What do you think of the author’s approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation?

[Auth Allow]

I agree that the ideas I am referring to are relatively "new" ideas. Even things like old earth creationism were generally not held in antiquity...

in [some] protestant scholarship, it's not that God created chaos or death. But rather the creation was made out of chaos. Order made out of disorder. Deliverance out of chaos. Like creating a beautiful painting out of disordered or chaotic paint splatters. Or a beautiful clay pot out of unformed chaotic clay on a wheel.

God created the heavens and the earth, but the sea was always still there, beyond the raqia. (Until it was released during Noah's flood).

God never created darkness in Genesis either. God only created light. But the darkness was there in Genesis 1:2, despite this. Alongside the deep chaotic waters of the abyss (consider Jonah's experience with the deep). See NRSVue Gen 1:1-3 for reference.

And so when God says that the creation was very good, this would be in reference to the beauty that was created, not necessarily the waters of chaos beyond what was created...

The claim that, in the beginning, God had to work to ‘improve’ or 'add to' something pre-existent (whether that be "darkness," "sea," matter, space, or something else) is an idea that appears in literature at least as far back as Plato’s Timaeus. However, it is wholly rejected by the Catholic Church, which asserts that God created from absolutely nothing (ex nihilo). (What Catholics believe about Creation is spelled out in Paragraphs 279–324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In summary, God transcends Creation and exists prior to all of it.)

Your argument that God could not change the supposedly chaotic, ‘pre-existent’ elements of reality (like "sea") into a world without suffering and death in the animal kingdom implies that God is not actually all-powerful. The suggestion that God is not truly omnipotent is also flatly rejected by the Catholic Church because it conflicts with verses like Jeremiah 32:17: “Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.’” (ESV) (Again, read Paragraphs 279–324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which assert that God created a well-ordered and genuinely good world—a world without any suffering and death at all. If you've never read the Catholic Church's theology on this foundational issue, you should seriously consider reading at least this one portion of the Catechism. It is very well thought-out.)

I believe that most practicing Protestants, like practicing Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, continue to believe that God created everything in existence from nothing. Moreover, my understanding is that most practicing Protestants (like Catholics) also believe that God is truly all-powerful. However, after reading some of the citations you provided in your posts above, it appears that some contemporary Protestant academics have abandoned these traditionally held positions and have returned to a pre-Christian, Platonic understanding of the Creator as a being who is not truly all-powerful.

Theologically speaking, these folks have departed from Christian orthodoxy (the claim that God is not truly all-powerful is regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church). As I hinted at in my last post above, there’s a lot of heretical stuff happening at certain US divinity schools nowadays, which is why I make an effort to understand the theological implications of the arguments that are being promoted by certain academics at these schools, not merely the textual/historical aspects of their arguments. The theological implications of the literature you cited above are that God did not create ex nihilo and that God is not actually all-powerful.

Those who maintain that God didn't create ex nihilo and that God isn’t truly all-powerful aren’t engaged in the same debate about the problem of evil as those who do believe that God created ex nihilo and that God is really, truly all-powerful. This, ultimately, appears to be the source of our disagreement on this topic. If God didn't create ex nihilo, and if he isn’t actually all-powerful, then the problem of evil isn’t difficult to solve at all. One simply concludes that God can’t do it for one reason or another. (Your argument, for example, seems to be that God allows suffering and death in the animal kingdom because there are pre-existent aspects of reality that in some manner constrained how God decided to act in the beginning.)

As noted above, this is a Platonic idea that really is rejected by the vast majority of practicing Christians. Without question, it is rejected by the Catholic Church. Most Christians (and all Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) believe that God is truly all-powerful but that he is voluntarily holding back from destroying evil…for now. The question is, “Why?” The Advent of Time provides a very compelling answer to this question. Because it adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer it provides addresses a range of very difficult theological challenges that I have not seen addressed elsewhere.

[Adrian Bouknight]

I agree that the ideas I am referring to are relatively "new" ideas. Even things like old earth creationism were generally not held in antiquity...

in [some] protestant scholarship, it's not that God created chaos or death. But rather the creation was made out of chaos. Order made out of disorder. Deliverance out of chaos. Like creating a beautiful painting out of disordered or chaotic paint splatters. Or a beautiful clay pot out of unformed chaotic clay on a wheel.

God created the heavens and the earth, but the sea was always still there, beyond the raqia. (Until it was released during Noah's flood).

God never created darkness in Genesis either. God only created light. But the darkness was there in Genesis 1:2, despite this. Alongside the deep chaotic waters of the abyss (consider Jonah's experience with the deep). See NRSVue Gen 1:1-3 for reference.

