Anyway, this was an very interesting session because all three talks represent the Evolutionary Creationist  (EC) perspective (i.e., full acceptance of evidence for cosmological, geological and biological evolution including humans), and all three presenters recognize that the only reasonable way to make sense of the Genesis texts is to accept that the Ancients really had a different understanding of the structure and operation of the physical world. In other words, all three accept the principle of accommodation (vs. concordism) as the proper method for interpreting Scripture; yet each one takes this view in a slightly different direction.

Here are the audio links and my comments (or see menu page for all conference talks):

Paul H. Seely, “Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?” (no Slides).

The audio isn’t that good; there’s a lot of popping throughout, especially near the beginning.

Seely shows how Calvin and others reconciled Scripture with science by appealing to phenomenal (also called phenomenological) language, i.e., the notion that Scripture “concords” with science because it was written as the way things appear (sun rises, etc.) and did not claim that those appearances are real. Seely asserts that this method of reconciling Scripture and science is not valid because the ancient writers really did think that the appearances were accurate descriptions of the world.

You might suppose that he [Charles Hodge] meant an accommodation to the scientific beliefs of the times. But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s appearance. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of that time. [But] people in the time of the OT believed the sky was really solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it literally.

Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid (especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the appearance as the reality.

We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this privilege with respect to these matters.

Carol A. Hill, “The Worldview Approach to Biblical Interpretation and Origins: What It Is and How It Differs from Accommodation” (Slides).

Her slides are really very good. If you favor a method that preserves a historical Adam, this one’s for you. I’m not entirely convinced about that myself, but am giving her perspective much more serious consideration than I had in the past (somehow I had missed this point when I read her papers on the subject). Her objections to the full-blown version of accommodation may be more a matter of semantics (what you understand the word “accommodation” to actually mean with respect to process of inspiration.

Nevertheless, her presentation helps to emphasize that God’s revelation is based as much (if not primarily) on his incarnation and interaction with humankind as events in history as it is on his delivering an accommodated (i.e., “dumbed-down”) message to the writers of Scripture. Hill’s main point is that the interaction is experienced by us as real events; then, in documenting our experiences with God, we are the ones who accommodate the events to our current understanding. I think that’s correct; I’m just not sure it follows that Adam must have been an actual person.

Denis O. Lamoureux, “The Sin-Death Problem: Toward an Evolutionary Creationist Solution” (Slides).

Apparently there were problems with the projector at the beginning, so it takes a couple of minutes to get going. Also the original deck of slides on the ASA site is not complete (only the first screen of each multi-part slide got distilled to the PDF). I made a new PDF from Denis’s original slides, so that’s why my ‘Slides’ link doesn’t go to the ASA site.

Lamoureux’s talk is not a complete argument; you’ll have to read one of his books or articles for that. This talk is just a quick “answer” to those who wonder how he can take such an unconventional view (no Adam or Fall) while still holding to a very conventional theology of the Gospel. You can also see my interview with him.

As it relates to accommodation, Lamoureux was dealing with Romans 5 and 8, which are the key sticking points for people (including Carol Hill) concerned with preserving a historical Adam. Denis wants us to recognize that, just like the ancient writers of Genesis and the OT, the apostle Paul and NT writers had no choice but to accommodate their experiences and divine-inspired doctrinal insights to their worldview. They had to give their testimony and explain their beliefs using their conceptual understanding of what is real about both the structure and function of the cosmos and the story of God’s people (history). Paul wrote about Adam as a real person because he certainly believed that Adam was a historical person. Denis’ point is that  we are not compelled to do likewise; the Message-Incident Principle allows us to preserve a high view of inerrancy without requiring us to conform to Paul’s incidental context.

As Paul Seely said in his talk, Scripture is “inerrant for the purpose for which it was written.”

times.But a close look at Hodge’s work indicates that he was say that the solid sky mentioned in

Genesis was an accommodation to the sky’s APPEARANCE. The interesting thing about Hodge’s idea that

the solid firmament in Genesis 1 is phenomenal language is that it violates Hodge’s own first rule of

interpretation – namely, that words mean what they meant to the people of THAT time. [But] people in

the time of the OT believed the sky was REALLY solid. When they spoke of the solid sky, they meant it

literally.

Does the bible EVER use phenomenal language? I do not think so. The reason people in bible times

thought of the sky as solid and the sun as literally moving, is because the sky looks solid

(especially at night) and the sun looks like it is literally moving. They accepted the APPEARANCE as

the REALITY.

We can use phenomenal language today with respect to the sky’s appearance and the sun’s apparent

motion because we know in fact that the reality is not as it appears. They ancients did not have this

privelege with respect to these matters.