C. John Collins & Antti Nuutila: How to Read Genesis Well | AF26

[00:00:00]Hello everybody.

[00:00:03]Welcome to this conversation with [snorts] Auntie Auntie Nutila, a translator, an English teacher and Dr. Jack Collins who I believe is very familiar to you all already from earlier this weekend.

[00:00:21]I am Matiasberg, a student of business from Helsinki and I will be your moderator today.

[00:00:28]On a more practical note, if you feel you want translation, we do offer it.

[00:00:33]You can find it at LifeVoice and I believe there'll be a code up there or somewhere.

[00:00:42][snorts] The structure of this today is 20 minutes of a monologue for both Jack and Auntie after which we have a 40-minut discussion and 30 minutes for questions from the audience.

[00:00:59]Without further ado, let us begin.

[00:01:02]Chuck, the stage is yours.

[00:01:09]>> Kitos, it's uh good to be with you again. I'm getting used to being up here. Uh [clears throat] and uh so let let's talk about uh the creation story as I understand it. uh and uh what what we'll find is that there are a number of interpretive issues that is to say the whole question of how do you interpret a text uh and and then what do you do with your interpretation uh and when it comes to a passage like Genesis uh the the ways in which at least as these discussions have played out elsewhere so I'll see if it's different here but uh there's a difference as to how much the text of the Bible tends to specif specify and then how much it leaves open for exploration. Uh and um so uh my own view is that um if we focus on what we can perceive to be the purpose of the Genesis account, we'll see what kinds of things it specifies and then what kinds of things are left open for exploration and discussion. Um [snorts] and that that relates for evangelicals to how we articulate our notion of what's called solar scriptorera. That is the the sole authority the final authority of the scriptures. And there's uh rope coyanin who's uh done done some interesting exploration uh in that which I which I find very congenial to my own way of thinking. So um when when it comes to um uh interpreting this uh dictim from CS Lewis has been my guide. The first qualification for judging and also interpreting any piece of workmanship from a corkcrew to a cathedral is to know what it is, what it was intended to do and how it is meant to be used. Uh and so those parts of interpretation are what we want to pursue. uh and uh [clears throat] I'm fairly traditional in my understanding of where Genesis comes from. Namely, I uh am perfectly happy with it coming from Moses. But that's going to help us immensely because we can think about who are the people for whom Moses wrote uh what we have in Genesis uh in uh the study of rhetoric. This is called audience criticism. Understanding the audience.

[00:03:27]what are the needs of the audience that are being met by this text. Now a a a very important figure in English uh in in English history particular English reformation history is John Klet. Uh Kolit was a premier man of letters uh in England uh in just before the time of the reformation and in many ways was a forerunner to the reformation and he wrote a series of letters to his friend Rulus. Rulphus asked Rulphus is just Latin for Ralph. Um and uh so he he's uh discussing questions that Rulphus had about the creation account. And here's the the uh passage that is ex uh particularly helpful. Moses arranged his details in such a way as to give the people a clearer notion. And he does this after the manner of a popular poet in order that he may the more adapt himself to the spirit of simple rusticity. Uh so if if you think about the people of Israel uh that are the audience of what Moses wrote, they're going to follow Joshua into the promised land. All right? And they're going to live a life that is based on what's called subsistence agriculture. They're not going to live in cities. Uh they're not going to have an organized central government. uh each each family will have their own family farm a and they will be working it at the level of of subsistence. That is to say you want to grow enough crops to feed your family this year and have enough leftover uh so that you can plant crops for next year and keep it going. And similarly with raising your animals. So th those are the kinds of the kinds of people to whom it's addressed. And if you think about what kind of needs these people would have, uh what what what do they need most of all? Well, certainly in keeping with the entirety of the books of Moses, what they need is their loyalty, absolute loyalty to the Lord to be recruited and to be strengthened and fortified. Uh and so that's uh that's an important point. There's also the temptation to uh to follow other gods. I mean the the warnings against that run throughout the books of Moses and the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible as well. [clears throat] So uh for example there uh the God that uh I think in the Finnish translation is called Bal uh is um he's he's the god who governs the weather. Uh and so the reason why you would want to make sure that uh you honor Bal is because you need the rain to come in its proper time and you need it to stop in its proper time. So the rains start in Israel around the time of Rosha Shana, which is the the beginning of the new year. That's the end of September, early October. Uh and the rains finish around the time of Passover. So we just passed Easter. So, so right about now is when the rains need to be finishing and then you have the dry season. Uh, and you need you you are tempted to ask Bal to keep the rains going in this proper sequence. Uh, and so that that's one of the needs that's being met here is why you should stick with the Lord and not resort to Bal. Uh and then uh further you have the the people of Israel feeling themselves to be of no account. They are not a high culture in comparison to Egypt. Their parents and grandparents came out of Egypt. They're certainly not a high culture in comparison to Mesopotamia where their ancestor Abraham came out.

[00:07:13]They're not even a high culture in comparison to the people in Canaan because at least they have big cities with big walls and so on. And the people of Israel, what do they have? Well, they've been nomads in the Sinai desert for 40 years and before that uh they they were slaves making bricks uh for the Egyptians and so on. So, um there there's a a level of dignity that is being accorded to the people of Israel uh to enable them to see themselves as not simply the heirs of Abraham but also the heirs of the calling of Abraham to be the one the the the people through whom the light comes to the rest of the world. uh and so God's interest not just in Israel but the rest of the world uh is one of those issues that that's being addressed here.

[00:08:02]So um [clears throat] the the uh the way the Bible com uh speaks to people's needs is by giving us a story that uh gives us a worldview, a way of leaning into life. Tells us where we came from, what's wrong with the world, what's been done about it, where we are now in the whole process and where the whole world is headed. So here's a worldview story that we can reject. man is the reject the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.

[00:08:32]He was not planned. Uh and certainly that's a worldview story that is utterly at odds with the story that we get in Genesis.

[00:08:42]So um let me um uh just skip ahead here just because I'm I want to be mindful. I I'm always running out of time and and you're not going to let me, are you? Um so he's he's going to tackle me if I go over. So let let's look at the the passage in uh the first chapter of Genesis. Um and there there [clears throat] are distinctive features to it. How how do we interpret this chapter and especially with a view towards remembering who the audience are and our role in relation to them is we're their heirs um and uh remember who the audience are and then look at how the the passage itself works. Well, one of the features of the text that's the most obvious is the refrain. You have uh six days of work and each day is ended by this refrain. And there was evening and there was morning. The first day, second day and third, third right onto the sixth day. And then the seventh day has no refrain, which [clears throat] invites the possibility that it has no ending.

[00:09:42]Well, what's what's the significance to the people of Israel of evening followed by morning? Um some some people will say that's the definition of a day but that would be a very odd day that is evening followed by morning. That's rather the nighttime. Uh and an ancient Israelite who's a subsistence agricultural worker uh uh has he works during the daylight hours and when the evening comes he stops working and he rests during the the night uh and then when there's morning he starts it up again. So that this refrain is marking off the days in which God is doing his work. Okay. So uh and automatically you're thinking wow the God is doing work and what is the work that he's doing? He's um uh shaping the earth to be a suitable place for human beings to live. Uh in Genesis 1 and verse two the earth was without form and void. Uh and that Hebrew term tohou vavohu as as you say it in Hebrew uh means that it's not fit for human habitation. It doesn't mean chaos as some people have have interpreted it. It simply means not fit for human habitation. So the account is is an account of God making the world a fit place for human habitation. Uh and um [clears throat] you you will see um uh as well. I mean, there's all kinds of details here that that I might skip over. Uh, how is this going to help the people of Israel?