And so when God says that the creation was very good, this would be in reference to the beauty that was created, not necessarily the waters of chaos beyond what was created...

The claim that, in the beginning, God had to work to ‘improve’ or 'add to' something pre-existent (whether that be "darkness," "sea," matter, space, or something else) is an idea that appears in literature at least as far back as Plato’s Timaeus. However, it is wholly rejected by the Catholic Church, which asserts that God created from absolutely nothing (ex nihilo). (What Catholics believe about Creation is spelled out in Paragraphs 279–324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In summary, God transcends Creation and exists prior to all of it.)

Your argument that God could not change the supposedly chaotic, ‘pre-existent’ elements of reality (like "sea") into a world without suffering and death in the animal kingdom implies that God is not actually all-powerful. The suggestion that God is not truly omnipotent is also flatly rejected by the Catholic Church because it conflicts with verses like Jeremiah 32:17: “Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.’” (ESV) (Again, read Paragraphs 279–324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which assert that God created a well-ordered and genuinely good world—a world without any suffering and death at all. If you've never read the Catholic Church's theology on this foundational issue, you should seriously consider reading at least this one portion of the Catechism. It is very well thought-out.)

I believe that most practicing Protestants, like practicing Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church, continue to believe that God created everything in existence from nothing. Moreover, my understanding is that most practicing Protestants (like Catholics) also believe that God is truly all-powerful. However, after reading some of the citations you provided in your posts above, it appears that some contemporary Protestant academics have abandoned these traditionally held positions and have returned to a pre-Christian, Platonic understanding of the Creator as a being who is not truly all-powerful.

Theologically speaking, these folks have departed from Christian orthodoxy (the claim that God is not truly all-powerful is regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church). As I hinted at in my last post above, there’s a lot of heretical stuff happening at certain US divinity schools nowadays, which is why I make an effort to understand the theological implications of the arguments that are being promoted by certain academics at these schools, not merely the textual/historical aspects of their arguments. The theological implications of the literature you cited above are that God did not create ex nihilo and that God is not actually all-powerful.

Those who maintain that God didn't create ex nihilo and that God isn’t truly all-powerful aren’t engaged in the same debate about the problem of evil as those who do believe that God created ex nihilo and that God is really, truly all-powerful. This, ultimately, appears to be the source of our disagreement on this topic. If God didn't create ex nihilo, and if he isn’t actually all-powerful, then the problem of evil isn’t difficult to solve at all. One simply concludes that God can’t do it for one reason or another. (Your argument, for example, seems to be that God allows suffering and death in the animal kingdom because there are pre-existent aspects of reality that in some manner constrained how God decided to act in the beginning.)

As noted above, this is a Platonic idea that really is rejected by the vast majority of practicing Christians. Without question, it is rejected by the Catholic Church. Most Christians (and all Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) believe that God is truly all-powerful but that he is voluntarily holding back from destroying evil…for now. The question is, “Why?” The Advent of Time provides a very compelling answer to this question. Because it adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer it provides addresses a range of very difficult theological challenges that I have not seen addressed elsewhere.

I agree with the above. Thanks again for your feedback!

The response from Conservative Protestant scholarship today, would usually go something like this:

The ex materia nature of ancient near eastern literature (Genesis, Enuma Elish, the Memphite Theology, among others), does not negate nor contradict the broader understanding of God's ex nihilo original creative actions (and thus is not heresy).

For example, if I said "in the beginning of my creation of cookies, I took a cookie cutter and gave form to formless cookies..."

Such a statement involves ex materia creation, but it doesn't inherently contradict God's original ex nihilo creative acts at a prior point in time. Because both concepts can be simultaneously true but occuring at different times (ex nihilo first, then later ex materia). And ultimately the question then boils down to what the original authors and audience intended to speak of (ancient Israelites, such as Moses who is traditionally understood as the author of Genesis, had no concept of ex nihilo thought, because such philosophy wasn't invented or developed up until at least the 2nd temple period or later). Both positions include ex nihilo creation as is orthodox. However, protestant scholarship would simply identify the Genesis creation as occurring over 6 days, rather than occurring in verse 1. For example, earth is created on day 3.

Genesis 1:9-10 NRSVUE
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

So Protestant scholarship would look at this verse and say "that's when God created the earth". And it was done so by gathering the seas to reveal the dry land below, God called the dry land Earth, and it was good.

Because if everything was created in verse 1, then what would be happening during every other day? Did God create anything on day 3? But if God is creating the earth on day 3, then that suggests that it is occuring ex materia. Just as the heavens were created on day 2.

