How much is too much evolution?

There are plenty of Bibles that do.  Of course not every Bible is going to have it when there are space limitations in publishing.

"space limitations"? How much space does it take to add the footnote: 'The reader is cautioned not to read this part of the Old Testament too literally'?

Isn't it the case that for many centuries Genesis and most of the OT was accepted as a factual account of how the Cosmos (as it was observed and understood in the late Bronze Age) came into existence? This is why I asked about the point at which scholars started to rethink this approach because I suspect it was in reaction to 'problems' thrown up by the Enlightenment. 

'Literal' is the wrong word to use even though people always do.  Poetry can still contain history and historical narrative can contain poetic, figurative elements.  In the case of Genesis 1 it's neither pure poetry or prose but a combination of both.  Hence, 'poetic prose' or 'exalted prose' as some scholars have called it.  What people are really asking when they talk about whether it's 'literal' is what's the intended meaning for the recipient audience.

But sure we can simplify for our purposes and speak in terms of 'literal' vs. 'allegorical'.  The truth is quite a few 2nd-3rd century early church 'fathers'/theologians believed not just Genesis but much of the Old Testament was supposed to be interpreted allegorically.  Some also cited things in the Bible that they saw as errors or contradictions (such as Matthew's gospel citing the wrong Old Testament prophet quotation).  They weren't troubled by such things because they did not expect divine inspiration to extend to such things, but to extend to spiritual truths.

 It really wasn't until the later Protestant Reformation that this hardline strict inerrancy we see in some quarters came about as an expansion of the Reformers 'sola scriptura' reaction against the Catholic church.

As far as "space limitations", yes, space limitations.  You know how big and heavy Study Bible's are!?  They can be pretty large and bulky.  

But @MindWalk had a similar complaint about lack of notes, so I recommended the online NET Bible.  Never heard back if he ever had a chance to look over it but I'll give you the link too:

NET Bible with translator notes

It has over 60,000 translator notes (tn) and study notes (sn). 

Now it's still not going to answer all possible questions, nor provide extended commentary on issues like 'literal' vs. 'allegorical' or creation/evolution, etc.  That's where one really needs to hit the scholarly articles and commentaries.  And even so a lot of people are surprised and disappointed/dissatisfied to discover most scholarly commentaries say next to nothing on creation/evolution and Genesis vs. modern science, etc.  Why?  Because as I keep stressing Genesis 1 and modern science are apples and oranges and don't speak to each other or have much to do with one another.  The commentaries focus on proper interpretation within the Ancient Near East historical context of the time just like they're supposed to.  Genesis 1 simply isn't interested in answering the questions and concerns that we 'moderns' find most pressing like how it fits in with evolution and the age of the earth and such.  Such questions are simply irrelevant to the text.  People have such a mental block about that.

That said, the translator (tn) and study notes (sn) are still useful and discuss a lot of the issues I've mentioned when relevant.  Click on any book of the Bible in the left panel and then the gray box near the bottom (or any links in the text) to show the translator & study notes. 

Here's an example from Genesis 1 where the accompanying translator notes explain the polemical nature of Genesis 1 (i.e., how as I said Genesis 1 is a refutation of Ancient Near East pagan cosmologies).  The note gives a specific example of this and where to go for more information.

Well that's lame.  You can't even read it.  Don't know why it shrunk the picture.  Here's what study note (sn) 37 says in the gray box:

37sn Two great lights. The text goes to great length to discuss the creation of these lights, suggesting that the subject was very important to the ancients. Since these “lights” were considered deities in the ancient world, the section serves as a strong polemic (see G. Hasel, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ 46 [1974]: 81-102). The Book of Genesis is affirming they are created entities, not deities. To underscore this the text does not even give them names. If used here, the usual names for the sun and moon [Shemesh and Yarih, respectively] might have carried pagan connotations, so they are simply described as greater and lesser lights. Moreover, they serve in the capacity that God gives them, which would not be the normal function the pagans ascribed to them. They merely divide, govern, and give light in God’s creation.

