Jonah: I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, everything written in it is true and accurate. If the Bible mentions a scientific fact, we can trust it as completely true. For instance, consider Isaiah 40:22, which says “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.” This was written hundreds of years before scientists discovered the Earth was round.

Carl: I also hold deep respect for the Bible and see it as inspired. However, I don’t think it’s primarily a scientific textbook. Its purpose is to convey spiritual truths and the relationship between God and humans. The reference you mentioned from Isaiah is metaphorical and not necessarily a scientific statement. Similarly, when Jesus said in Matthew 13:31-32 that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that grows into the largest of garden plants, He was using a parable to convey a spiritual message, not a botanical fact.

Jonah: True, but the Bible does have instances that align with science. Look at Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” This verse clearly indicates that the Earth hangs in space, a fact that was only confirmed thousands of years later.

Carl: I agree that there are verses which, in retrospect, seem to align with what we know scientifically. However, it’s essential to understand the primary audience and the intention of the writers. When Job was written, the main goal wasn’t to teach astronomy. It was to communicate God’s sovereignty and the mystery of His creation. I think we can appreciate the spiritual depth of these texts without necessarily expecting them to be scientific explanations.

Jonah: But Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Nature and the universe are a testament to God’s creation, and science is just a way for us to understand this creation. So, when the Bible talks about nature or the universe, it’s reflecting God’s truths, and hence it’s scientific.

Carl: I see where you’re coming from. Psalm 19:1 indeed speaks of nature revealing God’s glory. Yet, science is a method of understanding the natural world, while the Bible communicates why it was created and who created it. They’re two sides of the same coin, but with different purposes. The Bible wasn’t written to be a comprehensive guide to the natural world in the way our modern science textbooks are.

Jonah: Still, if the Bible mentions a fact, we can trust it to be true because it’s God’s Word.

Carl: I believe the Bible is true in what it intends to teach. But we should approach it understanding its context and purpose. For instance, the six-day creation in Genesis can be seen as a poetic structure rather than a literal six-day period. It conveys the idea of God as the Creator, with an order and purpose to creation. Not necessarily a step-by-step scientific explanation.

Jonah: So, you’re saying we should not take the Bible literally?

Carl: Not in every instance. We should consider the genre, context, and original intention. Some parts are poetic, some are historical, some are prophetic. The main purpose of the Bible is to guide us in our spiritual journey and relationship with God, not necessarily to give detailed scientific accounts. By doing so, we can truly appreciate its depth and beauty without conflating its message.

Jonah: In Exodus 20:11, it clearly says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This is a clear affirmation of the literal six-day creation. How can we pick and choose what to interpret literally and what not to?

Carl: The verse you cited from Exodus is indeed a reflection of the Genesis creation narrative. However, it’s important to remember that in ancient times, numbers often held symbolic significance. The number seven, for example, frequently symbolised completeness or perfection in the biblical world. So, when we read about a six-day creation followed by a day of rest, it may be conveying the idea of a complete and ordered work of creation rather than a literal week-long period.

onah: But doesn’t that open the door to subjectivity? If we start interpreting foundational narratives as non-literal, where does it stop? Doesn’t this undermine the authority of Scripture?

Carl: Not necessarily. Interpretation has always been part of our interaction with Scripture. For instance, when Jesus says in John 6:54, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” most Christians interpret this metaphorically, understanding it in the context of the Last Supper and the symbolic meaning of communion, rather than believing we should literally consume Christ’s flesh. Recognising the Bible’s varied literary styles doesn’t undermine its authority but shows our deep engagement and respect for the text.

Jonah: Yet, the six-day creation isn’t just a singular narrative. It’s foundational to the biblical worldview, indicating that God is the ultimate Creator and Sustainer. If we start viewing it as just symbolic, doesn’t it weaken the essence of the message?

Carl: I believe understanding the six-day creation as symbolic doesn’t diminish its significance. Instead, it amplifies it. Rather than being a scientific account, it becomes a profound theological statement about the nature of God, His relationship with creation, and the inherent order and purpose in the universe. This perspective allows for compatibility between the biblical account and our scientific understanding of the universe’s age and evolution.

Jonah: So, are you suggesting that belief in evolution and the Bible can coexist?

Carl: Many Christians see no contradiction between evolutionary science and the message of the Bible. We believe that science explains the “how” of creation, while the Bible explains the “why.” They’re complementary narratives, each providing a different layer of understanding.

Jonah: I have concerns about reconciling evolution with the Bible. For instance, in Genesis 1:27 it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This seems to clearly indicate a direct act of creation by God, rather than an evolutionary process. How can you reconcile this with the idea of humans evolving from simpler forms of life?

Carl: The verse you pointed out is indeed a foundational declaration of humanity’s special relationship with God. However, I believe the emphasis in that passage is on our spiritual and moral nature — our ability to reason, to love, to discern good from evil — rather than the specifics of our biological origins. The idea is that, however our bodies came to be, it is our souls that reflect the image of God.

Jonah: But if we accept evolution, it implies death and suffering existed before the Fall. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” This suggests death came as a result of sin, which seems contradictory to evolutionary theory.

Carl: That’s a challenging point. One way to view it is to differentiate between spiritual death and physical death. Perhaps the death mentioned in Romans pertains to spiritual separation from God due to sin, rather than the natural cycle of life and death in the animal kingdom. Evolution could be the process through which God brought about biological diversity, but the spiritual implications of sin and death are distinct from that.

Jonah: Still, if we view Adam and Eve as symbolic or part of an allegorical narrative, it challenges the foundational understanding of original sin. Doesn’t that then have implications on the need for Jesus’ sacrifice?

