The conservative (evangelical/fundamentalist) Christian homeschool pope

I originally published the following post [including the "Edited to add" sections] in my personal blog. I am now (in 2016) republishing here those articles from my blog that have to do with the focused subject matter of biblical questions and faith. --JAH

Edited to add (7/5/2013):  After being "called" on calling Mr. Ham "Pope Ham," I have apologized publicly. (I [Edited 7/9/2013]still need to go went to him personally/privately on Friday, 7/5/2013.) I have also been able to state--I think more clearly than ever before--not only why his article bothered me so much but, far more importantly, what I appreciate about him and how and why I wish he would alter some of his methodologies. You can find that post here.

*******
In the latest Answers magazine (p. 35), Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, claims that Sonlight’s treatment of old- and/or young-earth and/or evolutionary creation is not balanced:

Already, two publishers—Sonlight and Christian Schools International—don't openly support a young-earth position. They claim to offer a "balanced" treatment, but it isn't.

He adds no commentary that would bolster his position. He simply makes the claim.

Note: In his primary article, Ham references an Atlantic magazine article that spurred a Christianity Today article where Sarita and I are quoted which, in turn, speaks of Sonlight as “an exception” to the curricula that emphasize young-earth creationist views to the exclusion of others. The Atlantic article mentions Christian Schools International; it doesn't reference Sonlight. However, the author of the CT article writes that

Sonlight . . . offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.

The author and/or editor of the article made several obvious mistakes in her comments about Sonlight.

For example: When it comes to origins, Sonlight only features young-earth creationist books and provides virtually no counter-balancing arguments against anything that those books say. The curriculum does include a few books in areas other than science that obviously assume an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the company simply carries those books seems to have led to its being banned from the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference.

But rather than actually presenting full-blown arguments for the various theories of origins (as the CT article seems to suggest it does), wherever non-young-earth or pro-evolutionary references occur in its texts, Sonlight either refuses to assign those pages or it dutifully offers young-earth creationist "arguments" against the pro-evolutionary content.

Meanwhile, Sonlight does offer some mild notes of encouragement to non-young-earth-creationist parents as it "permits" or even "encourages" such parents (along with the young-earthers) to teach as they see fit.

But the fact is, there is little if any content in the curriculum that would enable students truly to "evaluate" positions other than young-earth creationism.

Indeed, even outside its curriculum, while in the past the company carried a few titles in the back section of its catalog that questioned a young-earth perspective, those books disappeared from the catalog several years ago.

Still, that, apparently, is not good enough for Mr. Ham.

Considering what Sonlight actually does, I would dearly love to know what Ham thinks “balanced” looks like. I am particularly curious because of what he says in the main body of his article (p. 34):

Does [what I have said] mean that homeschooling parents should never expose their children to evolutionary ideas? Of course not. Homeschoolers certainly need to address different views about origins and other controversial issues in their teaching, but they need to do so in the clear context that God's Word is truth and compromising views are error!

Ahh! That last phrase actually answers my question, doesn't it?

If I'm reading him accurately, a “balanced” presentation, from Mr. Ham's perspective, means one that not only “openly support[s] a young-earth position,” but vigorously opposes any other. And Sonlight doesn't oppose alternative perspectives vigorously enough. It offers too much legitimacy to such alternative positions.

You see, the truth is, Sonlight mildly--almost to the point of silence--does "address" different views about origins by simply defining viewpoints other than the young-earth perspective and acknowledging that some Christians hold these viewpoints. Moreover, it acknowledges that some Christian homeschoolers might hold such views and suggests that they can feel free to teach them.

And that, apparently, is too much for Mr. Ham.

Because the truth is, from everything I have seen, Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities within its curriculum--i.e., from within the books it carries or from its Instructor's Guide notes-- . . . Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities for opponents of the young-earth perspective to speak for themselves. It simply acknowledges that some parents might believe differently and suggests that they can teach as they see fit.

And that is what Ham and people like him disapprove. Sonlight does not come out strongly enough with statements to the effect that views alternative to or opposing a young-earth perspective are clearly "compromising" and "in error."

