR/><BR/>2. Your question (I think) assumes that a) one must accept inerrancy to be an Evangelical and b) the Chicago statement is the definitive definition of inerrancy. I probably disagree with both b) and even a) (depending on how one defines inerrancy). The NAE & the EFC don’t even mention the word inerrancy in their statements of faith. Check out my definition of an Evangelical post: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-evangelical-am-i-one-why-do-i.html <BR/><BR/>But that is not what you asked. You asked if I personally subscribe to the Chicago statements. Although depending on the definition of inerrancy, I could agree with the term, the Chicago statement is not what I would use to define my view of inerrancy. Actually, most of the affirmations are fine, but some of the “denials” are not appropriate. In particular, Article XII states: <BR/><BR/><I>We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course I don't believe that science or history can be used to overturn the teaching of scripture, but the statement above is making a big assumption that Scripture is teaching something historical about creation and the flood. (YECers generally insist that Scripture is teaching a 7 24-hour day creation & a global flood; I don’t think this is what the statements framers insisted though). <BR/><BR/>A key point is that there is no one Evolutionary Creationists interpretation of scripture (specifically Gen 1-11). For my own thoughts, check out the “Scripture” category on the right.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-7177232472051876112008-05-18T16:29:00.000-04:002008-05-18T16:29:00.000-04:00Steve:Do you agree with the Chicago Statemen t on ...Steve:<BR/><BR/>Do you agree with the Chicago Statemen t on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982)?<BR/><BR/>WaltAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-33408734944665240862008-05-18T02:38:00.000-04:002008-05-18T02:38:00.000-04:00Steve:Thanks for your suggestions and encouragemen...Steve:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your suggestions and encouragement! I hope to be in regular conversation with you on this blog.Kurt Willemshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11378647876158657549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-39861001825817102872008-05-17T13:14:00.000-04:002008-05-17T13:14:00.000-04:00Hi Kurt, Welcome. I’m glad you’ve found this blog...Hi Kurt, <BR/>Welcome. I’m glad you’ve found this blog helpful. Thanks for your own story. <BR/><BR/>I’d sort-of forgotten about McClaren’s series. #2 “The Story we find ourselves In” was probably more helpful for me than I’ve realized. I read that in the middle of my own journey. <BR/><BR/>Collins “The Language of God” is indeed good. I would also recommend Falk’s “Coming to Peace with Science” – that was very helpful for me personally since I could identify so closely with his own story (growing up in conservative Evangelical home, having lots of questions, and having no one really addressing them). <BR/><BR/>James F: <BR/>Thanks for your comments. Briefly, no I don’t think there is enough support within the Evangelical community yet for this kind of statement to take-off, not among Evangelical clergy / church leaders, and not even among Evangelical Theologians. We are at the stage where Evangelical scientists are just starting to speak out. The next stage IMHO, is to get Evangelical theologians to provide their perspective, to articulate a specifically Evangelical theology that is compatible with the findings of modern science. Until this happens, I highly doubt our clergy will support any statement. <BR/><BR/>We would also need to get pretty broad backing to make this successful, broad backing like the “Evangelical Manifesto” (more politically oriented) that recently came out. See: http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/ for details on this. My hope is that the discussion on this blog might be a catalyst (or one of many catalysts) that prod others to start this initiative. The risk of moving too soon with something like this is that it becomes either a) still-born or b) so divisive that it is counter-productive.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-83475902460431372722008-05-16T15:50:00.000-04:002008-05-16T15:50:00.000-04:00Steve,Thank you for directing me to your earlier p...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for directing me to your earlier posts. I now have a better understanding of your position and of Evangelicalism in general. I would enthusiastically welcome a statement of support for the EC position written from an Evangelical perspective; indeed, I think the makings of such a formal statement are here in your blog. Do you think there would be enough support for clergy to sign it, possibly with support of scientists as with the CLP, or do you see it as a statement for Evangelical science supporters in general? I look forward to what will develop. Please let me know if can be of any help.