38tn Heb “and the stars.” Now the term “stars” is added as a third object of the verb “made.” Perhaps the language is phenomenological, meaning that the stars appeared in the sky from this time forward.

39tn Heb “them”; the referent (the lights mentioned in the preceding verses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

40sn In days one to three there is a naming by God; in days five and six there is a blessing by God. But on day four there is neither. It could be a mere stylistic variation. But it could also be a deliberate design to avoid naming “sun” and “moon” or promoting them beyond what they are, things that God made to serve in his creation."

Here's another example, that references the book The Hebrew Conception of the World, which goes in great depth about the ancient cosmological view presented in Genesis and also addresses poetic aspects of a specific verse.

And here's what study note (sn) 23 says:

23sn  An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.

***These notes are actually better than I thought they'd be.  Here's some more examples of explanatory notes for Genesis 1:

1tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

sn In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10).

9tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11).

sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.

35tn The language describing the cosmos, which reflects a prescientific view of the world, must be interpreted as phenomenal, describing what appears to be the case. The sun and the moon are not in the sky (below the clouds), but from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth, they appear that way. Even today we use similar phenomenological expressions, such as “the sun is rising” or “the stars in the sky.”

That rather misses my point which was that all kinds of readers of scripture throughout the centuries have understood the text (most of it at least) to be of a literal form, not allegorical or poetical because, for the most part, they haven't been told otherwise.

There's only a problem of course if those parts of scripture that resemble propositional statements - 'God' made Adam from a handful of dust, Eve from one of Adam's ribs and completed the creation in just six days (I realise the term 'day' is problematic but even so!) etc. - are claimed to have been divinely originated. I have no problem with anything written in scripture because I regard it as the setting down of the belief system(s) of an eastern Mediterranean tribe during the later Bronze Age, almost certainly derived from an earlier oral tradition.

That such people believed their 'God' had done any of these things is no more remarkable to me than the creation stories of the ancient Greeks or Incas.

For example, if you have no understanding of the rain cycle it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine that a vast reservoir of water must be suspended somewhere above the Earth but held back most of the time, such as to allow water to fall as rain.

I suspect you find no religious belief remarkable at all regardless of whether it originated in the Bronze Age or today.  In terms of history though it was quite unique and remarkable.  If you read enough Ancient Near East creation accounts you can't help but notice the stark differences, starting with monotheism in a pervasively polytheistic world.

Well, it isn't profitable to argue with an opinion, your views of scripture are completely different than mine.

I guess you missed the part where I said that's not true.  There have been allegorical interpretations since the early stages of Christianity.  Now Judaism was different in that the Rabbinical schools mainly went with a 'literal' seven-day interpretation.  But both of these are largely irrelevant when it comes to the question of original context in the Ancient Near East.  And based on your "literal, allegorical, or poetical" comment I see I need to stress again that the 'literal'-'allegorical' is an oversimplification (and bit of a false dichotomy), and that just because something's poetical (which Genesis 1, again, is not pure poetry but a combination of poetry and narrative prose), doesn't automatically mean it contains no history; and vice versa, just because something is ancient Hebrew 'historical' narrative doesn't necessarily mean it's presenting a literal historical account either (as *we* understand 'literal' today) without exaggerated or embellished figurative language to emphasize a point.  

This is why the poetry vs. narrative prose dichotomy is misleading and can't automatically be translated into 'allegory' vs. 'literal'.  And this is why the term 'literal' is itself misleading and depends greatly on what one means by 'literal' and the significance attached to it.  Let me illustrate why (*this will take a little time to explain):

The 'days' in Genesis 1 clearly mean 'literal' 24-hour days, but just saying that is insufficient.  More important is the *significance* attached to that fact. Both the modern reader and ancient Hebrew would understand 'day' to mean a 'literal' 24-hour day, but to the ancient Hebrew this would be incidental and unimportant, while to the modern reader it is *all-important* and suggests an irreconcilable conflict with modern science. This leads to arguments ad nauseum today over science vs. a 'literal' understanding of Genesis that completely miss the point, because they're focused on 'literal' vs. 'allegorical' instead of correctly reading Genesis 1 in its proper historical context.  

