A Theological Argument for Evolution [Archive]

George Murphy

December 2nd 2004, 09:35 PM

Jawa Man

December 2nd 2004, 09:54 PM

Jugulum

December 2nd 2004, 10:16 PM

I anticipate that some people may try to undercut this argument by rejecting point 1) & saying that the work of Christ affects only humanity. But ta panta means "all things" - not "some things", "human things", "rational things", &c. You would do well to think that through more fully yourself. On what basis do you limit "all things" to living things? What about rocks? The moons of Jupiter? Angels? By your reasoning, how are they "gathered together" or "summed up" in Christ?

I find the notion that the work of Christ is limited to those things with which He possessed a biological relationship to be shaky at best.

George Murphy

December 3rd 2004, 12:19 AM

George Murphy

December 3rd 2004, 12:22 AM

I think it's not enough for me to decide based on just this. I want to see evidence that we can reinterpret Genesis, in a way that fits with the text. I saw already what some Early Church boys had to say, but I'm still on the middle ground.Christological arguments are fundamental. One implication of my arguments if that we should accept an interpretation of Genesis which is consistent with evolution - & as you suggest, there certainly are such interpretations.

Shalom,
George

Constantine

December 4th 2004, 03:15 AM

I think it's not enough for me to decide based on just this. I want to see evidence that we can reinterpret Genesis, in a way that fits with the text. I saw already what some Early Church boys had to say, but I'm still on the middle ground.

It is good to see that you are atleast open minded. What you might want to consider doing is testing out each major views on this in thought experiements and choose the one that makes the most sense.

Is the text meant by the author to be taken literally?

Is there some other non-YEC historical view that is right (like GRM's cool idea or the day-age theory)

or..

Is the text not meant to be taken as historical in the first place? Thus the debate should really come down to historical or symbolic. Or atleast thats how I figured my way through from YEC to TE. The view I support is the Literary Framework View where the structure of Genesis is a literary framework with which the theological truth of Creation is told to us but that the details about when and how aren't important.

Look into all the options and see which one fits the best in your mind. It took me awhile as I bumped around from Days of Proclamation to Day-Age to Framework view. I mostly choose the Framework interpratation as correct because it supported my view that Genesis is non-historical and that St. Augustine was a supporter of it.

Goerge Murphy: I like the way you are going about this. Making purely theological arguements for theistic evolution. Have you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Dr. Kenneth Miller? In most of the book he talks about science but near the end he presents a theological arguement about why theistic evolution is superior to creationism because it is the only consistent view of how God interacts with the universe and it negates Deism. I strongly recomend the book, especially to people thinking about Theistic Evolution.

George Murphy

December 4th 2004, 10:06 AM

Goerge Murphy: I like the way you are going about this. Making purely theological arguements for theistic evolution. Have you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Dr. Kenneth Miller? In most of the book he talks about science but near the end he presents a theological arguement about why theistic evolution is superior to creationism because it is the only consistent view of how God interacts with the universe and it negates Deism. I strongly recomend the book, especially to people thinking about Theistic Evolution.Yes, I've read the book. In fact, he & I were both presenters at the "Evolution and God" conference that was held at Case Western Reserve U. in October & I had a chance to talk with him. I think his approach is pretty good & I completely agree with him about the value of theistic evolution. On one point however - the suffering & death involved in evolution via natural selection - I think he dismisses the theological problem a bit too easily. That's one reason why I think an approach in terms of a theology of the cross is important.

Shalom,
George

A Beautiful Truth

December 4th 2004, 12:15 PM

1) "All things" (ta panta) are to be saved - reconciled to God - through the cross of God Incarnate (Col.1:20, Eph.1:10). If we take this seriously it means that all creatures - not just humans - find their fulfillment in & through Christ.

Certainly non-living parts of the world are included. We should expect that the 1st living things developed from non-living chemicals, which is also what the general scientific picture suggests. (Though how that development of the 1st life took place we don't know.) Ultimately our bodies are composed of elements formed in earloier generations of stars. My general argument still holds: If humanity is part of this whole evolutionary process then the Incarnation means that Christ is part of that process

And what of II Peter 3:10? Please explain what part you think non living elements have in being "reconciled to God". I don't think I understand what you meant.

George Murphy

December 5th 2004, 07:55 AM

And what of II Peter 3:10? Please explain what part you think non living elements have in being "reconciled to God". I don't think I understand what you meant.To begin with, we are physical beings, made of carbon, oxygen &c - atoms which were formed in the cores of stars. The fact that we're made from the ordinary stuff of the world of course resonates with the biblical image of humanity being formed from the dust of the earth - "and to dust you shall return." But also have the promise of the resurrection of the body - a resurrection which is neither becoming a bodiless ghost nor a simple return to our previous condition. It is a transformation of our physical existence, as Paul makes clear in I Cor.15. & that must mean somehow a transformation of the carbon, oxygen &c of which we're presently made.

In fact, we are fully human only in our relationships with our environment - other people and the natural world. The fact that we are made from the stuff of that environment - even from a supernova that occurred billions of years ago - is one aspect of that. & so resurrection in a full sense means that there will be a transformed world. & that's precisely what scripture speaks of using the language of "a new heaven and a new earth." One place where that language is used is just a few verses after the one you cited, II Pet.3:13.

In some passages - as in the verse you refer to or in places in Revelation - one gets the impression that the present world will simply be destroyed. But to say that "the elements will melt with fervent heat" needn't mean that everything will just be annihilated, never to be re-constituted. (Our bodies are, after all, destroyed in death but we still believe in the resurrection.)
But the larger picture is one of transformation, not just destruction.

