Freddy Davis shares one of the great research flaws of evolutionary “science.”
Language and Evolution
March 4, 2025 | Freddy Davis
Sign Up To Receive Our Free Newsletter In Your Inbox!
“”Sorry, but you’re trying to tell me to ignore the evidence in front of my eyes in favor of a literal interpretation of the obviously mythical early parts of Genesis. Just because you don’t have a technical understanding of our universe doesn’t mean that those of us who do will join you in your delusion. The worst part is that absolutely none of God’s work is done by adhering to the YEC delusion! You’re not advancing his Kingdom by refusing to meet others where they are, in fact you’re detracting from it.””
“”It’s not just “mythical,” it’s far more deep and interesting — it’s liturgical, transforming the real events into meaningful symbols and rituals, and because of how much was oral tradition plus the fact that the Deuteronomic Reforms stripped a lot of the old meanings out there’s a lot that the original rituals meant that is lost in the canonical texts, which you can only find evidence for in apocryphal works.
This isn’t the only place that takes a liturgical approach to Scripture rather than a literal account — for example the Gospel according to John. John does not present his account as a historical account at all, but rather drastically rearranges the order of events to teach things that are deeper and far more interesting than the words. It begins with Jesus as the Creator, rather than a record of his birth, which birth he skips. It jumps to speaking with Nicodemus about becoming pure, then transforming water into wine, and so forth — the sequence to teach how Christ makes us pure. His structure in many places is designed to draw parallels between Christ and the various temple rituals, even at the end where the people are given a choice whether to crucify Jesus or Bar-Abbas (which, interestingly enough, means “son of the Father”) they choose to crucify Jesus, which is reminiscent of the Day of Atonement ritual (which John places the crucifixion as being on that day) in which two rams are chosen, one named Yahweh and the other another name associated with Satan, the one named Yahweh sacrificed and the blood placed on the Ark of the Covenant, and the other one released. (And isn’t Jesus Yahweh?)
Everything gets so much more powerful and interesting when you allow for such flexibility in the literality of the events. And this is in no way denying that there was a creation, or that man was created in the image of God, or that Adam and Eve were fooled by Satan and stripped of immortality in exchange for an understanding of agency. It’s simply accepting that what we’re told is an oversimplification for meaning, because the greater complexity takes away from the point in the same way getting into the details of how a semiconductor works takes away from explaining how a computer works.””
Interesting theory, but you are doing nothing more than assaulting my hermeneutic as having no real evidence to support it while advocating for your interpretation that has even less evidence than the literal interpretation. What concrete evidence do you have that what you are saying is true other then your own opinion? So many people have tried to create metaphorical systems to interpret the Bible, and most of them end up either promoting a false theology or even creating a new religion. What makes the early parts of Genesis “obviously mythical?” What “technical understanding of our universe” are you appealing to as objective evidence of your approach? How do you know that your interpretation is true? If you are wanting to have a more “powerful and interesting” story line for biblical teaching, perhaps you should just do what John Smith or L. Ron Hubbard did and write your own story rather than reinterpreting the Bible to say something it does not say. I don’t think you can back up your criticism.