Ex materia ancient near eastern texts date back to some 4,000BC and beyond. Far older than plato or more recent ex nihilo perspectives. Texts such as the Memphite Theology parallel Genesis, day by day. The primordial waters, the spirit hovering over the face of the deep. The water revealing dry land, God creating through speech etc. all of these details and more are also observed in ex materia extra biblical texts. Which isn't too surprising given Moses' captivity in Egypt.

And that's why many newer or updated Bible translations such as the CEB, NRSV or NRSVue say things such as:
Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Because the initial verse there, in Hebrew, "Beginning" lacks a definite article, resulting in verse 2 being a dependent clause. Which, grammatically would result in a situation where, "the earth was complete chaos" is a part of verse 1, which comes before God begins speaking (God creates with the spoken word in Genesis) in verse 3. And each day of creation begins with "and God said" marking God's action. Which does not occur until verse 3.

So basically, before God begins creating (let there be light), the earth is or was complete chaos, beforehand. And this translation is held even in historic Jewish translations that closely reflect masoritic tradition, the traditions of the Bible itself.

Overall, I otherwise completely agree with your interest in protecting the orthodox position of ex nihilo creation. I think that's an important doctrine to protect.

Unfortunately, I don't have a simple resolution to this division.

But then additionally, we have early church figures acknowledging animal death beyond the garden, such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Basil, which in terms of church tradition, I would think were pretty influential. As a side topic to the above. So I don't think this would necessarily contradict God's ultimate power over death. Rather, figures like Saint Augustine or others have suggested beauty in change, life to death, or that Gods plan ultimately included animal death, for reasons that we have difficulty understanding.

Saint Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis:
"But one might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a trial. The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable. For all creatures, as long as they exist, have their own measure, number, and order. Rightly considered, they are all praiseworthy, and all the changes that occur in them, even when one passes into another, are governed by a hidden plan that rules the beauty of the world and regulates each according to its kind."

Saint Thomas Aquinas:
“the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.”

John Calvin:
"Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.”

Saint Basil the Great:
“So nature, being put in motion by the one command, passes equally through birth and death in a creature, while it keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance, to the end. Because it is so that a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an eagle. And while every one of the living beings is preserved by these uninterrupted successions, she directs them to the end of it all.”

And to be fair, Genesis doesn't clearly say anything about animals being immortal before the fall, so it is difficult to disagree with the many throughout church history that have acknowledged this possibility.

And God does say that creation was "very good". But if there is darkness and deep that is outside of that which was created, similar to how darkness was not created but it exists anyway, then what was Good was Gods light (verse 3) not necessarily the darkness that preceeded. And likewise, life would be good, but not necessarily an absence of life, or death, that proceeded.

And I baked a cake yesterday and "it was good". But that doesn't mean that everything was therefore immortal in my life. So, "good" doesn't inherently mandate an idea of heavenly immortality.

Anyhoo! This has been fruitful and I appreciate the feedback! I'll let you have the last word (unless you'd like me to keep going!). Your perspectives have been helpful and much appreciated!

[Adrian Bouknight]

And if you're interested in more content on this matter, or if this is something that you enjoy studying the controversy behind, I'd recommend a book called "The Lost World of Genesis 1", or The Lost World of Adam and Eve" by Dr John Walton.

Or a book called, reading "Genesis 1 and 2: an Evangelical conversation"

Dr. Tremper Longman III has good content on this as well, he has a book that is called "exploring Old Testament controversies"

There's a good book by a couple conservative Evangelical scholars by the names of Dr. John soden and Dr. Johnny Miller out of Dallas seminary, they have a book titled " In the beginning we misunderstood".

And Dr. Michael s. Heiser recently published a book titled "The Unseen Realm" And "Reversing Hermon" that also cover these kinds of topics pretty well. Dr. Michael Heiser served on Faith Life and the Logos Bible software staff team.

These are very prominent. Evangelical conservative Old Testament scholars, and they all adhere to biblical inerrancy.

And one last reference, I would say the NIV application commentary series has about a dozen or two Protestant Old Testament scholars that interact with these ideas in various ways.

If you enjoy Old Testament content, these are all great resources for reading.

And if you like Catholic resources, Dr. Gavin ortland has a very good book on literature written by St. Augustine and his views of animal death before the fall. His book is titled
"Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy" that I would highly recommend.

[Auth Allow]

And if you're interested in more content on this matter, or if this is something that you enjoy studying the controversy behind, I'd recommend a book called "The Lost World of Genesis 1", or The Lost World of Adam and Eve" by Dr John Walton.

Or a book called, reading "Genesis 1 and 2: an Evangelical conversation"

Dr. Tremper Longman III has good content on this as well, he has a book that is called "exploring Old Testament controversies"

There's a good book by a couple conservative Evangelical scholars by the names of Dr. John soden and Dr. Johnny Miller out of Dallas seminary, they have a book titled " In the beginning we misunderstood".