& again I would urge that the references in Col. & Eph. to "all things" be taken seriously. That's what ta panta means - not "all living things" or something like that. Of course what form the new & transformed universe will have is something we know very little about. I don't think that speculation about that, beyond the images of scripture, is very useful.

Shalom,
George

A Beautiful Truth

December 9th 2004, 12:36 PM

It is a transformation of our physical existence, as Paul makes clear in I Cor.15. & that must mean somehow a transformation of the carbon, oxygen &c of which we're presently made...
But to say that "the elements will melt with fervent heat" needn't mean that everything will just be annihilated, never to be re-constituted. (Our bodies are, after all, destroyed in death but we still believe in the resurrection.)
But the larger picture is one of transformation, not just destruction.

"The heavens will be destroyed..."

I do not think it is nessesary to believe that the physical carbon, oxygen, etc will be redeemed. Yes, Christ had a physical body, He was physically resurrected but his body was not bound to the carbon, oxygen, etc, nor even length, width, and space in His new form. I do not believe because Christ's ressurected body was physical, that this teaches that it was a physical transformation of the carbon, oxygen, etc., in so far as any of those elements were still physically there. Bodily/physically, yes--but supernatural and in no constraints to the physical elements by any means.

I don't think that speculation about that, beyond the images of scripture, is very useful.

But is nessesary, perhaps, to say that the current physical world (which includes our bodies) will not be just transformed physical elements, but be made NEW. New heavens and new earth are different than transformed elements in heaven and earth. I think every indication in those scriptures confirm a true destruction of the elements.

Yes, our bodies may be new and look like our old in some form (as was Christ's with the nail prints, etc), but to say that it is transformed carbon, oxygen, etc, is not accurate, I don't think. It is physical, but supernatural.

I see what you are saying about transformation, I think, but I think you go too far in saying that the physical elements are redeemed.

I do not believe Christ's blood was shed for what is physical, I believe it was shed for what is spiritual.

shunyadragon

December 11th 2004, 10:13 AM

You would do well to think that through more fully yourself. On what basis do you limit "all things" to living things? What about rocks? The moons of Jupiter? Angels? By your reasoning, how are they "gathered together" or "summed up" in Christ?

I find the notion that the work of Christ is limited to those things with which He possessed a biological relationship to be shaky at best.The Baha'i writings describe an inorganic evolution leading to an organic evolution that is divinely ordained and directed (TE). Live proceeds from the evolution of the 'Mineral Kingdom' to life in the 'Plant and Animal Kingdoms.' It is then described as a natural progression from non-life to life, described as the form may have changed, but the intent was always supreme talisman, humanity.

The first entities to know God, sin and the capibility to be truely evil and be able to make this choice between good and evil were Adam and Eve, and then began our story. This story began at sometime between 5 million and 500,000 years ago. The timeing is of not great important, because the problem is; what we have today is humanity capable of great evil and great good. Unfortunately very willing, and very quick, to claim the only golden crown and blame someone, something or everyone else for the tragedy and suffering in the world, that there own arrogance is responsible. Thus the scapegoat becomes the cause. The priests are more than happy to lead the goat through the town and absolve your sins and troubles, and ah . . . take your money justifying your hopes and beliefs until, ah . . . next year whan the same goat is brought around again to lead the lambs to the slaughter.

When it comes to their own fall or weakness to succume to temptation, they say 'The devil made me do IT.' But then again, God made a human sacrafice so that all bases would be covered as long as you believe.

If you do not believe, ah . . . its back to the ovens and there is not a second chance.

George Murphy

December 11th 2004, 02:32 PM

"The heavens will be destroyed..."

I do not think it is nessesary to believe that the physical carbon, oxygen, etc will be redeemed. Yes, Christ had a physical body, He was physically resurrected but his body was not bound to the carbon, oxygen, etc, nor even length, width, and space in His new form. I do not believe because Christ's ressurected body was physical, that this teaches that it was a physical transformation of the carbon, oxygen, etc., in so far as any of those elements were still physically there. Bodily/physically, yes--but supernatural and in no constraints to the physical elements by any means.

But is nessesary, perhaps, to say that the current physical world (which includes our bodies) will not be just transformed physical elements, but be made NEW. New heavens and new earth are different than transformed elements in heaven and earth. I think every indication in those scriptures confirm a true destruction of the elements.

Yes, our bodies may be new and look like our old in some form (as was Christ's with the nail prints, etc), but to say that it is transformed carbon, oxygen, etc, is not accurate, I don't think. It is physical, but supernatural.

I see what you are saying about transformation, I think, but I think you go too far in saying that the physical elements are redeemed.Perhaps I was being too much the physicist in the way I expressed myself. I don't mean that there necessarily will be a transformed periodic table in the new creation or something like that. & it's true that images of destruction are used in the Bible as well as those of transformation. But it seems to me that the latter predominate, especially when Paul speaks about the resurrection in I Cor.15, & the analogies of transformation he uses there are the closest we come to any sort of description of how the new creation will be brought about.

& I think the goodness of the original creation is an important thing to keep in mind. Furthermore, Ephesians (1:10) & Colossians (1:20) speak of "all things" being brought together & reconciled - not of all things being destroyed & being replaced by other things. All in all, I think Polkinghorne is right to speak of the new creation being not creatio ex nihilo like creation in the beginning but creatio ex vetere - creation from the old.

But again, I don't want to get too speculative. We know almost as little about the conditions in God's final future as an unborn baby does about the world outside the womb.