[00:11:18]Well, one of the main themes of the Hebrew Bible is that the ideal human life is that which embodies the character of God himself. Um, and uh that that's where we get this notion of the image of God and the likeness of God. uh in verse 27 the the ideal human community I is one where the members can embody the character of God. Uh and so what what you have uh then uh pictured for you is the divine pattern of a work week of six days followed by a day of rest. Now, the Israelites are already familiar with the day of rest because the events of Exodus 2 Moses chapter 16 have already happened. So, they've had that introduced to them and now now they they use that to understand how God prepared the world as a place for them to to live. Uh and then then he takes his rest. And and what they're seeing is their life in the land as subsistence agriculturalists is part of their imitating the divine pattern. That that now that's that's not like what the stories that other people's tell. The stories that other people's tell uh make human beings basically slaves to the gods doing work that the gods don't want to do. But here you see humans are enobbled by this calling of imitating the divine pattern.

[00:12:50]So that there and the the image of God is this calling of human beings to imitate the divine pattern both in their work but also in their inter relationships. The Lord, we learn, is uh filled with steadfast love and faithfulness and human beings are called to embody steadfast love and faithfulness uh in relation to one another. Uh I mentioned that the uh seventh day had does not have an ending.

[00:13:18]Now the ancient interpretation of the lack of an ending. Okay, so I'm talking about the ancient interpretation. The oldest one that we have comes from the 2n century BC. uh a fellow named Aristobulus. He's the earliest named Jewish philosopher that we have. Uh and and he noted that the reason that the uh that the seventh day has no refrain is because it continues. Uh and so God has entered his Sabbath rest. And so his work of creation is over and he's now about the work of maintaining his creation and of relating to his human creatures. So that opens up the question of what kind of days are these? Does length of time matter uh to this discussion of Genesis and um [clears throat] the the uh uh quite simply what you see is that each day begins with God saying something and God said and then finishes with the refrain and the first day starts in verse three.

[00:14:20]So, so the be the creation event is sometime before the six days get underway. I don't know how long before.

[00:14:29]It doesn't say. Uh and so uh that's al that's reinforcing the point that length of time just does not matter to this. Um and um again the um [clears throat] what what you see in the creation or the the the appointing of the sun, moon, and stars. God made the great lights on the fourth day. Now that word made doesn't necessarily mean that that's when he created them. It could simply mean that he appointed them to their task. And what are the what are they doing?

[00:15:02]They're marking the the seasons. The seasons are the seasons in the lurggical calendar. Okay? So, so most Finns I guess belong to the Lutheran church. So, you know what a lurggical calendar is.

[00:15:13]Uh and I mean good on you. So, um the but but this is significant for the audience uh that is ancient Israel because first of all uh the the peoples around them attribute deity to these heavenly lights. So, humans are there to serve the gods that are represented by these heavenly lights. And Genesis is flipping that around and saying, "No, these heavenly lights exist to for the sake of you, the human being, to equip you to worship the one true God, according to the right pattern, the the right pattern of the lurggical year. Uh, and so this is God's world. Uh, and uh, you are made to worship him." And, and you can see, well, here's my summary.

[00:15:57]The six days are not necessarily the first actual days of the universe.

[00:16:02]They're not even necessarily the first days of the earth itself. They're the days during which God set up the earth as the ideal place for human beings to live, to love God, to serve one another, to rule the world with wisdom and good will. Now, another thing that the text doesn't say, you know, we have plants and animals reproducing according to their kinds. The ancient Israelite audience knew that already. They they knew how to breed sheep, okay? because they they kept sheep when they were in the desert and they knew you need you need sheep to get more sheep. If you try to introduce a camel into the bloodline, it's not going to work. They they they know that they know how to grow crops in the forbidding climate of the Sinai desert. So they they and they know which crops to grow and so forth. So it can't be that that um this is about giving information about say the fixity of the kinds. It's rather however those kinds came to be, it's according to God's plan. And what combination of miracle and nature is something that that human beings can discover, can explore. Uh the uh again I I I don't think that the text aims to specify those things. Well, uh there's so many other things uh here.

[00:17:24]what what it what it is is you have an analogy between God's work and human work. Uh at God does God live in time?

[00:17:35]No. Not not the same we not the same way we do anyhow. Uh and so God's work and how it relates to time as we experience it is not the question that uh the Genesis account is answering. It's rather calling human beings to imitate the divine pattern in a way that is suitable to human beings. I mean, after all, if you have a garden, you can't go out there and talk to the dirt and all of a sudden it sprouts plants. You have to get out there and work. Uh so, you're not you're not the same as God, but you but that working the soil is analogous to God's uh work. Uh I uh there are um uh Jesus himself mentions the continuing Sabbath of the Lord in John 5 and verse 17 where the father is still working even though it's his Sabbath. And so Jesus works properly on the Sabbath in this case performing a healing. Um so so here's I've got Hermon Bavink a Dutch theologian. uh and um uh this this is what I want to leave you with. He says the creation days are the work days of God. Uh and therefore their relationship to time as we experience it is irrelevant to uh this passage and that's something that you are free to explore. So, if the cosmologists tell us that the universe began with a big bang 14 and a half billion years ago, well, that's a long time, but that's not in opposition to Genesis. That is a potential model for what creation from nothing would look like. Um, and how am I doing for time?

[00:19:19]>> Feel free to continue.

[00:19:20]>> Okay. How how much longer do I have?

[00:19:23]>> Five minutes.

[00:19:23]>> Oh, fine. Oh, wow. All right.

[00:19:26]Um, and there's so much more that could be said. So, what what are the goals of the passage then? The goals of the passage are to insist that the Lord and the Lord alone is the maker of heaven and earth.

[00:19:39]You'll notice that Genesis 1 has God. Is your word uh Yumala? Is that uh your uh Okay. So, uh the uh so God is the one who creates and fashions the world. A and and the word God communicates his majesty and his transcendence and so on.

[00:19:56]But then in in Genesis 2 and verse4 it switches to the Lord God. And so I believe you borrow from German hair for the Lord. Is that correct? Um so is that is that how Okay. Um been trying to learn you know from the the hymns that are up here what words you use. And so it's the Lord God but the Lord is his is the Lord's personal name. the name uh that he takes to himself and uses in relationship with human beings. And so this majestic transcendent creator, the maker of heaven and earth is the God who makes a covenant with Israel. Uh and he's called Israel to be his people uh uh that show forth his image and likeness for the sake of bringing blessing to the rest of the world. The whole world belongs to this god. Every human being even finished people uh belong to uh to this god. Now, now your ancestors are not mentioned uh in Genesis 1-11. Neither are mine. Mine come from the uh northwestern corner of Europe, the Germanic and Celtic peoples.

[00:20:59]Um so they're not they don't need to be mentioned. They're included in this in this fact that all human beings are uh God's creation coming from this initial source uh of the making of human beings.

[00:21:14]And so Israel's universal calling.

[00:21:16]They're a blessing not simply for themselves, but for the rest of humankind.

[00:21:22]The world that they're working in is God's world. Now, God's going to give them instructions how they're to use his world. There's there are moral instructions about how they're how they must use their bodies and not use their bodies and so on. Well, he has the right to tell us that because he made us. But there there's even going to be instructions that might be hard to understand like this animal is clean, which means you can eat it or offer it in sacrifice. This animal is unclean, which means you mustn't eat it or offer it in sacrifice. Well, these are God's creatures, so he can tell us what what to do with them and so on. Uh and and this is his world that we work as we grow our crops and raise our children uh and so forth.

[00:22:01]And then finally uh by looking at the world and describing the world this way there are scholars who have described the language of Genesis 1 as semile lurggical. It's like a recitation of these great deeds of God. And the purpose of the recitation is for you to admire. A as you admire the the craftsmanship that you see displayed, you're enabled to admire the craftsman himself uh and and honor this God and entrust yourself to him. And this maker then is also the redeemer as as you get into the story of human the human fall and God's intention to redeem human creatures from their fallen condition.

