Hi, John. I'm getting back to you regarding the questions we discussed briefly when I met you at the Southern Manitoba Prophecy Conference. I had mentioned the work of Dr. Robert J. Schneider of the Berea College and his series of essays found at this link:
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essays.asp
During our discussion you suggested that our approach to the Biblical text and the matter of cosmogony is foundational to matters of faith. For example, how do we develop an adequate amartiology, if we accept the findings of science with regard to the evolution of man.
As a tentative starting point for our discussion, I want to suggest that the ancient views of cosmogony were not material to matters of faith as far as the Biblical writers were concerned. This concern is a matter of more recent import particularly as it is presented by the Fundamentalist Christian Right.
For example, a comparison of the Babylonian Enuma Elish which contains an account of the creation of man by the gods with the Biblical account shows that the main concern of the Biblical account is to highlight the creation of mankind and the institution of the Sabbath day as the ultimate goal of the creation. This is intrinsic to Deuteronomic theology which also contrasts sharply with Babylonian theologies on the matter of the high degree of concern that God places upon the members of the community that He brought out of Egypt. The poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger are the primary focus of the worship. It is how these are treated that determines the blessing that God would bring to Israel. In contrast, the Babylonian systems focused on the care and feeding of the gods as the primary concern. Mankind was created to relieve the lesser gods of the care and feeding requirements placed upon them by the greater gods.
Christian theology since the time of Augustine (4th Century AD) moves in the direction of the Babylonian system rather than in the Deuteronmic. The sacrifice of Christ is the primary means by which an individual is judged to be righteous rather than the concern that he shows for the 'least of these' (Matthew 25:31ff). My greatest objections to the agenda of the Fundamentalist is that the primary error of a substitutionary atonement is only perpetuated as the church is continaully made to focus on matters which are peripheral to the primary intent of the Biblical text. For example, Genesis 1 is treated as a scientific account of the creation in opposition to the accounts of science in general. The message of the text is left on the periphery.
The same may be said for Proverbs 8:25-29 which, as a paradigm of the nature of creation, is remarkably similar to the Sumerian paradigms. The primary intent of this text is to highlight the importance of gaining wisdom as a means of acceptance with God. In Christian theology, the basis of acceptance with God is not wisdom, but the substitutionary atonement of 'logos [wisdom] made flesh.'
As we discuss the findings of Schneider, I would like to keep these matters in focus.
Thank-you for taking the time to discuss these matters with me, John
JB
Hi JB,
Thanks for the mail.
Forgive me for sending such a long mail this time. In the future I'll try to keep it shorter and to the point. It's just that I would like to make a few things very clear before we really engage. Also, you introduced quite a number of ideas in your mail that I need to comment on.
First, let me just say that I don't really like labelling people. I know it's hard not to - we automatically categorize things in our minds. "The fundamentalist right" I suppose is where you have lumped me. I wish you wouldn't. I'm just a simple man who reads and believes the Bible. See me as an individual if you can, who loves God, and believes with his whole heart that the Bible is His word.
Second, I'd really appreciate it if you'd introduce perhaps only a couple of thoughts at a time for us to kick around. Your last mail had quite bit to chew on.
Now regarding your comments:
During our discussion you suggested that our approach to the Biblical text and the matter of cosmogony is foundational to matters of faith.
Logical consistency is the first, most basic test that we all apply to truth claims. If a guy contradicts himself, then his story cannot be true. In the same way, worldviews should also be without contradiction, or they simply must be disqualified, wouldn't you agree?
When we spoke in person, I got the impression that you believed, as I do, that Jesus was the Son of God who died for the sins of the world. Is this right? Where did we get this information? From the pages of the New Testament. I accept - as an article of faith - that what is contained in those 27 books are the inspired words of God Himself. I cannot prove this belief true. However, I can show it probable, based on many lines of historic evidences, and conduct my life in harmony with this belief.