I do not believe Christ's blood was shed for what is physical, I believe it was shed for what is spiritual.Christ's blood was shed to reconcile "all things" to God - Col.1:20 again. & just to focus on humanity - Christ's blood was shed to save us as whole people, not just some spiritual aspect of us.

Shalom,
George

A Beautiful Truth

December 13th 2004, 12:54 PM

...it's true that images of destruction are used in the Bible as well as those of transformation. But it seems to me that the latter predominate

I don't believe it is either/or, George. I believe we need to understand "transformed" in light of the destruction. What is being reconciled or "summed up"? Is it the physical, or is it the station or the original purpose or some other concept?

Christ's blood was shed to reconcile "all things" to God - Col.1:20 again. & just to focus on humanity - Christ's blood was shed to save us as whole people, not just some spiritual aspect of us.

Shalom,
George

Again, we have to ask in what way are these things reconciled or summed up? If we take for granted that we are at odds with some scriptures but not others, then we get to pick what scriptures we want to quote that fit in our understanding. But if we believe that there is no contradiction here, then we have to understand one verse in light of another. I try to do the latter.

Think of this: the temple--it is a copy and shadow of heavenly things. Perhaps what is physical on the earth will not be redeemed, but it is what those things represent in some way. I think I must take Col. 1:20 in this light, George, because I must take those scriptures which talk about the physical earth's destruction as real.

In what way will all things be reconciled? Perhaps it is in station or authority or some other spiritual concept.

~Charleen

George Murphy

December 17th 2004, 09:34 PM

I don't believe it is either/or, George. I believe we need to understand "transformed" in light of the destruction.This seems to me a rather arbitrary choice, especially since you seem to be ignoring what I said about the resurrection - i.e., "But it seems to me that the latter [images of transformation] predominate, especially when Paul speaks about the resurrection in I Cor.15, & the analogies of transformation he uses there are the closest we come to any sort of description of how the new creation will be brought about."

We also have to ask whether "destruction" is to be understood as complete material annihilation. To say that our bodies are "destroyed" when we die means that they fall apart, are eaten by worms &c but not that the matter ceases to exist.

& just what destruction texts do you have in mind? Earlier you cited II Peter 3:10, that the elements will "melt" or "be dissolvedwith fervent heat," but of course melting isn't annihilation.

What is being reconciled or "summed up"? Is it the physical, or is it the station or the original purpose or some other concept?As you said, it isn't either-or. Structural patterns and historical continuity are important, & I don't think resurrection means putting back together all the same atoms that constituted our bodies. In fact, in quantum theory that idea doesn't even mean anything. But the physical world is part of God's good creation and shouldn't be thought of just as disposable scaffolding for some "spiritual" future.

Again, we have to ask in what way are these things reconciled or summed up? If we take for granted that we are at odds with some scriptures but not others, then we get to pick what scriptures we want to quote that fit in our understanding. But if we believe that there is no contradiction here, then we have to understand one verse in light of another. I try to do the latter.So do I, & frankly I think my approach can do this better than yours. Images of destruction can be understood within a larger context of transformation more naturally than the other way around. (I.e., one can say that the form of something is destroyed so that it can take another form: Destruction is seen as part of the process of transformation.)

Think of this: the temple--it is a copy and shadow of heavenly things. Perhaps what is physical on the earth will not be redeemed, but it is what those things represent in some way. I think I must take Col. 1:20 in this light, George, because I must take those scriptures which talk about the physical earth's destruction as real.

In what way will all things be reconciled? Perhaps it is in station or authority or some other spiritual concept.

~CharleenActually Exodus & Hebrew speak of the tabernacle being made "according to the pattern that you were shown in the mountain." The Temple is never described that way. Anyway - you seem to be pushing this to a kind of platonic extreme, in which only the ideal archetypes of things ultimately matter. I have great respect for Plato, but the Christian understanding of the value of the material world and the resurrection of the body is quite different from that.

Shalom,
George

A Beautiful Truth

December 18th 2004, 01:11 AM

This seems to me a rather arbitrary choice, especially since you seem to be ignoring what I said about the resurrection - i.e., "But it seems to me that the latter [images of transformation] predominate, especially when Paul speaks about the resurrection in I Cor.15, & the analogies of transformation he uses there are the closest we come to any sort of description of how the new creation will be brought about."

I don't believe because these "predominate" that it excludes those scriptures that say that there will be a destruction and a passing away. I think we must consider both as true and I don't think your view allows much provision for a true destruction.

We also have to ask whether "destruction" is to be understood as complete material annihilation. To say that our bodies are "destroyed" when we die means that they fall apart, are eaten by worms &c but not that the matter ceases to exist.

Does it really matter? Do you believe it has that much bearing on our resurrected bodies?

...& just what destruction texts do you have in mind? Earlier you cited II Peter 3:10, that the elements will "melt" or "be dissolvedwith fervent heat," but of course melting isn't annihilation.

II Peter 3:7, 10-13

But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men...But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavnes will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destoryed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destoryed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are elooking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

And Hebrews 1:10-12

...Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands; they will perish, but Thou remainest; and they all will become old as a garment, and as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; As a garment they will also be changed....

And also Revelation 21, of course. We have "all things new" as the "first things are passed away".

And Hebrews 12:27 And this expression, "Yet once more," denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain."
As you said, it isn't either-or. Structural patterns and historical continuity are important, & I don't think resurrection means putting back together all the same atoms that constituted our bodies. In fact, in quantum theory that idea doesn't even mean anything. But the physical world is part of God's good creation and shouldn't be thought of just as disposable scaffolding for some "spiritual" future.

How about a very good creation that is serving a very good purpose.