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/>JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-45905849217836922992008-05-15T23:24:00.000-04:002008-05-15T23:24:00.000-04:00I have grown up in an evangelical environment. I ...I have grown up in an evangelical environment. I went to youth groups and attended a Christian high school. Although I did not grow up in a traditional or hyper-fundamentalist setting, seeds of fundamentalism have been popularized amongst most in evangelicalism. I grew up learning that it was 'Christian' to believe in a literal 7 day creation or at least some kind of gap theory. For the most part, plain sense of the text was assumed as the best reading of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>When I was 16 I was called to full time ministry at a summer camp. Since then, God has opened doors that have led me into ministry opportunities and bible education. In college, I was highly involved in a church and was given an internship (I am now a youth pastor). At this time, I was turned on to the emerging church conversation. I began reading McLaren, Bell, Martoia, McManus, and others. I also, began to listen to lectures and messages by these and other individuals (NT Wright!). Well, I have for the past four years of my life been reshaping my understanding of the scriptures and how they influence how I interact with my world. All of this to give you the background to my 'evolutionary journey." <BR/><BR/>This year, over Christmas break I read the entire series for McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" for the first time. One of the major themes that stood out to me was the openness to evolution. I had not realized previously that this was up for negotiation. As soon as this issue began to be stirred up within me, I googled the topic and came across this blog. I since have realized that there is no biblical reason that I need to have antagonism toward evolution. Many Christian leaders that I respect seem to hold or at least allude to an open posture toward this issue. In this journey (one of which I am still newly walking) I have realized how we have damaged many people by telling them that they must defend either faith or science. Why do many college freshman walk away from church? Because we have spent 18 years trying to convince them that faith rests on young earth creationism, and without it everything blows up! Unnecessary polarities like these have done more damage than good to the cause of the Gospel!!!! So, for me, my journey has been more spiritual/ theological than scientific. Why fight against something that science continues to affirm? This summer, my reading list includes Collins’ book “The Language of God” which I have perused some already. I am thankful for this blog and for other brave evangelicals who are not afraid that intellectual inquiry will destroy faith!Kurt Willemshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11378647876158657549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-10258831697075645492008-05-12T21:03:00.000-04:002008-05-12T21:03:00.000-04:00Hi James, Welcome. Yes I am aware of the CLP. A...Hi James, <BR/>Welcome. Yes I am aware of the CLP. And I think it is a very helpful initiative. However, I’m not really sure it is something that is going to be attractive to Evangelicals, even Evangelicals that are supportive of evolution. I discussed this back in January in a post entitled “Promoting a Positive Relationship between Science and Faith in Evangelical Churches”. See: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/promoting-positive-relationship-between.html .Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-16840327009655236782008-05-12T07:15:00.000-04:002008-05-12T07:15:00.000-04:00Dear Steve,I am delighted to find this blog. As a...Dear Steve,<BR/><BR/>I am delighted to find this blog. As a Roman Catholic, I always accepted an allegorical interpretation of events in Genesis and had no problem accepting evolution as a scientific theory and theistic evolution as a philosophy (although some of my co-religionists have fallen in with the ID movement). <BR/><BR/>It is, however, extremely helpful for me to understand the path that Evangelicals have taken to embracing EC. I am one of the scientific consultants for the Clergy Letter Project, an open letter of support by Christian clergy for the coexistence of science and religion, especially where evolution is concerned (in fact, one of my “recruits” to the consultant roll has posted here).<BR/><BR/>Many different Christian faiths are represented at the CLP - I invite you to have a look at evolutionsunday.com and, in particular, I invite clergy members and scientists to join our ever-growing ranks. I firmly believe that all Christians, but Evangelicals in particular, are critical in promoting understanding between science and religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-29263182536584262052008-05-11T09:40:00.000-04:002008-05-11T09:40:00.000-04:00Pete - regarding JEDP, I assume you read about Pet...Pete - regarding JEDP, I assume you read about Peter Enns in an earlier post on this blog. I was just reading an article by him lat night, his “Bible in Context: The Continuing Vitality of Reformed Biblical Scholarship,” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 203-18. "This article is a slightly revised version of my address at my inauguration as Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hermeneutics on March 15, 2006." He explains Wellhausen's theory and other surrounding issues from a Reformed perspective. http://peterennsonline.com/articles-and-essays/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-55063781624407442172008-05-10T20:55:00.000-04:002008-05-10T20:55:00.000-04:00Hi Cliff, “Assembling together for a conference wo...Hi Cliff, <BR/><I>“Assembling together for a conference would be helpful to us”.