According to the New Testament the Biblical text IS foundational to matters of faith:
Matthew 4:4 - Live by every word of God
2 Timothy 3:14-16 - Scripture is God breathed, we are to study it
2 Timothy 2:15 - Implication that not rightly handling the word of God is shameful (precision counts for something!)
2 Peter 3:16 - twisting scripture can mean destruction!
*** 1 Corinthians 15:1-4*** The text dealing specifically with salvation. Note the term "according to the scriptures." It's the Christ of scripture that saves, according to the New Testament, from the sins described by scripture.
Romans 15:4 - Paul reminds us that the Old Testament was written for our instruction
John 5:46-47 - Jesus' words that Moses wrote about Him
John 5:39 - Jesus' words that the OT scriptures were about Him
Luke 24:27,44 - Again Jesus' words that the entire OT was about Him "The law, the prophets and the psalms"
If I'm consistent in my belief that the New Testament is to be trusted as God's word, then I simply must also accept the Old Testament record, because the New Testament affirms it in so many places. This I must do, to be consistent, NO MATTER WHAT SCIENCE HAS TO SAY ON THE MATTER. For example, note these verse passages:
Proverbs 3:5-6 - Trust God with ALL our hearts, lean NOT on our own understanding
Psalm 94:11 - The thoughts of man are vanity
Psalm 118:8 - Better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man
Jeremiah 17:5 - CURSED is the man who trusts in man, whose heart departeth from the LORD.
I could go on, but the point is, if I say that I believe the Bible, then I simply must discard what man has to say if it contradicts the plain reading of the text.
During our discussion you suggested that our approach to the Biblical text and the matter of cosmogony is foundational to matters of faith. For example, how do we develop an adequate amartiology, if we accept the findings of science with regard to the evolution of man.
Again, to be consistent with my belief in the New Testament, I do believe that our view of cosmogony is foundational to matters of faith. Not only does the Genesis record read like ordinary narrative, but the New Testament gives us an inspired commentary on the text which certainly treats it as an historic account:
| New Testament Reference | Topic | Genesis Reference |
| Matthew 19:4 | Created male and Female | 1:27, 5:2 |
| Matthew 19:5-6 | Cleave to his wife, one flesh | 2:24 |
| Matthew 23:35 | Righteous Abel | 4:4 |
| Matthew 24:37-39 | Noah and the Flood | 6:1-22, 7:1-24, 8:1-22 |
| Mark 10:6 | Created male and female | 1:27, 5:2 |
| Mark 10:7-9 | Cleave to his wife, one flesh | 2:24 |
| Mark 13:19 | Since the beginning of the creation which god created | 1:1, 2:4 |
| Luke 3:34-36 | Abraham to Shem | 11:10-26 |
| Luke 3:36-38 | Noah to Adam to God | 5:3-29 |
| Luke 11:51 | Blood of Abel | 4:8-11 |
| Luke 17:27 | Flood came and destroyed them all | 7:10-23 |
| John1:1-3 | In the beginning God | 1:1 |
| John 8:44 | Father of lies | 3:4-5 |
| Acts 14:15 | Who made the heaven and earth | 2:1 |
| Acts 17:24 | God made all things | 1:1-31 |
| Romans 1:20 | The creation of the world | 1:1-31, 2:4 |
| Romans 4:17 | God creates out of nothing | 1:1-31 |
| Romans 5:12 | Death entered the world by sin | 2:16-17, 3:19 |
| Romans 5:14-19 | Death reigned from Adam | 2:17 |
| Romans 8:20-22 | Creation corrupted | 3:17-18 |
