The impact of an evolutionary view on our doctrine of Scripture

I found this morning that Steve Douglas had anticipated much of what I spent four days researching for my post last night.

I encourage you to read Steve's The trouble with intramural accommodationism.

I observe people try to sell other believers on evolutionary theory without openly acknowledging the ways in which their own rejection of the idea of a single pair of progenitors has resulted in an often subtle yet usually profound modification of how they understand the Bible to work. I, too, have been tempted [to posit] a (purely hypothetical) scenario in which accepting that early Genesis was unhistorical does not result in a revised or nuanced bibliology[. I]f not outright dishonest, I feel that this approach is . . . misleading, perhaps even disingenuous, and a setup for problems later.

Yes! Agreed! Which is why I took the time to do what I did in my post last night . . . and what I hope to do in posts yet to come.

"Rather than giving in to this temptation [to pretend that changing one's view of Genesis 1-11 does not result in a revised or nuanced bibliology]," Steve writes, "I have opted to problematize their assumptions about what the Bible should be or should say."

NICE! Yes! I would say that is what I am about right now: trying to "problematize" the assumptions both sides make about "what the Bible should be or should say."

We have some problems in River City, my friends. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

We have some problems with a traditional evangelical/fundamentalist view of Scripture AND, I'm afraid, we have some real problems with the standard approaches that most old-earth creationists take toward Scripture as well.

And so I want to talk about them.