And Dr. Michael s. Heiser recently published a book titled "The Unseen Realm" And "Reversing Hermon" that also cover these kinds of topics pretty well. Dr. Michael Heiser served on Faith Life and the Logos Bible software staff team.

These are very prominent. Evangelical conservative Old Testament scholars, and they all adhere to biblical inerrancy.

And one last reference, I would say the NIV application commentary series has about a dozen or two Protestant Old Testament scholars that interact with these ideas in various ways.

If you enjoy Old Testament content, these are all great resources for reading.

And if you like Catholic resources, Dr. Gavin ortland has a very good book on literature written by St. Augustine and his views of animal death before the fall. His book is titled
"Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy" that I would highly recommend.

Excellent. This is an area of interest to me, so thank you for providing those references.

If you don’t mind, I have one last question for you:

I submitted a reply to your 27 Oct post, but my reply ended up being sent to the moderator’s queue (probably because I tried to include a link to a website as a reference). A lot of what I wrote in that post has already been addressed in our recent back-and-forth, so just ignore my post if it comes through later. I am, however, curious about the “scientific concordism” issue that you raised at the end of that post.

My understanding is that scientific concordism is the attempt to reconcile specific biblical passages with scientific theories. As you mentioned, Galileo ran into a bit of problem with the Catholic Church because of the Church’s narrow-mindedness concerning his scientific discoveries. Since that rather embarrassing episode, the Catholic Church seems to have matured a bit. For example, on the evolution issue, the Catholic Church has taken the position that evolution need not conflict with Genesis 1–3. The Catholic Church hasn’t actually offered a definitive solution explaining how these two seemingly divergent accounts of man’s creation can be reconciled, but it has had the good judgement to proceed cautiously.

In contrast, a significant number of evangelical pastors have taken the opposite approach, asserting that evolution by means of natural selection can’t possibly be true if direct creation is true. I personally find such assertions to be suspect because they appear to deny the implications of the fossil record, which in my view strongly supports the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

The Advent of Time maintains that both evolution and direct creation are true, reconciling the two through an argument based on the differences between ‘timeless being’ and ‘time-bound being’ (see my post from 9 Oct for a summary). In your 27 Oct post, you appeared to criticize the book's approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation not on the merits of the argument itself, but on the grounds that "scientific concordism" is a “hermeneutical fallacy.” Are you asserting that the very attempt to reconcile Genesis 1–3 with the findings of natural science constitutes a logical fallacy in and of itself?

[Adrian Bouknight]

Sure. Yes I absolutely understand.

I should start by saying, I think that the effort to reconcile the two is really one of the best things about the book that I enjoyed the most. And my critiques are hopefully viewed as being constructive, because at the end of the day, the church has some commonality, despite it having its theological differences at times.

Let's see if I can do this justice. I'll take my time on this response.

[Adrian Bouknight]

And if you're interested in more content on this matter, or if this is something that you enjoy studying the controversy behind, I'd recommend a book called "The Lost World of Genesis 1", or The Lost World of Adam and Eve" by Dr John Walton.

Or a book called, reading "Genesis 1 and 2: an Evangelical conversationo"

Dr. Tremper Longman III has good content on this as well, he has a book that is called "exploring Old Testament controversies"

There's a good book by a couple conservative Evangelical scholars by the names of Dr. John soden and Dr. Johnny Miller out of Dallas seminary, they have a book titled " In the beginning we misunderstood".

And Dr. Michael s. Heiser recently published a book titled "The Unseen Realm" And "Reversing Hermon" that also cover these kinds of topics pretty well. Dr. Michael Heiser served on Faith Life and the Logos Bible software staff team.

These are very prominent. Evangelical conservative Old Testament scholars, and they all adhere to biblical inerrancy.

And one last reference, I would say the NIV application commentary series has about a dozen or two Protestant Old Testament scholars that interact with these ideas in various ways.

If you enjoy Old Testament content, these are all great resources for reading.

And if you like Catholic resources, Dr. Gavin ortland has a very good book on literature written by St. Augustine and his views of animal death before the fall. His book is titled
"Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy" that I would highly recommend.

Excellent. This is an area of interest to me, so thank you for providing those references.

If you don’t mind, I have one last question for you:

I submitted a reply to your 27 Oct post, but my reply ended up being sent to the moderator’s queue (probably because I tried to include a link to a website as a reference). A lot of what I wrote in that post has already been addressed in our recent back-and-forth, so just ignore my post if it comes through later. I am, however, curious about the “scientific concordism” issue that you raised at the end of that post.