| 1 Corinthians 6:16 | Two will become one flesh | 2:24 |
| 1 Corinthians 11:3 | Head of the woman | 3:16 |
| 1 Corinthians 11:7 | In the image of God | 1:27, 5:1 |
| 1 Corinthians 11:8 | Woman from man | 2:22-23 |
| 1 Corinthians 11:9 | Woman for the man | 2:18 |
| 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 | By a man came death | 2:16-17, 3:19 |
| 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 | To each…seeds of its own (kind) | 1:11, 1:21, 1:24 |
| 1 Corinthians 15:45 | Adam became a living being | 2:7 |
| 1 Corinthians 15:47 | Man from the earth | 3:23 |
| 2 Corinthians 4:6 | Light out of darkness | 1:3-5 |
| 2 Corinthians 11:3 | Serpent deceived Eve | 3:1-6, 3:13 |
| Ephesians 3:9 | Created all things | 1:1-31, 2:1-3 |
| Ephesians 5:30-31 | Cleave to his wife, one flesh | 2:24 |
| Colossians 1:16 | All things created by him | 1:1-31, 2:1-3 |
| Colossians 3:10 | Created in his image | 1:27 |
| 1 Timothy 2:13-14 | Adam created first | 2:18-23 |
| 1 Timothy 2:14 | Woman deceived | 3:1-6, 3:13 |
| 1 Timothy 4:4 | Everything created by God is good | 1:10-31 |
| Hebrews 1:10 | In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth | 1:1 |
| Hebrews 2:7-8 | All things under subjection under man | 1:26-30,9:2-3 |
| Hebrews 4:3 | Works were finished | 2:1 |
| Hebrews 4:4 | Rest on the seventh day | 2:2-3 |
| Hebrews 4:10 | Rest from His work | 2:2-3 |
| Hebrews 11:3 | Creation of the universe | 1:1 |
| Hebrews 11:4 | Abel offered a better sacrifice | 4:3-5 |
| Hebrews 11:5 | Enoch taken up | 5:21-24 |
| Hebrews 11:7 | Noah's household saved | 7:1 |
| Hebrews 12:24 | Blood of Abel | 4:10 |
| James 3:9 | Men in the likeness of God | 1:27, 5:1 |
| 1 Peter 3:20 | Construction of the ark, eight saved | 6:14-16, 7:13 |
| 2 Peter 2:5 | A flood upon the ungodly, eight saved | 6:8-12, 7:1-24 |
| 2 Peter 3:4-5 | Earth formed out of water and by water | 1:6-7 |
| 2 Peter 3:6 | The word destroyed by water | 7:17-24 |
| 1 John 3:8 | Devil sinned from the beginning | 3:14 |
| 1 John 3:12 | Cain slew his brother | 4:8, 4:25 |
| Jude 11 | The way of Cain | 4:8, 4:16, 4:25 |
| Jude 14 | Enoch, seventh generation from Adam | 5:3-24 |
| Revelation 2:7 | Tree of Life | 2:9 |
| Revelation 3:14 | Beginning of the creation of God | 1:1-31, 2:1-4 |
| Revelation 4:11 | Created all things | 1:1-31, 2:1-3 |
| Revelation 10:6 | Who created heaven…and earth | 1:1, 2:1 |
| Revelation 14:7 | Who made the heaven and the earth | 1:1, 2:1, 2:4 |
| Revelation 20:2 | The serpent of old, who is the Devil | 3:1, 3:14 |
| Revelation 21:1 | First heaven and first earth | 2:1 |
| Revelation 21:4 | No more death, sorrow, crying or pain | 3:17-19 |
| Revelation 22:2 | Fruit of the tree of life | 3:22 |
| Revelation 22:3 | No more curse | 3:14-19 |
| Revelation 22:14 | The tree of life | 2:9 |
Is it not reasonable therefore to believe that our view of cosmogony IS foundational to our faith? Especially when we consider the link between the first Adam and the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15), and Paul's creation-evangelism (Acts 14, and 17)?
As a tentative starting point for our discussion, I want to suggest that the ancient views of cosmogony were not material to matters of faith as far as the Biblical writers were concerned. This concern is a matter of more recent import particularly as it is presented by the Fundamentalist Christian Right.
