Engaging with atheists and agnostics

In this essay, I discuss the great challenges that Christians face in sharing the gospel with the people of our time - especially in the context of statistics that show a dramatic change in the belief-systems of people in the Western world. I present intellectual tools that I developed in this regard and show how they might assist Christians in reaching out to an ever-more sceptical world.

As Christians, we are called to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people. Since Jesus sent out his disciples two thousand years ago, Christians have been trying in various ways to reach all people, both in their own communities and in far-away countries, with the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Our age, however, presents us with particular challenges in this regard. Western society, which has traditionally been Christian, is changing in fundamental ways and more and more people do not believe or are agnostic regarding the existence of God. The question is: How do we effectively reach people with the gospel in this climate of change?

Before trying to answer this question one should first of all be aware of the magnitude of the challenge. A study that appeared in the Washington Post earlier this year [1], shows that atheism has grown a lot over the last few decades in the Western World. In large regions of Western Europe, the percentage of people who regard themselves as non-religious or atheists are about 50% or more. The Western European countries that top the list are the Netherlands (66%) and the UK (66%), followed by Germany (59%), Switzerland (58%), Spain (55%) and Austria (54%). These do not include European countries to the north and east, like Sweden (76%) and the Czech Republic (75%). This is the situation in spite of the fact that countries like the Netherlands and Germany have strong Christian, especially reformist, traditions and in the case of the Netherlands one even finds a Bible-belt running through the country.

Another study by the Pew Research Center [2] shows that even in the USA, which has traditionally been regarded as one of the countries with the highest percentage of Christians, the situation is changing. Christians have declined sharply as a percentage of the population in the period 2007 to 2014, namely from 78.4% to 70.6%. Although the group of unaffiliated Christians have increased (presumably Christians who do not go to recognized denominations) with nearly 7%, most of the denominations have seen a drastic decline in numbers. Mainline-protestant has declined from 18.1% to 14.7%, Catholics from 23.9% to 20.8% and Evangelicals from 26.3% to 25.4%. In the same period those who regard themselves as not religiously affiliated, agnostic or atheistic have grown from 16.1% to 22.8%.

Clearly, Christians are doing something wrong!! Although there are various reasons for the current situation, it seems that in most Western countries an enormous divide appeared between the Christian and agnostic-atheistic sections of society who live next to each other, but (to a large extent) do not interact with each other. Although part of the problem may lay with Christian attitudes (their behaviour being perceived in negative terms), there is definitely also a problem regarding the packaging of the gospel. In many ways, it seems that the general public does not think that the Christian worldview is sustainable and that the Bible cannot be regarded as a trustworthy account of events in our scientific age. These are the issues which I deal with in this essay.

The various missional approaches

It is often said that the call to missions starts with God. There are various ways in which this call may be unpacked in theological terms. What I am interested in this essay, however, is not that issue, but the practical manner in which the church live the great commandment. In this regard, we can distinguish between various approaches to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others. My question is: Are these approaches effective and what must the church do to change the tide?

Traditionally the missionary call has been interpreted as taking the gospel to all nations - especially to those who are not part of the Christian world. In this context, various tools have been developed to effectively reach the unreached peoples of the world with the gospel. As such it was and is necessary to learn a different language, be culturally sensitive, translate the Bible, live in far-away communities etc. This traditional approach may be called the "missionary" approach. Since this approach focuses on countries and geographical areas outside the traditional Christian world, it does not really concern us in this essay.

During those times when the name "Christian world" still applied to their home communities (which in general does not hold for the Western world any more), Christians also felt the need to take the gospel to those in their own community who have not yet come to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior. In this regard, these Christians observed that being a Christian in name is not the same as being a Christian in the true sense of the word (having a personal relationship with God through the indwelling Spirit of God). In this context, there are also various tools that had been developed to reach one's neighbour in the context of the same (rather homogeneous) society, especially through church as well as interdenominational outreaches. This approach may be called the "evangelistic" approach. Over the last few decades, this approach has become more and more ineffective - in many Western societies it has become extremely difficult to get strangers to attend such outreaches [3].

The main reason for this difficulty is that Western culture has changed dramatically over the last few decades. In this regard, one may say, in philosophical terms, that a large part of Western society has moved from the modernist to the postmodernist paradigm. This does not mean that the majority has necessarily accepted the postmodernist ideology; it merely means that the manner in which especially young people but also many older people interact with each other and the wider world, has changed in a fundamental manner. The old structures and mindset - which were rationally inclined, hierarchical, strict, accepting of traditional ideas and values and closed to other views - have changed to those that are open, inquiring, sceptical, relational, networking, socially-connected through all sorts of media etc. Since this cultural shift only involves a part of society, one can say that there are now (to a large extent) two culturally distinct groups in the same society, namely the older generation (and those that associate with them) and the new postmodern generation. The problem for Christian outreach is this: How to reach this postmodern generation? It seems that the traditional evangelistic tools do not work in this context!

This issue is not new and there have been many voices as to the manner in which this generation may be reached with the gospel. In general, various approaches have been developed that involve a new kind of community life as well as different ways to engage with one's neighbours in a non-intrusive and culturally suitable manner. This includes all sorts of practical ways in which people may become involved around some area of shared interest, for example through engagement in communal projects. The people who are reached in this manner may include a broad spectrum of persons, some of whom may not be religiously affiliated, although maybe not atheists or agnostics. On the whole, we may call all these approaches that engage the postmodern person "missional" approaches. These approaches have limited success and although some high-profile books have appeared discussing these efforts, in general, they have not had a major impact on the changing tide.

Once people have decided to call themselves atheists or even agnostics they have made up their minds and it is very difficult to effectively reach them. There are, nonetheless, Christians who engage these people, using various apologetic tools, including arranged debates between Christian and atheistic scientists, books that argue for the faith, conferences, discussion forums etc. Some congregations focus in their services and outreach on agnostics and atheists, but this may lead to other aspects of church life not being effectively given attention to. Reaching atheists and agnostics, who have made a conscious decision in this regard, is not easy.

Effective outreach

How do we effectively reach agnostics and atheists? In my mind, the answer is to reach people before they have made their decision in this regard. There are many people who sit on the fence - they observe the wider context in which all sorts of conversations take place in the public and social media. They are sensitive to these issues, but they are still undecided. Even those who present themselves as not religiously affiliated might not yet have made a final decision regarding faith. They may have some problem with the traditional Church or traditional Christians but they are not necessarily against the idea of believing in God.

In my view, the main problem is that the postmodern world provides people with many possible and seemingly viable alternative narratives regarding our human existence. Why should they believe the Christian narrative? Not only have Christians in the Western World often behaved very unchristian (being arrogant and self-righteous on social media etc.), they have also been compromised (in taking certain discredited political and eschatological positions) and their positions have often been simplistic and even anti-intellectual. The general public is often confronted with a Christian narrative that does not make sense to them since it stands in direct contrast with the general scientific perspective that has become widely accepted in society (for example, regarding the age of the universe etc.). How can one expect people to believe the Christian narrative if they do not think that it makes sense? It is not good enough to present your own interpretation as "the Bible says so" when people do not believe the Bible to be a trustworthy source of information.

There are especially two important areas in which Christians have in general not been convincing. These are in presenting 1) the Christian worldview as a realistic and sensible reading of reality (what the world is like) and 2) the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. Often the general public is presented with a false dichotomy: either one accepts the young earth view or one has to accept the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution (which is anathema for most Christians). The general public may not have strong views regarding neo-Darwinist evolution, but in general, they do accept that science has shown that the cosmos is very old. Confronted with this choice, they do not only choose against the Christian worldview (regarding it as unrealistic), they also reject the Christian belief that the Bible is God's Word - to them it is merely an old religious book without relevance to our current age (which teaches such nonsense as the world is a few thousand years old). So, how can they believe in the Biblical message of salvation if they do not consider the Bible to be trustworthy?

The main reason why this simplistic view often overshadows the conversation is that many Christians are not convinced that the alternative Christian narratives truly adhere to Biblical teaching. Many Christians think that any other view than the young earth one necessarily brings the Fall into disrepute (and therefore Christ's redemption) and opens the door for accepting neo-Darwinist evolution which negates God's role as creator (even when this is packaged as "theistic evolution"). The idea that God used this process in his creation is not acceptable to them because it is random (i.e. insofar as genetic mutations are concerned) and mechanistic, without any clear design involved.