[00:22:45]Uh and so our our createdness I is for the sake of admiring our maker and redemption is about restoring us into a community that is oriented around admiring our maker. A and admiring our maker doesn't have anything to do with how long ago these things took place, what length of time was involved in making them, or even what combination of miracle and natural process was involved. Um, and I I that that's what I want you to see that the kinds of things that that are described here are not involved in the questions about how long ago and what what things are legitimate for you to explore. So I will um I I will skip this part and I will finish then finish get it to speaking to Yeah.

[00:23:44]Wonderful. Thank you so much, Jack. Now, auntie, you have 20 minutes to tell us your point of view.

[00:23:54][sighs and gasps] Thank you everyone for coming. Lovely to see so many friendly faces in the audience. Happy you've all come.

[00:24:02]Um, Dr. Collins has talked wisely about reading Genesis well and uh I want to approach the topic from a bit of a different angle. First talking about what it means to read anything well. I will argue with CS Lewis that before we can read things critically, we must read them submissively with a sense of humbleness or humility.

[00:24:29]humility.

[00:24:31]When we open up any book, whether whether it be sacred or secular, there's a two-fold danger immediately facing us.

[00:24:39]On the one hand, we may end up ignoring the author and caring only about our own personal interpretation.

[00:24:48]On the other hand, we may end up making the author's personality into a kind of idol.

[00:24:54]We are supposed to care about what he's trying to say and not about his psychology because in order to draw nourishment from literature, we must care about what the author is presenting to us to step out of the way to allow the text to do something to us before we try to do something to it.

[00:25:21]being receptive, being submissive. And this requires humility.

[00:25:27]And when we encounter texts this way, they can function as stepping stones.

[00:25:34]Stepping stones to understanding and even stepping stones to faith.

[00:25:39]Then literature can work as a softener and deepener of our hearts. It can inspire and give direction like happened with St. Augustine when he read Cicero and got inspired by the notion of truth it began to direct his life in a in a new way and ultimately led him to Christ.

[00:26:04]Literature can also give us models or ideals.

[00:26:08]Take Mr. Pegetty from Dickens's David Copperfield. He's a man who's willing to give up everything, all he owns. his position in life, his reputation become this bonesome wanderer throughout Europe just because he loves someone so much. He's willing the good of another.

[00:26:30]Or take Edgar from Shakespeare's King Lear. He's the model son who's always loyal. He's abandoned. He's betrayed.

[00:26:39]He's neglected.

[00:26:43]But his his loyalty never waivers.

[00:26:48]So even for us Christians, examples like this, models like this can exemplify biblical ideas in new and fresh ways.

[00:26:57]Now when we read Jesus teaching us about let's say charity or loving your neighbor, we can think of Mr. Peggy. Jesus teaching now has a new face to it.

[00:27:13]Or when you think about what it means to be a good son, we can now think about Edgar.

[00:27:22]So we notice not only is reading going to be apologetically helpful, but also it offers as a offers a kind of wayb bread for us Christians on the straight and narrow.

[00:27:37]CS Lewis says that reading well is like falling in love or worshiping God.

[00:27:45]We get out of ourselves, heal our loneliness, our selfishness, our isolation.

[00:27:53]We see through other eyes, through new eyes in all three.

[00:28:01]And it signifies in each three cases both an enlargement and a shrinking of the self.

[00:28:10]It's just like Jesus stitches. He that loseth his life shall save it. There's a paradox.

[00:28:18]But through this paradox, we can heal the wound of individuality without losing its blessings.

[00:28:29]essentially as Louis says we can become a thousand men while remaining ourselves and in mysteriously in the process becoming more fully ourselves than ever.

[00:28:42]So we notice how falling in love, worshiping God and reading well have a lot in common.

[00:28:48]They can all be pathways to transcending our own ego if only we have the humility to approach it that way.

[00:28:59]One author I want to dig in a bit with is Victor Hugo. If you've seen the Disney film Hunchback of Notre Dame, it's probably his most famous story. But as a young man, he wrote this u model of literary history and really world history at the same time. He split history into three epochs. The kind of primordial era, the most ancient of ancient days, and then the classical era and then the Christian era.

[00:29:26]And he gave each of these a a particular literature or kind of dominant style. He argued that in the primordial era the most significant or typical work is the Old Testament and that the Old Testament represents the lyrical style of literature.

[00:29:44]See the Psalms for example. If if the Psalms are the key to the Old Testament, it speaks to the lyrical character of of the whole. And then we move we we move on to the classical period. the dominant style becomes the epic. When we read the Greek dramatists or the Greek historians, they write epic drama or they write epic history. Everything has the tinge of Homer to it. And then most importantly, when we come to the Christian era, we find the dominant style is always dramatic.

[00:30:18]This is because for Hugo, Christianity is not only the culmination of history, it's also the Christian drama. more specifically is the culmination of literature. He calls it the complete poetry because understanding of creation and of incarnation allows Christians and Christian authors to harmonize the comic with tragic, the grotesque with the beautiful, brokenness with wholeness, the body with soul and man with God.

[00:30:51]And this truthful anthropology and truthful understanding of creation is the source of tension in Christian drama and also the key to resolving these tensions. Tensions that would be impossible to solve with the Greek dramatists toolbox but now become soluble in the Christian context.

[00:31:13]May now seem that I've taken you on a long and winding road, but bear with me.

[00:31:17]I do have a point to bring us back to Genesis.

[00:31:22]I agree that we ought to read the Genesis symbolically. That's how it's always been read, how that's how the church fathers read it. But to always keep it both and to integrate and not to separate because if we separate the the literal from the symbolic, it's like separating the body from the soul. It spells death. In this case, death to understanding.

[00:31:48]Also, we should be careful as to what is our motive. Why do we read symbolically?

[00:31:53]Is it to increase the depth of our understanding of revelation or to make revelation bend or make room for something external to it?

[00:32:04]I'll try now to apply what I've just talked about uh to the Genesis.

[00:32:10][clears throat] Christianity, we understand, is first and foremost a historical religion. And as I've just illustrated also a dramatic religion and thus it is committed to a particular shape of history to history as a story with a certain pacing certain key themes as center points like the fall and the covenants the incarnation redemption and of course the creation.

[00:32:37]And also there's a certain impression that the story gives us when we read it receptively.

[00:32:44]This narrative coherence and structure of history that we can observe directs us to believing in a young world because otherwise what we think of as the story gets swamped by billions of years and becomes only a sliver at the end or a kind of suffix added to the actual sentence.

[00:33:09]In young world, the story retains its balance, its focus, its tightness, thematic coherence, and dramatic flow.

[00:33:22]Now, given that the symbolic reading of Genesis allows both young earth and old earth interpretations, the question becomes with what do you want to be consistent with? with the shape of history and the intuitive sense of dramatic coherence in storytelling or with something else and that's the choice we'll face.

[00:33:45]Thank you.

[00:33:47][applause] Thank you.

[00:33:58]Now we have about 40 minutes to discuss and have a conversation about your views on this and in general how understanding genre affects our reading of Genesis.

[00:34:15]And to begin to begin this I want to ask both of you a question.

[00:34:21]Now, Jack, your book was called Reading Genesis Well, and how do both of you view reading Genesis badly?

[00:34:33]And how does a wrong reading of Genesis affect [snorts] the view of creation? And how does genre tie into all of this?

[00:34:44]>> Who whom do you want to start?

[00:34:48]>> Whoever feels ready to answer.

[00:34:52]Well, one way I guess based on what I just thought would be to use um your reading as a kind of tool that you're not trying to receive something from the text, but you're immediately jumping to making it into a tool of your some project that you have. Now, of course, you can begin to read critically afterwards, but like make sure that the first step is taken in the receptive mode.

