When 9-13 < 1

The astute mathematicians in the readership might be wondering, “When doesn’t it?” but rest assured it does.  For example:

9-13<1 when T≥0

But

9-13>1 when T≤ 0

Huh?

It all depends on the frame of reference you read from.  First, read the statement again. Did you read nine minus 13 is less than 1 when T is greater or equal to zero? If so you may have read correctly but again maybe not. The statement could also be read nine to thirteen is less than one when T is greater or equal to zero.  If you know T is temperature in degrees Celsius and 9-13 is inches of snow predicted, a new picture starts to take shape. In other words if a bunch of snow is predicted but then the temperature stays above the freezing point there will be very little snow (<1 inch for example).

Looking at the scenario laid out in a table can make the example even clearer. 

Predicted Snowfall	Actual Snowfall	Temperature
9-13 inches	<1 inch	>0⁰ Celsius
9-13 inches	>1 inch	<0⁰ Celsius

I recently read an article by Isaac Asimov titled The Relativity of Wrong.  Through the essay Asimov describes how our frame of reference including the data and tools we have available impact how right we can be at a particular time in history.  In The Evolution of Adam Peter Enns describes a similar scenario in terms of the frame of reference, and ability to be right scientifically, of the ancient Hebrew culture that produced the book of Genesis. 

When asked, “Is the world flat?” Asimov reminds us, yes it is (practically) and if we don’t have a frame of reference or tools to tell us otherwise are we really that wrong?

When asked, “Was there a global flood?” Enns reminds us, yes there was when the boundaries of the known world were covered and the limits of the flood were beyond perception.

It might seem like our understanding and ability for understanding is as clear as it has been throughout history.  However each passing day, each passing year, each passing generation brings us farther away from the past we have emerged from.  Because of this there are some things we have to work at understanding. We have to be intentional about not thinking from our frame of reference. We have to see through the eyes of the past to understand what is not always clear in the present.

Observations from the First 23% of The Evolution of Adam

One of the great things about science and technology is the elegance of the solutions that emerge out of innovation.   I’m reading The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns on a Kindle. Like other e-readers the Kindle allows for font and text size changes which makes page numbering problematic. As the texture of the text changes so does the number of pages in the book. Yet the total length of the book never changes, just the number of swipes required to read to full resolution.  So what magical methods do the makers of tech texts devise? Fractions! Well specifically percentages.  

Maybe I’m goofy for liking stuff like this but I do.  I’m also enjoying The Evolution of Adam and today I’ll share a few observations from the first 23%.

I was fortunate to participate in a call with Peter Enns last month in which he discussed some of the central issues in his latest book. In a previous post I shared some notes from that call.  My notes covered two main areas; the purpose and place of the Genesis text and Paul’s treatment of and relationship with Adam. The first 23% of The Evolution of Adam deals with the perceived conflict between Genesis and the science of Evolution and also begins to shed light on Genesis in terms of authorship, genre and its role in defining Israel’s national identity.

The first thing I was impressed by, at the time of the original phone conversation and in the introduction of the book, is Dr. Enns’ respect for Christian tradition and especially opposing points of view.  He makes it clear that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but also that as long as it has been read it has been discussed and has incited questions and disagreement.  I’m grateful for the example provided for confidently expressing convictions while still respecting opposing points of view.

It is made clear within the first 5% however that not all Biblical interpretation is equal. The limitations of these views are described in the following quote.

These other views, rooted in a precommitment to read the Bible literally at virtually every point despite evidence to the contrary, avoid engaging science by reinterpreting it to conform to that conviction. To the contrary, it is clear that, from a scientific point of view, the Bible does not always describe physical reality accurately; it simply speaks in an ancient idiom, as one might expect ancient people to do. It is God’s Word, but it has an ancient view of the natural world, not a modern one.

Much of the first 23% describes Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch as a declaration by ancient Israel of their National Identity and their role in the world as God’s chosen people.  In this description the authorship of the Pentateuch is fleshed out as a compilation of several authors over centuries of time. As Enns points out, this is not a new conclusion but is as old as the Old Testament itself.

The discussion around the Bible’s beginnings is described as self generating as there are internal conflicts within the text itself.  When I read this section the questions and conflicts resonated so deeply with my own experience with the Scriptures that I’m confident I would have audibly expressed my agreement if not for being on the train and surrounded by strangers. 

