Genesis 1-3

This will probably not rock anyone's world or seem very scandalous except to those of a very conservative background, but....after careful prayer, research, and consideration...I don't think Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. Most are looking at the computer screen in shock....that people even considered it to be true in this day and age. But I did. I thought that the text demanded to be read literally and anything else was dishonest. I think it's true, I just don't think it's literal. I think the point of the text is to establish God as Creator and man as sinful. As was brought to my attention by my friend Matt (a Duke Divinity student), the same truths can be gathered from the Exodus story (which I still take to be factual). God has providence and man turns away from Him. Here are a few of the reasons I don't think Gen. 1-3 is literal:

1. The Bible is a theological text, not a scientific text This seems obvious. Again, I doubt this will really scandalize too many people. But, for the last year or so I've become very uncomfortable with theology informing science. It just doesn't seem proper to me. The other side is that I'm not comfortable with science informing theology. To me, it just doesn't matter if yom is a literal, 24 hour day, or gazillions of years (yes, gazillions). The point is still that God is Creator and man is sinful. I get that no matter what kind of science you put into it. If you want to believe in a 6,000 year old earth, fine....do so on scientific reasons. If you want to believe in a gazillion year old earth, fine...do so on scientific reasons. I don't think God thought to Himself, "Well now, I'm going to teach them a bit about cosmology and origins in this little bit. How convenient."

2. This isn't history like most of the Pentateuch I believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I do not think the Wellhausen theory accounts for the evidence and there are really compelling arguments against his theory. That said, I'm not an expert on the Old Testament (or anything, for that matter), so I may one day change my mind if I find evidence that is compelling. Okay...on with my reason. When I read in Exodus about the exodus out of Egypt, that's a particular kind of history. That's history that was lived-out by the author (I also believe the exodus occured during the reign of Thutmoses IV, not Rameses....I'm a giant fundamentalist, I know). But, the account of Adam and Eve isn't the same kind of history. Even if God gave the words of Genesis to Moses, it's not the same as when Moses himself lived it out. And that leads me to my next point:

3. It doesn't have to be literal to be true Yet another "duh" for most of my readers, but...remind yourself, I just started this Biblical studies bit about 3 years ago. At any rate, I agree with Aquinas, Calvin, etc when they say that God has to talk down to us. God has to use stories, parables, and all that other jazz to get ideas across that are beyond our capabilities. Was Jesus really a door? A light? A vine? Can you imagine the art that would've come out of Europe if people interpreted those sayings literally? I'll grant you that those are different from Genesis 1-3 in a sense, but my point is: If you believe Jesus is God and has always been God, then who's to say His perpensity to use parables began with His earthly life?


So, here's what I believe: God is Creator, He created the world from nothing, He created the creatures that live on the earth, He created man, man turned away from God. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know if the earth is literally 6,000 years old, created in literal 24 hour days. It doesn't really concern me. In fact, I think if you read Genesis 1-3 and the first thing you do is go out and research origins and cosmology and everything else...you've missed the point.

Moving / Meeting Professors

I am extremely sorry for the all-of-a-sudden lack of posting. In the last few weeks I've : Taken exams, started my summer classes, moved from my house to a new townhouse in Wake Forest, etc. Needless to say, I've been quite busy.

I don't particularly care for blogs that are all autobiographical (dear diary and such), but I figure this blog was set up to show you (or remind you) what it's like being an undergraduate who is considering graduate studies. So:

Today I have a meeting with a Professor at UNC to discuss their graduate program. Duke is my top choice now (is there a better faculty for New Testament studies?), but UNC is a great school. One of my concerns is that they don't have an M.A. or Ph.D in "New Testament", but rather you get it in "Ancient Mediterranean Religions" with a concentration on New Testament. I wonder how this differs from receiving a degree in just New Testament.

The professor with whom I'm meeting today has drastically different interests than my own and I really like that. When I visited Southern Seminary in Louisville, I ended up speaking with a professor who was a church historian, specifically focusing on the Reformation (he did his dissertation on Theodore Beza). However, generally when I visit a school, I speak with one of their New Testament professors. This professor is more of a church history type, with an emphasis on 20th Century Catholicism in America. I'm reading a book that he co-wrote with some other professors and it's pretty fascinating. It challenges me to meet people who have completely different research interests than my own, because it challenges me to be somewhat familiar with their field so that I can atleast dialogue with them.