*****

It strikes me: Ham seems to view himself much like a Pope. He has a lock on the Truth. He speaks definitively and infallibly concerning how the Bible is to be interpreted. Like religious leaders of yesteryear who were willing to burn at the stake those who held differing opinions about baptism; or like those even today who break fellowship over different perspectives on eschatology (pre-, post-, or a-mill; preterist; or whatever), so Mr. Ham seems bent on ensuring his followers remain separated from those with whom he disagrees.

If you agree with Ham about the age of the earth and the basic young-earth viewpoint, that's okay, but not good enough.

If you teach a young-earth viewpoint, that's not good enough, either.

You must never suggest that you "merely" believe in young-earth creationism. You must adamantly assert that young-earth creationism is true: THE truth. Indeed, you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours, because--so Pope Ham has decreed--anyone who holds a view different from yours (i.e., different from Ham's) is, simply, wrong, "compromising," "in error." End of discussion.

Whew!

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 5 --An Excursus on Scholarship and Listening to Those With Whom We Disagree

Fifth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden conclude Chapter 6 of In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood with the following:

If the original edition of Genesis was presented to Israel after their exodus from Egypt, and if it was written in an early form of the Hebrew language to people who lived hundreds of years in Egyptian culture, then we should expect it to reflect a concept of the universe and a worldview different from ours. We should not assume, without examining the cultural context, that we understand figures of speech or allusions to common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions of their day. (p. 73)

Oh, boy! You know where this is going, don't you?

Miller and Soden are scholars. And when you hear scholars begin to talk about figures of speech, allusions, motifs, and theological positions, you just know they are going to reference some kinds of knowledge they believe they possess and from which they believe you can gain benefit . . . if only you will listen to them.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 4

Fourth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden ask dozens of trenchant questions that they believe might help us carefully come to a conclusion about how we should interpret Genesis 1 and 2. I would like to share just a few of those questions here.

What struck me as I read Chapter 6 in their book: Most of their questions are of a type I have heard no one else ask . . . much less answer.

Take a look:

• Why would God choose to describe the beginning of the earth with these particular features: desolate, and deep, dark, and watery (Gen. 1:2)? Why are they significant?
   
• How do you separate light from darkness? What was the state of things before light and darkness were separated?
   
• Why does Scripture point out that God called the light "day" and the darkness "night”?
   
• Why did God create light before he created the sun, moon, and stars? What does this mean and how can it be?
   
• On the "second day," God separated "the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse" and made the "expanse" to go in between (Gen. 1:7-8). . . . Does this indicate that originally there was extra water somehow stored above the atmosphere in a sort of vapor canopy?
   
• Is Moses giving some information that we need to correlate scientifically?
   
• What does it mean that the waters are gathered into one place? If we look at our globe, how does the water only end up in one place?
   
• Why does Genesis 1 suggest God spoke the animals into existence, but Genesis 2 says he made them from dust?

"On and on the questions go," say Miller and Soden. "Some seem easier and some harder. Some seem picky, while others seem intuitive. But are they either picky or intuitive?”

Implicit answer: No. They're neither picky nor intuitive. But, once raised, they really need to be addressed.

I think Miller and Soden ask these questions partially by way of caution, but also because, by asking these questions, they believe that, in some way, we might be led either away from answers that won't satisfy, or toward answers that will. If theirs were anything like the books I have read in the past, I would have found these questions rather heart-wrenching and hopeless: “Who is sufficient to answer such things?”

But considering that Miller and Soden asked the questions relatively early in their book suggested they might have some insights heretofore overlooked. I harbored a glimmer of hope that maybe, indeed, they would answer them. And, as I have suggested before, I was not disappointed. Not only did they answer these questions, but, to my mind, they answered in a manner that addressed deeper issues that had been bothering me on the edges of my consciousness: issues that no other authors I have read--young- or old-earth, concordant or non-concordant--have addressed.

But we'll begin to talk about those things next time!

Next post in this series.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 3

Third in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden provide a wonderful, gentle "on-ramp" to their discussion of Genesis 1. They address a whole range of troublesome issues that have bothered many of us who have either participated in or, at least, observed the old-earth/young-earth debate. I commend their book to you. Don't rely on my summary of those portions of the book that most moved me! I am leaving out some significant treasures!

