Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • Creationism and the KJV

    One of the ways I use to check material that is written outside of my own field of expertise is to look at how the author(s) handle material that is within my field. This can come dangerously close to ad hominem, but I believe it is a valid approach used carefully. If an author misuses sources, evidence, and logic in an area with which I’m familiar, how much should I trust that author in areas in which I am looking for learning?

    I was looking through some young earth creationist (YEC) web sites over the last few days, and noted some comments favoring the KJV. I found a defense of the KJV on the Institute for Creation Reasearch (ICR) web site in which Dr. Henry Morris defends his use of the KJV. This article was written some time ago, and the topic is not new. Dr. Morris also notes that he doesn’t want to argue this with anyone, as he is not an expert. I believe, however, that it is valid to examine his basic approach.

    That basic approach is very similar to the YEC approach in general: Reason from desired conclusion back to evidence, rather than from evidence to conclusion. Morris knows that evolutionists of all stripes are bad, so Bible versions in which they are involved must also be bad. The KJV translators, he asserts, were all believers in the literal truth of the Bible (whatever “literal” may mean in that context) and specifically in the literal truth of Genesis (literal here probably means “understanding it as historical narrative), and thus their version is more to be trusted. Many early manuscripts were discovered in Egypt, and there was questionable theology coming out of Egypt, so those manuscripts must be bad. Even when most of the translation committee would agree theologically with Morris, as in the case of the NKJV, he can’t quite bring himself to accept the improvement.

    (I would argue that the NKJV is easily the worst of the major modern translations, and precisely because it slavishly followed the same text as the KJV in the face of mountains of evidence that a more modern, eclectic text is better.)

    Another set of arguments that I hear commonly and that are repeated in Morris’s defense of the KJV is that people can’t read in unison any more, and that Bible memorization is becoming a lost art. I would be quite surprised if this deterioration of Bible memorization is any more than a “good old days” nostalgic memory–everything was better when I was a child! But this argument is one of the oddest ones. Churches very commonly now have pew Bibles. If you want people to read in unison, you can use the pew Bibles. If you want to memorize, you can pick a translation. I know people who memorize from the CEV, the NIV, and the NRSV.

    I’m going to skip over a detailed examination of all of these issues, because I have written about them before. Let me recommend briefly the following: Bible Version Selection Tool, Translations FAQ, and What’s in a Version? (tract).

    But there is one issue I want to look at, because I hear it from both sides: Is there a major problem with the translation of the texts related to creation in the Bible?

    People who are not involved in translation have tremendous expectations of what a new translation will accomplish. One time I was in an online conference. One user on hearing that I could read Hebrew said, “Tell me what Genesis 1 really means!” He was disappointed that I said he could more or less read any modern English version and get the story. It’s unrealistic to expect one person, on the spot, to produce a better translation of a passage than a team of experts who have as much time as they need to accomplish the same task. I always cringe when I hear a pastor say in a sermon, “What this text really means in Greek (or Hebrew) is . . .” Normally, that’s a preface to some misinformation.

    Now I don’t mean that there is nothing to be gained from knowing the original languages. There are certainly details that you will miss in any translation. There are points of disagreement that you will need the source languages to disentangle. For example, one cannot recognize the linguistic relationships between the Genesis story in Genesis and other ancient near easter materials without some knowledge of the languages. There are two major approaches in translating the first two verses of Genesis 1 (see Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship). There are some details that can only be evaluated by someone who actually knows the languages in question.

    But these are not the real issue for young earth creationists. Their problem is with the literary study of the text. Their claim is that the one type of literature we may see in Genesis is narrative history. Regardless of how the details are translated, this difference is going to remain. On all the questions of translation in Genesis 1 & 2 one can accept either reading, and nonetheless accept the result as narrative history, or perhaps instead as some form of theology or myth.

    Creationists who hold onto the King James Version aren’t really doing so because it supports their position better. It doesn’t. They aren’t doing so because of sound arguments. There are none. They are doing so because it is their habit to cling to safety and certainty. Fundamentally, that is what all this is about.

    But I have something to say to those who are liberal or skeptical as well. The translation changes will not prove that Genesis is not historical narrative either. There is no “aha!” point in the text when you can say, because of a modification of the translation, that this must have been intended as some form of figurative speech. There is no manuscript with a missing line that says, “Here is the Hebrew myth of origins.” Those are all decisions that a student or reader has to make, based on literary criteria.

    (For more information on Bible translations, see the links above, and also my book, What’s in a Version?.)

  • Debating Science

    What is the best forum in which to debate scientific topics? How should advocates for science, specifically evolutionary science, determine how to approach such debates?

    There is currently a report of such a debate on the Citizens for Science web site (Friday night debate in Colorado Springs), in which Steven Mahone and Sam Milazzo debated Kent Hovind. You can read about the numerous problems with the debate, its moderation, its format, and fairness in the article cited.