What is necessary, is a two-fold approach: 1) To develop good alternative Christian narratives that are consistent with the Bible as God's inspired Word, 2) which are not in conflict with science (not due to a forced reading in this regard but because this is a good and sensible reading). Since God revealed Himself both in Scripture and nature, the hermeneutical study of the Biblical text and the scientific study of nature should not be in conflict! Although paradigms (like the traditional Christian one) are very resistant to change, the dramatic ineffectiveness in spreading the gospel today in Western society may eventually force change.

In my own approach, I develop intellectual tools that incorporate both these concerns. Although Christians often steer clear of "intellectualism" and philosophy, there cannot be any doubt that a good intellectual framework grounds effective practical outreach. Both reason and faith are important in practical Christian living [4]. This does not mean that all Christians should become "intellectuals"; rather, it means that such tools can play a significant role in presenting the gospel in a sensible manner to the people of our day. We should remember that St. Paul engaged with the philosophers of his day and knew a lot about the contemporary philosophy of his time (see Acts 17:15-34; Titus 1:12). Although philosophy should never replace the gospel of salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ or good Biblical teaching (see 1 Cor. 3:18-20), we should use it in suitable contexts to argue for the trustworthiness of the Biblical worldview and Scripture.

My main focus is to present the Christian worldview as a (even the most) realistic view of reality (in contrast with the mechanistic/deterministic view which is preferred by atheists) and the Bible as a remarkably trustworthy source of information. In this regard, I reworked the approach of the well-known philosopher Immanuel Kant in such a manner that it provides the philosophical basis (or rational grounding) for such a Christian worldview (Kant himself was a Christian). Although all belief-systems have a strong emotional component, I am here primarily concerned with the rational grounds for holding such beliefs.

Kant's conception of a "noumenal realm" is central to my approach. The name is derived from the Greek word for mind, namely "nous". According to Kant, this realm is beyond the reach of the human senses and we can therefore only think about it with our mind. This realm forms an essential part of his metaphysics; we can think of it as an intellectual reworking of the idea of the spiritual realm. Although it is often asserted that the noumenal realm should only be understood in moral terms, this is not correct - it forms an integral part of Kant's philosophy of science (in his Critique of the Power of Judgement). I argue that in a scientific context the noumenal realm finds its realization (in the most basic sense) in the quantum realm (see [5] for a more detailed discussion). This means that in the context of the quantum realm scientists have effectively for the first time began to engage with the spiritual realm (although they do not yet recognize it).

Immanuel Kant

The metaphysical implications of this approach are far-reaching and show that the mechanistic (i.e. atheistic) view of the world is unsustainable (even insofar as evolution is considered as a mere mechanistic approach). The strength of this approach lies (among other things) therein that it provides a solution to extremely difficult problems in science, namely how to explain and reconcile determinism and indeterminism (spontaneity) and how to solve the so-called "measurement problem" (these problems in quantum physics are about 100 years old!). This is achieved when mechanism is ascribed to the "classical world" where the space-time theories of relativity apply (which agrees with the Kantian conception of "nature") and spontaneity to the pre-measurement "quantum world" (which agrees with the noumenal realm).

Insofar as the Christian worldview is concerned, one of the implications of my approach is that mechanistic evolution must be complemented by design. Kant's approach incorporates two aspects in biological evolution, namely mechanistic causes (as is nowadays described in neo-Darwinian evolution) as well as spontaneous causes (which in the Kantian view signify design at the noumenal level which underlies all material expression). Although we stand at the beginning of this line of quantum-biological research, it seems that we would eventually be able to describe such design in terms of quantum effects [6]. My approach overcomes the drawbacks that plague other apologetic approaches to the no-design problem of neo-Darwinian evolution (for example, in Intelligent Design [7; 8]).

Other implications of my approach in this regard are (among others) 2) that free will can be substantiated (without which adherence to God's Law is nonsensical), 3) that human existence goes beyond the physical realm (Kantian metaphysics accepts the existence of the soul), 4) that noumenal intuitions, which go beyond the reach of sensible intuitions, become realistically possible. This means that divine revelation or natural theology can be argued for on a solid philosophical basis; this has traditionally been a problematic area of Kant's philosophy. In general, this approach establishes good reasons for belief in God [8].

Insofar as the Bible is concerned, my approach to interpretation also follows a Kantian angle. I argue that all good interpretation requires both our conceptions (our horizon of interpretation) as well as the representations of reality in the text (the horizon of the author) [9]. This means that we should not force our conceptual approach onto the text; rather, we should listen to the voices of both the author as well as the tradition in which s/he was embedded as presented in the text [10]. Problems of interpretation arise when we approach the text simplistically, using our current manner of understanding the world as the point of departure (neglecting the horizon of the author). This may involve both modernistic or postmodernistic approaches which force our cultural context (as is done by many lay readers) or a scientific worldview (as is done in Biblical Criticism) onto the text. My approach navigates between the rocks of modernism and postmodernism.

In the context of discussions about our human existence, our interpretation of the Book of Genesis is especially relevant - in fact, the manner in which we understand this book determines our understanding of the rest of the Bible! It is important that we read the book with the ancient context in which it originated in mind (this provides the horizon of the author). But what context is relevant? I argue [11] that the Mesopotamian material in the book (especially Gen. 1-12) should be read in an ancient Sumerian context (i.e. not in a neo-Babylonian context as is assumed in Biblical Criticism) for the simple reason that we have every reason to take the Biblical story regarding Abraham's journey from ancient Sumer (Ur) to Canaan serious. This implies that the Mesopotamian source material for the book was handed down in Abraham's family since the time when they left that country (I call this approach the "Sumerian hypothesis" [12]).

Again, the implications of this approach are substantial. I show that although we should not force a scientific view onto the text (or a mere mythological one, for that matter), the creation story nonetheless forces us to understand the "days" in which God made the cosmos as "periods" of creation, which can be viewed as agreeing with the current scientific view regarding the age of the earth [13]. Furthermore, good hermeneutical principles allow us to take Adam and Eve as real personages who lived about six-thousand years ago (even though this can obviously not be proven), but not that they were the very first people or parents of the whole human race (for a detailed discussion, see [14]). They are important because we may regard them as the earliest remembered people with whom God had a relationship.

I also show that, although the fallen human condition is very much part of the garden story, a good interpretation of the text does not support the idea that they and all of nature became fallen due to their disobedience; rather, their disobedience revealed the fallen human condition which goes back far beyond their own time (as does death - there is abundant archaeological evidence for that!). This reading does not undermine Christ's work on the cross as the answer to that condition; rather, it establishes that within the context of a credible reading of history [15]. As such, my approach provides a solid but also a comprehensive interpretation of Genesis 1-12 which does not only carefully analyze the ancient context but which is also (as can be expected) in line with our scientific understanding of the world. Other interpretations which argue for an old earth, typically focus on the creation account in Genesis 1 but do not engage with other important issues like the talking serpent, the Fall, etc. for which answers should also be provided. Scientific explanations (like Reasons to Believe) also do not take the ancient context in which the text originated into account.

In my approach to the Bible, I believe that neither the naturalistic approach (as is found in Biblical Criticism) nor the simplistic approach (often associated with traditional Christian interpretation) makes sense. The first regards the Bible as a mere book among other books; the other as if it is written only for children (without any understanding for the ancient context from which it originated) [16]. The first removes all aspects of God's supernatural involvement in human history from the Bible; the other requires blind faith in the face of highly unreasonable claims. What is necessary, is a balanced approach that uses good hermeneutical tools [17]. In this manner, the trustworthiness of the Bible as a source of information can be established. In my view, we would not be able to turn the tide without a balanced approach - that steers clear of both these extremes. We need both good intellectual tools which establish the credibility of the Biblical worldview and the Bible as God's Word as well as good practical application in the context of godly lives.

Conclusions

In this essay, I discuss the dramatic change in society's attitudes over the past few decades. On the whole, it seems that the so-called "Christian world" is not Christian any more. In most Western countries the percentage of atheists and agnostics have increased to such an extent that they now constitute the majority of the population. Even in the US, which has always been considered a Christian country, the percentage of people considering themselves as Christians have declined significantly whereas the percentage of those who view themselves as agnostic, atheistic or non-religious have increased a lot over the past few years.

The question is: What should the church do? I discuss four current approaches and show that on their own they are unlikely to change the trend. They may work in communities where they are still applicable - but the world is changing and in a few years we might find that they run aground in many communities which are now still open and accessible. What is needed is a new approach (complimenting the others) which establishes the Christian worldview as a realistic and sensible reading of reality and the Bible as a trustworthy source of information. This would only succeed if traditional Christians accept interpretations of the Biblical text that accentuate the ancient context in which it was written and which are neither in conflict with science nor undermine the Bible as the divinely-inspired Word of God. In fact, it affirms that!