I want to get to the meat of their presentation, however. So I am skipping over a whole bunch of wonderful, thoughtful, well-expressed material that I expect you are likely to find helpful either in your own thinking or when talking with friends of almost any persuasion about creationism and/or the age of the earth.

First item at the heart of the Miller-Soden presentation (at least from my perspective): the distinction between literal and figurative speech and how difficult it is for us in the 21st century to distinguish literal from figurative and vice versa.

If we interpret literally passages that are not meant to be taken literally, then we are as inaccurate as if we interpreted figuratively a passage not meant to be taken figuratively. (p. 43)

The authors illustrate their reason for concern via a number of Old Testament references. But I would like to pick up their mode of "argument" in their discussion of Joshua 10:12-14.

It is clear that the event is miraculous and that God is fighting for Israel (v. 14),but the connection between the sun and moon and the hailstorm is not as clear. . . . One way of understanding the text is to interpret the references to the sun and moon as figurative in themselves, as representatives of the cosmic battle taking place, similar to what is recorded in Judges 5:20: "From the heaven the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera." Or Habakkuk 3:11: "The sun and moon stood still in their place at the light of your arrows as they sped, at the flash of your glittering spear." If the references in Joshua 10 are figurative, understanding the text may be as simple as recognizing that the sun and moon were Canaanite deities, yet were under the command of Joshua. In Joshua 10:11 Baal is spectacularly shown to be impotent when Yahweh uses Baal's own weapons (the storm and the hail) to destroy more Canaanites than the Israelites' swords did. (pp. 45-46)

Obviously, none of this kind of interpretation comes naturally to those of us brought up in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. We aren't used to thinking of heavenly (or, should I say, astrophysical) objects (as we might describe them) as being deities. For us, they are, first and foremost and always, physical objects. Yet those who are familiar with biblical language will recognize that Miller and Soden are engaging in no manipulation of the text to suggest these rather "new" understandings. And despite our--i.e., modern Christians'--tendency to focus solely on the monotheistic declarations of the Bible (see for example,

• Isaiah 43:10, 12--"'[Y]ou are my witnesses, O Israel!' says the LORD. . . . 'You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be. . . . I am the only God.'";
   
• Isaiah 45:14--"He is the only God. There is no other.";
   
• Isaiah 44:13, 15, 17-18, 24--"'[T]he wood-carver measures a block of wood and draws a pattern on it. He works with chisel and plane and carves it into a human figure. He gives it human beauty and puts it in a little shrine. . . . Then he uses part of the wood to make a fire. With it he warms himself and bakes his bread. Then . . . he takes the rest of it and makes himself a god to worship! He makes an idol and bows down in front of it! . . . He falls down in front of it, worshiping and praying to it. . . . Such stupidity and ignorance! Their eyes are closed, and they cannot see. Their minds are shut, and they cannot think.' . . . This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer and Creator: 'I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens'";
   
• and so forth),

the Bible itself recognizes that there are other gods and that the people of Israel--not to mention the members of other nations--could easily decide to follow those other gods (see, for example,

• Exodus 20:3--"You shall have no other gods before me";
   
• Deuteronomy 6:13-14--"Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods";
   
• Isaiah 43:10, 12--"'[Y]ou are my witnesses, O Israel!' says the LORD. . . . I predicted your rescue, then I saved you and proclaimed it to the world. No foreign god has ever done this.'";
   
• etc.).

And many of these other gods were, indeed, what we now recognize as physical objects: the heavenly beings--sun, moon and stars; and things in the earthly realm. For example: most of the very things (in our mental matrix) that God used against the Egyptians as we read in Exodus 7ff--the Nile River, frogs, flies, and so forth--were gods, in their minds.

"Regardless of how we understand Joshua 10:12-14," Miller and Soden conclude,

it is not a scientific account. It may describe a miracle of nature or it may refer to a spiritual battle in which the gods of the Canaanites stand by and watch Yahweh win. . . . Regardless, we must see the figurative and theological aspects of this narrative (namely, God using the storm and fighting against the Canaanites with their own deities) or we will miss the point. The main issue of this passage emphasizes that God listened to the voice of man and fought for Israel, using the Canaanites' gods against them. (p. 46)

 . . . And so Miller and Soden turn to Genesis 1.