My understanding is that scientific concordism is the attempt to reconcile specific biblical passages with scientific theories. As you mentioned, Galileo ran into a bit of problem with the Catholic Church because of the Church’s narrow-mindedness concerning his scientific discoveries. Since that rather embarrassing episode, the Catholic Church seems to have matured a bit. For example, on the evolution issue, the Catholic Church has taken the position that evolution need not conflict with Genesis 1–3. The Catholic Church hasn’t actually offered a definitive solution explaining how these two seemingly divergent accounts of man’s creation can be reconciled, but it has had the good judgement to proceed cautiously.

In contrast, a significant number of evangelical pastors have taken the opposite approach, asserting that evolution by means of natural selection can’t possibly be true if direct creation is true. I personally find such assertions to be suspect because they appear to deny the implications of the fossil record, which in my view strongly supports the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

The Advent of Time maintains that both evolution and direct creation are true, reconciling the two through an argument based on the differences between ‘timeless being’ and ‘time-bound being’ (see my post from 9 Oct for a summary). In your 27 Oct post, you appeared to criticize the book's approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation not on the merits of the argument itself, but on the grounds that "scientific concordism" is a “hermeneutical fallacy.” Are you asserting that the very attempt to reconcile Genesis 1–3 with the findings of natural science constitutes a logical fallacy in and of itself?

Let's see if this works.

It's not that reconciliation between science and the Bible is wrong or a fallacy. Rather, it's the method in which this is done. The catholic church, of course, messed this up with heliocentrism, they thought that the Bible expressed ideas of modern science. And they tried to push back against Galileo, to defend the Bible.

The intent of the Catholic Church at that time, was righteous. Just as I would say that the intent of "The Advent of Time" is a good one as well. Actually that's one of the main things I enjoyed about the book. Is that the author recognizes this history and now is moving forward in that effort to reconcile the two. And I can't understate the value of that.

But the question becomes, is concordism the right approach? Is it the right way to solve this topic? And I would say, no.

And I could give a rundown of various ways that concordism presents itself in the church today if you would like. And an explanation of what it is, and some areas of "The Advent of Time" that I believe inadvertently fall into this category.

[Auth Allow]

And if you're interested in more content on this matter, or if this is something that you enjoy studying the controversy behind, I'd recommend a book called "The Lost World of Genesis 1", or The Lost World of Adam and Eve" by Dr John Walton.

Or a book called, reading "Genesis 1 and 2: an Evangelical conversationo"

Dr. Tremper Longman III has good content on this as well, he has a book that is called "exploring Old Testament controversies"

There's a good book by a couple conservative Evangelical scholars by the names of Dr. John soden and Dr. Johnny Miller out of Dallas seminary, they have a book titled " In the beginning we misunderstood".

And Dr. Michael s. Heiser recently published a book titled "The Unseen Realm" And "Reversing Hermon" that also cover these kinds of topics pretty well. Dr. Michael Heiser served on Faith Life and the Logos Bible software staff team.

These are very prominent. Evangelical conservative Old Testament scholars, and they all adhere to biblical inerrancy.

And one last reference, I would say the NIV application commentary series has about a dozen or two Protestant Old Testament scholars that interact with these ideas in various ways.

If you enjoy Old Testament content, these are all great resources for reading.

And if you like Catholic resources, Dr. Gavin ortland has a very good book on literature written by St. Augustine and his views of animal death before the fall. His book is titled
"Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy" that I would highly recommend.

Excellent. This is an area of interest to me, so thank you for providing those references.

If you don’t mind, I have one last question for you:

I submitted a reply to your 27 Oct post, but my reply ended up being sent to the moderator’s queue (probably because I tried to include a link to a website as a reference). A lot of what I wrote in that post has already been addressed in our recent back-and-forth, so just ignore my post if it comes through later. I am, however, curious about the “scientific concordism” issue that you raised at the end of that post.

My understanding is that scientific concordism is the attempt to reconcile specific biblical passages with scientific theories. As you mentioned, Galileo ran into a bit of problem with the Catholic Church because of the Church’s narrow-mindedness concerning his scientific discoveries. Since that rather embarrassing episode, the Catholic Church seems to have matured a bit. For example, on the evolution issue, the Catholic Church has taken the position that evolution need not conflict with Genesis 1–3. The Catholic Church hasn’t actually offered a definitive solution explaining how these two seemingly divergent accounts of man’s creation can be reconciled, but it has had the good judgement to proceed cautiously.