Beyond Liberal and Conservative

I am officially a senior. I have one more year as an undergraduate and I will hopefully be on my way to graduate studies. I came into this school 3 years ago pretty uneducated about the Bible (perhaps as much as a typical zealous sunday school attender) . However, something that has really changed is the way I look at things. I've stopped placing theologians and Biblical historians into categories of "good and evil" and "safe to read/keep up the guard". My goal from the get-go has been to teach at a state school in order to help revive Evangelical scholarship in the main square. Now, I'm more about the truth. Not that the two are mutually exclusive (although some might argue that), but my mind's allegiance isn't with Evangelicalism...it's with Truth.

One of my main pet-peeves is when I hear people try to distinguish theologians as either "liberal" or "conservative". For one, those terms are extremely relative. I'm sure to some Bob Jones graduates, I'm the most liberal thing they've ever seen. To some Harvard Div graduates, I may be some crazy fundamentalist Bible thumper. I think ideas need to assessed without placing neat labels on them from the get-go. Read Bultmann without thinking, "Uh oh, this guy's a dirty liberal." Read Maurice Robinson's case for Byzantine priority without thinking, "Geez, crazy conservative." I'm not against all labels (that would be ridiculous). But labels such as "conservative" and "liberal" are too broad and too relative to do any kind of good.

Exams

I'm in the midst of exams right now. My last two are tomorrow : Ancient Near East History (a good class but a ton of information) and Greek II (my favorite class). My boss actually let me have tonight off very last minute so that I could study for both of them. That's pretty amazing. So, back to studying I go.

Classes next Fall

I'm all registered for classes next semester. My schedule is as follows:


MWF 8:00-8:50 - Old Testament Hebrew I
MWF 9:00-9:50 - Logic
MWF 11:30-12:20 - Greek Syntax and Exegesis III
TTh 8:30-9:45 - Communication (Because I don't want to take a preaching course)
TTh 2:30-3:45 - Christian Theology III

I'm also taking a summer class on Later Pauline Epistles which I'm really excited about. Unfortunately, it's my last NT elective at Southeastern and I don't have any room for anymore.

Being counted off for my own ideas?!

I just got out of my 1,2, 3 John and James final. As we passed in our exam, we got our papers back that we turned in a few weeks ago. I was pretty proud of myself on this paper because I knew I had done a good job, and more importantly, this was the first time when I could say, "All translations mine unless otherwise indicated."

My professor's grader was apparently not as enthused as I was about my new-found ability to translate Greek. He actually counted against me for doing it, writing off to the side: "It's dangerous to use your own translation when other scholars have their own translations. It will only weaken your argument." For one, how does using my own translation weaken arguments I make in the paper? No offense, but I think it's only when I'm not "kissing the bride through the veil" that I can truly begin to do exegesis. I picked up on the theological nuances of the passage I did, I think, because I translated it myself. And just who should I use? The two texts we used in class were Expositor's Bible Commentary and New American Commentary and their translations differ.

Secondly, I had some ideas in the paper that were my own. I've been studying at Southeastern for 3 years now, I figure it's high-time I start making statements that I didn't steal from someone else (I always footnote, I don't actually steal). Again, the grader tried to knock me for this. "Where's your source?" Perhaps it's all original. You might be looking at gold, buddy.....not likely, but still! At what point can students begin to give ideas that are their own? At what point am I allowed to branch out from what the commentaries say and maybe give my own two cents? I noted what I thought was a chiastic structure of 1 John 1:8-10. I've taken a class on Psalms and on Hermeneutics...if I can't identify a chiastic structure by now, it's time to pack it up.

I'm glad to say that the professor went back and regraded my paper, even making some notes about the notes the grader had made (on the translation, note, for instance, the professor wrote, "Still, this is a good translation.") and restored my grade from a 92 to a 97.

Last Night's Debate

The debate I attended last night was…terrible. It was less of a debate and more of Christopher Hitchens posing as an expert on religion with short asides by Dr. English. It should be noted that Hitchens is not educated formally in religion, history, or anything of the sort. However, as J.P. Moreland recently pointed out in some lectures he gave at Southeastern, the modern man feels that there is no truth in ‘religion’, thus there are no experts. If there are no experts then everyone is welcome to put their two cents in, regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. This is why a great many people (Oprah, for instance) feel comfortable making rather grandiose metaphysical claims.

So, back to the debate…the main points which I jotted down are as follows:
1)The Multiplicity of religions and conceptions of God prove that man made God
2)Religion is propagated by fear from the priestly class (a la Marx. Keep in mind that Hitchens is a former Trotskyite).
3)A question of Epistemology. How can you know about God?
4)“Grow up” and/or “mature” past religion.
5) “I don’t want to live in an eternal Korea where I’m constantly worshipping and thanking someone.”