I also present my own solution to the problem. This involves the development of intellectual tools that are grounded in a Kantian philosophical approach. This approach allows us to engage with science (through a reworking of Kant's philosophy of science) but also with the Biblical text (through a reworking of Kant's epistemology to establish good hermeneutical principles). As such it involves a unified approach within the framework of a single Kantian metaphysical framework which is consistent with the Christian worldview. It shows that all mechanistic or naturalistic approaches to the world and the Bible are highly reductionist. And it confirms that the Biblical worldview can better account for reality (explored through science) than the atheistic one whereas the divine inspiration of Scripture is manifest in the fact that reading the text using good hermeneutical principles compliments (rather than contradicts) our scientific understanding of the world. I believe that the acceptance of this approach would add to our ability to effectively reach the people of our day with the gospel, especially those who have not yet decided and silently observe the conversation in the marketplace of ideas.

I, therefore, encourage readers to read the other essays on my blog that focus in more detail on these issues and also to tell others about it. They are welcome to share it with their pastors and other Christian leaders and philosophers. It will take time for Christians to consider and debate this approach before accepting it but I believe that eventually, they would see that without good intellectual tools we will never be able to effectively reach the people of our day and age. This implies that we will have to leave simplistic approaches behind and be open-minded like the church in Berea (Acts 17:11). May the Lord give us wisdom in this.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/
[2] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[3] Some evangelical Christians are praying for revival. They believe that the answer is that God through his mighty power moves in society. This is definitely important if we want to reach the world for Christ but this is surely not all that we should do! Revivals are sparse in our day; I do, however, believe that in the end time we will see more of that.
[4] Click on Faith and reason - finding the balance
[5] Mc Loud, W. 2015. Introducing a Kantian Interpretation of Quantum Physics, in accordance with Kant's Philosophy of Science in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, reinterpreted and reworked with special attention to the supersensible realm. Masters thesis. UCT. Cape Town.
Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics published in Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 3 (2018)
[6] I previously wrote in the essay "Darwin's Doubt" [7] that "[i]t is possible that we will eventually find that evolution has a quantum component, i.e. that leaps in biological evolution have their grounds in the quantum world where they would arguably seem to be at home". Shortly afterwards the authors of Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology (2014) suggested that quantum processes may indeed play a role in genetic mutations – implying that a mechanistic approach to evolution may not be sufficient.
See also The Christian and Evolution
[7] Click on Darwin's Doubt
[8] I plan to write about ten essays on the implications of the remarkable fit between Kantian metaphysics and our scientific understanding of the world for the Christian-atheist conversation.
[9] In the context of interpretation the "representations of reality in the text (the horizon of the author)" do not engage with ancient reality as it was "in itself" (i.e. we do not have access to the mind of the author or all the details of his time) in the same manner that in the context of epistemology (the study of knowledge) the presentations of reality in our senses do not give us access to reality as "it is in itself" (especially not of the quantum realm). However, in the same way that such presentations in our senses are sufficient to obtain objective knowledge (see my next essay in this regard [8]), the representations of reality in the text allows us to establish sensible interpretations (meanings) of the text. In the same manner that we can proceed to better understandings of nature when more empirical data becomes available which fit more sophisticated conceptual frameworks (take, for example, the move from Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinium physics), we can also obtain better readings of the text when the context in which we place the text (for example, my "Sumerian hypothesis"; see [12]) solves problems that plague other assumed contexts (the "neo-Babylonian hypothesis" used in Biblical Criticism).
My approach to interpretation agrees with that of Gadamer contra Derrida in that it acknowledges distinct interpretations (instead of a continuous play of interpretation). I proceed beyond Gadamer in that my approach allows for rational criteria (basic principles of hermeneutics) which establish a threshold between "better" interpretations and bad ones (see [17]). Furthermore, in my view we can make "truth" claims only insofar as we can make determinate judgements; we cannot proceed beyond interpretations insofar as we are restricted to mere reflective judgements (in the Kantian sense; see [18]).
[10] I allow for two kinds of determinations, namely a priori determinations (i.e. of concepts) as well as a posteriori determinations (i.e. representations of the real in the text). These are synthesized in interpretation.
[11] In my book Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)
[12] Click on The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis
[13] Click on Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?
[14] Click on Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?
[15] Click on Reconsidering The Fall
[16] The Bible can be read on two levels: 1) Such that children and simple people can understand it and come to faith in Christ 2) Such that scientists and educated people, in general, can understand it in the context of its ancient historical setting and believe it because it is a trustworthy source of information that has been written with integrity (although it has obviously not been written from a modern scientific perspective). To reconcile these might be a major challenge for any pastor - but without both, we stand no chance to reach the people of our day for Christ. The trustworthiness of the Biblical text grounds our faith that the Bible is divinely inspired as is clearly stated by some of its authors. Although we as Christians would believe the Biblical text even in the face of supposed inconsistencies, we have a duty to study such problems and show that the text is indeed trustworthy in line with the proclamations regarding its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16; Acts 17:11); it is exactly its trustworthiness (which follow when we use the right contextual tools instead of the modernist approach which discredited Biblical Criticism [19]) which shows that the claims that it is the Word of God are to be taken serious (i.e. that it does not merely contain "words about God").
[17] I developed such tools in the essay Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical approach
[18] Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
[19] A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline

Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Read also

Hoe moet Christene die huidige paradigma-verskuiwing in die samelewing benader?
Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?
Middelgrond in die geloof
Wetenskap en geloof

Read also essays on Science, Philosophy and God:

Part 1: The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics
Part 2: Science and our restricted human understanding
Part 3: Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot
Presenting a new argument for the existence of God
Part 4. Science and the spiritual realm
Part 5. In defence of the soul
Part 6: Science and Atheism
Part 7: Science and spiritual intuition
Part 8: The Christian and Evolution

The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis

The Book of Genesis is one of the most discussed books in the Bible and stands at the centre of the great debates about the origin of our universe and of all life on earth. To what extent can we take it seriously in the context of current scientific research? The problem bedevilling the interpretation of this book is the modernist approaches that had been used to read it since the beginning of the science-religion discussion - readings that take our contemporary perspective as the point of departure. I propose a different approach, grounded in a Sumerian hypothesis. This changes our reading of the book in substantial ways and solves many of the interpretive problems, especially in the first few chapters. It also provides some answers regarding origins.

The Book of Genesis is one of the great books of the ancient world. Few other ancient books are so intensely discussed in our time as this book. Although there are many other ancient books and stories that give an ancient perspective on creation, this book is unique in that so many well-educated people from all over the world take it seriously even in our day and age - believing that it had been divinely inspired and as such provides answers, not merely about the origins of the cosmos and life in it, but also about the true meaning of human existence. This is indeed the great quest before humans, trying to answer the question: What is the meaning of our existence? And it seems that the Book of Genesis may give some answers in this regard.

The problem with the Book of Genesis is that so many different people have so many different ideas about the manner in which we should understand the book! People from other religions than the Judaeo-Christian tradition and secularists are obviously not so taken by the book, but this does not mean that they cannot also appreciate the remarkable agreements between the book and modern science - for example, that the cosmos had an origin "in the beginning" when matter (heaven and earth) came into existence in time and space (in accordance with Einstein's general theory of relativity and the Big Bang theory). One also finds that the increase in the complexity of life forms which came into being through time is a feature of both science and the first chapter of the book. Some Christian scientists have developed detailed outlines showing a remarkable correspondence between these two perspectives.

There are also people, however, who think that there are some fundamental disagreements between the Book of Genesis and science. This is also the reason why many secular-minded people do not engage with the book - and even think that the Bible teaches unrealistic stories about creation that had long ago been refuted by science. Some Christians - especially those from traditional communities as well as the Seventh-day-Adventist Church - do in fact believe that the book teaches that the cosmos is only a few thousand years old. But many other Christians disagree with this: they think that the best reading of the book is indeed one that allows for a long period of creation. One of the main concerns of my approach is to answer such questions through a proper consideration of the ancient world in which the book originated and the context in which the author produced it.

On the whole, there are three approaches to the book. The first group follows a "fundamentalist" approach that asserts the literal reading of the text (which its opponents think is excessively literal, neglecting due consideration of the context). The second approach is the "scientific" approach used by Christian scientists that work towards reconciling the book with science (which may lead to neglecting the context of its origin in an ancient world very different from our own). The third approach is that used by Biblical Criticism scholars which may be called a "secular" approach since they often assert that we should study the book without regard for its supposed divine origin (which their opponents think takes an excessive critical stance towards the book). In my approach, I discuss all these views when I engage with the various relevant topics.