[00:35:23]One one of the difficulties uh in in biblical studies is the meaning of the word genre. Uh it it has quite a few meanings uh and and they are it's never clear when a particular author uses that word which of the meanings he is he has in mind or if he even knows uh the difference. So I I found that the work of a of a rhetorician named Carolyn Miller was extremely helpful where she wants to think in terms of genre as social action. That is to say, how what what social function is this text performing?

[00:36:02]And um as I've argued in the larger lectures, the main social function of the text that we have in the books of Moses is to be read aloud in gathered worship uh in order to instill in the the worshippers of Israel a a sense of who they are, why they exist in the world, what kind of world is it in which they exist, uh and so forth. Uh and so it's it's a setting in which they are they are singing, they are praying, they are being instructed, uh they're they're receiving various um uh various symbolic actions and so on. Uh and in in that setting, uh how you also have to be asking what sorts of things do the worshippers bring already with them.

[00:36:52]um we we sometimes talk about the text as informing us of ideas or of facts about God's world and so on and texts can do that. But if if the text is speaking about things that I already know then maybe it's doing something else. uh and so that and that that's why I think thinking of the audience as farmers who are uh uh very knowledgeable about how to grow crops and how to keep stock animals uh and so on it it helps us so that when we read the descriptions of these animals uh we're not thinking that the text is there to tell me things I didn't know already especially because the descriptions of the plants and animals are so broad um if if I'm a farmer and I'm using the description of the plants that I find in Genesis 1, it's not a useful taxonomy uh for my work as a farmer. And similarly, the animals that are described, we have uh domesticable animals, we have small creepy crawies and then we have um wild animals. Uh and the wild animals will be both predators like lions and tigers and bears but also uh uh you know grazing animals like like elk and moose and reindeer and so on um or their relatives in the Middle East um [clears throat] servid relatives um but um a and then the small creepy crawlies are they're mostly animals that you're not allowed to eat and so that's going to be things like spiders or mice or snakes um and so on. And then you have the domesticable animals uh like the sheep and the goats and the cattle and so on. Well um that that's not a taxonomy that that is going to cover all the possibilities. Where does a dog fit in there?

[00:38:51]I'm not sure. And uh because dogs were domesticated, not in the same way as we keep them in our houses, but they were domesticated.

[00:38:59]But do they fit with the stock animals or do they fit with the beasts of the earth? We just don't know. And and so it's it's not that kind of taxonomy to give us that kind of perspective. It's ra it rather gives a very broadstroke uh portrayal of the world as we encounter it. And it's leading us to do something else. Namely to receive this world, receive not simply the text but the world as God's message to us. that brings us to honor and and admire him.

[00:39:34]one u wrong way of reading the Genesis that comes to mind um I encountered in your book the the good example of like people find let's say something similar to a Mesopotamian myth like Gilgamesh and then they get worried okay now now it's a problem that there's a similarity but of course when a story is um told even in uh the sacred context it's always going to be using building blocks >> Mhm. cultural building blocks, idioms and stories that already exist to build something new. And uh it's the same here. Um so it's not a sort of sign of that you should be concerned when you find something familiar. You can just trust that okay, Holy Spirit is using these building blocks and these these human authors to make the definitive or authoritative version of let's say a creation story.

[00:40:29]>> Oh, I emphatically agree. Um and and in fact everybody in the ancient world uh agreed that there was a catastrophic flood uh sometime in the early days of of humanity. Um and so you you see stories of the flood from Mesopotamia.

[00:40:46]And so the a and as you read the church fathers they agree they agreed that these that Genesis and the other accounts are talking about the same event. But it's the way they talk about the event that that matters a great deal. So that the idea that Genesis simply copied the story is is an absurdity. Um and so it's the you have the events and the way you tell about the events and the way you tell about the events is shaping how you want people to feel about those events.

[00:41:20]>> Yeah.

[00:41:21]In fact, you may even become more confident about the validity of script scripture when you noticed, okay, it's um the same story is being told in different versions by other people's and other cultures in the area in the area.

[00:41:37]Of course, we can trust that the version that we have in the Bible is the the authoritative one.

[00:41:43]>> Mhm.

[00:41:44]>> But that other versions exist doesn't take anything away. So, so that's that's really important what you just said. And as a matter of fact, um I I did a study of how the New Testament talks about the flood story uh where the the Greek that's used in certain New Testament authors does not correspond to the Greek of the standard uh translation, the Septuagent, but instead it corresponds to the Greek that would be found say in Plato's version of the flood story. uh and uh this and so in first Peter for example when um he's he's bringing the biblical flood story and Plato's version together and it's probably so that his audience will be strengthened in their confidence that the biblical story is true. uh and um because they probably already accept that Plato was talking about a real event and so now they see that the biblical story is also talking about that event and giving us the right take on that event.

[00:42:44]>> Yeah.

[00:42:45]>> Yeah. If the ancient audience received it like that, why shouldn't we also find it a strength?

[00:42:50]>> I agree.

[00:42:56]>> Wonderful. Thank you so much. Um, and to continue, we can dive into your monologues, opening opening statements.

[00:43:05]Um, do you have anything to comment on each other's points of view and words?

[00:43:14]>> Well, I noticed we both used CS Lewis just from a like different angles.

[00:43:20]>> My brother from a different mother, I tell you what. [laughter] Well, and and so uh I would never want to disagree with somebody who loves Lewis as much as I do. So, um it's kind of awkward, I suppose, but there we are.

[00:43:36]Um but but I I think that I mean much of what you said I I I emphatically agree with. Um and I think the place where where the difficulties might arise is I would not like to call my take a symbolic take. Um the the one of the difficulties is trying to ascertain the the meaning of the word literal. Um and so in reformation discussions literal was especially concerned with the meaning that the author intended the audience to derive. Um and um so so what I'm after is well what is the meaning that we have from Moses to to gain from this? Um and and so so seeing this kind of picture is not intended to take away from the uh from history. So and that's why I'm very happy with say the big bang because that that's an event if if the cosmologists are right that's an event in the history of the universe that is also described very well by Genesis 1 and verse one.

[00:44:42]And then the the the the progress of of the earth uh you know in its initial formation it wasn't suitable for us to live there. And so you have the history of the earth leading up to us. And and so I I think history is historical uh reading of Genesis is a perfectly satisfactory category.

[00:45:05]But what about the change that u occurs to the shape of the story if you expand the the time horizon? Yeah. Billions of years.

[00:45:14]>> Right. So yeah. And so you you're speaking of what happens in Genesis 3 in part. Is that is that correct? Um >> well I mean I'm just talking about if you understand the beginning to not really be the beginning like if if the if Adam and Eve were not there really at the beginning of the world but only like 14 billion 14 and a half billion years after the actual beginning world >> that alters the the dramatic flow because the beginning isn't really the beginning.

[00:45:46]>> It it doesn't it doesn't have to. Um and and so that's I mean that's I I think that's that's that's one way of of taking it which which you have done but but I I would say in response okay just let let it be the drama and then you ask okay so how does this drama that I'm picturing in my mind correspond to the the reference the things that we're talking about um and so uh we we can think of all [clears throat] the events that the paleontologists tell us about and the geologists as you know part of God's preparation of the world for Adam and Eve.

[00:46:23]>> Yeah.

[00:46:23]>> Um and I mean it's sort of this the the I mean one one way to take it is God went through an awful lot just to bring humans about.

[00:46:33]>> Yeah. But what if it is only apparent preparation like Adam having an apparent childhood and youth right >> but actually at the first second being already 20 30 years old.

[00:46:44]>> Yeah.