You are free to disagree, or course, but based on the multiplicity of references to the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the New Testament, I would have to say that how Christians regarded the origin of the universe was material to matters of faith. Not only so in the first century (in which I believe the entire New Testament Cannon was completed) but early on in the church's history as well. It doesn't seem to me to be a matter of recent import at all.
I have the complete set of Anti Nicene Father writings here, both electronically and hard copy. I've checked these sources first hand and can tell you that the origin of the universe in six literal days thousands, not millions or billions of years ago, was an important doctrine to these men:
Some writers that gave specific dates:
| Writer | Date | Date of Creation (BC) | Reference |
| Clement of Alexandria | 150-215 | 5,592 | Miscellanies 1.21 |
| Julius Africanus | 160-240 | 5,500 | Chronology, Fragment 1 |
| Hippolytus of Rome | 170-236 | 5,500 | Daniel 4 |
| Origen | 185-253 | Less than 10,000 | Against Celsus 1.20 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea | 263-339 | 5,228 | Chronicle |
| Augustine of Hippo | 354-430 | Less than 5,600 | City 12.11 |
For example, a comparison of the Babylonian Enuma Elish which contains an account of the creation of man by the gods with the Biblical account shows that the main concern of the Biblical account is to highlight the creation of mankind and the institution of the Sabbath day as the ultimate goal of the creation.
The Babylonian creation story, in my estimation, is a perversion of the Genesis account which is original, and represents the true history of the world. On this view, it's mention here is almost meaningless. I know that many argue that the Babylonian story came first, and influenced the biblical writers of Genesis, but this is just as much a faith statement as my belief that Genesis is original. Neither view can be proven. Both are concepts we believe to be true. Of interest is the fact that the creation story found on among the Ebla tablets in northern Syria (which predate the Babylonian story by some 600 years) bear a stronger resemblance to the Genesis account than the Babylonian. In light of this fact, is it so unreasonable to suppose that the Genesis account came first, and that the others are shadowy corruptions of it?
As for what the main concern of the biblical account actually was, well, that's quite subjective to say the least, and there have been countless expositors that have made their opinions known. Your idea that "the institution of the Sabbath day as the ultimate goal of the creation" is simply one of many ideas.
This is intrinsic to Deuteronomic theology which also contrasts sharply with Babylonian theologies on the matter of the high degree of concern that God places upon the members of the community that He brought out of Egypt. The poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger are the primary focus of the worship.
Again, a matter of opinion. Can we really say that, "the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger are the primary focus of worship?" What about blood sacrifice? The Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, is positively dripping with blood. Adam sinned, an animal was killed to clothe both he and his wife. Abel brings an animal to God as an act of worship and is accepted of God while his brother's bloodless sacrifice is not. In Genesis 22 Abraham goes to worship God on Mt Moriah. Here the sacrifice of an animal seems almost intrinsic to worship. Of course, one cannot miss the relevance of blood sacrifice in the diverse ordinances set forth by Moses throughout the book of Leviticus. In light of this, could I not be justified in regarding blood sacrifice as the primary focus of worship, rather than the "orphan, widow and stranger"? (Of course let's not forget that the REAL primary focus of worship is the one to whom the worship is directed - God Himself!)
It is how these are treated that determines the blessing that God would bring to Israel.
Again, I hate to be argumentative here, but doesn't it seem that the treatment of these people is only one aspect of a multiplicity of laws and ordinances? The Pentateuch is replete with the admonition that the children of Israel were to keep them all if they were to enjoy the blessings of God. (Deuteronomy 30, for example, also notice Exodus 24:1-8, where all the commands of the LORD were accepted by the children of Israel, which also involved the sprinkling of blood - a theme carried through into New Testament times i.e. 1 Peter 1:2).
In contrast, the Babylonian systems focused on the care and feeding of the gods as the primary concern. Mankind was created to relieve the lesser gods of the care and feeding requirements placed upon them by the greater gods.