Here are my thoughts:
1)The idea that religion spans the globe in all ages across all peoples shows commonality in man. It shows a desire to worship, at the very least. At most, it shows that all men know of God in some way. I don’t see how Hitchens connects the dots to get to a point where God is man-made. Religion may be man-made, but you have to explain away that pesky fact that the idea of God has permeated all of human history. Indeed, Hitchens has to imagine that at some point in human history, nearly all cultures spontaneously decided to create religion independently of one another while sharing a great deal in common. For instance, every major world religion has some kind of Sky God who is referenced with masculine grammar. Generally this Sky God is the Creator who is has great knowledge and power.
2)This is obviously a Marxian idea. It’s popular and easy to say this on this side of Christian history. I wonder how many Christians in the first 300 years of its inception would agree with Hitchens. The Christians who were burned as torches in the emperor’s gardens…do we imagine they propagated their religion by scare tactics, ruling over the masses as a priestly class? Quite the opposite. Anyone who says this makes me wonder how much historical research they’ve done. It may sound like a good idea, but it’s not true to historical fact, and that’s where we have to stay.
3) Hitchens assumes that because he does not know, then no one can. Of course, as an atheist, Hitchens would not allow Revelation (both Scripture and the ‘self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit’, if I may use Craig here) as a valid epistemological model. However, it’s not because of the validity of the argument for Revelation, but because of Hitchens’ own predisposition to anti-supernaturalism (which is fine).
4) This is repugnant. I’ve spoken about this earlier, but this really eats my lunch. Hitchens thinks that ‘primitive’ man was running around, scared of his own shadow, so he invented religion. This is a pretty grand idea, however, it’s just not true to history. For one, under Hitchens own beliefs, how does he suppose that nearly all cultures all over the globe decided to go this route? Why is it so nearly universal? Secondly, to imagine that because people lived longer ago they are immediately naïve and gullible is ridiculous. They may have had different thought processes than us (I don’t imagine Moses thought like I do), but they had the same capacity. This kind of argument is elitist and it’s just not true to what we know about people groups long ago. Read Lucretius (who Hitchens referenced), read Plato, read the Psalms or Ecclesiastes and you’ll find some pretty astounding thought.
5) Hitchens referenced North Korea where people are forced to ‘worship’ their leaders. In fact, he cleverly stated that they’re one deity away from a trinity (they have a father and a son). He stated that he doesn’t want to live in an eternal celestial North Korea. For one, he doesn’t have to worry about it at present. Secondly, N. Korea’s leaders are not worthy of worship. The reason why it’s joyous to worship God is because He is God. I would certainly have a hard time worshipping for eternity a being who did not deserve my worship.

Hitchens commits what C.S. Lewis calls “chronological snobbery.” When I was an atheist, I did the same thing. Atheists tend to “take for granted the prevailing ideas of our time and culture [as] unquestionably true.”[1] I think there’s something very en vogue about being an atheist. I know I used to fancy myself enlightened, intellectually superior to my Christian peers. They were locked into some silly myth that focuses on some guy who was crucified. Not I, oh no. I’m the enlightened one here. Snobbery. Sheer, utter, despicable snobbery. It may be applauded by some, particularly in the academy, but not by me. I’m not impressed. This is by no means a sweeping statement. I have friends who are atheists who are fantastic people who I love to death. A popular (former) atheist that I really admire is Anthony Flew. Although he is a bit of a deist now, when he was an atheist he didn’t have the mean streak that Dawkins and Hitchens have.
I should say that if you’re an atheist and you’ve arrived at that conclusion after giving a fair shake to the evidence on both sides…good for you. If you’re searching for the truth and that’s where the evidence has led you, I am 100% behind you. But if at any point your atheism is a fashion statement…if you’re in love with being an atheist rather than the philosophical propositions themselves, I believe you should reassess what you believe (actually, I think we should always be reassessing what we believe, but that’s just me). At that point, I think you’ve fallen into a trap of pseudo-intellectual elitism and you’ve stopped looking for truth.
So, back to Hitchens…I’m left wondering why he wrote the book at all. If you read Nietzsche, Russell, and Dawkins with a dash of Robinson’s Honest to God, you’ll have his book. As Ecclesiastes says, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Hitchens writes the same argument rehashed and watered down.
___________________________
[1] Art Lindsey, C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christ, 40.