Genesis . . . was written more than 3,000 years ago, and it was written in Hebrew. To understand it fully, one must read it first in its original language and try to understand it in relation to its original author (Moses), in relation to its original readers (Israel recently released from slavery in Egypt), and in relation to the culture, worldview, and literary genre of the text. This is an issue in the debate on origins that is often--perhaps usually--ignored by Christians. For those who would ignore it, the meaning of the text is self-evident: "The real question involved in this debate is, Do we accept the plainest meaning of the Bible, or do we insist on a reinterpretation in light of the prevailing opinion of scientists?" The plainest meaning . . . is indeed what we want to find, but the issue is, the plainest meaning to whom? We must start with the plainest meaning to the original recipients. (p. 48)

Miller and Soden say there are a number of indicators in the text of Genesis 1-3 that "suggest it was meant to be understood by its original readers in a broadly figurative way" (p. 49).

Evidence?

• That "the Hebrew text lacks the [definite] article 'the' on days 1 through 5. . . . It is only when we come to day 6 that the definite article is used" (p. 49). --If your English text speaks of "the first day," "the second day," "the third day," etc., it has added the definite object. The NASB, RSV and ASV are correct when they translate these as "one day," "a second day," "a third day," and so forth. Only when you hit the sixth day do you have the Hebrew speaking of the sixth day. (Interesting: NASB and ASV get that right. But RSV chooses to pretend that there is no definite object even then!)
   
• "[H]aving evening and morning before the creation of the sun generates a problem for a strictly linear chronology. . . . In our scientific mind-set, the presence of darkness and light suggests that the earth was rotating on its axis. 'Evening and morning' are . . . clearly a function of the earth's rotation in relationship to the sun. The fact that Genesis 1 presents 'evening and morning' three days before the sun suggests that Genesis 1 may not be about literal days and literal stages of creation" (p. 52).
   
• That "there is no stated end to the seventh day, God's Sabbath" (p. 52).
   
• "Exodus 31:17 . . . is often cited as proof that the creation week was a literal seven-day week . . . "[for] in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed" (Exod. 31:16-17). The argument is that the human week is to reflect God's week. If it is a literal, seven-day week for people, it must have been a literal, seven-day week for God.
  
  "However, . . . [i]f all is to be taken literally, then it must be literally true that God became tired and was refreshed after his rest. . . . But was God literally weary? Had he become spent during the week of creation? No, . . . God is drawing an analogy here rather than an equation. If we do not understand God's 'rest' and 'refereshment' to be the same as man's should we expect God's 'days' to be the same?" (pp. 53-54).
   
• That if we interpret Genesis 2 in its most natural (chronological) sense, then
  
  
  • "[I]t contradicts the order of creation in chapter 1." And,
     
  • "Furthermore, chapter 2 implies only one creative day. There is no reference to any other days and, in fact, the chapter begins with reference to a single day (Gen. 2:4 literally states, 'in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens')." (p. 55)
  
  The point is, Miller and Soden conclude,
  

  everyone who assumes the two accounts [in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2] are not contradictory but complementary will also argue that the author intended to give a non-chronological order in chapter 2 in order to make a theological point. . . . If chapter 2 is out of order for theological reasons, why must chapter 1 be in order chronologically? The only reason for this assumption is because it makes sense to us and because we have assumed that the enumerating of the days [in chapter 1] requires it. . . .
  
  [To summarize our point in another way,] one cannot take both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 "literally" without creating contradictions between the creation accounts. This is a final clue from the passage itself that it is not meant to be taken literally, or as if it is [intended to convey] scientific information. (p. 56)

Here I have completely ignored the significant textual evidence and thoughtful discussion Miller and Soden bring concerning the points I have summarized above. Again, I urge you to read their book for the evidence. But I wanted to summarize their presentation. And I believe I have done that.

As Miller and Soden conclude chapter 4 in their book, they promise, "as we dig deeper, we will discover much more data showing us that the original audience would have heard [Genesis 1 and 2] much differently than we do and leading us in [a very different] direction [than most modern readers want to take it]" (p. 57).