The Babylonian story in my view has little impact on the Genesis account, which is original.
Christian theology since the time of Augustine (4th Century AD) moves in the direction of the Babylonian system rather than in the Deuteronmic. The sacrifice of Christ is the primary means by which an individual is judged to be righteous rather than the concern that he shows for the 'least of these' (Matthew 25:31ff).
Are you serious, JB? The New Testament itself is replete with teachings concerning the righteousness imparted to believers based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Some examples:
Your statement intimates that original Christianity (pre-Augustine) taught a works-based salvation (how we treat the least of these). But again, even the New Testament itself would argue against this notion. Our salvation is wholly dependent upon what Jesus did:
If anything, I would suspect that a works-based salvation evolved from about the time of Augustine onward until the Reformation. Doesn't history bear this out?
My greatest objections to the agenda of the Fundamentalist is that the primary error of a substitutionary atonement is only perpetuated as the church is continaully made to focus on matters which are peripheral to the primary intent of the Biblical text.
I'm sorry JB, you kind of lost me here. What do you mean by "the error" of a substitutionary atonement? Don't you believe that Jesus died in our place? What agenda? To see people reconciled to their creator - to give Jesus the reward of His sufferings is my only "agenda".
As I mentioned above, in light of the biblical text itself, particularly the New Testament, and it's repeated emphasis on Genesis 1-11 as historic narrative, linked inextricably with the person and work of Jesus (Luke 3 that traces His ancestry back to Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first Adam to the last Adam), is it really unreasonable to suppose that a literal understanding of Genesis IS PART of the primary concern of the biblical text?
For example, Genesis 1 is treated as a scientific account of the creation in opposition to the accounts of science in general. The message of the text is left on the periphery.
Does a statement need to be "scientific" in order to be true? Genesis is not a science textbook - I understand that - but that doesn't disqualify it from being a truthful account of how God did things (i.e. the order of creation, the timeframe involved) in the beginning, does it? I have books here, written for little children, which explain how life evolved over millions of years. These could in no way be considered science textbooks, yet they convey the message of millions of years and evolution in a very simplistic way. The point is, if God really created the universe with a BIG Bang and evolution, He could have told us so in non-scientific language. But as a matter of fact He didn't. He gave us Genesis, which is totally contrary to popular scientific opinion.
I choose to believe Him.
The same may be said for Proverbs 8:25-29 which, as a paradigm of the nature of creation, is remarkably similar to the Sumerian paradigms. The primary intent of this text is to highlight the importance of gaining wisdom as a means of acceptance with God.
The Sumerian literature is, in my opinion, of little consequence here. The Bible is quite consistent in what it teaches without any light from Sumerian or Babylonian doctrines. Gaining wisdom as the basis for acceptance with God is a theme consistent throughout the Bible.
We are repeatedly told that the fear of the LORD is inextricably linked with wisdom: Job 28:28 Psalm 11 Proverbs 1:7 In the New Testament the fear of the Lord is also emphasised: Matthew 10:28 Acts 10:34-35In Christian theology, the basis of acceptance with God is not wisdom, but the substitutionary atonement of 'logos [wisdom] made flesh.'
I agree that the New Testament stresses the acceptance of Jesus (the word made flesh) and His sacrifice. But again, this in no way contradicts the Old Testament emphasis on gaining wisdom. Remember, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and IS wisdom (according to the verse passages cited above). If we truly feared Him we would take His warning about impending judgement and His means of escape seriously (work out your own salvation with "fear and trembling" - Philippians 2:12).
Interestingly, in Jewish Targums, the word of God in the Old Testament is identified with the Messiah Himself. The idea that the acceptance of the word as a means of deliverance is unique to Christian theology is therefore not quite accurate.
As we discuss the findings of Schneider, I would like to keep these matters in focus.
Thank-you for taking the time to discuss these matters with me, John
JB
Thank- you, John. I look forward to your response. Stay well.
John Feakes