So do I, & frankly I think my approach can do this better than yours. Images of destruction can be understood within a larger context of transformation more naturally than the other way around. (I.e., one can say that the form of something is destroyed so that it can take another form: Destruction is seen as part of the process of transformation.)

I'd agree with this.

Actually Exodus & Hebrew speak of the tabernacle being made "according to the pattern that you were shown in the mountain." The Temple is never described that way.

Correction received.

Anyway - you seem to be pushing this to a kind of platonic extreme, in which only the ideal archetypes of things ultimately matter. I have great respect for Plato, but the Christian understanding of the value of the material world and the resurrection of the body is quite different from that.

Actually, I just have a problem with the idea that you put forth that Christ's blood was shed for the earthly creation. I don't think the scriptures you use can justify it. So, while theistic evolution may very well be theologicaly superior to special creation, I don't think it can be won with this argument. But what do I know, I never got to go to seminary like you.

George Murphy

December 18th 2004, 08:46 AM

You said,
I'd agree with this.in reply to my statement, Images of destruction can be understood within a larger context of transformation more naturally than the other way around. (I.e., one can say that the form of something is destroyed so that it can take another form: Destruction is seen as part of the process of transformation.)So perhaps our differences on this issue are not that great, and have to do largely with what we emphasize.

Actually, I just have a problem with the idea that you put forth that Christ's blood was shed for the earthly creation. I don't think the scriptures you use can justify it. So, while theistic evolution may very well be theologicaly superior to special creation, I don't think it can be won with this argument. But what do I know, I never got to go to seminary like you.A seminary education doesn't automatically give a person authority! & I wouldn't call what I presented a "proof" of theistic evolution. But I certainly think it's a strong argument in favor of TE.

As I've indicated, I think we have to start here with the resurrection. We are part of the earthly creation, & the promise of resurrection of the body means that that part is to be saved. It will be transformed, not annihilated. But as physical creatures, we are linked with our physical environment, & are fully who we are only with those linkages. The carbon of our bodies (& of all living things) was made in the cores of stars & dispersed in supernova explosions billions of years ago. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the whole universe will participate in that transformation - especially because Ephesians and Colossians do speak about "all things."

Shalom,
George

Abigail

December 18th 2004, 09:46 AM

George (while I am YEC I will not argue it actively here in your thread but merely provide what I see as weakness in your theology...if that's ok with you), as a rebuttal to your view, what if 'reconciling all (created)things in Christ' could be understood as in somehow joining the waters above with the waters below (Genesis 1:7). I noticed that God doesnt pronounce that 2nd day good so it seems to me He doesnt really like that situation of the expanse between those two waters.

Behold to the Lord your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house I have built!
See also Nehemiah 9:6 and, Psalm 68:33 and also Psalm 148

kuboes1831

December 18th 2004, 04:43 PM

George (while I am YEC I will not argue it actively here in your thread but merely provide what I see as weakness in your theology...if that's ok with you), as a rebuttal to your view, what if 'reconciling all (created)things in Christ' could be understood as in somehow joining the waters above with the waters below (Genesis 1:7). I noticed that God doesnt pronounce that 2nd day good so it seems to me He doesnt really like that situation of the expanse between those two waters.

See also Nehemiah 9:6 and, Psalm 68:33 and also Psalm 148

Abigail I think your biblical interpretation is somewhat creative. Reconciling all things in Christ has nothing to do with it. You are simply forcing or perverting Holy Scripture to your own ends. Please treat God's word with more respect. Are you saying not did not think what he had made was good?

Abigail

December 18th 2004, 05:51 PM

Abigail I think your biblical interpretation is somewhat creative. Reconciling all things in Christ has nothing to do with it. You are simply forcing or perverting Holy Scripture to your own ends. Please treat God's word with more respect. Are you saying not did not think what he had made was good?
Get a life kuboes!

Please dont bother to reply to my post George as I have no wish to continue in this thread

Constantine

December 18th 2004, 06:53 PM

George,

I think your idea of reconciling all things to Christ will become a popular apologetic if/when ET's are found.

It would solve the theological problem of their salvation.

George Murphy

December 18th 2004, 09:02 PM

Get a life kuboes!

Please dont bother to reply to my post George as I have no wish to continue in this threadWhy get huffy with me?

In response to your original post: "things in heaven" are included together with "things on earth" as parts of "all things" in Eph & Col. We would need to talk about what "heaven" means in those passages. But in any case, since "things on earth" are included, I can't see why this presents any problem for my argument.

One difficulty with your suggestion is that there are no literal waters above the firmament. (Nor, for that matter, is there a firmament.)

It's not clear why there is no statement in Gen.1 that God saw the work of the 2d day as good. Some of the old rabbis speculated that it was because that was the day on which some of the angels fell.

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

December 18th 2004, 10:46 PM

George,

I think your idea of reconciling all things to Christ will become a popular apologetic if/when ET's are found.

It would solve the theological problem of their salvation.It's not "my" idea but that of the writer(s) of Ephesians and Colossians.

& yes, this is one application - & at a stretch, one could cite Eph.3:10 in support of it.

Shalom,
George

reyvin

December 18th 2004, 11:38 PM

Why get huffy with me?

In response to your original post: "things in heaven" are included together with "things on earth" as parts of "all things" in Eph & Col. We would need to talk about what "heaven" means in those passages. But in any case, since "things on earth" are included, I can't see why this presents any problem for my argument.

One difficulty with your suggestion is that there are no literal waters above the firmament. (Nor, for that matter, is there a firmament.)

It's not clear why there is no statement in Gen.1 that God saw the work of the 2d day as good. Some of the old rabbis speculated that it was because that was the day on which some of the angels fell.