In fact, it's unclear whether the literal 24-hour day would have had the same rigid, linear-sequential, chronological importance that we attach to it today.  For example, it's increasingly clear that Genesis 1 may directly derive from older Egyptian creation accounts.  Indeed, it seems like a deliberate repudiation of these pagan cosmologies.  Genesis 1 closely follows the order of events in these Egyptian accounts, starting with pre-existent matter in a chaotic state prior to the first day of creation.  In Genesis this pre-existent state lasts for an unspecified length of time but in the Egyptian accounts it is for millions of years. 

***Now if refuting old ages was such a truly important concern of Genesis then it's odd that it didn't correct or challenge the millions of years Egyptian belief when it corrects or challenges just about everything else. 

The fact is these accounts don't seem to have any interest in establishing a time specific chronology to follow like we would want and expect.  The periods of time only seem to have significance in what they represent, and in their theology; not in their temporal value. The actual length of time didn't seem to hold much, if any, importance.  Instead of millions of years vs. 24-hour literal days it's the stark differences and contrasts between the Egyptian and Genesis theologies that would have grabbed attention.

In the Egyptian accounts the first creative act was the emergence of light from the primeval gloom and darkness of the primeval waters after millions of years, when the god Atum (later Rê-Atum) evolved/emerged out of Nun as the sun-god, and as his first act manifested himself as light—before he formally created the sun. 

The ancient Hebrew audience would have recognized the parallel to God's first creative act on Day 1 following the primeval chaotic state.  While the Egyptian creator-god Rê/Rê-Atum came into existence at this point, the God of Israel is préexistent and the supernatural light was not a manifestation of His self-creation, but of the power of His command, "Let there be light!" The appearance of this motif in Genesis, far from marking the moment of the self-generation of God, is a case of the Hebrew author indulging in a bit of one-upmanship. Yahweh is superior to Rê/Rê-Atum, Egypt's god of light    The ancient Hebrew audience would have recognized the days as literal 24-hour days, but found that incidental and superfluous to the fact that the 24-hour day was not the result of the daily birth and self-regeneration of Egyptian gods, but a created aspect, independently established by a single deity by divine command.  

They would not have looked at the seven day creation week and gone, "Wow!  Now we know the old ages that modern science gives to rocks and fossils and the earth and the universe are all wrong!"  To the contrary, they would have recognized the distinctive seven-day framework of Genesis 1 as an ideologically loaded paradigm shift away from the Egyptian one-day pattern of recurrent creation brought about each morning with the sunrise symbolizing the daily rebirth of RêAmun, the sun god creator as the embodiment of Atum, the primordial demiurge creator.

They would have recognized that in stark contrast to the Egyptian accounts, Genesis rejects all notion of theogony, any hint of pantheism, and presents a monotheistic God where the apex of creation is not the generation of the sun as the image/manifestation of the sun god, but the fashioning of humanity as the image of Yahweh, and that Yahweh is self-existent, unlike the self-generated Atum. 

They would have recognized the overarching theme of the Genesis creation week as that of an all-powerful, self-existent, monotheistic God who brings order to chaos by  establishing time, weather, and land with sustaining vegetations (Days 1-3), and then filling these with functionaries including celestial luminaries, birds & sea creatures, and animals & humans (Days 4-6); all focused on God's divine provisions for humanity--God's vice-regents created in his divine image.  They would have noticed this literary structure and parallelism between established functions (Days 1-3) and functionaries (Days 4-6).

