Archive for the ‘origins’ tag
On the Age of the Earth and Theology
How old is the earth, anyway? What effect does evolution have on Christian theology? Steve Martin is facilitating a mini blog conference on the topic. Dr. Peter Enns examines the issue by means of his review of The Bible, Rocks and Time. This summer Robin Parry tackled the issue of the flood in a series of posts entitled “Did Noah’s Flood Happen?”:
- An Historical Overview
- The Evidence says ‘No’
- Theological Reflections, pt 1
- Theological Reflections, part 2 (Genesis in ancient context)
Happy reading.
Honest question for Christian Intelligent Design
By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.
Why are we looking for scientific evidence of design when creation is a matter of faith?
Ancient Expositor
Note: This is excerpted from a paper I wrote called “Ancient Expositor” on Origen’s view and use of scripture. I conclude that while his “spiritual exegesis” does include some hermeneutical principles which Evangelicals find unacceptable (such as allegory), it has much in common with current practice in Evangelical scholarship. This passage deals with a persistent controversy:For Origen, the greatest indication of a deeper meaning for any given passage is an implausible narrative meaning. So in cases where he considers that meaning unlikely or impossible, he searches for the hidden truth. In some cases he admits that it remains a mystery, but in others he crafts a broad interpretation based on his perception of those deeper meanings.
As his first example Origen draws from the beginning of the scriptures: the creation story. With regard to the first three days of creation he is incredulous that “’evening’ and ‘morning’ are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven.” Those times periods are meaningless without celestial bodies, so Origen thought certain that the six days of creation represented some deeper figure.
Origen also takes issue with a literal interpretation of the trees in Eden. He objects to the concept of God “like some farmer” planted one tree from which someone could eat “with corporeal teeth and gain life” and another from which someone could eat “and receive knowledge of ‘good and evil.’” The reality of such trees is preposterous to Origen.
The anthropomorphisms of God strolling in the garden and turning his face against Cain are also not acceptable as literal to Origen, since God is without body and since Cain could never hope to flee from the omnipresent God in any case.
Those who would hold to a literal meaning in this statement are called “foolish” and “simple” by Origen. He notes that more examples are not needed because
. . . it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning.
For Origen this battery is just a representative sample of those passages which must have a deeper meaning because their plainer meaning is not possible.