How should we navigate between all the rocks of bad interpretation to arrive at an appropriate reading of the book? In my view, we should use good hermeneutical principles developed by the best philosophers of our day (people like Hans-Georg Gadamer; see [1]) while at the same time give serious consideration to the period in which the book originated. I suggest a Sumerian hypothesis according to which the Mesopotamian source material in the first few chapters (called the "ancient history") should be understood as originating in the land of Sumer from which Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, is said to have come. This goes against the view currently accepted in Biblical Criticism circles, namely that the book (for the most part) originated during or after the Babylonian exile - which would mean that we should merely consider the book in literary terms. I assert that the book is much more than that.

Rereading the Book of Genesis

The Book of Genesis is important to Christians because it touches on many issues of central concern to their faith, including divine creation, God's purpose with man, the Fall, the promise of the "seed" (Messiah), the calling of Abraham etc. These are indeed issues that stand central to the whole message of the Bible. For Christians, the story of the Fall brings God's salvation for mankind through the work of Jesus Christ into focus. The critical stance of traditional Christians towards other interpretations is grounded in the fear that these might in some manner undermine good Christian doctrine. They often think that believe in an old age for the cosmos in accordance with the scientific view necessarily implies support for Neo-Darwinistic evolution (which all traditional Christians reject). They also think that such views undermine the teaching of the Fall - which for them is indissolubly linked with a historical Adam and Eve who were created as the very first humans six thousand years ago. They do, however, not consider the possibility that these might be false dichotomies, i.e. that certain other interpretations might be in agreement with science without undermining good teaching.

On the other hand, one often finds that scholars from the Biblical Criticism tradition think that their view is the only scientifically accepted approach to the Bible. Since many of these scholars do not have any concern for good Biblical teaching, they do not have to take these into consideration when studying the Biblical text. In fact, they often think that since they are not motivated by religious concerns, their approach is superior to that used by such Christians - and they absolutely reject the idea that we should in any manner relate the text to current scientific concerns. The problem with this view is that all people, scholars included, both religious and non-religious, have some preferences - there is no such thing as an "objective" perspective, especially insofar as texts like the Bible are concerned. Many of these scholars, therefore, also think in terms of false dichotomies, either we study the Bible "scientifically" or our views are religiously determined.

The only manner in which these problems can be resolved is to understand what good interpretation is. So often, in both traditional Christian and Biblical Criticism circles, the views of the readers are forced onto the text without any real concern for the voice of the author and the tradition from which he/she originated. This goes back to the days of modernism in previous centuries, when philosophers and scientists thought that we can achieve one final and objective view of texts and reality - a view that is not taken seriously today because we now know that there are always various possible interpretations of texts and reality (which does not mean that one supports the postmodernist view, i.e. that all interpretations are in some manner acceptable, which would again be a false dichotomy!).

In traditional circles their interpretation is often considered as "the truth" of the Bible - they do not have a feeling for the fact that there is an enormous gap between present-day readers and those ancient authors, that all humans interpret the Biblical text and that we do not have access to the thoughts of Moses. In Biblical Criticism circles, on the other hand, the scholarly field has been deeply discredited by the modernist approach of earlier days which determined the later development of the discipline [2]. Early scholars thought that they had an "objective" view of the texts which goes beyond the "primitive" views of the authors of those texts. In both cases, the views of readers are forced onto the text!

There are some very basic problems with both these views which are immediately observable to any careful study of the ancient context in which the book originated. The traditional view asserts that the seven days of creation are literal solar days in spite of the fact that the sun, moon and stars were only created on the fourth "day" and served "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" (Gen. 1:14). How the first three solar days were possible without the sun, or how solar "days", as well as "seasons" and "years", came into being only on the fourth day, is only explained with remarkable interpretative gymnastics. The story of Eve being created from Adam's rib is taken in a literal sense, even though other similar stories from that period show that it was a well-known literary motif.

In my view, we may believe the stories (and even take it in a literal sense) insofar as we understand the context in which they originated and were later written down. I argue that we may accept a historical Adam and Eve (even though we can obviously not prove it!), although they might also be regarded as archetypal parents of the human race. Accepting them as historical persons does not mean that they were the very first humans. Traditional questions as to where their sons got wives or where the other people outside the garden (whom Cain feared) came from, are resolved once we view the word 'adam when it is first introduced in Genesis 1, not as referring to the person Adam who is the main character in the garden story but to mankind who was created during the sixth period ("day") of creation.

Without deciding what "creation" means - we read that the "earth" or "waters" produced species (which is not that specific!) - we may accept that humans were created long before the story of the Garden of Eden unfolds. The garden story then tells about later events when Adam and Eve were present in a holy garden, probably on an early "mountain of God". The geographical details given at the beginning of the garden story are in agreement with ancient Sumerian tradition regarding such a mountain - showing that the Biblical tradition is very much part of the ancient world in which it originated.

I furthermore argue that the Fall is already implied from the beginning in the story of creation (words like "chaos" are used; the snake is a fallen creature; the people outside the garden are presented as possible killers) which means that the Fall did not happen through Adam and Eve's disobedience; their fallen human condition was rather "revealed" through their disobedience. Once humans became aware of their fallen condition, the need for salvation arose which is the primary concern of the Biblical message, and which became a reality, as was promised, through the death of Jesus Christ. I show how this reading is in agreement with statements in this regard in the rest of the Bible (especially of St. Paul). It is also in agreement with science which shows that death goes back to the earliest times - long before the time of Adam and Eve about six thousand years ago.

This interpretation means that there is no conflict between the narrative in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis and science - in fact, it aligns, as Christians should expect since they believe that God is the author of both creation and the Scriptures (our understanding of these can therefore not be in conflict; traditional Christians often have a deep distrust in science since they believe that scientists are out to show the Bible wrong but this is a very simplistic way of seeing things). The power of my reading - which does not express our contemporary standpoint but shows a sensitivity for the ancient milieu in which the author produced the work - is that it resolves many other problematic issues, for example, that of the speaking snake and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The Biblical Criticism view has its own problems. Many of these scholars, for example, believe in the sources theory of the Pentateuch (for a critical discussion, see [1,2]) according to which there are two creation stories (Gen. 1:1-2:3; Gen. 2:4-3:24) in which two different names of God (Elohim, Yahweh Elohim) appear, which in their view reflects the different sources incorporated in the book. In this reading, the whole Book of Genesis is cut into many pieces that the author supposedly brought together in one book. The problem is that this view essentially negates the unity of the book as produced by one author. I show that there are better ways to read these passages which are to be preferred, for example, that the two creation stories are in fact a creation and garden story, and that the two names of God reflect the two manifestations of the God El (El-Elyon and El-Shaddai) who are introduced later in the book and who can only be understood in the context of the ancient concept of the council of God (or: the gods).

Biblical Criticism scholars also assert that the book was written late (nowadays: during or after the Babylonian exile). This is how they account for the Mesopotamian material in the book. This immediately implies that the information in the book should not be taken as referring to historical persons and events - in their view these stories were not part of a long tradition in Israelite circles; rather, they were literary products of a later period which have no relation whatsoever to the ancient history of the forefathers of the Israelites. I show that this view is not in accordance with the facts.

The Mesopotamian material in the book shows absolutely no sign of being influenced by developments after the time of Abraham's journey from Sumer (Mesopotamia) which excludes a Neo-Babylonian origin during the Babylonian exile (agreement with the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elis is superfluous)! I show that certain motifs in the early chapters, for example, the view that the seven days of creation are the divine model for the Sabbath (see Gen. 2:3), strongly suggests that this was written when the Sabbath was first introduced in Israelite circles - in ancient Mesopotamia the divine model typically served as basis for the introduction of cult practice. This means that the book might have been written by Moses who is so closely connected with the Mosaic law, which included the Sabbath, as is traditionally accepted. I make similar arguments regarding the first introduction of the Mosaic sacrifices.

In my view, the traditional young earth and the Biblical Criticism views are built on simplistic modernist readings of the text. There are other interpretations possible which involve good hermeneutic (interpretative) practice. In my series on the Book of Genesis, I develop such an alternative which answers many of the questions that are traditionally ascribed to the book - especially to the first part thereof.

The trustworthiness of the Book of Genesis

When the ancient context in which the book originated is carefully considered, one finds that the book gives a remarkably accurate depiction of historical events - even those that happened in the countries from which the Israelite forefathers originated, for example, the stories of Enoch, Nimrod, the Tower of "Babel" etc. If the book is, in fact, a trustworthy account of the early history of Israel (even though it is obviously not history in the sense that we understand the term today), then its remarkable agreement with modern science may imply that the book is more than just another old document - it may in fact be divinely inspired as the Scriptures themselves assert and as such provide reliable answers to the meaning of human existence and the role of God therein, if it is read in a sophisticated manner.