[00:46:46]Um and and that's you know you get into questions of well does does the creation tell the truth about itself? Um and um so in in European history the uh the term nova which which nowadays is called a supernova when a star collapses in on itself and uh and uh you know becomes a bright light in the sky. Uh the reason it's called a nova is because it was a new thing. uh and in the the cosmology that dominated European history during the middle ages outside the circle of the moon you couldn't have a new thing happening um and u and this all comes from Aristotle and then those who succeeded him and so in I think it's 1574 all of a sudden there was a new thing a nova that that took place um and and that's uh that corresponds to an event um and so it isn't simply that the universe looks old, but the universe is giving us evidence of actual events. Um, and and I wouldn't like to say that the universe is not telling a true story about itself. I mean, it needs to be interpreted, but but that that event took place some time ago.

[00:48:04]I mean, it it took place I mean and it took according to physics took millions of years or billions of years. The light took a long time to get here.

[00:48:12]>> But isn't it a isn't an analogical example, let's say a tree that grows in the Garden of Eden, it has rings in it already.

[00:48:20]>> Mhm.

[00:48:21]>> At the at the first moment, this would have been something that the ancients would already have realized. There must have been this kind of an inconsistency if you if you will, even with the very literalist six day Yeah.

[00:48:33]>> creation. And so you you can use that as the picture by by which you can imagine these events taking place. Uh and that that doesn't require that that I press that picture uh farther than than it needs to go. Uh and so so I I I don't think we're obligated to suppose that the tree appeared with with rings, for example. Um, I mean the the terminology in Genesis is God made the trees grow and and it doesn't it doesn't say well did how long did it take it it just doesn't >> what about the patristic idea like with Augustine that if you do something to the time scale let's let's not read it as a literal six day period instead just imagine it's an instant an instant is enough for God >> uh that would have been the traditional way of like moving Mhm.

[00:49:27]>> the time scale from six days to something else.

[00:49:29]>> And that's I mean that that's Augustine as a theologian um recognizing that that God can do the same thing in lots of different ways. It's up to him which one he chooses. Um and it's also recognized that that's based on Augustine's reading of a passage in in the book of well that he would have called Ecclesiasticus that scholars call Benira. Um, and it's the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original Hebrew of Benira. Uh, the the Greek is coin and I forget what the Latin is, but but um he when God created all things together or instantaneously. So, so Augustine is interpreting Genesis based on the way that he read that I think it's 181 of of Ecclesiasticus.

[00:50:19]Um, and [clears throat] so in Augustine's day, all he he had access to the Latin rendering. Uh, he probably could have found the Greek rendering if if if he had looked hard enough. What he didn't have was the Hebrew original. Um, so Ben's grandson translated the Hebrew original as as he tells us. Uh, it would be something like 60 or 70 years after his grandfather died. Um and and we began to discover these Hebrew originals in um the late 1800s. Uh there were a couple of Scottish ladies who were on a tour of Egypt and they found in a storehouse of a synagogue in Cairo. Uh there there were copies of that that uh of Hebrew that they realized eventually, oh that's the original Hebrew of Ben. Now I mean there are textual issues that come out of that. You don't want me to go into that, I promise you. But um but it but it's also it's but widely acknowledged that that's not a faithful translation of the Hebrew that Ben wrote. So so that's uh Augustine as a theologian noting that God could do things in lots of different ways according to his own will. And I I agree with that. I I would not want to disagree with that. I mean I'm I'm a Christian after all. Um but then the question is what way did he do did he do it? Um, and and is Augustine's way of seeing it a valid? Well, it's not a valid way of reading Ben Rah. And most evangelicals would say, well, Ben Sra wasn't canonical anyway.

[00:51:57]So, that's um sorry if that that was a more long-winded way of of answering the question, but um the the um the the the particular of the the seventh day being ongoing is something that he also noted.

[00:52:13]Augustine uh noted that there was no refrain on that because he's saying to God, you have sanctified it to an everlasting continuence. Uh and um that that seems the best explanation of things that we see in uh John 5 which I mentioned and also in Hebrews chapter 4 where believers enter into God's rest.

[00:52:35]uh and in Hebrews the the argument is depending on the septuagent of Genesis 2 and also the the old Greek of Psalm 95.

[00:52:50]It is excellent that you uh rose the issue of translations because auntie you are a professional translator. You've translated Samuel Johnson's book book [snorts] into Finnish. And how do you how do you feel that translating brings issues to the concept of genre or the lit literal reading of the text?

[00:53:15]>> Yeah, translation is always a compromise. You have to sacrifice something. Either you make it very one-on-one and that sacrifices the beauty of the original or its tone or then you try and capture some of the beauty or the or the tone but then you have to sacrifice some of the accuracy to do so. So you can never really satisfy yourself perfectly whenever you translate.

[00:53:49]Amen to that.

[00:53:53]>> Wonderful. Do you have anything to comment on each other's monologues anymore or do we move?

[00:54:00]>> I'd like to ask what do you think about the kind of receive before you criticize idea from Louis and receptive mode of reading.

[00:54:09]>> No, I I I think that's really good and and so by by receiving I mean I guess what does receiving actually look like?

[00:54:16]And so I'm letting this uh paint a picture of of the story of the how the world began and how humans got to be planted in the world. And I think that's that should be the thing that that we focus on is is that picture that we're receiving.

[00:54:33]>> Yeah, I I actually agree with you.

[00:54:35]>> Yes.

[00:54:39]>> Wonderful.

[00:54:41]Um so to move move forward what what is the one thing you would say in one sentence very very shortly that you would view as the best way to either read Genesis better learn to read Genesis better or change each other's points of view on I'm not sure we need to change each other's views. I think they are actually pretty close. First receive and then be critical.

[00:55:20]>> Mhm.

[00:55:20]>> Um but I think the the first step needs to be that attitude of humility and uh taking yourself out of the way and letting the text give you something first before you try to do something with it.

[00:55:38]Well, I I quite agree with that and the the way I've come to put it and this is a Lewisian influence on me is reading it with what I call a disciplined imagination.

[00:55:49]Um, you know, you're as you're receiving it, you're imagining yourself in the first audience uh and and imagining how the text is addressing their situation and their needs. And then I see myself as the heir of that first audience that you know uh thousands of years since then and I'm a Christian so things have changed since then to now but but I'm still a part of that family that that received that that book at the first as a gentile I've been folded in or incorporated into the family of Abraham.

[00:56:28]Mo most of us here are Gentiles and that's so so we are heirs of this story.

[00:56:33]>> Yeah. And so reading in a inside a tradition reading with the church fathers and so on making use of all that legacy of reading.

[00:56:42]>> I I think we should I mean and and it's a a I make a critical use but but I I I don't dismiss them not not by any stretch of the imagination.

[00:56:57]>> Wonderful. Thank you. so much. Um, and to to continue, you mentioned you you actually kind of started answering to this question already, but you mentioned that about the views of genre in the time of Genesis.

[00:57:17]>> Mhm.

[00:57:17]>> The people of course they didn't have modern literary scholarship and studies, but did they have a concept of genre? Could they have understood how well how well could they have understood different genres? Is there texts with different genres from their time?

[00:57:41]>> Well, yeah. I I think we can um imagine what kind of questions people in their sandals would be asking as they're receiving a text. And and they they would have a recognition of what kind of text is this? what sort of things does a text like this do for me? Um, they there's there's clear evidence that a person who fits the description of Moses that we encounter in second Moses uh would have an education an education that would make him familiar uh with the stories that that we see in Mesopotamia of creation and flood and so on. May maybe not everybody in Israel would recognize those things, although you could imagine those stories being passed down from parents to children since Abraham came out of there. Um, and they they would have some sense of what those stories are to do. uh and under the guidance of Moses and those he instructed, they they could then get an idea of of how the story told in Genesis is correcting things in those stories.

[00:58:57]Do you have anything to add or comment to this?

[00:59:00]>> Not really. No.

[00:59:01]>> Wonderful.

[00:59:04]Well, it seems you actually agree agree very much on many things which is wonderful and I love love how both of you use CS Lewis in your arguments. Um, now it could be time to move on to questions from the audience.