</I> Within the professional Christian scientific community, there are such things (eg. ASA conferences: see 2007 info for meeting in Edinburgh at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/ - some absolutely excellent sessions. Unfortunately the audio on lots of the sessions is very poor). But, even these types of conferences are few and far between. <BR/><BR/>Stephen D: re: the fact that the salient issue is the theological implications. <BR/><BR/>Bang on. <BR/><BR/>All: re: an EC movement. <BR/><BR/>My own inclination would be to avoid using the term movement. I think one of the most harmful things about ID is that it has become an ID movement. Even if its arguments were good, its tactics and attitude have become so antagonistic that it is harmful to any Christian witness that might have been possible. Not all movements need to be this way, but in general, they seem to be better at building walls than bridges. <BR/><BR/>IMHO, the key objectives for EC’s should be the following: 1) demonstrate to those considering the claims of Christ that they don’t have to abandon science to follow Christ and 2) showing Christians that that they don’t have to give up their faith to accept the scientific evidence. <BR/><BR/>And no, I guess I don’t have a better word for movement so maybe my criticism is hollow.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-63587823258427960722008-05-10T10:10:00.000-04:002008-05-10T10:10:00.000-04:00do we ECers even qualify to be called a movement??...<EM>do we ECers even qualify to be called a movement??</EM><BR/><BR/>We're definitely a theological movement (as opposed to a scientific movement), due to all the theological implications of evolution that are practically virgin territory. I think this is the most important stuff to be explored by ECs amongst ourselves whether at a conference or not, so that we have answers to the most important questions that the special creationists immediately ask us, which are usually of a theological rather than a scientific nature. <A HREF="http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/god-made-pre-humans-into-people-vatican-newspaper-says/" REL="nofollow">I've just been interacting</A> with a couple SCs and sure enough, quicker than a greased (3), they pull out questions only answerable with more than a lazy (4).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-62126213625285839992008-05-10T00:16:00.000-04:002008-05-10T00:16:00.000-04:00>do we ECers even qualify to be called a movement?...>do we ECers even qualify to be called a movement??<BR/><BR/>Wow, and after we get our movement going, we can litigate to get our views taught in the schools!!! Wait, they are already doing that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-51919187991392795352008-05-09T23:42:00.000-04:002008-05-09T23:42:00.000-04:00Steve M., I am also looking forward to you guest p...Steve M., I am also looking forward to you guest post series, though I must tell you that when Dennis first mentioned it in his comment, I puzzled briefly, then entertained the hope that somewhere there was a conference being organized on Evangelicals and Evolution. So many of the people who have commented here walk alone within their communities of faith. Assembling together for a conference would be helpful to us, and perhaps raise the profile of the EC movement (do we ECers even qualify to be called a movement??). What would it take?Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-30569342718889344842008-05-09T20:30:00.000-04:002008-05-09T20:30:00.000-04:00Kyle: Thanks. It is definitely freeing to be able ...Kyle: Thanks. It is definitely freeing to be able to celebrate the wonder of God's creation. In some ways it parallels our message to those who have never encountered Christ: "Christianity about a bunch of rules? You kidding me? This is freedom!". To our fellow Christians we should say "Science scary? You kidding me? This is God's creation!". <BR/>.<BR/>Pete: Again, I appreciate your candor. I do agree with Steven R. that sometimes leaving a local Church is necessary. However, I strongly believe this should never be a first option - and probably not a good option in your case. From the sounds of it, you are a very important part of the ministry there. That is an important distinction. <BR/>And, from my own anecdotal experience, if every Evangelical Pastor or leader had to resign whenever they had major doubts, we'd lose at least 50% of our leadership on the spot (and maybe 80% of the honest ones!).Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-40772021581250920982008-05-09T10:55:00.000-04:002008-05-09T10:55:00.000-04:00"Pete, I don't want to lean on you in an unkind ma..."Pete, I don't want to lean on you in an unkind manner, but is this a case where the church work is your livelihood or are you a volunteer?"