At the outset I’d like to thank Charlie Sebold for taking the time to look at this and make helpful observations as well as contribute his own intelligent thoughts, much of which I’ve incorporated into the post.
I thought it might be beneficial for others to have a quick and dirty list of some problems with [Christian] theistic evolution (TE). This list doesn’t address problems with the theory of evolution itself — unless there is some bearing on the Biblical text. Rather this list primarily seeks to address hermeneutical problems I see in TE. In other words, these are some difficulties which a TE would have to reconcile with his presumed conviction that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word.
1. In Genesis 1 it’s written, “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day…And there was evening and there was morning, the second day…And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.” And so on. If we incorporate a modern understanding to our interpretation of the text, this would indicate that the earth has revolved once around its axis. That’s the plain meaning of the text.
If you want to argue over the interpretation, however, perhaps it’s true one need not interpret the term “day” (Hebrew: yom) as a 24-hour solar day. But it would seem to make far more sense to interpret it this way than it would to interpret it as millions of years or some indefinite period of time (e.g. the day-age theory). Both might be smuggling concepts foreign to the text into the text, so to speak, but the former is far closer to the ancient Israelite’s worldview than the latter.
2. Or perhaps the ancient Israelite wrote it as a “day” since he did not understand the universe was billions of years old. This then would allow one to incorporate millions or billions of years into the text.
One problem with this is that it is consistent with an Old Earth Creationism (OEC) reading of Genesis, and need not invoke evolution.
Also, aren’t we reading a modern understanding of science into the text (which has its own presuppositions)? Not that there’s anything wrong with this, per se, depending on the argumentation, but frankly it’s not what the text says. If there’s a reason why we should read millions or billions of years into the text, then it needs to be argued out and explained.
Another problem, though, is that if we believe the Bible to have been authored by God (ultimately), then presumably God would’ve known what a day is and how the term would’ve been understood by the ancient Israelite. In this vein, why couldn’t God have inspired Moses (the main author of the Torah or Pentateuch) to write something such as epoch or period instead of day if God really meant epoch or period? After all, these terms exist elsewhere in Scripture.
Not to mention other Ancient Near Eastern peoples writing at roughly the same time were able to communicate effectively about periods of hundreds of thousands of years such as in their king lists. Take this, for example. Or see this seminal work on the Sumerians.
3. The Hebrew term yom (=”day”) nearly always means “day” in the Bible. And when it does not, it is clear from the context that it does not.
4. One TE claim is that the first few chapters of Genesis should be read only as allegorical myth or mythical allegory. Why? An oft-used reason is because these chapters appear to speak about creation in a way similar to, say, ancient Babylonian creation myths speak of creation. But on what grounds is Genesis analogous to the ancient Babylonian creation myth (or whatever)? Where’s the argument?
5. Furthermore, notice the TE might argue that only the first few chapters of Genesis (usually Gen. 1-3 or 1-11) are to be read as allegorical myth or mythical allegory. That is, Moses wrote Gen. 1-3 or 1-11 as allegorical myth, but the rest of the book as historical narrative. But how does the TE account for the non-apparent shift in genres? What reason(s) does he give for the shift?
Rather, it seems the genre shift has been invented by the TE (and others) because of a presupposition which is imported to the text, viz. some parts of the Bible are literally true, but Gen. 1-3 or 1-11 can’t possibly be literally true.
BTW, this is not to ignore valid Biblical typology.
6. Gen. 2:7 states, “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
If this is read only as allegorical myth, then what’s the TE’s interpretation of the verse?
As I understand a common TE position: After millions of years, in which a proto-human or ape-man emerged, God selected at least one male and one female proto-human or ape-man and gave them a soul or spirit. This is the TE’s “Adam and Eve.”
One problem with this interpretation, however, is that the Bible notes in the same chapter that Eve was taken out of Adam. The woman was not created independently of the man. The woman was created after the man. Otherwise the verse might note that God took both the man as well as the woman out of the ground and breathed the breath of life into each of them. As it is, the Bible distinguishes between the creation of man (Adam) and the creation of woman (Eve) in the same passage in Gen. 2.
7. 1 Tim. 2:13 likewise backs up this claim: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” If the TE reads