[00:59:24]So feel free to lift your hand. I believe we have IAS carrying a microphone and I will compel you to ask very open-ended questions. Create debate, create arguments.

[00:59:43]>> There's one back there.

[00:59:49]>> Okay. Is this on? Yeah. Thanks to you both. Uh it was an interesting discussion. I'd like to ask Professor Collins uh about um I guess theistic evolution or um maybe is there a theological problem and especially uh you mentioned something about like natural selection and that requires death. So um what should we think about death before the fall?

[01:00:21]>> Well, I'll take this the second part first.

[01:00:24]um death, death before the fall is um in a lot of the conversations that that I've had that that is sort that is the thing that that clinches the the young earth argument. You can't have death before the fall. Um and um that is not actually the historic position of Christian or Jewish interpreters. They um they recognize that animals were made, you know, the features that you see in animals correspond to the things that they were made to do. So that um a lion is a a highly is a very well-designed predator. Um and um [clears throat] so so that's that's not actually considered a problem in in the tradition of interpretation. And you can see that worked out in Psalm 104. uh which is basically there to celebrate and to sing about the creation still working according to God's plan. The only really negative thing in the creation in Psalm 104 is at the very end where it's sinners uh that and the the the request is that God would banish them from the earth. Now sinners in the Hebrew Bible that that's that's not people like you and me. We commit sins we wish we didn't and so on. Um but it's it's people who specifically reject uh God's invitation to love him and and serve him. So so I mean so it's it's a term that you have to be really careful you understand the meaning of and they are what defiles the earth. One of the things that's celebrated in there is that lions get their food from God. Um and um elsewhere in the Psalms you celebrate the way in which God feeds the hawks and the ravens. The hawk is a predatory bird.

[01:02:12]The ravens are mostly scavengers. Well, to be a scavenger, you have to have something dead to scavenge. Um, and and [clears throat] all of our observations of ecosystems uh involve stability of those ecosystems so that you that the animals can't live forever otherwise their population will increase out of control. Um, and so the, uh, animal death by by predation is not considered a problem in the Hebrew Bible. Um, and it is a problem to to our sensibilities. We don't like if we watch a nature program, we, you know, we watch one animal tearing another animal to shreds and so on. But, uh, but that's because we personify the animals.

[01:03:01]How would I feel if an if a tiger were doing that to me? But that's not me that that's being shredded by the tiger. Um, [clears throat] and the the threat of death in Genesis 2 is directed to the man. Uh, it's very specific, a second person singular. It's you uh uh will die. And the kind of death that's involved is the death of alienation uh and not necessarily the death of his body. that that comes later in Genesis 3 as a consequence of the of his alienation from God. So, and then when when Paul talks about death coming into the world through Adam, he's talking about the world of of humans. He's very specific there. He uses a word for humankind. Um, and so then then that that enables us to talk about the question of evolution.

[01:03:55]Um, and that that's a word that has lots of different meanings. Um, and my own stance on that is is if you mean by it the big story that uh explains everything by this meaningless process that works itself out. Well, I mean our daily observation refutes that we because we don't accept that we are the products of a process like that. Um uh is it possibility is there a possibility that there's some process a biological process of of um uh changes coming into the the genetic heritage which are then filtered out by the by processes like natural selection. Well, that's open for investigation. I I don't have to decide that ahead of time. Um what what's important for me to decide ahead of time is how I would describe that process. Um and so I I used a slide from George from George Gaylord Simpson. Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.

[01:05:00]He was not planned. He says, "Well, Sim Gaylord Simpson was an American evolutionary biologist and he and he wanted to use the science to tell the big story of of humankind." Well, that's not a legitimate use of science. Uh, and um there are plenty of people who will use this uh the science in a very different way. And that [clears throat] that reminds us that that science doesn't do everything that we're asking it to do. And so one of our jobs is to demote science from the role of telling us what's the true worldview story uh for us all because your daily observation of yourself as an agent uh as someone with who makes moral decisions, someone who wants to have uh relationships that are based on more than just your physical needs and so on.

[01:05:54]uh that that tells you that there the story that produced you in uh involves personality, involves purpose and intention and so on. And that's that that's crucial for for you to keep in mind. And if science tells you that your your daily experience is nonsense, then that's some scientist who has theorized incorrectly.

[01:06:17]>> Thank you. If I may ask a followup, um, talking of lions, um, I don't remember the passage exactly, but I think it's in Isaiah talking about the new creation and how the lion >> does not hurt the I don't know if it's lamb in English, but anyway.

[01:06:34]So it's become very common [clears throat] uh to interpret the that's in Isaiah chapter 11 and then a similar passage in Isaiah chapter 65 um to interpret the the lion um lying down uh uh the wolf and the lamb lying down together and so on. Uh and the lion will eat straw like the ox uh and so on.

[01:06:58]It's it's become common to interpret that as a depiction of the heavenly condition. Um and that that is not at all what what's involved in the description that Isaiah is involved is giving. Um CS Lewis, our our hero, uh notes that if you told a lion that he would eat straw like an ox, he would think you were describing hell and not heaven. Um, and I mean that's not a that's not what a lion does. But as a matter of fact, what what you see regularly in the prophetical books is that predatory animals are used as a picture for the empires that that are being built like the Babylonian Empire or the Assyrian Empire. Um, and the this this is in a whole passage Isaiah 11:es 1-10 talking about the Netzer. uh and um uh we had a mention of that that that's the the chute of Jesse which is the Messiah and his work is to bring peace peaceful relationships between peoples and that that's the theme of this entire part of Isaiah's book and you you can even see it in because there are echoes within the Hebrew text of that chapter 11 with what you have in chapter 2 where the Lord is going to judge and settle disputes between peoples uh and and there and so the peoples will worship together. Well, the the Messiah is going to judge and settle disputes uh in um Isaiah 11. So, what you're seeing is that that passage in Isaiah 11 is describing uh the results of the Messiah's rule of bringing peace. And when the apostles use that passage as they do uh so uh Paul uses that in Romans 15 to describe his aspirations to go to the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire. Um so that that all all manner of Gentiles will call on the name of of the Lord Jesus.

[01:09:02]And that's in the context of his insisting that the the mixed body in the churches that he's writing to. So they're mixed with Jews and Gentiles with different scruples about food and so forth that they would worship together and with one voice, that is to say, in the same congregation. Uh he [clears throat] sees that as kind of a foretaste of of what the Messiah is aiming to achieve. So, in other words, that passage isn't really about the the physical diet of uh wolves and lions and bears, but but rather about um these predatory empires uh sitting peaceibly with these smaller states. Imagine imagine if the old Soviet Empire were content to leave the Finnish people alone. Um, you know, that's you you could feel like yourself as being like a sheep among wolves. Uh, and um, you know, you've been you've been tossed back and forth between the the Russians and the Soviets and the Swedes on the other side and you know, how about if they just leave you alone? Um, you know, that's and that's that's the picture that Isaiah is is drawing there.

[01:10:14]>> Thank you.

[01:10:23]This question is for Nilla.

[01:11:12]Yeah.

[01:11:14]Yeah. She she asked about uh why should we sort of switch off our brain or our reasonable uh understanding of of the text and then perhaps like perhaps you're thinking I'm I'm u subscribed to some kind of emotivism or just uh reading through emotion. But that's not really the point. I mean I I argue that you should absolutely use the full force of your reason and it's impossible to really even have faith if you don't have an active reason. Uh but in the experience of reading whether that be secular literature or sacred scripture scripture we're talking about um experiencing a work of art first. So to use the the Greek terms, you have the logos, which is the message that's being given, and then you have the poa, the the piece of work um of craftsmanship or a piece of art. And that's the thing that you first encounter. If you see a painting, you immediately see it. It's before you. And the same way with a text. And that's how your first encounter with it should be as an object. And then you get something out of that. You increase, you become larger yourself rather than just going straight to the message and and approaching it neglecting that um artistic side of the experience. Both should be there. But I think following Louis that first should come the appreciation of whatever you you're encountering as itself and only after that your role comes in in terms of analyzing it or or fitting it into into place using a reason.