When we consider the trustworthiness of the information in the book - much of which cannot be proven for the simple fact that archaeology is not an empirical science which produces representative samples of historical events (see [3]) - we should ask how that would be possible? In my view, we should take the story of Abraham's journey serious - this would explain how the earlier Sumerian worldview and traditions ended up in the Book of Genesis (not that the Biblical stories were taken from the Sumerian ones; rather I assume that they were delivered from ancient times in the context of Abraham's family). In Biblical Criticism circles, the historicity of Abraham has traditionally been rejected, but new archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. All the main events surrounding Abraham's life are either supported by evidence (the Elamitic incursion towards northern Syria in the correct year under the command of a king with a corresponding name) or we may read the evidence as supporting it (Abraham's journey to Egypt). The correctness of especially the first data makes it impossible to accept that this story is not in some manner grounded in history.

Once the story of Abraham is shown to be trustworthy insofar we are able to confirm it (and the problem with verification is not with the Bible, but with the nature of archaeology [3]), the ground for the Sumerian hypothesis is laid. We can now consider the possibility that the older stories may also reflect historical events since the information regarding them may have come with Abraham's family from Ur in Sumer (ancient Mesopotamia). I show that there is, in fact, a remarkable agreement between the Biblical stories in the "ancient history" (Gen. 2-11) and a viable reconstruction of Sumerian history which take both the cuneiform texts and archaeological data into consideration.

All the important Biblical figures like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Nimrod etc. are also found in Sumerian tradition under similar names - which I read as two traditions going back to the same original events. This obviously does not prove that any of those people lived, but it is surely possible and the Jewish and Christian belief in their historicity is not totally unjustified (for many Christians it is anyhow a matter of belief). Although various possible narratives of ancient Sumerian history may be reconstructed, I show that we have good grounds to do it in such a manner that it agrees with the Biblical narrative.

Conclusion

I, therefore, argue that the Sumerian hypothesis is not only the best possible way to understand the Book of Genesis - it also solves many of the traditional problems that scholars have with the book. It shows that the book was written early by someone (probably Moses) who used source material that was handed down for many generations in patriarchal and Israelite circles. The narrative in the first part of the book agrees remarkably well with a sensible reconstruction of early Sumerian history. Once we use this ancient context in our interpretation of the book, many of the other problems associated with the book, which originated from a modern reading of the book, disappears.

The book gains a very special place, not only as a remarkable document in which issues that concern us today are presented from an ancient standpoint but also in presenting deep insights into the greater picture of our human existence. If the picture presented in the book is indeed trustworthy in the context of that time, and agrees with modern science, a good argument may be made that the book is indeed divinely inspired and that we may believe it when it tells about a creator God and sets the stage for the eventual coming of the Messiah.

[1] Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
[2] A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline 
[3] Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
A critique of archaeology as a science

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com).

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.

Parts of the series on the Book of Genesis that are available:

Part 1: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?

Part 2: Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans?

Part 3: The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?

Part 4: The Serpent of Paradise
Part 5: Reconsidering the Fall

Part 6: The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan
Part 7: Who is Elohim?
Part 8: The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?
Part 9: The Great Flood: Did it really happen?
Part 10: Abraham holds the key

If readers find the essays interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars. 

Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective.

In this series I consider the question: Can we still believe the Bible? from different angles, namely from hermeneutic (interpretive), archaeological, scientific and prophetic perspectives. This essay focuses on the hermeneutic aspect.

The Bible is probably the best-known book in the world. The Biblical narrative includes stories from ancient Sumer (6000-2000 BC) to the end of the apostolic age (100 AD). There are more than two billion people today who adhere to the Christian and Jewish religions and who take the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) as the basis for their faith. Many among these believe that the Bible is the "Word of God". This would necessarily imply that the Bible is a trustworthy document. Over the past several hundred years, however, some Biblical scholars in the Biblical Criticism tradition have levelled severe criticism against the trustworthiness of the Bible. Most academics in secular society have accepted these criticisms. So, the question is: Can we still believe the Bible?

It has become widely accepted in academic circles that the Bible was written long after the events mentioned therein by authors who did not have any direct connection to those events. This would imply that we cannot take the historical information in the Bible serious. It has also been argued that the Biblical authors wrote with particular agendas to forward their own viewpoints. We should, therefore, view the Bible as propagandist and untrustworthy. Some archaeologists do not even want to use the Biblical text in the archaeological reconstruction of Biblical history because they reject it as a valid source about that history. In this essay, I discuss the philosophical background within which these views originated and ask if they are still valid. Both the modernist and postmodernist approaches are evaluated. What is the best hermeneutic approach to the Bible and what is the implications thereof for Biblical scholarship? What does it say about the credibility of the Bible?

Hermeneutic approaches to the Bible

One of the main reasons why the Bible is regarded with scepticism in contemporary secular society is because of the learned opinions of Biblical scholars in the Biblical Criticism tradition over the past few hundred years. These people were regarded as scholars who knew their field of study and their views impacted enormously upon the scholarly views regarding the Bible. Students at universities were brought up within that scholarly paradigm and many scholars in their particular fields of study have been influenced by those views. But were they right? Did they use an acceptable approach in their study of the Bible? Today it is generally acknowledged that the modernist framework in which they operated is deeply flawed and that their views in this regard should be discarded. But the scholarly paradigm that they started persists, sometimes with minor adaptions, even today. And generations of other scholars have been influenced in their thinking by these distorted views. Many of their basic standpoints have become well-established "truths".

I previously wrote a critique of Biblical Criticism in which I focused on the modernist roots of that discipline (this is a very important essay [1]). The hermeneutic (interpretive) approach used by those scholars assumed that the scholar could have an objective viewpoint on the text, wrongly thinking that their hypotheses could be confirmed in the same or similar manner than in the natural sciences. They believed themselves to be masters of the text. But what they were in fact doing was to reflect their modernist perspectives onto the text. Their basic working principle was: "What the text clearly states can, by no means, be true" [2].

This radical doubt with which they approached the texts reflected their modernist radical doubt of all tradition, but especially Biblical tradition. The agendas which they ascribed to the Biblical authors reflected their own scholarly psychology. The settings and interpretations which they ascribed to the Biblical texts, did not reflect respect for the views of the authors and their tradition but only for the view of the readers. We can compare this with someone with whom you are in conversation, who are sceptical about everything you say, who do not think much of your views, who ascribes all sorts of agendas to you, who speaks all the time and tries to force his view on you.

The postmodern paradigm was built upon this. Although the postmodernist reader criticized the modernist paradigm, he/she did not start from scratch in their study of the Biblical text. They all came from the modernist perspective and it was, therefore, impossible to turn a clean page. Those modernist conclusions that have become widely accepted, became the basis on which the new paradigm was formed. Now, following the hermeneutic views of  (especially) the philosopher Derrida, they accepted that in any text the meaning is fluid and could give rise to any amount of interpretations. The endless multiplication of meaning is celebrated. Every person can develop his/her own interpretation and we cannot affirm the one above the other.

Although we can understand that Derrida rejected fixed meanings, which he called the "logocentric" bias of Western tradition, as is typical of the modernist hermeneutics, he went to the other extreme where all stable meaning is discarded. This immediately means that there is no sensitivity to the voice/word (logos) of the author of the text. Even though we cannot reconstruct the intentions of the author, we should surely have an openness to listen to the voice of the authors and their traditions. We cannot disrespect the author and empower the reader at the cost of the author! We can say that whereas the modernist view killed the author, the postmodernist view accepted his/her death and believes that we can freely form our own individual interpretation. Whereas the modernist approach violated, yes, "raped" the text, the postmodernist approach accepts that she is silenced and that we can use her as we like.

A very important question is: Can we find a middle way between these two extremes? Is there a more balanced hermeneutic approach available? [3]. Yes, there is. In this regard, the hermeneutic approaches of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur are of great importance in the study of the Biblical text. Although Gadamer agrees that meaning is independent of the intention of the author (we cannot reconstruct the intention of the author), he nonetheless believes that in the interaction between author and reader some stable meaning comes into being (considered as an ontological "event"). For Gadamer, it is important that we respect the author and the tradition from which he/she originates and have an openness in our listening to the text. He wrote: "I must allow tradition's claim to validity, not in the sense of simply acknowledging the past in its otherness, but in such a way that it has something to say to me" [4]. Ricoeur built upon this approach and says that we should approach the text not as the master, but as a disciple. We should learn from the text.