Instead of seeing the literal 24-hour days as a strict time chronology and inflexible linear sequence of events, they would have recognized the deliberate literary structure and parallelism of Genesis 1.  How day 1 (time established by separating light & dark) corresponds with day 4 (sun, moon, and stars added to mark additional signs and seasons); day 2 (separation of waters above & below by sky expanse) with day 5 (filling the waters and sky with birds and sea creatures), and day 3 (land created with trees and plants in preparation for) day 6 (land filled with animals and then humans).  They would have noticed the additional parallelism that sets day 3 and day 6 apart by having two divine creation acts occurring on each of these days (day 3- land & plants; day 6- animals & humans), versus the single acts of creation on the other four days.  They would have recognized all these poetic/structural elements (and more!) and instead of seeing a rigid, linear sequence of chronological events they would have recognized the seven-day framework as a didactic and literary device used to further emphasize and reinforce the points of the story.  That is, just as God carefully establishes and brings order and purpose to chaos, so also is this reflected and reinforced by the exquisitely ordered literary structure and parallelism in the seven day framework itself (*in stark contrast to the primeval chaos).

They would have recognized the significance of the number seven, which already had pervasive symbolic meaning as the number of perfection in the Ancient Near East.  Seven literal days would have been less important than the fact that it was seven days.  They would have recognized the seventh day when God 'rests' as not only corresponding to the unique Jewish Sabbath, but also with God's presence and shekinah glory coming to rest in the temple/tabernacle, and recognized the additional liturgical purpose of the seven day framework of the creation account which correlates with the seven day temple dedication ceremony that ends with God's presence coming to rest in the temple.  They would have recognized the same formulaic phrases in Hebrew in Genesis 1 and how they correlate to the exact same formula phrases in Exodus when God gives Moses instructions on how to construct and organize the tabernacle.  All this together--along with the fact that temples as a whole in the Ancient Near East were considered to be miniature representations of the cosmos--would have invested the Genesis creation week with the far greater significance and deeper meaning that sees creation as a 'cosmic temple' that God personally inhabits to be present with humanity. 

***Now you may have to re-read this over a few times until the profoundly deep and theologically rich significance of Genesis 1 that is invested with multiple layers of meaning can be properly digested and sink-in.  Once it does, then head back to contemporary times with its erroneous reading back into the text of foreign ideas and categories from modern time and then stand back and take it all in:

Do you see how modern concerns over whether Genesis 1 presents a young earth created in six literal 24-hour days vs. an old earth miss the intended meaning so badly?  Do you see how even though the days in Genesis 1 are best understood as 24-hour literal days that the significance we attach to this is still so completely wrongheaded when viewed in the proper historical context?  Do you see how questions about evolution and the age of the earth and rocks and fossils are so completely foreign and alien to a proper understanding of the text?  Do you see how the significance we attach to 24-hour literal days vs. the incidental, superfluous view of the same by an ancient Hebrew audience are so widely different?  Do you see how they are worlds apart in understanding, and in their understanding of what's important/significant in the story?  They're not even on the same radar (or planet, for that matter).  

The one main rule I follow is interpreting the text within the proper historical context.  It's one of the most fundamental, basic rules of interpretation, and non-controversial at that.  Pretty much everyone recognizes the soundness of it.  I've seen you employ it with the New Testament.

I think it's a bit of a shock to the system, though, when we see how starkly different the results are when we apply the same principles to Genesis.  It's literally like 'culture shock'.  The categories of thought seem so foreign and alien to us today.  But as difficult as it is for us we must flip that upside down and realize how foreign and alien our modern day categories of thought are to Genesis.  How completely out of place and largely irrelevant they are to the text.

Genesis 1 did not appear in a hermetically sealed vacuum.  It appeared in the context of human history and a specific period of human history at that.  We may not like to hear it, but it's still no less true: Genesis 1 has far more in common with Ancient Near East creation accounts--especially Egyptian ones--than it does with modern science, and must be interpreted in that context, just like the letters of Paul must be interpreted in the context of first century Greco-Roman history.