[01:13:08]>> Okay. Um what would be the proper role of um integrating our knowledge of science and nature in selecting which interpretation we should prefer. Not only like using the knowledge of distant starlight but also like in the young earth view uh in the modern view you have to reinterpret the rivers of Eden that they can't possibly be the same rivers of een uh that we know today.

[01:13:44]So here we uh modern young will use the flood geology to determine how to interpret that. So what is the proper mode of using knowledge of the empirical world to inform our understanding of scripture?

[01:14:08]>> Were you addressing that to maybe >> well my own view is is you should be very careful. Um that that's as I tell my students mo most of my exegetical advice boils down to just be really careful that that's the most important thing. Um and so the the I mean the thing about science is that um there's science and then there's science and you know so it it can change uh it can be partial uh it can be tentative um [clears throat] but als but it can help us to understand the reference the the thing that that we're talking about. uh and and we usually uh if we believe that that a text is true, we believe that it's talking about a reference uh and talking about it in a way that is appropriate for the reference. And so, you know, we um most of the time, you know, when we're thinking of an ancient audience, we're we're thinking of people whose knowledge of the reference is very practical. Um and um so the the main thing is is to make sure that we don't say things that are untrue.

[01:15:23]But s you know just take an example um I read recently that someone was arguing he was arguing well for a young earth view actually um and for a vegetarian orient uh origin of human beings. uh and his rationale for that is the clean and unclean animals uh in the Old Testament that the clean animals are vegetarians and the unclean animals uh eat other things. Um and now science helps you to recognize that that's actually a bad argument because there are clean animals that eat other animals. So a chicken uh is an omnivore, okay? It's not a vegetarian and all the clean fish are carnivores. Um and so by by knowing something scientifically know I mean well I know it scientifically an ancient Israelite I mean would know it just by living in the world. Um you know that that that helps you to steer clear of of bad arguments. Um and all and then you also know I know scientifically that there's plenty of unclean animals that are vegetarians. So that that that whole argument just falls apart. Um and and so that's that's a valid that's very helpful use of the sciences. I've talked about some of the things we learned from archaeology. That's very valuable. Uh you know, you get to the sciences that are oriented towards what's the big history of the world. Well, cosmology is is useful. Um, cosmology has amplified our ability to sing Psalm 8 as you know when I look at your heavens uh you know and you know what is man that that you're mindful of him and so on. Well, cosmology has taken that and uh and put it on steroids really um because and what it's done is enabled us to see how finely tuned the whole universe is to support our life and not necessarily anybody else you know any life anywhere else. Uh so it there it serves to amplify the experience that's being described in Psalm 8 and that's all to the good. Now to get to that to the standard cosmology picture of fine-tuning um that that goes together with a notion of how old the universe is and how it began with the big bang and so on. So it's it's not necessarily a package deal, but it sure feels like one. Um so um you know as I look at that and you know as somebody who aims to do justice to the Bible that I I'm I find myself thrilled as as all these vistas are opened up. It's it's fruitful as uh as I talked about. Um has it governed my interpretation? Well, I don't think that's the way to put it. But but it has helped me as as I seek to understand the things that are talked about in the biblical passages.

[01:18:36]There's one over here.

[01:18:40]>> He looks like a suspicious character. I wouldn't hand him the >> um this is mostly for Professor Collins.

[01:18:49]Do you think the possibility of macroeolution threatens your understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God? Um and how do you kind of reconcile those two things?

[01:19:00]>> Well, so um it's always important to make sure that we know what the words mean that that we're using. So macroevolution, for example. So, um, and and the, um, what what I what I'm saying is not that I think that that's a good theory, but that I think that that's a valid region for exploration.

[01:19:22]So, and that I mean, that's an important to me, it's an important distinction.

[01:19:26]Uh, you might find that there are places that it doesn't work. Okay? And I'm I'm good with that. Um I I don't I don't feel obligated to endorse or to reject the theory from the get-go. What what is important however is human distinctiveness needs to be guarded.

[01:19:42]Whatever theory you come up with. Uh I mean there there are things that distinguish you from every other animal that that you mustn't deny. You lose your humanity if if you deny them. Um so I love my dog uh and he's a member of our family and so on. But there are things that he can't do. Um and um you know the the fact that he's allowed to do his business outside and I'm not is just emblematic of the distinction between him and me. Um and um just human language I as the linguists have understood is is something that is distinctively human. There there isn't anything like it really like it in the other animals. And the only way you can get a biologist saying that there's something like it is if they define it down. Um and uh and and some have argued even Noam Chomsky, the the premier linguist, has supposed that maybe you can get a point mutation that gives you the language gene. That's that's folly. And and actually other biologists have, you know, secular biologists have pointed out that that's that that's insane. There there's there's no evidence for that.

[01:20:56]um especially because we use language to talk about things that are important to us. This is I mean this is an observation that Aristotle made that our language use isn't simply the buzzing of the beehive or the mooing of the herd.

[01:21:09]We talk about what's right and wrong, what's profitable and what's not profitable. Well, where where would you get a creature like that from a process that didn't have extra coming in from the outside?

[01:21:22]So uh I I think our our daily experience of being human, you know, that just helps us. We we that that is kind of a touchstone to our biological theorizing and and what what biological processes uh were involved and as I said, what combination of nature and miracle is involved? You know, I I don't know ahead of time. I I'm but I'm I'm happy to see it explored. I just want people to reason carefully as they explore it.

[01:21:52]>> I'd like to add that um there's even more that we need to safeguard than just human distinctiveness because evolutionary thinking um threatens also the notion of essentialism or inherent teiology in in any kind of species. The concept of a species becomes questionable in the evolutionary mindset and any kind of aristotilian understanding of the world becomes quite difficult to match if everything is in an in a flux.

[01:22:24]species. Species only appear to be species, but actually they are like Plato that if you expand the time horizon enough, then a wolf is only a wolf because we're looking at it at a specific moment. And wait a million years and it's something quite different. And well and that now that that will depend on on what we decide are the things that that have essences though and you know and also can we tolerate fuzzy boundaries um and so there I mean there has been I mean believe it or not there's actually been work to uh to see if an aristoilian perspective on essences can can be made compatible with some kind of evolutionary theory. So people have have have argued that that sort of thing.

[01:23:10]>> It's always feels like they want to make it Arisetilian philosophy is great because it's so holistic. But when you do this kind of thing that you u suggested, it seems that you always split the Arisatilian physics from the Arisetilian metaphysics some this kind of discontinuity between the two.

[01:23:28]>> And so and and in my view that that's a proper that that's a proper critique of those efforts. And so I I don't know that it stops them in their tracks, but but it it sort of gives you an idea of where the boundaries might be. And and I think that's great.

[01:23:56]We have time for a couple more questions. Makeup over here.

[01:24:04]If there are no other questions, I'll I'll ask one. Um um regarding uh this is for both of you. Um regardless of the of the of the details of the view of creation that you that you might have um I believe there are some you know like uh some degree of of um statements that that can be um out of the out of the uh the creation story that have more importance within the Christian uh dogma than than the others.

[01:24:42]And then there can be uh some that are not are almost irrelevant and some that are in the middle. So how would you categorize uh those key points in um in the Christian view of creation u that that are central to the dogma then maybe the next category would be that that um for instance can give hints that uh to the historicity the historical interest of of the of the stories that can we attach some geographical spot for instance for let's say uh creation of Adam and Eve Garden of Eden and and know how would you describe the the this kind of scale of information that we can take out of them if you can you follow the logic of my argument as an example I would say that uh I give an example to my students of Hugh Ross the the well-known reasons to believe uh uh founder who has a specific location for Eden for instance and some time range for the creation of Adam and Eve but he doesn't insist those as dogmatic truths just like like educated um well not guesses but let's say hypothesis but of course he would also hold to the central importance of the historicity of Adam and Eve for instance as a as as a dogmatic truth.