In contrast, a significant number of evangelical pastors have taken the opposite approach, asserting that evolution by means of natural selection can’t possibly be true if direct creation is true. I personally find such assertions to be suspect because they appear to deny the implications of the fossil record, which in my view strongly supports the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

The Advent of Time maintains that both evolution and direct creation are true, reconciling the two through an argument based on the differences between ‘timeless being’ and ‘time-bound being’ (see my post from 9 Oct for a summary). In your 27 Oct post, you appeared to criticize the book's approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation not on the merits of the argument itself, but on the grounds that "scientific concordism" is a “hermeneutical fallacy.” Are you asserting that the very attempt to reconcile Genesis 1–3 with the findings of natural science constitutes a logical fallacy in and of itself?

Let's see if this works.

It's not that reconciliation between science and the Bible is wrong or a fallacy. Rather, it's the method in which this is done. The catholic church, of course, messed this up with heliocentrism, they thought that the Bible expressed ideas of modern science. And they tried to push back against Galileo, to defend the Bible.

The intent of the Catholic Church at that time, was righteous. Just as I would say that the intent of "The Advent of Time" is a good one as well. Actually that's one of the main things I enjoyed about the book. Is that the author recognizes this history and now is moving forward in that effort to reconcile the two. And I can't understate the value of that.

But the question becomes, is concordism the right approach? Is it the right way to solve this topic? And I would say, no.

And I could give a rundown of various ways that concordism presents itself in the church today if you would like. And an explanation of what it is, and some areas of "The Advent of Time" that I believe inadvertently fall into this category.

Perhaps it comes down to one’s view of what type of ‘truth’ Genesis is meant to convey. If one believes that Genesis is meant to convey spiritual truths, but not any historical truths, then it would not be a sound approach to seek concord between Genesis 1–3 and the scientific theory of evolution. However, if the account of man’s creation and fall in Genesis 1–3 is describing some sort of actual set of events, then I would think that a concordist approach has at least some validity.

The Advent of Time centers on Catholic doctrine, so it’s only fair to evaluate the book’s approach to this issue in light of the Catholic Church’s formal doctrine on Genesis 1–3. Here’s what Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the historicity of the fall: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (Emphasis is in the original).

If we assume the Catholic view that Genesis 1–3 is describing actual historic events (albeit using figurative language), and if we further assume that evolution is also historically true, then I see no alternative but to try to seek concord between these two explanations of man’s origins. Concordism would therefore appear to be a perfectly valid approach for someone who believes in both direct creation and evolution. In fact, for someone who holds that both direct creation and evolution are true, it would be illogical not to think that the two can be brought into concord with one another.

The Advent of Time provides an argument that reconciles direct creation with the scientific theory of evolution, while simultaneously adhering to the formal doctrine of the Catholic Church. I don’t think any book on a topic as complex and controversial as this one can be all things to all people. Of course, the nature of religious belief is that, if someone doesn’t see things exactly the same way as someone else, each person has a tendency to conclude that there must be a fault in the other person’s reasoning. There's probably no way for any of us to overcome this tendency...hence the call for charity in the Bible.

I approach Genesis 1–3 from a Catholic perspective, which is to say that I believe that man was directly created by God. I also believe in evolution by means of natural selection. So, for me, it is only logical to follow a concordist approach to reconciling these two explanations of man’s origins with one another. Because of this, I think the approach to this issue in The Advent of Time is perfectly reasonable. With respect to the merits of the solution itself, I think it's quite compelling.

[Adrian Bouknight]

Excellent. This is an area of interest to me, so thank you for providing those references.

If you don’t mind, I have one last question for you:

I submitted a reply to your 27 Oct post, but my reply ended up being sent to the moderator’s queue (probably because I tried to include a link to a website as a reference). A lot of what I wrote in that post has already been addressed in our recent back-and-forth, so just ignore my post if it comes through later. I am, however, curious about the “scientific concordism” issue that you raised at the end of that post.

My understanding is that scientific concordism is the attempt to reconcile specific biblical passages with scientific theories. As you mentioned, Galileo ran into a bit of problem with the Catholic Church because of the Church’s narrow-mindedness concerning his scientific discoveries. Since that rather embarrassing episode, the Catholic Church seems to have matured a bit. For example, on the evolution issue, the Catholic Church has taken the position that evolution need not conflict with Genesis 1–3. The Catholic Church hasn’t actually offered a definitive solution explaining how these two seemingly divergent accounts of man’s creation can be reconciled, but it has had the good judgement to proceed cautiously.