Shalom,
George

According to FF Bruce (general editor of NIV Bible Commentary although I'm not certain of its exact name at this tmie) and Allen P Ross (Creation and Blessing), day 2 was not called good because God hadn't finished the work of the waters which was done in day 3. This makes much more sense to me than speculating when angels fell.

Abigail

December 19th 2004, 09:39 AM

Why get huffy with me? I wasnt getting huffy with you I was just indicating to you that I would be withdrawing from the thread...what's the purpose if it is just going to end with acrimony and verbal slanging matches?

But in any case, since "things on earth" are included, I can't see why this presents any problem for my argument. no, but the 'superiority' of your argument may be affected
One difficulty with your suggestion is that there are no literal waters above the firmament. (Nor, for that matter, is there a firmament.)Well they are mentioned in Psalm 148:4 and also read Colossians 1:16

It's not clear why there is no statement in Gen.1 that God saw the work of the 2d day as good. Yes I do wonder why that is

George Murphy

December 19th 2004, 03:46 PM

no, but the 'superiority' of your argument may be affected.How so? I think you need to spell out your objection more fully.

Well they are mentioned in Psalm 148:4 and also read Colossians 1:16
There is no mention of "waters" in Col.1:16. & yes, they are in Ps.148:4. But the waters above the firmament - & the firmament - don't exist in the physical world.

Shalom,
George

Abigail

December 20th 2004, 08:36 AM

How so? I think you need to spell out your objection more fully. Well, as I understand your argument you see us as coming from stardust basically and so the whole physical universe is entwined in us as are all the creature stages we have come through (assuming for the sake of the argument of course), so you see that as tie-ing everything in some manner to Christ in this physical and then fleshly line and that it is because of this physical relationship we can have all things being reconciled, but when I read the passage in Colossians (esp verses 20 and 22), I get the sense that the reconcilitaion was achieved through the blood and death of Christ in the flesh. Now the Jews were related to Christ in the flesh and the Gentiles were not, yet we are all one now in a relationship which trancends flesh ie the spirit relationship. So if 'all things' were somehow tied together in a physical 'fleshly' relationship sense then why was there ever even a need to put the flesh to death and have a spiritual relationship. The physical was not all inclusive but it is the spiritual that is.

There is no mention of "waters" in Col.1:16. & yes, they are in Ps.148:4. But the waters above the firmament - & the firmament - don't exist in the physical world. I actually (when I get a consolidated whack of time) want to see all the references I can find to these.

kuboes1831

December 20th 2004, 10:48 AM

Get a life kuboes!

Please dont bother to reply to my post George as I have no wish to continue in this thread

Like George and Glenn I am assured of eternal life through faith in Christ. What else do I need?

Abigail

December 20th 2004, 11:17 AM

Like George and Glenn I am assured of eternal life through faith in Christ. What else do I need?
George, nothing against you but I now withdraw from this thread. I will not be posting again

Jorge

December 20th 2004, 12:53 PM

Jack777

December 20th 2004, 01:07 PM

George Murphy

December 20th 2004, 01:47 PM

I sense an ad hoc interpretation coming ...I.e., "I know from the title of thread that I have to disagree with the argument before I even know what it is, so I'll start with some preliminary namecalling."

There's no need to read any further. George apparently forgets that there is spiritual reconciliation and that this was the purpose of the Cross.Apparently Jorge has forgotten what ta panta means. Hint: It doesn't mean "spiritual things."

I seem to rememer someone saying "Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

A carrot does not need to be spiritually reconciled with God and neither does a zebra.What is this thing you have about carrots?

Yes, the entire creation was cursed because of sin but the cross would provide ...I can finish it for you: The reconciliation to God of all things, whether on earth or in heaven. Cf. Col.1:20.

TO BE CONTINUED ... gotta go.

JorgeI suggest that you not continue. You've embarassed yourself enough already.
Why don't you take a break from posting and do some serious thinking about your presuppositions?

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

December 20th 2004, 01:58 PM

Abigail,

George is wrong and you are right. Look, there are literal waters above the heaven and out in space too. The thing is that George does not understand Hebrew well.I don't think I've said anything about Hebrew in the limited time you've been on Tweb so I fail to see what grounds you have for making this statement. & it's relevance isn't clear anyway. Are you talking about the translation of raqia`?

Whether or not there are "waters above the heavens" in the sense that Gen.1 & Ps.148 use the phrase is a question for astronomy, not Hebrew linguistics.
& the answer is of course "No."

Shalom,
George

Jack777

December 20th 2004, 02:26 PM

rogero

December 20th 2004, 03:15 PM

Abigail,

George is wrong and you are right. Look, there are literal waters above the heaven and out in space too. The thing is that George does not understand Hebrew well. Anywaze, don't worry about getting stoned, everyone must get stoned...j/k Bob Dylan may not add to this per se and maybe he did not mean literal rocks.

What's your definition of "firmament" (ra'qia) and what do you think is meant be the "waters above"?

The NAB and NRSV translate ra'qia as "dome" -- something solid which covers the flat earth, which is consistent with the Mesopotamian mythology, and is also what the sky looks like to an untrained observer.

Anyway, I thought creationists had an "simple-obvious-plain-even-to-a-child" way of reading Genesis 1-11. If it isn't obvious what is meant by "waters above the ra'qia", then this simple-plain business goes out the window -- or out the "floodgates" perhaps. :wink:

I'm also bothered when you make a statement like "George is wrong". At least have the common courtesy to say "I believe George is wrong." And, I'd be really careful to critique an M.Div. and a published scholar on his knowledge of Hebrew. Just a friendly warning to be prepared to defend your claims -- kind of like your 1-1.5Ga age of Earth and Cosmos.