Enns remarks that questions and discussions around Genesis should be expected because Genesis generates its own questions. Why are there two completely different creation accounts? Where did Adam’s offspring’s wives come from? Why does God need to ask where Adam and Eve are in the Garden? Why is Genesis so repetitive?  The presence of these conflicts, repetitions, parallelisms and stylistic deviations are evidence that Enns and centuries of Biblical scholarship point to when claiming multiple authors and the nationalistic purpose of the texts.

This is an important point because it takes Genesis and the Pentateuch out of the realm of pure historical account (and therefore out of conflict with modern science) and into a complex assemblage for the shaping of Israel’s relationship with God and the world.  

The book returns often to the impact of reading Genesis well on our view of science and as I move toward the 24^th% and beyond a discussion of genre and calibration with similar ancient texts is taking shape.  I’ll continue to process the book and report more as the fraction of the total book read approaches 1/1.

Notes on a Call

I have the great fortune to be a member of a cohort of pastors who are interested in the intersection and harmony of Christian faith with the natural sciences . I’ll report on the functions of the cohort in future posts but todays post will be reserved for some preliminary notes I jotted down during a group conference call with Dr. Peter Enns a Biblical scholar and author. 

Dr. Enns recently wrote The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. During the call Dr. Enns spoke about the book and focused particularly on Paul’s treatment of the Adam story and how it relates to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  I look forward to the book and plan to read it. The notes below are raw without comment and were taken as I listened while commuting from work via light rail and bus so they are fragmented.  I cannot be certain that I have faithfully captured the sentiment of the book or Dr. Enn’s presentation completely. I’ll be able to correct any mistakes I’ve made as I listen back to the call and read the book. 

Dr. Enns has a website at http://peterennsonline.com/ where more information about his work can be found.

Notes from the call –

Evolution can be accepted as a fact. Not to say anything about specific mechanisms or explaining the science at all but that it is the accepted paradigm of how life came to be as it is today.

Because of this acceptance it cannot and must not be assumed that the account in Genesis is a literal outline of how creation took place.

Therefore we must look at the text of Genesis and ask what it is about. Looking at Genesis as an Ancient text, as a second temple text, and from the perspective of Paul is useful for unterstanding.

Funny notion from Dr. Enns  - If Adam would have minded his own business and stayed in genesis we wouldn’t have any of the tensions we have with evolution.

The OT is largely concerned with Israel. The story of Adam is an outline of the recurring history of Israel.  Adam and Israel can be read in parallel with the following sequence - Given a lush land, given law, law is broken, kicked out of the lush land

Eastern orthodox view is that Adam story is that of immaturity that never grows into maturity. Adam story is wisdom literature a la the proverbs.

God wants us to have wisdom and gives it to us in his way. Adam and eve is a story of how Israel did not seek wisdom wisely and suffered the consequences.

Paul Adam and Jesus-

Paul probably didn’t think in terms of the existence of North America or outer space.

Therefore Paul’s antiquity limits and colors how he understands the Adam story.

Paul’s perspective is unique but he is not the first ancient Jew to think about Adam.

The ambiguities in the Adam text give credit to the other ancient takes on it.

Paul doesn’t authoritatively interpret Adam but gives his take on Adam.

Paul’s interpretations of the OT are not always at face value and he uses creative license.

He does this because he is writing in the context of what Jesus did on the cross.

Paul persecuted Christians because he wholly thought that you had to be a Jew to have salvation because the Jews had the law. When he saw Jesus as messiah and that God had to raise him from the dead Paul recognized salvation as more than from the law but from death itself. We therefore have passages like all (he suggests they could read both-Jew and gentile) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Abraham and more so Adam are brought into his argument because Paul was making sure to show that sin and therefore the need for salvation is universal.

The evolution of Adam is the book he wrote.

Funny “I'll sign your kindle if you send it to me.”

The way we think of death is a big theological conundrum.

In evolution death is not the enemy but rather the engine of creation.

Our modern myths are a collection of understandings that help us interpret reality. In that sense evolution is a modern day myth.

How does this relate to new heaven and earth a la revelation. Just because death is inevitable within an evolutionary context that doesn't require for a time when there will be no death.

End of Notes

There was a lot of thought provoking material packed into the hour long talk. I look forward to delving more into the book when I get it.