The number of parallels and similarities between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts are too many to be just a coincidence.  When we consider the biblical context that makes a lot of sense.  During the Exodus period, the ancient Israelites in slavery would have been indoctrinated with Egyptian pagan religious beliefs including cosmologies.  It makes quite a bit of sense that just as the Exodus plagues refuted the 'power' of Egyptian gods/goddesses, so also Genesis 1 repudiates their creation account beliefs too:

You can cast doubt on the text all you want, like I said we view it differently. I believe that if you start doing what you are doing, you destroy the whole. Now everything comes into question, while the whole confirms everything within it under a systematic view of scripture.

Not casting doubt on the text, only the unsound practice of reading wrong ideas into it

I think when you alter historical accounts into poetry that is actually reading wrong ideas into it.

Then there's no problem, because I haven't done that

Pardon my not knowing or missing the point entirely, but if Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible, Genesis included, how would Near Eastern creation mythologies or Egyptian mythologies figure into the equasion? If anything, their mythologies would be based on what Moses wrote certainly generations before either of the above came about............................................................................................................................................

That's a really good question.  Moses and Israel were in slavery in Egypt.  They were surrounded by pagan Egyptian religion. Immersed in that culture.  This culture influenced them--like when they fell back into idolatry by fashioning a golden calf idol in the wilderness at Mt Sinai--and had to be eradicated   These Egyptian creation accounts predate the Exodus.  In fact, some of them like those found in the Pyramid Texts are the oldest known surviving religious texts in the world (Remember, ancient Egypt had already been around at least a thousand years or so before Israel was even a nation). 

The traditional view that holds that Moses wrote the Torah does not conflict with this.  Just like you or I could write a critique of something and explain why it is in error, so also the Genesis creation account seems to be a direct refutation of these pagan cosmologies, correcting the pagan indoctrination the Hebrews had been subjected to for 400 years while in slavery in Egypt. 

The Exodus plagues served a similar function as a polemic against Egyptian pagan religion.  Each of the plagues struck at one or more of the different Egyptian gods, including the 'mighty' sun-god Ra with the plague of darkness.  In each case demonstrating the superior power of Yahweh over the Egyptian gods.  

The Genesis creation account as a 'theological polemic against the ancient Egyptian models of creation' fits the biblical pattern very well.  We see similar anti-pagan polemics throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament, until we reach the ultimate polemic: the Cross, defeating the power and (philosophical) wisdom ('sophia') valued and esteemed by Greco-Roman society, religion, and culture by the complete opposite: Roman imperial power and Greek wisdom defeated by weakness, love, humility, and the 'foolishness of the cross' (1 Corinthians): Victory in 'defeat'.

So you accept as history Genesis and all that is in it as written?

Genesis is historical, but not in a modern or secular sense.  'Theological History' or 'Salvation History' is probably the best way to describe it.

As far as my earlier response, you said I 'altered historical accounts into poetry'.  I did not.  Genesis 1 contains poetic elements already. That is an objective fact.  But I also said Genesis 1 is not pure poetry.  It is a combination of poetry AND narrative prose.  Hence 'poetic prose' or 'exalted narrative/prose'.  This too is an objective fact.  

Importantly---and this point seems to keep getting missed by many--'poetry' does NOT automatically equate to allegory/non-literal, nor does 'narrative prose' automatically equate to literal history.   This is a common mistake people make that often plays out like this: the YEC thinks 'if I can just show that Genesis 1 is narrative then that will prove it's meant to be taken as literal history', while the OEC thinks 'if I can just show that Genesis 1 is poetry then that will prove it's not supposed to be taken literally'. 

But BOTH of these are wrong and do not logically follow, because poetry can contain literal history, and narrative prose can contain non-literal allegory.  So it is important to remember that by itself, whether something is 'poetry' or 'narrative prose' is not enough information to determine whether it's meant to be taken 'literal' or 'non-literal'.  

Okay, sure...history but not really...gotcha.

If you want to converse then let's converse.  But there's no need to be flippant nor to misrepresent or trivialize what I said.  Perhaps you should look up "Salvation History" and learn more about it and its relationship to Christian theology.  It's not a made-up word.

   You have done it consistently throughout every thread I’ve ever seen you in.