The respect with which these philosophers approach the text and the tradition in which it stands is in direct contrast with both the modernist and postmodernist approaches. Although we cannot say that the text has just one meaning, we can formulate informed meanings of the Biblical text in which the words of the authors and their tradition are respected. We cannot doubt the credibility of information in the text from the start, we cannot attribute all sorts of agendas to him/her - although we should obviously acknowledge that he/she worked within a particular perspective as well as tradition, just as we do. Although it is very difficult to really hear the voice of the authors given all the noise caused by the misuse of the text, it is important that we do exactly that. That we take their statements regarding their own tradition (history) and their own times serious. That we treat their views with the seriousness that it deserves. That we try to put our preconceived ideology apart and focus on listening to their perspectives.

When we do this we find that the Biblical authors often mention how much care they have taken to correctly preserve their own traditions and the events about which they were writing. The author of Chronicles, for example, mentions exactly which sources he has used, namely histories written by the prophets Samuel (who operated in the time of King Saul), Nathan, Gad (from the time of King David), Ahijah (from the time of King Solomon), Shemaiah, Iddo (from the time of king Rehoboam), writings by Elijah (from the time of King Ahab), Isaiah (from the time of King Hezekiah) and others. The author of the gospel of St Luke mentions that the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth were handed down by eyewitnesses and that he himself had done a "careful investigation" going back to the very beginning (Luk. 1:1-2). 

Basic principles of hermeneutics

With this background, a more detailed account of what counts as good interpretation can be provided. I have often said in my essays that we should avoid the two extremes of thinking either that we can achieve one final objective interpretation (modernism) or that we can freely form interpretations (postmodernism). We must search for "better" interpretations. But what is a better interpretation and is it not too subjective an approach? 

The main problem in hermeneutics is that we do not have the tools of the empirical sciences available (see my discussion in [1]). This, however, does not stop readers from seeking some foundationalist grounds in interpreting texts. Some Christians, for example, are unaware that there is an enormous gap between us and the authors, between our traditions or paradigms and theirs. They think that they have access to the intentions of the Biblical authors and that they, therefore, have access to the final truth in our understanding of Biblical passages. Some think that the Holy Spirit guides them in this - forgetting that other Christians, who also have the Spirit, follow other interpretations. The apostle Paul cautions in this regard when he says: "now we know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12). 

Others think that tradition can serve as the foundation for final objective interpretations, arguing, for example, that the Catholic tradition is the correct one, in part because God entrusted to them the affirmation of the Biblical canon. This view forgets that the canon was already accepted in the early church [5] and that the Roman Catholic Church made many other decisions that are clearly ungodly, for example in establishing the Inquisition which led to the murder of great numbers of Christians. One good decision (i.e. accepting the canon) does not give it any foundational ground in establishing truth in all interpretation.

The acknowledgement that we do not have access to objective interpretations does not imply that we are stuck with relativism. Not at all. But we should accept that our human mind restricts us (we do not have a so-call God's eye view) in a manner that we cannot overcome. All our interpretations are coloured by our individual and traditional/paradigmatic backgrounds [6]. All our interpretations are underlain by our system of belief which could be religious (with all its variety) or agnostic (atheistic), but which are always situated within a certain informal (cultural) or more formal (academic) paradigm. This is the basic ground from which we interpret texts.

Furthermore, there is an uncrossable gap between us and the world of the texts. In Kantian terms (in reference to the philosopher Immanuel Kant), we can speak of the world in which the authors operated, the tradition from which they came, their worldviews and their personal intentions, as a "world in itself", i.e. the world of the authors as it really is beyond any possibility of us ever accessing it. (In the rest of the essay I will also use some examples from Kantian interpretation). This includes the manner in which that world is presented in the text as well as the background behind the coming into being of such texts (for ancient texts like the Bible, the real textual history is forever lost [7]). Since we are so severely restricted, both by our own human condition as well as the inaccessibility of the world-in-itself of the text, and we do not have the tools of the empirical sciences available in hermeneutics, we can never arrive at an objective interpretation which can be empirically confirmed. 

This inaccessibility of the ancient world of the text as it really was, is also the reason why there are certain aspects of the earliest Biblical world which we would probably never fully understand, for example, why the early forefathers mentioned in the Book of Genesis (and those mentioned in the ancient Sumerian King List with which the lists in Genesis show agreement) have been accorded such long lives. Some agnostics and atheists are quite good in snuffing out such passages, but it is unclear to me how that helps their case. Once we understand the reasons behind such passages we would probably also be able to make sense thereof.  


Although we cannot achieve objective interpretations, we can nevertheless formulate certain rules of interpretation which should guide our interpretation of texts. We should bring all interpretation of texts under these basic rules of understanding. These are well-founded (but not foundational) and enable us to discard wrong interpretations (on both sides). They show that we have good reasons to discard certain interpretations (and therefore reject relativism) but also that we cannot achieve one single objective interpretation (and therefore reject foundationalism). And they force us to acknowledge that other interpretations than our own (even from other paradigms than our own) could be valid interpretations of the Biblical text. These are

1. No internal inconsistencies. We can accept that any rational author would try to eliminate inconsistencies in his/her writing. Although it is possible that the text does, in fact, contains inconsistencies of its own, often perceived inconsistencies are caused by the distance between us and the texts and are therefore pseudo-inconsistencies. Pseudo-inconsistencies arise due to insufficient information about the world of the author and the events that he/she is writing about. It can also be due to artificial conflicts created by simplistic readings, sometimes by scholars who think it is scientific to accentuate and articulate all sorts of assumed conflicts in the textual accounts.  The use of this rule implies that interpretations which find important inconsistencies in the text should be rejected in support of those which reduce inconsistencies to a minimum. The reason for such inconsistencies lies with the interpretation, not with the text! In Kantian studies, for example, the so-called two-object interpretation has led to many notorious inconsistencies in his view. Since these disappear in the alternative two-aspect interpretation, we know that these are not of Kant's own making. 

In Biblical studies, the same thing happens all the time. Often inconsistencies appear when readers interpret the Bible from a scientific standpoint, forgetting that the authors did not write with such factual perspectives in mind; they wrote with integrity, but we should not take everything that they wrote as if they made scientific statements about the world. Writing with integrity implies that they wrote what they saw and experienced, not about things far beyond their knowledge (except with regard to prophecy, which involves a particular form of divine inspiration). We, for example, find in the six solar day interpretation of creation in Genesis 1 the glaring inconsistency that God made the sun only on the fourth solar day. So there were three solar days without the sun! Clearly, it is wrong to think that the author made a scientific statement that God created in six solar days! He did not. There are other better interpretations in which this inconsistency does not occur (see my discussion of these issues in the series on the Book of Genesis [8]). On the other hand, agnostics and atheists often use these pseudo-inconsistencies as evidence that the Bible is full of errors.

2. Sufficient use of context. The background in which texts were written, the relevant historical and archaeological data, related texts from that period etc. should be used to establish well-grounded (but not foundational) interpretations. We cannot arrive at good interpretations of Biblical texts if we do not take the world from which the Bible originated into account. In texts from more recent periods, such background information can establish final confirmation of some aspects of texts. In ancient texts, like the Bible, we often find that the text can be situated in various possible contexts. Often traditional scholars would place the time of writing in an early context whereas Biblical Criticism scholarship would place it much later. 

How do we solve this problem? This is where the insights of Gadamer are important. If we have insufficient external data or there is no good reason to distrust the textual account, we should have an open attitude and be willing to really listen to the voices of the authors and the tradition from which they originated. We should not just automatically assume that the textual tradition is untrustworthy. One of the reasons why contemporary Biblical Criticism scholarship date many Biblical texts to the Babylonian exile and later is due to their belonging to that paradigm - they cannot absolve themselves from that paradigm in spite of all the major errors made by previous scholars, for example, in their formulation of the documentary hypothesis (see [1]). 

The errors of modernist scholarship have resulted in many contemporary scholars from that paradigm accepting a postmodern perspective - but, as I have shown above, even this is indirectly grounded on the interpretations of modernist scholarship (it is a reaction to that). Such scholars will find every possible reason to adhere to the established paradigmatic grounds for interpretation for the simple reason that it is deeply ingrained into their very being by the paradigm in which they operate (the same is, obviously, true for the traditional paradigm, but in that case we do not have such obvious errors which discredited the general Biblical Criticism approach in interpretation (see [1]).

3. Use the hermeneutic circle. We should accept that any author writes a unified account in which he/she weaves all the parts of the narrative into a whole, irrespective of the sources that are being used in doing so. This allows us to use the parts to understand the whole and the whole to understand the parts. We should also value the continuous tradition in which the authors wrote. The reason for this is simple: At that period tradition was still very resistant to change; it is only with mass media that culture can be changed quite rapidly. This rule allows us to treat the Old and New Testaments as part of one continuous and interwoven tradition, rejecting all approaches which atomize the Biblical material.