R

Jack777

December 20th 2004, 03:38 PM

rogero

December 20th 2004, 04:16 PM

I should say that I apologize for telling Abigail that George is wrong for the sake of not being like Christ...????????? what is that???? George is wrong, I like him anyway and glad to say what I think.

Apparently his highness hurt Abigail's feelings and it is all fun and games.

Is it? "us agin them?" Clem?

Is it like? "watch your back maaan, its a tough neighborhood around here."

So he has a M. Div and this makes me have to be careful what I think? Well I sure am skeered.

Hmmm, think I should call him before I open my Bible or do you think I could read it and ask the Holy Spirit to help me with my lack of knowledge and as Job did repent in dust and ashes.

Still not over the 1.5 billion thingy eh?

Ya know, if I wanted to be mean I could treat you the same way. But for the sake of being gracious and you being a top flight guy and all, I will be nice.

Jack,

You really need to settle down and get over yourself. You haven't made a very good impression so far. If your goal is to make Christians look impetuous, narrow-minded and opinionated, then you have succeeded very well.

To wit, when you make affirmative statements -- be prepared to back them up. I asked simple questions. What is the "firmament"? What do you mean by "waters above the firmament"?

And, yes I'm still "not over the 1.5Ga thingy." You first announce that you have two degrees in geology, and that (in case you don't realize it) will give you some modicum of gravitas among other Christians on this forum. Then you assert, not once but twice, that Earth is 1-1.5Ga. When I asked a very simple and kind question as to where you got that figure, you hemmed and hawed and basically attacked me with a question of how did I know how old the Earth was? When I started a thread in Natural Sciences, partially for your benefit, partially to show the abysmal knowledge of science among creationists (even those with two geology degrees), you act like a martyr, and like you've heard these evidences for the first time. Firstly, you're not a martyr when you bring up broad unsubstianted statements about well-known science, and secondly, if you do have two geology degrees, you can't use the excuse of layman naivete.

You must stop making unsubstantiated statements like "George is wrong", "Evolution is wrong." At least have the sense to add "in my opinion". You have a degree in English. Are you aware of the subjunctive mood?

And your statement that George is wrong because he is not like Christ is simply unsubstantiated emotional nonsense. IMO, George has been extremely gracious in this thread and elsewhere. Are you judging him because Abigail's feelings were hurt? Abby's is a very sensitive Fundamentalist with a very brittle interpretation of scriptuire whose feelings are hurt by anyone who doesn't agree with her to a "T".

So, please, please, start providing some evidence or at least some reasons for your bold ipse dixits that you spew forth. If you wish to make a positive impression for the Kingdom to others that don't agree exactly with you -- please take this advice! And also -- please knock off the paranoia -- it's getting old pretty fast.

R

George Murphy

December 20th 2004, 06:07 PM

I thought you were doing this deal cuz of Hebrew expertise and that maybe you corrected Abigail cuz you know better. It is not strictly a question for astrophysics. I would reckon you figger God don't know whut he is a talkin about and danged if He ain't a created it all...Well shucks, Ah don't rightly see why y'all wud start makin' arcane guesses 'bout whut I mean 'stead of just readin' what Ah said. Course God knows what he was talkin 'bout but mebbe them fellers that wrote Genesis an the folks they was writin' for were kinda limited in what they knew an God was willin to - what's the word that Calvin guy used - accommodate whut he said to their level.

Now can we start speaking English? & can you either start saying something substantive or stop wasting time?

Shalom,
George

P.S. I note rogero's post that appeared in the time I was writing the response above and realize that some people may not consider my closing sentence here "extremely gracious." I don't always achieve that. But sometimes it seems to me that the most gracious thing in the long run is to be quite frank and save a lot of beating around the bush. If Jack wants to point out putative errors of mine, in Hebrew or anything else, I'll be glad to consider his arguments. But nothing is accomplished by vague innuendoes.

George

George Murphy

December 20th 2004, 06:31 PM

Abigail has decided to opt out of this thread but for the possible benefit of others I'd like to respond to her concern here.

Well, as I understand your argument you see us as coming from stardust basically and so the whole physical universe is entwined in us as are all the creature stages we have come through (assuming for the sake of the argument of course), so you see that as tie-ing everything in some manner to Christ in this physical and then fleshly line and that it is because of this physical relationship we can have all things being reconciled, but when I read the passage in Colossians (esp verses 20 and 22), I get the sense that the reconcilitaion was achieved through the blood and death of Christ in the flesh. Now the Jews were related to Christ in the flesh and the Gentiles were not, yet we are all one now in a relationship which trancends flesh ie the spirit relationship. So if 'all things' were somehow tied together in a physical 'fleshly' relationship sense then why was there ever even a need to put the flesh to death and have a spiritual relationship. The physical was not all inclusive but it is the spiritual that is.1st, I am not arguing that the physical is all we need to consider. I understand the passages in Eph & Col to refer to the reconciliation of all things according to whatever the fullness of whatever they are. Human beings have a spiritual as well as a physical aspect. Rocks don't. I have no idea what the fulfillment of rocks will be in the new heavens & earth but if we take "all things" seriously, it's something.

2d, I think you may be confusing a couple of senses of "flesh." When Paul speaks about an antithesis of "flesh" and "spirit" he's talking about humans alienated & turned away from God (flesh) and humans in the proper relationship with God (spirit). (E.g., Rom.8:6) So to speak of putting the flesh to death in this sense does not mean simply killing the physical stuff we're made of but getting rid of the sinful aspect, "the old Adam," of ourselves - something that begins in baptism (Rom.6) & continues till our death. But this doesn't mean that we transcend being physical beings and become some immaterial stuff. Otherwise we wouldn't speak about the resurrection of the body.