In contrast, a significant number of evangelical pastors have taken the opposite approach, asserting that evolution by means of natural selection can’t possibly be true if direct creation is true. I personally find such assertions to be suspect because they appear to deny the implications of the fossil record, which in my view strongly supports the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

The Advent of Time maintains that both evolution and direct creation are true, reconciling the two through an argument based on the differences between ‘timeless being’ and ‘time-bound being’ (see my post from 9 Oct for a summary). In your 27 Oct post, you appeared to criticize the book's approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation not on the merits of the argument itself, but on the grounds that "scientific concordism" is a “hermeneutical fallacy.” Are you asserting that the very attempt to reconcile Genesis 1–3 with the findings of natural science constitutes a logical fallacy in and of itself?

Let's see if this works.

It's not that reconciliation between science and the Bible is wrong or a fallacy. Rather, it's the method in which this is done. The catholic church, of course, messed this up with heliocentrism, they thought that the Bible expressed ideas of modern science. And they tried to push back against Galileo, to defend the Bible.

The intent of the Catholic Church at that time, was righteous. Just as I would say that the intent of "The Advent of Time" is a good one as well. Actually that's one of the main things I enjoyed about the book. Is that the author recognizes this history and now is moving forward in that effort to reconcile the two. And I can't understate the value of that.

But the question becomes, is concordism the right approach? Is it the right way to solve this topic? And I would say, no.

And I could give a rundown of various ways that concordism presents itself in the church today if you would like. And an explanation of what it is, and some areas of "The Advent of Time" that I believe inadvertently fall into this category.

Perhaps it comes down to one’s view of what type of ‘truth’ Genesis is meant to convey. If one believes that Genesis is meant to convey spiritual truths, but not any historical truths, then it would not be a sound approach to seek concord between Genesis 1–3 and the scientific theory of evolution. However, if the account of man’s creation and fall in Genesis 1–3 is describing some sort of actual set of events, then I would think that a concordist approach has at least some validity.

The Advent of Time centers on Catholic doctrine, so it’s only fair to evaluate the book’s approach to this issue in light of the Catholic Church’s formal doctrine on Genesis 1–3. Here’s what Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the historicity of the fall: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (Emphasis is in the original).

If we assume the Catholic view that Genesis 1–3 is describing actual historic events (albeit using figurative language), and if we further assume that evolution is also historically true, then I see no alternative but to try to seek concord between these two explanations of man’s origins. Concordism would therefore appear to be a perfectly valid approach for someone who believes in both direct creation and evolution. In fact, for someone who holds that both direct creation and evolution are true, it would be illogical not to think that the two can be brought into concord with one another.

The Advent of Time provides an argument that reconciles direct creation with the scientific theory of evolution, while simultaneously adhering to the formal doctrine of the Catholic Church. I don’t think any book on a topic as complex and controversial as this one can be all things to all people. Of course, the nature of religious belief is that, if someone doesn’t see things exactly the same way as someone else, each person has a tendency to conclude that there must be a fault in the other person’s reasoning. There's probably no way for any of us to overcome this tendency...hence the call for charity in the Bible.

I approach Genesis 1–3 from a Catholic perspective, which is to say that I believe that man was directly created by God. I also believe in evolution by means of natural selection. So, for me, it is only logical to follow a concordist approach to reconciling these two explanations of man’s origins with one another. Because of this, I think the approach to this issue in The Advent of Time is perfectly reasonable. With respect to the merits of the solution itself, I think it's quite compelling.

Scientific Concordism isn't necessarily a matter of, historical vs non-historical. Rather, it's moreso a matter of where someone places their trust in authority with respect to the original authorship and audience of the Bible. God chose specific people to author scripture. And God has invested authority in them. So the original authors are important, as well as what they thought of scripture when they wrote it down.

For example:
Imagine if a man were standing at the zoo, and there was an elephant drinking water nearby. And the man wrote on a piece of paper, that "there was water in it's trunk". Then, he put that piece of paper in a jar, in a cave, and 2,000 years in the future, the zoo is gone and a forest has grown in the area, and a different man who happened to live in the woods outside of the cave, read that letter.

And let's say the latter man of the woods saw the words "there was water in it's trunk" and then thought "well, I live near trees, I know what a trunk is, so this must be saying that there was water in a tree trunk".

It's not a matter of if an event actually happened or not. Both men believe in real events, real truth, real history etc. Rather, the question is, who do we place in a position of authority with respect to the meaning and intent of the text?

Who's opinion, is more accurate, the man at the zoo, or the man in the woods? Both read the same words, but the words mean two entirely different things based on context. Both believe that the letter is true and real and that it describes real events. Yet they have two completely different opinions about what it means.

Obviously we would say that the original author and audience of the man at the zoo, is the greater authority. Not the man of the woods. The man at the zoo is the one who wrote it.

