A few weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts that discussed the way Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have misused the term “heresy.” At the time, I mentioned there was one more blog post AiG had written, particularly about Peter Enns, that further illustrated some rather odd (and downright false) claims by AiG. The blog in question was a January 30th 2012 post by Tim Chaffey and Roger Patterson entitled, “Was Jesus Wrong? Peter Enns says, ‘Yes.’” This post focused on Peter Enns’ book, The Evolution of Adam. To be honest, I don’t feel like it was Enns’ best book. And yes, the title is provocative, and no, I don’t agree with every single point Enns makes in the book. But it is a good book nonetheless, and worthy of consideration.
Now, much of the post in question simply is a rehash of what AiG typical says regarding Genesis 1-11 and anyone who disagrees with Ken Ham. In that respect, one can say that it’s nothing new. Nevertheless, within AiG’s rehashing of the typical YEC talking points, there were a few items of interest that I feel need to be looked at a little more closely.
Man’s Fallible Ideas…and Those Liberals!
The first point the post makes is that there is a danger of “forcing man’s fallible ideas into the text of Scripture,” because that “unlocks the door to compromise.” It then points to examples like “the gap theory” and “the framework hypothesis” that try to “fit millions of years into Genesis” and thus compromise God’s Word with the idea of an old earth. In the midst of this initial discussion, the post claims that many “liberal theologians” have bought into theistic evolution, and that sadly even some “conservative Christians” have challenged “the traditional interpretation that God created man from the dust of the ground,” and have tried to blend creation and evolution.
To this, the AiG post doubles down on insisting that attempts to reinterpret (or as AiG says, “reject”) parts of the Bible will mean the inevitable slippery slope of eventually rejecting things like the virgin birth, and the resurrection and ascension of Christ.
There’s just a few problems with this first point by AiG—it is an ambiguous, rambling mess, it is historically wrong, and it is simply nonsensical.
Let’s begin with the mantra regarding “forcing man’s fallible ideas into Scripture.” Yes, trying to “fit millions of years” into Genesis 1 is wrong, and simply stupid, to be quite frank. It is trying to preserve the idea that Genesis 1 is actually a literal and historical account of creation, and then argue that “millions of years” transpired between each literal day God created. It is “forcing” modern science onto Genesis 1, and it is wrong to do so.
But, contrary to what AiG claims, saying the universe is billions years old is not a “fallible idea,” that people made up—it is a scientific fact that is supported in many areas of science. Rather, the “fallible idea” that gap theorists and AiG both impose on Genesis 1 is the idea that Genesis 1 is conveying scientific/historical information in the first place. We shouldn’t try to “fit millions of years” into Genesis one, as we shouldn’t insist that Genesis 1 is describing a literal six days a mere 6,000 years ago, because Genesis 1 is not a text explaining scientific information.
Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of the size of the universe, take a look at this video. Prepare to have your mind blown:
In any case, AiG then charges that theistic evolution is somehow the product of “liberal theology.” I’m sorry, what does AiG mean by “liberal”? For that matter, what does it mean by “conservative”? I’m sure Ken Ham would respond with, “’Liberal theology’ compromises the Bible and doesn’t read it literally.” But that’s not really much of a clarification, is it? I can see how the conversation would then go:
Me: “Liberal” means not reading the Bible literally? Which parts? Are we to read the Psalms literally?
Ken: Well obviously not the Psalms—they’re poetry.
Me: How do you know? Where in the Psalms does it say they’re poetry?
Ken: It doesn’t. It’s just obvious. You have to know how to recognize genre.
Me: That’s true. And it’s obvious that the genre of Genesis 1-11 isn’t history; it’s that of ancient myth. You shouldn’t read Genesis 1-11 as history for the same reason you shouldn’t read the Psalms as history.
Ken: No, Genesis 1-11 history.
Me: How do you know?
Ken: It’s obvious.
Me: There’s not one thing in Genesis 1-11 that it historically verifiable. On top of that, it has tons of similarities to other ancient myths. The story of Noah’s flood, for example, is clearly patterned after Gilgamesh, and Gilgamesh is clearly in the genre of ancient myth.
Ken: Well, Gilgamesh is a myth, but not Noah. The story of Noah is the original. It was the right copy preserved after Babel. Genesis 1-11 is God’s eyewitness account; it’s not myth. You’re a liberal.
So let’s clarify: Ken Ham’s definition of “liberal” isn’t really someone who doesn’t read the Bible literally, for he himself would admit that there are parts of the Bible that shouldn’t be read literally (i.e. the Psalms). What he really means is that a “liberal” is someone who doesn’t think Genesis 1-11 should be read as straightforward history. And that is quite a problem, because, like I said, there is nothing verifiably historical in Genesis 1-11, and it shares a whole lot in common literarily-wise with other ancient Near Eastern myths.
And to be clear, that is not a “liberal” position. Traditionally, “liberal theology” tends toward questioning the miracles (or even existence) of Jesus Christ, and much of the actual history of ancient Israel. It tends to doubt that what we read in I and II Samuel, Judges, Joshua, and Exodus is rooted at all in actual history. That’s a big difference.
If you cannot tell the difference between a section of Scripture that speaks of Nod, Eden, talking serpents, and Nephilim, and other sections of Scripture that speak of Jerusalem, Egypt, Shechem, Bethel, Nineveh, Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Neco, Hezekiah, David, Cyrus (you get the idea)…if you think both are the same genre, and if call those who acknowledge the difference “liberal,” you need to go back to school and learn about genre recognition. It’s not an issue of being “liberal” or “conservative.” It’s an issue of gaining literary competence.
Attacks on the Gospel, and the “Discredited” Documentary Hypothesis
In any case, after those initial comments, the AiG article then proceeds to attend to the task at hand: attacking Peter Enns and his (then) recent book, The Evolution of Adam. Since Enns puts forth the argument that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical people, AiG interprets that as being an attack on the gospel. I’ve written before about how this claim by AiG flies in the face of the way Genesis 2-3 was interpreted in the early Church, so I will not rehash that point again. What I do want to focus on is what AiG next…
In his book, Enns points out that the Pentateuch as we have it today (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) was not written down in its final form until probably the Babylonian exile. Before that, the various stories in the Pentateuch probably came from different sources (known in scholarly circles as J, E, P, and D). This is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. Therefore, Enns says, it would be wrong to think that Moses literally sat down and wrote the entire Pentateuch himself, even though the Pentateuch is known as the “books of Moses.”
Now, to be clear, even though scholars might debate specific points of the Documentary Hypothesis (I, for one, have no problem talking about “sources,” but I do have a problem calling them “documents,” because we don’t have them; they are hypothetical and speculative), scholars pretty much agree that the final form of the Pentateuch (along with the books Joshua, Judges, I/II Samuel and I/II Kings) came about during the Babylonian exile. This point really isn’t even debated.
You wouldn’t know that, reading this AiG post. To contrary, the post refers to “the discredited Documentary Hypothesis,” and states, “Despite a wealth of biblical and historical evidence to the contrary, Enns portrays this idea as a given, accepted by any scholar worth his or her salt.”
I’m sorry, but what “wealth of biblical and historical evidence” is AiG talking about? We’ll never know, because it never mentions any. And the reason why it doesn’t mention any is simple: there is no “wealth of biblical and historical evidence” that contradicts the notion that the Pentateuch was finalized during the Babylonian exile.
With that, the AiG post hasn’t even begun to start the real fireworks. The “grand finale” will come tomorrow. You won’t want to miss it.