    While I’m thankful to those people who are willing to walk into the den of lions, so to speak, and “debate” creationisim before a biased audience with a biased moderator, I question the value of this particular method of educating the public. Most of the people who attend these debates are already convinced on the issue, and in particular they are going to be folks who are convinced of some variety of creationism. Those who are convinced of the conclusions of evolutionary science tend also to realize that very little education is going to take place in a couple of hours of debate. If they have looked at Kent Hovind’s web site, or viewed some of his slide presentations before, they will also be aware that very little education will take place in a forum in which he participates.

    The reason for this is that a public, oral debate only functions well when the forum is carefully planned for fairness and when all participants adhere to a reasonable standard of documentation and support for their statements. If any participant is permitted simply to create one-liners and to concoct “facts” out of thin air, an oral debate will not provide a sufficient forum to find the truth about a particular issue.

    I faced this issue in considering debating the King James Version Only issue. Much like creation and evolution, the King James Version only debate is dominated by people who simply create their data out of thin air. I considered what I would have to do to prepare for an oral debate, and I concluded that the only way one could prepare for such a debate would be to become an expert on one’s opponent–not on the subject, on the person. The reason is simple: It is much easier to create falsehoods than it is to produce documented facts. It is also much easier to challenge documented facts than it is to challenge pure falsehoods, or very loosely supported claims.

    Why is this? In academic study, participants are used to expecting that participants in a discussion have some reason, some documentation, for their positions. One can research that documentation, discover issues of context, difficulties with the methods involved and so forth. For completely fabricated data, one first has to figure out how the data was created and what support one’s opponent will claim for that data, and then one must challenge that. In my field, the claim that the church fatehr Origen systematically corrupted Biblical manuscripts is a case in point. There is no evidence to support the claim whatsoever, but it is made repeatedly. In fact, Origen researched manuscripts, and some of these manuscripts annoy certain modern fundamentalist Christians. In an oral debate, before an audience of lay people, the claim sounds more convincing than the simple statement that there is no evidence for it. How do you prove “no evidence” in a few moments? Now if someone would make a claim and reference the source, then you could examine that source and show how it did not support the claim made.

    The Paluxy river human footprints are a good case in the area of creation versus evolution, or the repeated story of the discover of 12 foot human skeletons. The claim is easy; the refutation takes time, provided one feels it necessary to go beyond saying “Hogwash!”

    Oral debates are, in the hands of creationists, simply propaganda tools. The point is to provide the faithful with one liners they can use in challenging their friends on the subject of evolution. As a Christian, I find this approach particularly reprehensible. It is dishonest. It is rude. Its primary intention is to teach Christians how to be rude. For Christians who attend these debates, the intent is to make them feel out of touch, and make them question whether they can be both Christian and believe in evolution. There is no intent to educate.

    If you want to really understand the subject of evolution, you are going to have to study a great deal more than these debates will provide for. Unfortunately, much of the creationist literature is similar. It is designed as propaganda, not education. I think that the creationists (largely young earth creationists) fear the kind of discussion and education that would actually allow people to understand the debate, because once one understands the science behind evolution, even as a serious amateur, it becomes very clear.

    I grew up as a young earth creationist, and was educated in Seventh-day Adventist schools, surrounded by young earth creationists. I read all the young earth books, and I knew the one liners that were supposed to devastate evolutionists. In studying Genesis itself, I became convinced first that it could not possibly provide a chronology for prehistory. Even very solid archeological evidence went well beyond the kind of chronology Genesis could be stretched to cover, assuming one took it as narrative history. At the time, I did not immediately turn to evolution, however, because I simply did not know enough about it. I studied by reading, and by using roadside geology guides on my annual vacations in the American northwest. As I learned the facts, it all began to fall into place.

    One thing that became clear to me through this study was that the things that were said about evolution by my creationist sources were clearly wrong. I’m still simply an informed amateur at geology or in any of the life sciences. But when I’m dealing with a subject in which I am not confident, I tend not to trust people who make serious errors (or dare I say lie) on the subjects I can check. I’m not willing to assume that they are telling the truth on the more complex issues.

    I say all this simply to point out that for people to become convinced that evolution is the explanation for the origin of the diversity of life we see on earth, they must learn a great deal. It’s fairly simple to say “God did it.” In fact, I’m quite willing, as a matter of faith and not of science, to say that God did do it. But the evidence is overwhelming that the method was evolution. Until I had the facts to support that position, I simply admitted I didn’t know.

    In order to get the American people to understand this topic, we’re going to have to improve their science education. That’s going to require something in written form, something that can be checked. It’s going to require them to work a bit at their own education. Perhaps we need some folks fighting the propaganda battle. But only a few real scientists are going to be comfortable doing that. They deal in facts; propagandists deal in persuasion and manipulation.