<BR/><BR/>The position is volunteer. I am part of a church plant that focuses on these small groups and tries to get everyone involved in both small groups and ministry. Indeed, if you decide to stay at our church you will be serving. There is a limited number of qualified small group leaders, and I committed to a year and would face quite a bit of pressure to stay on if I tried to step back after that (unless that is, they believe I am no longer qualified). My pastor thinks I am a good small group leader (he is in my group) and apparently doesn't think this is cause for me not to lead. Just given my additional struggles and uneasiness that no one else knows; that is part of the stress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-58228762882617719142008-05-09T04:12:00.000-04:002008-05-09T04:12:00.000-04:00For me, #4 was actually the vital and initial poin...For me, #4 was actually the vital and initial point. Importantly, a "broad examination" was actually not necessary, but rather bits and pieces of explanations that showed me that the standard YEC interps weren't the only way to read Genesis 1 were all that was needed. Hugh Ross's Creation and Time was very formative (though now I disagree with him, having become a fully-convinced believer in evolution); the whole "world is 14 billion years old" part of his argument was interesting (though I don't think I become wholly convinced until I took an astronomy class in college), but his citation of Augustine, Origen, and other early Christians (who of course had no reason to justify long periods of time to make room for evolution) who had non-24-hour interpretations of the meaning of the Hebrew word "day" was a complete revelation to me, opening up the possibilities for understanding Genesis 1 as poetic, as a cultural construct, as more a theological statement than a scientific one, i.e., to consider it in the ways that you are doing on this blog (but without any really entrenched study on ANE culture, etc.; I know the highlights, but not really the details). (I should note that #4 is still ongoing, to some extent, since the concepts of the fall, original sin, and total depravity (to the extent that my not-really Calvinist self accepts it) need re-examination once one rejects the idea of a historical Adam.)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this isn't surprising coming from someone who eventually ended up in English grad school that the whole ball got started rolling based on an interpretational issue, but I tend to think that if you can get people to budge off of the YEC-supporting ideas of "Bible always a 100% historical text" and "Bible should always be read most 'naturally'" (whatever the heck "naturally" means, and as an English scholar, I'm quite skeptical that there's ever a "most natural" meaning of much of anything) paradigms, you're more than halfway there toward getting them to consider evolution and Big Bang cosmology, and if they consider them honestly, there's a very good chance that the vast piles of evidence will lead in favor of accepting them.<BR/><BR/>On #5, I find it interesting that I became fully convinced of evolution largely before I knew of any major evangelical Christians who accepted it, but now I like to cling to Kenneth and Keith Miller, Francis Collins, et al, because I hope they are useful to convince others.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, what I wish could work probably wouldn't: I love reading about evolution because I thinking its the most fricking awesome thing about God's creation. I read David Quammen's Song of the Dodo (about island biogeography, but also a good but long primer on many aspects of evolution proper) with joy and wonder at how God's world operates. I only wish there was a way to communicate that to people without being branded a heretic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05505516611889828895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-70366904952305186502008-05-08T23:39:00.000-04:002008-05-08T23:39:00.000-04:00Pete, I don't want to lean on you in an unkind man...Pete, I don't want to lean on you in an unkind manner, but is this a case where the church work is your livelihood or are you a volunteer? I am wondering why you are remaining in that somewhat uncomfortable and untenable position. From my experience of churches, it is possible that the pastor just wants to avoid rocking the boat, plus he doesn't want to lose a body that is fulfilling a function.<BR/><BR/>But where you are now, there is no way you are going to be able to pursue the truth and find out things. <BR/><BR/>Of course take all this with a grain of salt, considering I know nothing about the situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-2973576125957542542008-05-08T17:05:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:05:00.000-04:00Gordon: Bingo. You win. Your prize is a spanking...Gordon: Bingo. You win. Your prize is a spanking new copy of "Beyond the Firmament" .. an excellent introduction to the discussion of faith and science. Have you heard of it? <BR/><BR/>Pete: re: the EC forum. <BR/><BR/>First, I would say that in general the internet is a very, very poor replacement for a local church / small group from a spiritual / intellectual / emotional support perspective. So