[01:26:17]Well, I guess the historicity [clears throat] of of Adam and Eve as real persons who make a real choice is a kind of a thing a thing that you really need to stick with because if you let go of that, it really the whole sense of Christian theology and understanding of of redemption and and uh one man's choice um dooming us and one man's choice saving us become sort of impossible. So that's one key element where I think Christians must sort of have a solid understanding that Adam can't just be a metaphor for something.

[01:26:55]He needs to be a person who makes a choice.

[01:27:00]>> I agree. I mean the the story of Adam and Eve is really crucial uh for explaining first of all our common humanity. We're all we're all part of the same family. Uh you know all our different uh racial and ethnic differences, we're still part of the same family. And that that's the result of us all coming from a common source.

[01:27:18]But also we we all have these distinctive capacities that that are remarkable uh and that are again evidence of of something special being added uh to the creation and then we all share this this same predicament uh uh and you know which the story of redemption is there to address. I think we we wouldn't want to tell a different story than that or I wouldn't anyway.

[01:27:42]and and I you know all of our creeds are oriented towards that telling of the story who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. I mean that's that that that is that's something I I wouldn't wouldn't want to think is even up for discussion.

[01:27:59]Uh historically of course um for Christians and also for Jews uh creation from nothing uh as as the origin of the world. It's it's not fully articulated in Genesis. It's it's implied, I think, uh and it's ne not fully articulated in the Hebrew Bible itself. Uh it but but it but it shows up in Jewish discussions shortly before the time of Jesus. And then it's welldeveloped by both Christians and Jews almost as if they're sharing their work with each other in the first couple of centuries uh AD. uh and so that by by the time you get to roughly 200 AD uh the Jews and the Christians have exactly the same view of creation from nothing and the stages that that preceded after that. Uh so I mean th those and then the um the that the creation belongs to God and and therefore uh the creation is permeable.

[01:28:58]I mean God can uh add things to the creation that aren't there already. Uh we we talk about miracles. Um miracles don't have to be limited to miracles in redemptive history. They can be uh I mean they don't have to be. And again, it's for me it's a matter of investigation. What other miracles might there be and so on. Those those are things that are that are fundamental to a Christian worldview that that I don't think uh I I don't think we're wise to abandon.

[01:29:31]Was there a question in the back?

[01:29:35]>> Yeah, sure.

[01:29:37]>> We absolutely have time.

[01:29:44]>> Uh, thank you. My question is for Professor Collins. So, in the United States, you've been involved in this very cutting edge uh discussion on different models of how to understand Adam and Eve for example with William Lane Craig, Joshua Swamidas, Andrew, Andrew Lok, and others. So could could you tell us uh more about your position in that debate and how how this has perhaps changed and evolved or or or maybe stayed the same after this debate?

[01:30:11]>> Sure. Uh so um so Mika me mentioned um Hugh Ross. So Hugh is a Christian apologist, old earth creationist. uh and and he has Adam uh placed with the origin of what are called anatomically modern human beings. That pe people that that if you dressed them up in in a suit that you you wouldn't tell tell the difference between them and somebody else on the streets of Helsinki. Um, and uh, and that's where you get dates that could be as recently as 50,000 years ago, but more likely something like 150,000 or 200,000 years ago. So that's that's the position that that Hugh takes. And um that that's that provides difficulties because as genetics is commonly understood nowadays you can't get the diversity of the human population with ancestors of only two that recently. Uh so some have suggested well Adam and Eve could be if you needed Adam and Eve at that at that stage uh you could have them as the king and queen of a population uh and maybe you can get around that. Um and that's so uh St. Louis. So I see I I live in St. Louis, Missouri. So I I I like I live in a place named after our our shared hero St. Louis. You see? Um so that's that's a little bit of humor that not everybody's laughing at.

[01:31:41]You're making me very uncomfortable. But um the uh um >> I'm sorry.

[01:31:49]>> I I have I have been warned of that of that. That's true. But um so so Lewis talks about the possibility of a population falling uh in his problem of pain. And the the British commentator Derek Kidner also fiddles around with that, not for scientific reasons, but just for who was Cain afraid of uh in Genesis chapter 4. So yeah. Um uh and so that that's one of the options that's out there if you need an atom that recently or else you can redo the the genetics which might be a lot of work and not enough gain. Um, so you also have people like William Lane Craig, uh, who have argued that to get Adam as the Adam and Eve as the sole source of human beings, uh, you can go back as far as 750,000 years ago, a H Highleberg man.

[01:32:44]Um and uh so that that uh and that that take that has the advantage of covering a a lot of the difficulties like what do we do about the Neanderls and and so forth because they would be included uh in the H Highleberg men in in in um Craig's way of describing things. Um and and the geneticists have shown that if you go back at least as far as 500,000 years, you can get an ancestral pair of just two. Uh so that so so Craig is is being sensitive to that, but also to some of the paleontology. You mentioned [snorts] Andrew Lok and um uh he's building off of work done by Josh Swamidas also in St. Lewis where Josh has argued that um if you have he calls a genealogical atom. If you have a specially created atom that is is simply simply appears uh anywhere and then mates with uh pre-existing hominids and that that produces the human population. You you could that that's something that nothing in the scientific world could argue against. So it's that has the disadvantage of being unfalsifiable which is you know scientists don't like that because I I can't test it because everything you um so that has other difficulties as well. So what what I've what what I've offered is what I call epistemic costbenefit analysis. So so what what I hold to is really the three points that that I mentioned before. We have Adam and Eve as the common source of all humanity. And we have Adam and Eve as distinctive uh from all other animals as evidence of special divine involvement in their in their origin and Adam and Eve as the source of the sin problem that that we all face. I mean that so that so how would that what would that look like more narrowly? And so what I what I've tried to do is is offer well okay so if I go with with the view of of Andrew Lo the genealogical atom uh um Swamidas originally had a genealogical atom that was only 10,000 BC. Well that's that's way too late because it doesn't account for the effect of sin on the various populations throughout the world that that we can uncover. So so I'm I'm not going with that. Andrew Luck is willing to consider a genealogical atom much earlier than that. Well, but that also had that has advantages, but it has disadvantages. I mean, what would nurture look like in in a scenario like that? I don't know. And I mean, can you talk about reproductively compatible beings? I mean, do you even like talking about humans that way with nonhumans? I mean, so so there there's some challenges there. uh Bill Craig's approach has has lots of advantages um and his main disadvantage is really an emotional one. That's a long time ago for for Adam, but it at least uh at least covers a lot of the difficulties.

[01:35:59]So, okay, but all of these what what they and and then then I mentioned the the Hugh Ross approach. Well, it's it's got the disadvantage, namely that the genetics as it's currently understood doesn't support it. Um, so so all of them have advantages and disadvantages and but but what they show is that those three points that that I confess uh can be implemented in various ways. So so the science doesn't show that these fundamental points have been refuted. Um and and that that's the main thing. So we can move on to other topics like let's talk about your humanity and your need for a savior and so on.

[01:36:44]So I is I mean I could say a lot more but I think I'd better not um just because of the clock there. Does that answer your question? Does that get everything that you were trying to get out of me?

[01:37:02]>> Yes. We are unfortunately running out of time, but if you enjoyed this conversation today and the subjects covered over this weekend, you have a wonderful opportunity to sign up for our the finished with the remission colleges summer apologetics course can be found on our website. Go check it out. Now, please let's clap our hands. Applaud for Auntie and Jack. Thank you so much. [applause] >> Thank you. Thank you very much.