3d, Jews & Gentiles are of course related: We're all homo sapiens. & it's significant that all 3 of the 4 woman in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (& perhaps the 4th, since Bathsheba was married to a Hittite) were Gentiles.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

December 21st 2004, 09:29 AM

There is a quite straightforward argument which shows that theistic evolution is theologically preferable to special creation (in particular, to the view that humanity was created separately from other species.)I sense an ad hoc interpretation coming ...

1) "All things" (ta panta) are to be saved - reconciled to God - through the cross of God Incarnate (Col.1:20, Eph.1:10). If we take this seriously it means that all creatures - not just humans - find their fulfillment in & through Christ.There's no need to read any further. George apparently forgets that there is spiritual reconciliation and that this was the purpose of the Cross. A carrot does not need to be spiritually reconciled with God and neither does a zebra.

By what warped theology George feels that vegetables, rocks and furry creatures need to be spiritually reconciled to God I dare not even hazard a guess. Worse yet, I wonder what such theology leads to... :huh:

2) "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (Gregory Nazianzus). In the christological debates of the early church, this meant that any aspect of human nature could be saved only if it has been assumed in the Incarnation. Thus Christ had to have a human body, mind, will, &c. (Gregory's statement can be regarded as an inference from Heb.2:17.)Sounds like a load of humanistic philosophy trying to pass off as orthodox Christianity.

3) If humanity is a special creation then it - and Jesus - have no relationship with other species.Forget my earlier words "sounds like" -- it IS a load of low-grade fertilizer. Show me where in Scripture there are spiritual created beings other than those clearly stated (man, angels, etc.). Is a cow a spiritual being? A potato? A redwood tree? [Of course, let's not ask a Hindu or a New Ager this.]

Excluding unorthodox (and somewhat heretical) interpretations, man was definitely a special creation in that we are the only flesh that was given a spirit.

Of course, where all this is leading is fairly transparent : if we aren't a special creation then the way is paved to facilitate theistic evolution. Sorry, George, we ain't buying it today and don't bother coming by tomorrow, it doesn't look good for you either.

There is therefore no sense in which they could be said to be assumed in the Incarnation. But if human evolution is correct then each human - including Jesus - has biological relationships and a common history with other species. All terrestrial life then can be said to have been assumed.Yup - and if we slap a pair of wings on a sow it'll fly to the moon. :lmbo:

4) Therefore evolution makes it possible to hold both 1) & 2) while special creation does not.Only if one accepts Plutonian Logic and highly unorthodox interpretations, George.

5) Therefore theistic evolution is theologically preferable to special creation.Only if one accepts Plutonian Logic and highly unorthodox interpretations (is there an echo in here?).

Of course this does not answer any scientific questions about evolution. It does mean, though, that at the very least Christians should not object to evolution on religious grounds.I object ... I object!!!

I anticipate that some people may try to undercut this argument by rejecting point 1) & saying that the work of Christ affects only humanity. But ta panta means "all things" - not "some things", "human things", "rational things", &c.You're mixing apples with aardvarks, George. It was a spiritual transgression that brought the Curse upon humanity and upon the entire creation. It was a spiritual act (the Cross) that brings about the spiritual reconciliation and, with this spiritual reconciliation, ALL of creation is affected.

IOW, in a sense you're right but not in the sense you're presenting it. The work of Christ does not affect 'only' humanity but the work of Christ is for humanity since this is spiritual warfare and not one of flesh and blood (i.e., spirit-less matter).

Humanity was, without question, a special creation since only humanity involved a spirit within flesh (the temple of the spirit). Now, if you have Scriptural evidence that other parts of the physical creation were also given a spirit then your argument may hold some water. Otherwise, all I see is yet another ludicrous attempt at justifying theistic evolution.

Jorge

reyvin

December 21st 2004, 09:57 AM

George Murphy

December 21st 2004, 12:28 PM

I already responded to the 1st part of this thing (post 31) & except for one point will not go detail here. Jorge still doesn't know what ta panta means & has a notion about the "spiritual" which makes one wonder if he believes in the resurrection of the body. The only talent he displays is namecalling.

Sounds like a load of humanistic philosophy trying to pass off as orthodox Christianity.This was in reply to the following statement of mine.

"What has not been assumed has not been healed" (Gregory Nazianzus). In the christological debates of the early church, this meant that any aspect of human nature could be saved only if it has been assumed in the Incarnation. Thus Christ had to have a human body, mind, will, &c. (Gregory's statement can be regarded as an inference from Heb.2:17.)Thus it is one of the basic theological principles which led to the Definition of Chalcedon which Jorge labels "a load of humanistic philosophy"! Of course I realiuze that he probably doesn't know who/what Gregory Nazianzus or the Definition of Chalcedon were.

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

December 21st 2004, 12:38 PM

Regarding the firmament, I think George is being too literal. As I pointed out to him before, the suggestion has been made that the idea behind the word is the expanding of the metal, not its hardness. It's pictoral language remember, not scientific. If you're going to read so woodenly, then you've got a problem when you come to verses such as Psalm 104:3 where it says: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters.
Did the writer brainfart here and forget that it was a turkey cover over the earth and mistakenly write in beams?