I can assure you: They keep their promise!

Next post in this series found here.

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 2

Second in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.

*****

Miller and Soden begin their book with personal statements of "where they are coming from." Both confess long time commitments to literalistic, young-earth creationist perspectives. As Miller put it, he was raised in fundamentalist churches "where the Bible reigned supreme--that is, our interpretation of the Bible reigned supreme. To question our interpretation of the Bible was equal to doubting God and proving you weren't really a Christian" (p. 18).

He struggled with his faith, but eventually gave his life to Jesus. Shortly after making this commitment, he ran into Henry Morris' and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and he "began to believe that if you take Genesis one literally, then you also must take Genesis 2-5 literally, and putting these chapters together with a tight genealogy demands a young earth" (p. 19).

And so he believed and so he taught for many years. But then . . .

One day he came to the conclusion that "all my life I had been reading Genesis from the perspective of a modern person. I had read it through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual. I assumed that Genesis was written to answer the questions of origins that people are asking today" (pp. 20-21). Put another way, he had failed to ask--as most authors who debate the meaning of Genesis 1 fail to ask-- "What did Genesis mean to the original author and original readers?" (p. 21).

And that is the primary question that Miller and Soden both seek to answer: What is Genesis 1 intended to teach us? "Only after we see Genesis 1 . . . from the perspective of both its author (in this case, Moses) and its original readers will we have the right to apply it to modern discussions . . . about the age of the earth and the meaning of the days of creation" (p. 23).

You know--you just know--a shoe is about to drop. They're "setting us up" for something. Right? It's obvious.

But for what?

And whatever they are about to say--and you know (since their title, itself, tells you) the authors are going to offer less than gushing approval of their (obviously former) young-earth perspective: If "the perspective of a modern person" isn't good enough to understand what Genesis 1 is about, then what will the perspective of a person from three thousand years ago or more add to our understanding? And, perhaps more important: How can Miller and Soden possibly suggest they could discover what a person of three thousand years ago believed or thought?

Happily, the authors offer answers to these questions--gently, carefully, tentatively, with humility and grace.

Next post in this series found here.

The fuzzy edges of translation

I thought this was pertinent--by way of illustration--to some of the issues I am trying to deal with in this blog.

I ran across an article in the July 2013 Reader's Digest borrowed from an article in Mental Floss magazine by linguist Arika Okrent who, herself, borrowed from Found in Translation by Nataly Kelly and Jost Zetzsche. One short story in particular struck me as helpfully instructive of the need not only for care in translation, but for humble tentativity and resolute commitment to query a communicator's comments . . . especially if or when we sense "our own" interests or views are being threatened.

Rather than extend my introduction, let me "simply" tell the story.

If you're in your late 50s or older, you may recall a famous (or infamous) speech by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956. He said, in Russian, "Мы вас похороним." Literal translation: "We will bury you," or, even more literally, "We will dig you in."

The meaning was not lost on any of those who were present. It was clear to all that, as Okrent summarizes the story,  Khrushchev was making a threat "to bury the U.S. with a nuclear attack."

Was that his intended meaning?

Before we discuss some other statements Khrushchev made that use much the same phraseology, let me note what Okrent (Kelly and/or Zetzsche) say: "[T]he translation was a bit too literal. The sense of the Russian phrase was more that 'we will live to see you buried' or 'we will outlast you.'"

Ah! A circumlocution for, "We're going to live longer," or, "Our system is better," or, "We'll still be kickin' when your heart's no longer tickin'." Something like that.

Interesting idea.

Can we get any insight from the broader context of the speech?

Wikipedia offers some context. First, from the speech itself:

The actual verbal context was: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will [bury you]." 

Hmmm.

The preceding sentence certainly seems to push in the direction of the Okrent/Kelly/Zetzsche interpretation. "History" to that point certainly wouldn't be "on [the Soviet Union's] side" to provide evidence that the Soviet Union would bury the United States with a nuclear attack.

But there is a broader historical context in which we may view that particular speech. Wikipedia goes on:

In his subsequent public speech Khrushchev declared: "[...] We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can."

There's that burial verbiage! And this time, we cannot interpret it as being passive, the way Okrent, Kelly and/or Zetzsche suggest.