    Let the creationist crowd accuse scientists of being cowardly because they won’t face them in debate. People who are fair minded enough to be convinced will see through that particular ploy. And for the propagandists, and the very brave defenders of science, I wish you the best. But I think you’re often going to get the worst.

  • Not Taking the Bible Literally

    A group of people are gathered study the Bible. Various opinions are exchanged. “I wouldn’t take that literally,” someone says finally. Often, that is the moment that people move on. Not taking it literally is very often the excuse not to bother to figure out what a Bible passage has to say at all.

    Now before you decide that I’m a Biblical literalist, let me assure you that there are plenty of things in the Bible that should not be taken literally. But determining what in the Bible should be taken literally and what should not is a bit more complex than simply finding those passages that don’t make any sense, or that contradict modern science or historical knowledge, and then deciding that it’s not literal, so it’s OK. But what does “not literal” mean?

    But first, let’s consider what “literal” means. It’s not quite as simple as some think it is. “Literal” is not a synonym for “true” or accurate, though it is often treated that way. In fact, it is very difficult to define “literal” very precisely at all. We can think of a continuum starting with the most literal speech. “I am typing on the computer keyboard” is a literal statement, and also obviously true (though it won’t be by the time you read this!). On the other hand if I say “the butterflies of delirious joy are flitting through my consciousness” nobody is likely to take me literally. There is a state of mind that is described by this statement, but my consciousness is not a space, and there are no butterflies flying there. Between that we have more and less literal ways of expressing things.

    In addition to determining how literal or figurative the language is, we need to determine precisely what kind of literal or figurative language is being used. For example, Genesis 1 describes creation in seven days. It is important to know whether it is intended as a poetic description, liturgical language, or narrative history. It will mean very different things in each of these cases. Sometimes it is important to determine if a figurative passage is a parable, an allegory, a report of a vision, and whether it is poetic or not.

    Even literal passages can have different styles, and different focuses. Consider the difference between Samuel-Kings and the gospels. Both are considered historical narrative by their authors in some sense, but the presentation is somewhat different. Chronology is a key issue in Samuel and Kings, whereas theological theme, and the logical presentation of the mission of Jesus is emphasized in the structure of the gospels. If you look at the events of the life of Jesus in the four gospels you will find many chronological discrepancies, but if you change your perspective and look at it from a thematic point of view, the arrangement will make more sense. Both Samuel-Kings and the gospels are historical narrative, but the types of answers you can expect from each are different.

    The key point out of all that is simply that just because a passage is not literal doesn’t mean that it does not have meaning. Meaning can be expressed in many different ways. The problem for the interpreter is to be very careful to determine just what method of presentation the author is using. You will get the wrong message if you assume the wrong method of presentation.

    So how do you tell just how literal or figurative a passage is? Here are some pointers:

    • The key method is one we use in daily life. If the symbol won’t work or doesn’t make sense literally, it is likely to be figurative in some way.
      People hesitate to use this method with reference to the Bible, but it is usually quite applicable. Since we know through scientific study that the world did not come into existence in six literal days, we can guess that Genesis 1 is not, in fact, literally true. (But see my discussion of a change of cultural context below.)
    • Ask who the audience is, and what questions they might have wanted answered.
      It is very unlikely that the author is going to be answering questions that did not interest his audience. Much lousy Biblical interpretation results from failing to consider this issue.
    • Look first for the meaning of symbols in the cultural context of the readers.
      Since we can generally assume that the writer was trying to communicate with his readers, we can also assume that he would use symbols that they can understand. Only when known symbols have been exhausted should we look for ones that range widely away from the immediate cultural context.

      • ]

    • Expect more symbolic language in poetry.
    • Expect more symbolic language in prophetic oracles.
    • Expect almost exclusively symbolic language in reports of visions and dreams.
    • Don’t be afraid to use common sense and your knowledge of the physical world.
      Many Bible students are afraid that if they compare Biblical statements to their knowledge of the physical world, they will be denying the Bible. But your knowledge of the physical world is also a part of the context of God’s communication with you.
    • Ask others to justify their own conclusions on whether something is literal or figurative.
      Don’t allow the assumption that a passage should be taken literally unless it can be demonstrated that it is figurative. Each passage should be considered starting from a neutral position.

    I want to make one last comment about the changing context, because it applies directly to Genesis 1-11 (prehistory). It is quite possible that this passage was understood literally by those who first wrote, heard, and read it. There was no reason for them to believe that things had happened otherwise. The question for the interpreter is whether the passage is intending to provide us with the literal history. An alternate possibility, even probability, is that the elements of the story of creation were already present in the culture, and that the author of Genesis pulled these elements together into the story. For some discussion of the purpose, see my essay Genesis Creation Stories.

    Bottom line: Don’t be forced into accepting any claim that a passage should be taken literally or figuratively.
    Ask for supporting evidence.