I think it is important for each of us to find local Christians that we can trust to work through some of these issues. That being said, many are in situations (like you) where this is almost impossible. <BR/><BR/>Most of the EC forums I've seen have been "debating forums" with those that don't subscribe to EC. Not what I'm interested in (and probably not yourself). I believe Mike B. (thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com) & Stephen D. (undeception.com) have talked about an EC webring ... maybe you can bug them about that :-). <BR/><BR/>Finally, as I've indicated to a few people over the last 8 weeks, I do want to change the format of this blog - & some of those changes may meet some of your requirements. Stay tuned. But it definitely won't be a "EC support group forum".Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-54300211280771066792008-05-08T11:42:00.000-04:002008-05-08T11:42:00.000-04:00We need a EC web forum. Following these discussio...We need a EC web forum. Following these discussions in the comments sections of multiple blogs is challenging.<BR/><BR/>Steve Martin,<BR/>Your comments were very encouraging. And I do need to calm down. At times I try my best to let my fears and anxieties rest. It really wouldn't be so bad if not for my position in church leadership. If I could work this out myself from the safely of the pew then I would probably not experience so much stress. Within my position it is assumed I believe certain things about the Bible or at least a certain interpretation and Hermanutic that I am not sure I do. Indeed, I don't even know what I believe. No one in my church, spare my pastor, knows I accept common descent. I have been open with my pastor about this and have wanted to be clear that if this is not accessible that I shouldn't be in the position I am. He hasn't really seemed to respond to that. What concerns him is simply innerancy, not one particular interpretation. And yet I fear if the information got out there would be a huge backlash. I don't want to embarrass my family, I don't want to be under the judgment of an elder board that I know has strong personalities. I would just as well be up front now and asked to step down. And that is just the evolution part; never mind the ANE literature or JEPD source (both of which I could hardly defend and the second of which I am not even sure on). <BR/><BR/>Truth. Why be anxious and stressed just because other people can't accept reality. Common descent is true. And maybe JEPD is true as well. Why is that my fault? Why should I feel the burden of it all? Its unfortunate to lose friends over such issues. And let my doubts rest firmly on this, to pray and depend on God and His Son to deliver me from doubt. For if God is there and God truly loves me surely He would do this very thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-73367123657587268462008-05-08T09:33:00.000-04:002008-05-08T09:33:00.000-04:00Howard J. Van TillHoward J. Van TillGordon J. Gloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775671718952764368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-43738486305303661522008-05-07T17:19:00.000-04:002008-05-07T17:19:00.000-04:00Daniel: Thanks again for your own story. Re: “Th...Daniel: <BR/>Thanks again for your own story. <BR/><BR/>Re: “The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know” <BR/>A little quiz for everyone. A long time participant in the science / faith dialogue recently answered a question on his own journey with this: “I don’t know as much as I used to”. Who was this? (Hint: If you follow Stephen Matheson’s blog (another participant in the upcoming series here), you will probably know the answer). <BR/><BR/>Pete: Thanks for your frank questions and discussion. I think that I have already come to terms with some of the stuff with which you are wrestling. Other things I probably haven’t even considered yet. But I’ve reached an important conclusion personally: Don’t sweat the “next big challenge”. First, as soon as I solve one, another big one pops up. The objective to “resolve all challenges” is a recipe for insanity. Second, after running through a whole bunch of these, NONE of them (including current & future challenges) seem so scary anymore. Thus, these challenges can be addressed in a more leisurely fashion – there is not the urgency I once felt. <BR/><BR/>One final thought (maybe I’ve said this here before): 1 Cor 13:12 is not about knowledge of all the whats, hows, whys, and whens of God’s creation (as some Christians have interpreted it). Ie. We may never, even in the eschaton, know the answers to some of these questions. However, Paul promises that then we will really know God. That, for me, puts a lot of this in perspective.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-16539209308552665722008-05-07T15:41:00.000-04:002008-05-07T15:41:00.000-04:00Pete,I understand your struggle with leading a sma...Pete,<BR/><BR/>I understand your struggle with leading a small group and knowing about parallels with ANE mythology and other issues in textual criticism. There are times I have to keep my mouth shut in Sunday School. <BR/><BR/>At times I almost think there is a conspiracy to hide this type of information from the average laymen. However, teaching these things would be a lightning rod for controversy.