This rule gives preference to synchronic (unified in time) approaches to the text and reduce diachronic (distinguishing the parts and their singular histories) approaches to secondary status. Often diachronic approaches bring the text into internal conflict with itself. The various parts (supposedly derived from different sources) is thought to stand in conflict with each other. Such diachronic approaches assume that the best manner to understand the text is to use a patchwork approach. But often this approach itself creates the very pseudo-inconsistencies which such scholars think that they find in the text! It is only when we cannot find any unified key (and this does not mean that one will not eventually be found), that we can provisionally allow such approaches.

Many examples can be given in this regard. It has, for example, become custom to use patchwork approaches to understand Kant's view on freedom in his Critique of Pure Reason. But some authors like Henry Allison have shown that we can, in fact, arrive at a unified interpretation in this regard. The same thing happened in Biblical Criticism where the documentary hypothesis, which finds various "sources" in the text of the Pentateuch, have created a patchwork of epic proportions. The unity in the text is reduced to an absolute secondary consideration. The various parts (sources) stand apart and in conflict with each other since they are supposedly written in different epochs and later crudely combined. The text is taken apart like a motor engine. This goes against the very grain of the principle of the hermeneutic circle and should be discarded (except when clear evidence to the contrary is provided as in the case of Tatian's Diatessaron, which group passages in the gospels together in one integrated work).

As I mentioned above, these rules are always applied from within a certain perspective. We cannot go beyond that. So, when it comes to metaphysical questions, our worldview which is grounded in the paradigm to which we belong will determine our view. As evangelical Christians, we can insist on the Biblical pronouncements regarding miracles, prophecy and the divine inspiration of Scripture (II Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). As such, we cannot accept that the Biblical text is placed on an equal footing with other ancient texts. We cannot but make a decision in this regard: either we take the Biblical perspective as the basis or we take other perspectives, which cannot be anything but a rejection of this perspective, namely that the Biblical text is divinely inspired.

Re-reading the Bible

We can now focus in more detail on the material in the Book of Genesis, especially in the "ancient history" (Gen. 1-11), to illustrate the point. When reading the Bible one is struck by the amount of Mesopotamian material used in this ancient history. Clearly, the author has been influenced by Mesopotamian historical and cultural perspectives. But how did that material end up in the Bible? We can discern two obvious possibilities, namely 1) that a historical Abraham brought that material from Sumer from where he is said to have originated, i.e. from the city of Ur, after which it was handed down in the family until it was used by an early author (like Moses) when he wrote the Book of Genesis, or alternatively, 2) that the author came into possession of the material due to Israel's Babylonian exile.

Some scholars who adhere to the documentary hypothesis think that some of the sources which they find in the Pentateuch, in which that material is used, originated in the in-between period, somewhere during the monarchical period. This is not necessarily in contrast with the first view but would be if it is assumed that the Mesopotamian material diffused to Israelite circles during this in-between period. Since all the material is grouped together in a well-presented whole in the ancient history of Genesis 1-11, and clearly includes much more than accidental or occasional borrowing, it is difficult, however, to see how this could have happened in any other period than those mentioned above, in which Israel had no direct contact with Mesopotamia.

The first view assumes that the material in the book is very old and had been delivered down in patriarchal and Israelite circles since the eighteenth century BC; the second view assumes that the material dates from the sixth century BC or later. The first view strongly suggests that the rest of the Old Testament narrative is historically correct and refers to real historical persons and events. The second view doubts large parts of that narrative.

Many scholars in Biblical Criticism circles believe that the second view is correct. But can this be? There is a substantial problem with this view since there is no post-Abrahamic (post-Old-Babylonian) material included in the Book of Genesis (even if we view the relevant passages as containing some argument against other contemporary views). (Definitely not from the Babylonian Enuma Elish as is often argued without any substantial evidence!). But how is it possible that there is no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian material per se included in the book if the author lived in or after that period? How did it happen that he ignored all contemporary material? He would surely have included at least some material which reflects the period in which he was writing! But none at all! 

I challenge any Biblical scholar to show me any Mesopotamian material included in the Book of Genesis which dates from the post-Old-Babylonian period per se. That places a large question mark over this position. It seems that this hypothesis is accepted without good argumentation. It is accepted simply because of the presupposition which accepts that the Bible was written late and that no early inclusion of such material could have been possible. If we are more open-minded, we can allow for the possibility presented in the text and Biblical tradition, namely that the book was in fact written early.

There are many features in Genesis 1-11 which underlines the ancient character of the text. It is not possible in this essay to discuss all the material in any detail (see my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). I can mention a few things. One is the above-mentioned Mesopotamian material included therein. Another is the lists of genealogies, the exceptionally long lives of those people and the short remarks in between, all of which also occur in the Sumerian King List which date from about 2000 BC. (No document from the exilic period shares these features).

There is a lot of other data which confirms that the material in the Book of Genesis must be very old. A good reason to think that the Abrahamic history was written down early, is because it also records the oracles of God given to him. We know from other Middle Eastern data from that period (from Mari) that such oracles were in fact written down [9]. Also, some historical data regarding Abraham's period could only have come from historical sources in this regard. This includes, but is by no means restricted to, the fact about the Elamitic incursion into northern Syria (there was only one), the name of the leader of that incursion (the shortened form shares the root structure k-d: Chedor/Kudu), the period when it happened (1822 B.C., which agrees perfectly with the dates in the Septuagint) etc. I discuss the evidence for a historical Abraham in detail in my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). Furthermore, the Book of Genesis also includes material which obviously goes back to the time before the name Elohim became established. This older stratum is visible in the name under which the Abrahamic family worshipped their God, namely El-Shaddai (God Almighty), as well as the name of Melchizedek's God, namely El-Elyon (Most High God) [10].

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to argue in any detail that one author wrote the book (recognizing that he obviously used older source material handed down from the fathers), I can mention a few things in this regard. Single authorship is disputed in the documentary hypothesis, according to which the book is regarded as a patchwork of sources. The book is divided between the Y (Yahweh), E (Elohim) and P (Priestly) sources. Just in the ancient history of Genesis 1-11 we find the following division: Y: 2:4b-4:24,25c; 6:1-8; 7:1-5,7,10,12,16a-20,22,23; 8:2b-3a,6,8-12,13b,20-22; 9:18-27; 10:8-19,21,24-30; 11:1-9. P: 1:1-2:3; 6:9-22; 7:8,9,11,13-16a,21,24; 8:1,2,3b-5,7,13a,14-19; 9:1-17; 10:1-7,20,31,32; 11:27-31. E: starts from chapter 20.

There is, however, reasons to think that the "ancient history" forms a single whole which was written by one author as a single document. The most important of these are the very particular and unique features which clearly sets it aside from the rest of the Pentateuch (and even from the rest of the Book of Genesis!), namely the use of ancient Mesopotamian material, combined with pre-patriarchal lineages with long lives and short comments in between. The material, as well as its presentation, is typical of Sumerian sources, as mentioned before (I have already mentioned that no post-old-Babylonian material whatsoever is found therein!). We also find, unique to this ancient history, that a strange and clearly very ancient way of referring to God as "us" is used on three occasions in the material which supposedly belong to different sources, namely in Genesis 1:26, 3:22 and 11:7. Since it is extremely unlikely that any later editor of the text (who may have combined the Y and P sources) would have used such archaic terminology, this is a clear sign of single authorship.

In the Masoretic text, the divine name Yahweh-Elohim is used only in the garden story. This usage does not appear again in the "ancient history" (Gen. 1-11; except once in Gen. 9:26). In the Septuagint [11], however, we find that the divine name Yahweh-Elohim is used throughout the ancient history and even sporadically thereafter in the Book of Genesis. The unity of the ancient history (as is manifest from the use of the Godly "us") strongly suggests that the Septuagint incorporates the original reading. What is also interesting about the Septuagint reading, is that the divine names Elohim and Yahweh-Elohim alternate (i.e. both are used) throughout the ancient history. This totally negates the documentary hypothesis which allocates the sources according to the supposed use of different divine names by the authors. So, on the whole, it seems that we have good reasons to reject the documentary hypothesis and accept single authorship of the ancient history in Genesis.