Carl: It’s a deep and important theological question. Many Christians who accept evolution believe in a historical Adam and Eve, perhaps seeing them as representative individuals or a specific group from whom all humans descended. They played a unique role in God’s relationship with humanity. The core truth remains: humanity, at some point, chose self and sin over God, necessitating redemption. This doesn’t diminish the importance of Jesus’ sacrifice but frames it within a broader understanding of God’s interaction with His creation.

Jonah: By integrating evolutionary theory, we’re allowing secular thinking to influence and dilute the purity of biblical teaching.

Carl: I’d argue that it’s not about dilution, but about deepening our understanding. Throughout history, Christians have integrated new knowledge with their faith, from the works of Aristotle in the Middle Ages to the discoveries of Galileo. The key is to ensure our interpretations align with the core tenets of our faith. For me, and many others, evolution is a testament to the grandeur of God’s creation, showing His ability to set in motion processes that lead to incredible diversity and complexity.

Jonah: If we accept evolution, particularly the idea that humans share common ancestry with other creatures, doesn’t that undermine the uniqueness and special status of humans in God’s creation? Psalm 8:4-5 says, “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honour.”

Carl: Accepting evolution doesn’t necessarily diminish our unique status. It’s possible to see evolution as the tool God used to create the biological framework of humanity, but our souls — our capacity for morality, love, creativity, and relationship with God — set us apart. Even if our bodies are the product of a lengthy evolutionary process, our spiritual essence is what makes us unique and is in line with the sentiments expressed in Psalm 8.

Jonah: Yet, in 1 Corinthians 15:39, it’s mentioned: “Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.” This distinction seems to go against the evolutionary principle of common descent.

Carl: The context of 1 Corinthians 15 is Paul’s discussion about the resurrection, emphasising the difference between our earthly bodies and the transformed, spiritual bodies believers will receive. The differentiation in verse 39 could be seen as highlighting the various types of bodies God created, acknowledging the diversity in creation, rather than making a statement against common ancestry.

Jonah: But many evolutionary biologists and scientists argue from a purely naturalistic perspective, often sidelining or even denying the role of a Creator. How can we, as believers, reconcile our faith with a theory that many proponents use to argue against the very existence of God?

Carl: It’s true that some use evolution as an argument against a divine Creator, but the theory itself is neutral. It’s a framework for understanding the diversity and interconnectedness of life. As believers, we can see evolution as a reflection of the creative process, viewing God as the initiator and sustainer of this process. The natural mechanisms and patterns we observe can be seen as the fingerprints of God’s handiwork. The key is to differentiate between the scientific theory of evolution and the philosophical or atheistic interpretations some people derive from it.

Jonah: It feels like a slippery slope. If we start interpreting foundational biblical accounts as metaphorical or allegorical, doesn’t it jeopardise the integrity of our faith?

Carl: Throughout Christian history, scholars and theologians have always grappled with the tension between literal and allegorical interpretations. Think about the book of Revelation, parables of Jesus, or even some of the prophetic writings. The goal is to discern the intended message and truth of the scripture. For many, seeing Genesis in a non-literal way doesn’t diminish its theological truths but provides a framework to harmonise faith with our expanding scientific understanding.

Jonah: If we start questioning the literal nature of foundational narratives like the six-day creation, where does that lead us? How can we be certain about other historical events, such as the Exodus or even the Resurrection?

Carl: Again, we should remember that the Bible is a collection of diverse texts with varying literary styles, genres, and purposes. Some books, like Psalms, are poetic; others, like Chronicles or Kings, aim to record history. Recognising the poetic structure of Genesis doesn’t necessarily cast doubt on the historicity of, say, the Gospels or Acts.

Jonah: But what about the stories of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, or Jonah and the whale? Are these merely allegorical tales, or did they genuinely happen? It seems to me that casting doubt on one part of the Bible can have a domino effect on the rest.

Carl: Each story and book should be considered in its context. For instance, the story of Jonah might be viewed by some scholars as a parable about repentance and God’s mercy, whereas others believe it to be a historical event. Similarly, the account of Noah might be understood as a regional flood story that conveys deeper theological truths about human sinfulness and God’s grace. The key is not to read everything with the same lens but to understand the context, culture, and intended purpose of each text.

Jonah: But the Gospels are central to our faith. If we allow for a flexible interpretation of earlier scriptures, doesn’t it compromise the historical truth of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection?

Carl: I’d argue the opposite. Recognising and understanding the different genres within the Bible allows us to give even more weight to the historical reliability of the Gospels. The Gospel writers intended to record the life and teachings of Jesus for posterity, and external historical sources also affirm many aspects of the New Testament narratives. We shouldn’t see this as an all-or-nothing issue. Respecting the diversity of the biblical texts doesn’t diminish the historical truth claims where they’re made.

Jonah: Still, the Bible asserts in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” If we start parsing out what’s historical and what’s metaphorical, aren’t we risking cherry-picking and undermining the Bible’s authority?

Carl: 2 Timothy 3:16 is a foundational verse about the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Yet, even as all Scripture is God-breathed, it doesn’t mean every part should be read in the same way. Just as Jesus used parables to teach truths about the Kingdom of God, other biblical writers employed various genres to convey God’s truths. Recognising those distinctions enhances, rather than undermines, our understanding and application of Scripture.

Our faith calls us to continuously seek wisdom and understanding. It’s vital for us, as Christians, to engage in these dialogues, always aiming to reflect God’s love and wisdom in our lives and the lives of those around us.