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04227486928459259070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-43004858697702725162008-05-07T14:19:00.000-04:002008-05-07T14:19:00.000-04:00Steve(s),You mean there is more then just JEPD!Evo...Steve(s),<BR/><BR/>You mean there is more then just JEPD!<BR/><BR/>Evolution didn't bother me so much, though I will admit at brief times I resonante with our friend Tom who has left the faith since the reality of evolution doesn't seem to jive with our story. But JEPD was a different matter. It is not that Moses didn't write it, I don't think the Bible even says that (at least not the narrative), nor that it has multiple authors or even that it was written over a great deal of time. It is that some of the most convincing proof of the theory was the multiple accounts from different authors, sometimes with contradictions. And even that wouldn't be so bad, the gospels themselves are full of such instances; but the OBVIOUS POLEMICS behind the stories, especially for the P source (and their stories leading to commands of centralized worship and ONLY Aaron descendants being allowed to sacrifice). Given all this information, and coupled with my earlier wrestling with the fact that the OT seems a lot like the product of human authors of its time in science, worldview, history; it just plunged me into serious doubts that it wasn't just exactly that. And if the stories contradicted with obvious motives, didn't that mean that they were at least partially, if not greatly fabricated? And if you though questioning the historicity of Noah was hard for me, try adding on Abraham and the exodus.<BR/><BR/>The real frustrating thing is that I can't really confirm and deny any of this since I can't read Hebrew (and probably will never learn). But since then I have calmed down a bit. Maybe the stories were told separate times and the history is not exact. I have come to terms with that in the past over the gospels, I don't try to reconstruct them with 6 crows of the rooster and two different daughters of Jairus.<BR/><BR/>And thank you for the recommendation, I will look into it. <BR/><BR/>Steve wrote:<BR/>"The rule is if you start reading about this stuff, avoid all adult Sunday School classes, Bible Studies and small groups."<BR/><BR/>And there in lies the problem. I LEAD one of those small groups. And am I very much expected to teach and encourage the standard traditional understanding of the Bible and OT history even as I deeply struggle with it myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-53730519373888730782008-05-07T12:44:00.000-04:002008-05-07T12:44:00.000-04:00Well, you were asking for stories, so here's mine:...Well, you were asking for stories, so here's mine:<BR/><BR/>Grew up in a Christian home. There was no significant push toward YEC from my parents, it was my own position based on my reading of Genesis and limited understanding of science. In 8th grade I used the normal YEC arguments against my biology teacher (thanks Scott Huse). <BR/><BR/>Many years later (after the Dover trial) I got involved in an online debate. I attempted to use the ol' YEC arguments again, only to get shot down big time. So, I decided I better research the evolution side of the debate in order to better defend my YEC beliefs. During my research I encountered so much bad science on the YEC side, combined with deceitful quote mines, that I nearly gave up the faith. I thought that since I had been lied to about evolution, that maybe I had been lied to about other matters of faith as well.<BR/><BR/>After much searching, I discovered Richard Colling's book and it helped me to piece together my beliefs again. I've also read "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation", "Finding Darwin's God", and "The Language of God". I have "Coming to Peace with Science" on its way.<BR/><BR/>I have learned a lot about what science is (and isn't). I am appalled at the ignorance that continues to be propagated in the name of Christianity (e.g. Expelled).<BR/><BR/>As I stated, I am currently learning more about the Bible, exegesis and hermeneutics. I realize the creation story may be heavily influenced by ANE mythology, but I am still trying to piece together how Adam, Eve, original sin, and death all fit together in an evolutionary framework.<BR/><BR/>The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. :-)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04227486928459259070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-2478688181919785542008-05-07T12:04:00.000-04:002008-05-07T12:04:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,Whoops! I thought everyone knew about the...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>Whoops! I thought everyone knew about the upcoming guest posts. Sorry! <I>Mea culpa.</I> I too am very much looking forward to the series. It really helps to connect with others who are dealing with the same issues (and who have been dealing with them longer than I).<BR/><BR/>Yes, the pinhole thing is a major hobby (as you can tell from my blog). It's a lot less controversial too.Dennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.com