But the context is broader than this, too:

Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you," a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism," based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Khrushchev repeated this Marxist thesis at a meeting with journalists in the U.S. in September 1959.

So. We have the context of the immediate speech during the reception. We have another reference to much the same imagery and phraseology just hours later ("his subsequent public speech"). We have comments Khrushchev made to American journalists three years later, and, finally, a direct reference back to it from a speech  Khrushchev made six years later.

So what was his meaning?

Can we "even" take his 1963 reference as controlling? Is it possible he is "reinterpreting" his meaning, at least slightly, from 1956? (I.e., does he "up the ante" a bit by suggesting a greater instrumentality on the part of the Soviet Union than he intended in 1956 when he first made the comment?)

Clearly, there is a lot of burying going on. And, as Okrent/Kelly/Zetzsche comment, however we might interpret the phrase, it is "not exactly friendly." But taken one way it is quite a bit less threatening than if taken another. So which was it?

Genesis 1: How Should We Interpret It? --Part 1

I have been looking forward to writing this post for some time. I can't remember how I discovered this book, but I find its "solution" to the question of how to interpret Genesis 1 extremely gratifying.

The book's title: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood . . . by Johnny V. Miller (former president of Colombia Bible College [which became Colombia International University during his tenure as president]) and John M. Soden (professor of Old Testament at Lancaster Bible College and Graduate School).

I have urged my acquaintances at Sonlight to incorporate this book into the Sonlight high school curriculum—and at least some of its basic insights and perspectives into earlier grades’ teaching notes. Hint: Miller and Soden take a strongly non-concordist view of Genesis 1-3.

As I wrote on this blog two years ago:

The concordist interpretations seek to show how modern scientific teaching is well in line with what the Bible teaches about creation and the early history of the world. ("See, if we reinterpret this word as meaning _______, and if we recognize that this word means _______ [etc.], then there is no conflict at all between science and Scripture!")

The non-concordist interpretations, by contrast, say, in essence, "Look, the biblical record in Genesis 1-11 has no relation to modern science or history. Don't even look for evidence that tries to tie the Bible's teachings in Genesis 1-11 to modern science or history. It doesn't. It 'teaches' everything obnoxious to modern science and history that the young-earthers claim . . . and more. Except . . ." . . . 

The non-concordists suggest various ways by which evangelicals ought to understand Genesis 1-11--ways that, they say, honor the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible Word (as per the standard evangelical statements of faith) while also containing statements or teachings that don't even come close to according with the truth of history and science as we know it. 

My view: In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood is the first book on a generally POPULAR level that seeks to address the topic of Genesis 1-3 in a way that honors the legitimate intentions and concerns of both old- and young-earth creationists while also--and more importantly and fundamentally--seeking truly to honor the text of the Bible as written and the context in and for which it was written.

As  Miller and Soden note, the concordists on both side—the Ken Hams of the world on the young-earth side and the Hugh Rosses of the world on the old-earth side—all read into the text modern scientific “insights” that were never there in the first place . . . and, therefore, they try to make it say what it obviously doesn't say.

Meanwhile, however, all of the non-concordists I have read prior to Miller and Soden tend to note the problems with concordist interpretations [“so,” they conclude “therefore, we must adopt a non-concordist interpretation”], but/and, then, they immediately “get on” with “the science” of the age of the earth . . . and jettison any concern with or attempt, properly, to interpret the biblical text. I.e., they leave us with an open question as to what was the Bible meant to say? How should we interpret it?

Miller and Soden provide what I find to be a rather satisfying answer.

It is an answer that will shake up most fundamentalists’ and/or evangelicals’ perspectives on the Bible. But I believe Miller and Soden have gotten to the deepest roots of my discomfort with both the old- and young-earthers’ claims. . . . I sense they honor the text as written, the Bible as God's inerrant Word. They also leave modern science to do whatever it will do.

And in case you are wondering: they say, YES, the Bible--"even" Genesis 1-3--is authoritative. But/and it is authoritative and speaks authoritatively in a way that doesn't happen to have anything to do with the age of the earth or scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth.

--More in my next post . . . found here.