Scientific concordism typically overlooks the original authors and audience of the Bible. Namely, Moses, the author of Genesis. Concordism doesn't acknowledge or speak of the ancient near east contextual background of the Bible, but usually tends to defer to more recent authorities, such as Greek authors and philosophers, or figures of the early church that lived many centuries later in time.

So, here we have to ask the question, is it possible that, because Genesis is many centuries older than the Church, is it possible that the early church fathers (at least some of them, as noted before, some early church fathers acknowledged death before the fall in the animal kingdom and some did not) did not understand Genesis, the same way as the original authors and audience of Genesis (Moses and the Israelites) that lived many centuries before them?

Which is to ask the question. Are some church fathers interpreting the letter as describing trees, rather than an elephant?

And if there is division where some church fathers believe that the letter describes trees, while other church fathers believe that it describes an elephant, then which church fathers have the more accurate understanding of the historical events of the ancient near east text?

The key factor here is investigating the question of the intent of the ancient near east Israelite authors and audience of the Pentateuch.

It's not so much a matter of who believes the Bible is historical or not. Rather it's a question of what authority people are directing their submission toward.

[Adrian Bouknight]

And for further reference, let's consider the Catholic Church in opposition to Galileo. Who did the Catholic Church place in its authority when they denounced Galileo? Probably contemporary philosophers and Biblical literalists of their time. The early church didn't have awareness of ancient near eastern history. So they wrongly denounced Galileo.

But the reverse can also happen as well. Where people in the 21st century, can also move in an opposite direction, where science is made to be an authority above the Bible, in which case, to make the Bible conform to science, the Bible itself is manipulated. And we see this with things like gap theory where people propose that Genesis days are millions of years long, even though the Bible says no such thing.

And this same thing happens in other areas as well. Post second temple period theology. Philosophy. Biology and evolution. Modern theological challenges such as the problem of evil, etc.

Many things in our modern world can influence us, to pressure the text to say things that, to be fair, oftentimes aren't actually in the text. And let's be fair when we examine this question, does Genesis ever actually say that animals were immortal before the fall? It's a difficult question to answer.

And that's the key question at play. Some church fathers say it does. Some church fathers say that it doesn't. So with this dilemma in mind, where will the church turn to investigate a resolution? Will they turn to the man at the zoo, or the man in the woods? Will they turn to the ancient near east, or will they turn to the early church?

And that's what concordism is really about. It's about original context vs anachronism. And sometimes the early church is spot on, and sometimes it's not (like with Galileo).

But the only way to know for sure, is to go back to the oldest of literature to find out.

And both Catholics and Protestants have a very long track record, including but not limited to the Galileo event, of trusting in the man of the woods over the man at the zoo. In fact, most people today in the church aren't even aware that ancient near eastern literature even exists nor do they know what it is or what it says. That includes the dead sea scrolls, the oldest manuscripts of much of the Pentateuch that we have today.

Id recommend a review of 3-tiered ancient Israelite cosmology in the Pentateuch as an example.

Anyhoo, with that, I'll yield the final word to you, unless you have any further interest in input! Thanks again for the feedback!

[Naterothwrite]

Romans 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Both creation and evolution require some level of faith since the universe’s origins can’t be directly observed.

Evolution functions as a “creation story” for atheism, providing a worldview that excludes accountability to a Creator. Any scientific interpretation that removes God is incompatible with the Bible’s teachings

[Rupali Mishra]

This method provides a more comprehensive knowledge of science and spirituality by addressing the philosophical conflict between intentional creation and the unpredictability of evolution.

[Harty Muli]

I believe it is a good attempt at reconciliation because of the mutual exclusiveness of creation and evolution. Furthermore, evolution is a theory and not conclusive (for example it hasn't found any evidence of a hominid that is the intermediate between man (Homo sapien) and ape) But at least the aspect of explaining evil from the standpoint of temporal time makes sense because evil emanated from a fallen creation.

[Keturah Larai Gana]

This outstanding book offers a novel method for bringing direct creativity and evolution into harmony. The approach incorporates a complex viewpoint that combines divine intent with evolutionary reasoning. The author argues that creation and evolution can coexist peacefully rather than as conflicting forces.

[DarnerJose]

I think it's genius and realistic as well. Most people claim to be atheists and use the theory of evolution as defense without even factoring that the creation had to do with evolution. They look at the idea of time as a basic 24 hour period through which God created everything but if we shift from such perspective and see creation has something that occurred over a longer period then the author's theory deserves not to be negated.

[DarnerJose]

I think it's genius and realistic as well. Most people claim to be atheists and use the theory of evolution as defense without even factoring that the creation had to do with evolution. They look at the idea of time as a basic 24 hour period through which God created everything but if we shift from such perspective and see creation has something that occurred over a longer period then the author's theory deserves not to be negated.