In trying to preserve the documentary hypothesis one can argue that it at least explains the use of Elohim and Yahweh respectively, which typically appear in passages where God is presented as aloof (Elohim) or in anthropomorphic form respectively (Yahweh often appears in human form in dreams or in person). But this usage can easily be explained differently. In my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel) I show that we can clearly distinguish two early forms of El in Israelite literature, namely El-Shaddai and El-Elyon which is closely associated with the roles of "king of the gods" (Gen. 49:23-25, see especially the Septuagint reading; Ex. 15:18, which should be read with Ex. 6:2; Ps. 95:3 etc.) and "father of the gods" (Ps. 82:6 etc.) in the council of the gods [10]. Without taking the ancient concept of the council of the gods (see 1 Ki. 22: 19-22; Ps. 82: 2; 89: 7, 8; Ezek. 28: 16; Is. 14: 13) into consideration, we lose all connection with the ancient manner of thinking.

Now, it seems that the name Elohim, which could originally have been a plurality, developed as the unified form of God in which both these El-forms were combined (see Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). So, it makes sense that the divine names are distinguished. This would explain the usage of the divine "us" by Elohim in the ancient history (in Gen. 3:22 the Septuagint, which I take as the correct reading, have Elohim, not Yahweh-Elohim, speaking as "us"). It also makes sense that Yahweh is typically presented in anthropomorphic form. He had a special connection with the patriarchs and their early forebears (starting with Adam and Eve) because we read that this name (Yahweh) supplanted El-Shaddai, the forefatherly name of the Abrahamic family after it was revealed to Moses (see Ex. 6:2). So, El-Shaddai, the forefatherly name of the patriarchal family was replaced with Yahweh, the God of Israel, after they became a people during the exodus. The author of Genesis obviously wrote after that, which is why he used the name Yahweh when referring to that particular manifestation of God. (I plan to discuss this issue in more detail in future essays on this blog).

In the same manner, we can also argue for the unity of the Book of Genesis as a whole. There are various features unique to the book which does not appear in the rest of the Pentateuch, namely the repeated use of the expression "(the book) of the generations of" (Gen. 2:4a; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12, 19; 36:1,9; 37:2), the references to the oracles of God to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:1-33; 22:1-2, 15-18) and the other patriarchs (although this also appears sporadically later in Israel's history), the unique patriarchal setting of the narratives, the use of the divine name El-Shaddai (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; other than here, this name only appears sporadically in Hebrew literature) as well as the corresponding name El-Elyon (Gen. 14:18,19,20,22).

According to the documentary hypothesis, this whole is cut into a lot of bits and pieces (see above). The Abrahamic oracles are divided between the Y and P sources (P: only Gen. 17:1-22) and the use of the divine name El-Shaddai is also ascribed to both the Y and P sources, as well as EYE (Editor of YE)! (Y: 49:25; P: 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3; EYE: 43:14). The expression "book" of generations (see Gen. 5:1) seems to imply that the original author used source material which could be ordered as "books" when he wrote Genesis; not that a later editor used the terminology. These sections of "generations" stand in direct contrast with the source theory, which negates the unity of these sections and cut it into various pieces. In the light of all the unified features of the Book of Genesis, the source theory seems unconvincing. There is, in fact, nowadays a general trend to discard such diachronic approaches for synchronic ones; clearly with good reason!

An early date for and a single author of the Book of Genesis does not imply that editors did not later add and reworked parts of the book. In the Israelite tradition, it often happened that later authors added comments or clarified the information in the text. We, for example, find that a later author included the words "of the Chaldees" after the city name Ur to affirm which city is referred to (Gen. 11:28, 31). The Chaldees are the Neo-Babylonians who appeared after the turn of the first millennium in the area of the city of Babylon. This reference, however, does not mean that the whole book was written in this period! This would be a very simplistic reading of the book. It merely shows that someone such as Ezra edited the book.

We can now come back to the original question: Can we still believe the Bible? If the approaches that were previously used in the academic study of the Bible are so deeply flawed, then the present consensus in a large segment of secular society is just plain wrong. The fact that so many people believe that the Bible was written late and can therefore not be trusted as a source of history, does not make it the correct view. Informed readers should reject that assumption - on good grounds. How do we swipe all these centuries of bad scholarship off the carpet? How do we restructure deeply held opinions - assumed to be academically arrived at? In my opinion, the documentary hypothesis should not be salvaged, it should be discarded. If it fails in the ancient history or the Book of Genesis, it fails in the Pentateuch as a whole. Instead, we should recognize that we need to approach the Bible anew - with an open mind and ready to listen to the authors and their tradition who speak to us through the text. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot believe the Bible.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have focused on only one basic aspect regarding the credibility of the Bible, namely hermeneutics. It is immediately clear that the modernist approach to the Bible - as well as the new postmodernist one - did/do not listen to the authors speaking with us through the text. It forced a modernist "objective" perspective onto the text - distorting the message in the text beyond recognition. Current philosophical thought rejects that approach - hermeneutics involves an open conversation between author and reader. Although we cannot reconstruct the intention of the authors, we can arrive at valid interpretations. We can confirm that there is a healthy middle ground of possible interpretations, some better than others. The rules of good hermeneutic principles should guide us in this.

Although it has become generally accepted in secular society that the Bible was written late and is an unreliable source regarding history, we can remind ourselves that society has often in the past held views that we consider to be wrong today. The problem is that the acknowledgement of the errors of modernism did not lead to a radical new beginning, but to a new phase which built on the ruins of the past. We should reject that. We can conclude that the Bible is trustworthy. In my studies, I have not found any reason why we should doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible.

[1] Click on: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
[2] I took this from Eta Linnemann's book Historical Criticism of the Bible, Methodology or Ideology (1990), page 87. She was a Biblical Criticism scholar (professor at Marburg, East Germany) but renounced all her previous work after her conversion. Chapters 6-8 of her book is highly recommended and reflects her in-depth knowledge of Biblical Criticism. Some criticism can, however, be levelled against the rest of the book. In my opinion (as a scientist) her view is too anti-science. Her arguments about the unscientific nature of immature science are generally acknowledged by philosophers of science. When the natural sciences reach maturity, however, they are empirically well-grounded (even though the theory could include unconfirmed perspectives). The main problem with historical Biblical Criticism which she should have accentuated is that it tried to establish itself as an empirical science. This is not possible since it is merely a hermeneutic discipline (see [1].)
Another possible criticism that I have of Linnemann's work, concerns her hermeneutics. When she says that God's Word is independent of interpretation (p154), it can (I assume, incorrectly) be taken as meaning that we have access to it without interpreting it. This, however, is wrong. But it is true that the text as divinely inspired is independent of any particular interpretation. This is reflected in 2 Peter 1:19-21 where we read: "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". This verse does not negate all human interpretation of the text (we have no choice but to interpret the text); it says that the text did not come into being as the result of mere human interpretations (i.e. those of the prophets regarding their times and future events). There is no reason why we cannot develop better interpretations of the text when new information about ancient times etc. becomes available. But, for evangelical Christians, such interpretations should adhere to basic evangelical principles.
[3] Gerald Bray argues that a new hermeneutic paradigm has opened up in the academic study of the Bible, namely that three approaches to the formal, scholarly study of Scripture have evolved, namely the historical-critical tradition (which no longer possess the monopoly that it once had), the "social trends" approach (which focuses on current social and political issues) and "conservative evangelicalism" (Biblical Interpretation Past and Present, 1996, InterVarsity).
[4] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Truth and Method (translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, second, revised ed.). New York: Crossroad. Gadamer is one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century.
[5] Although it took some time before the canon as we know it was widely accepted in the church, the early church used a very basic principle to decide, namely that the authors of the New Testament had to be either an apostle or brother of the Lord (Hand. 1:14 etc.), or wrote under the guidance of and with the approval of the apostles. They included only those texts in the canon of which they were convinced that they adhered to this principle.
[6] Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago. Click also on: Paradigmas in konflik: Bybelwetenskap vs traditionalisme
[7] Only in later periods, when known texts are used, is it possible to compose a (partial) textual history. I discuss this issue in the second part of the following essay (click on): A critique of archaeology as a science
[8] The Book of Genesis, Part 1 etc.
[9] Click on: Bible prophecy: Predicting the distant future? 
[10] Herbert Niehr argued in his book Der hochste Gott (1990) that these names for God are a late development. But this view cannot explain why El-Elyon is regarded in the Biblical writings as the "father of the gods", which is a very ancient concept. It can also not explain why El-Shaddai is closely connected with the role of "king of the gods". The only way to distinguish these roles is to take the ancient concept of the council of the gods into consideration as well as the Israelite reworking of developments in that council (see my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel).
[11] Click on: The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology. 

For a more in-depth discussion of the Book of Genesis, see my series of essays on it. To read, click on Part 1 etc.  
Read also 
Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective.

Part 3. Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective
Part 4. Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective

Readers are welcome to share the essay with friends and others.