Newman wrote a book about the subject - N11. Robert C. Newman, The Biblical Firmament: Vault or Vapor? IBRI, 2000. Pb, 90 pp, $7.95. ISBN 0-944788-80-7 (but you can't buy it online..bummer): http://ibri.org/2002ibricat.htmYou seem to forget that the original issue that I was responding to in Abigail's post was the existence of the waters above the firmament. & they aren't there.

I know Bob reasonably well through ASA - in fact we roomed together at one meeting - & appreciate some of his work, but he labors too much at scientific concordism. Translating raqia` as "expanse" doesn't change the fact that the picture that is being used is an expanse of metal.

I find it amusing that I'm accused of being both "liberal" and "too literal." One ought to be "literal" in the sense of paying attention to the meanings of words, but that doesn't determine the literary genre of the texts in question.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

December 21st 2004, 01:02 PM

Jorge still doesn't know what ta panta means & has a notion about the "spiritual" which makes one wonder if he believes in the resurrection of the body.I looked in the closet, under the bed, in the basement, on the roof, in the cupboard ... nowhere did I find an example from George of a spiritual created natural being other than man. Maybe if I look harder ... :teeth:

You clearly did not understand a word of my post, George.

Uh, the bodily resurrection is basic, orthodox Christianity; what you are suggesting is ... errr ... off the wall.

Jorge

George Murphy

December 21st 2004, 02:31 PM

I looked in the closet, under the bed, in the basement, on the roof, in the cupboard ... nowhere did I find an example from George of a spiritual created natural being other than man. Maybe if I look harder ...I'll repeat once more: ta panta means "all things." In Eph.1:10 & Col.1:20 it refers to all things in heaven and on earth. It is unqualified. These passages do not say "all spiritual things," "all things which can have a spiritual relationship" or anything of the sort. Thus in order to make the argument I presented, I am under no obligation to show the "spiritual" character of the things that are to be reconciled to God.

& lest it seem that I am emphasizing Ephesians & Colossians too much, note also Romans 8:18-25, where again "the creation" is unqualified.

You clearly did not understand a word of my post, George.What's to understand? I can certainly see the hatred, pride and rage that you express and I understand what you think are witty putdowns but I'm trying to keep this on a civil level & not reply in kind. I have responded to the actual mistaken arguments you've presented.

Uh, the bodily resurrection is basic, orthodox Christianity; what you are suggesting is ... errr ... off the wall.This doesn't mean that your notions are consistent with that belief.

Shalom,
George

Augustine2004

December 21st 2004, 06:24 PM

. . . the original issue that I was responding to in Abigail's post was the existence of the waters above the firmament. & they aren't there.Do you know about D. R. Humphreys' notion that the cosmos is surrounded by a shell of ice?

rogero

December 21st 2004, 07:35 PM

Do you know about D. R. Humphreys' notion that the cosmos is surrounded by a shell of ice?
And just exactly what evidence does he base this assertion on? Anyway, what does it mean for the Universe to be "surrounded by a shell" of anything?

Jorge

December 21st 2004, 08:38 PM

I'll repeat once more: ta panta means "all things." In Eph.1:10 & Col.1:20 it refers to all things in heaven and on earth. It is unqualified. These passages do not say "all spiritual things," "all things which can have a spiritual relationship" or anything of the sort. Thus in order to make the argument I presented, I am under no obligation to show the "spiritual" character of the things that are to be reconciled to God.

& lest it seem that I am emphasizing Ephesians & Colossians too much, note also Romans 8:18-25, where again "the creation" is unqualified.I know when I'm vanquished - "uncle, uncle"!

What's to understand? I can certainly see the hatred, pride and rage that you express and I understand what you think are witty putdowns but I'm trying to keep this on a civil level & not reply in kind. I have responded to the actual mistaken arguments you've presented."Hatred, pride and rage"? Whatever you're smoking, George, give it up!

This doesn't mean that your notions are consistent with that belief.You're the one trying to incorporate the edicts of a materialistic system into Scripture and YOU'RE trying to lecture me on the beliefs of orthodox Christianity? I say again, lay off whatever you're inhaling, George - it's definitely affecting your judgment!

[Hint : don't confuse sarcasm/satire with "hatred, pride and rage".]

Jorge

George Murphy

December 21st 2004, 08:50 PM

Do you know about D. R. Humphreys' notion that the cosmos is surrounded by a shell of ice?This is rather like the claim made by some Aristotelians when Galileo had shown that the surface of the moon wasn't a "perfect" sphere because it had mountains &c. They said that the moon was actually covered with a transparent, & therefore invisible, crystal layer whose surface was perfect.

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

December 21st 2004, 08:52 PM

I know when I'm vanquished - "uncle, uncle"!

"Hatred, pride and rage"? Whatever you're smoking, George, give it up!

You're the one trying to incorporate the edicts of a materialistic system into Scripture and YOU'RE trying to lecture me on the beliefs of orthodox Christianity? I say again, lay off whatever you're inhaling, George - it's definitely affecting your judgment!

[Hint : don't confuse sarcasm/satire with "hatred, pride and rage".]

JorgeSadly, nothing but the usual bare assertions and venom.

Shalom,
George

Augustine2004

December 22nd 2004, 02:37 AM

And just exactly what evidence does he base this assertion on? Anyway, what does it mean for the Universe to be "surrounded by a shell" of anything?No scientific evidence. Humphreys' white-hole 'model' of the universe as presented in Starlight and Time. Not that I believe it. Just curious what George Murphy thought of it.

reyvin

December 22nd 2004, 09:25 AM

You seem to forget that the original issue that I was responding to in Abigail's post was the existence of the waters above the firmament. & they aren't there.

Didn't forget that at all, but what I'm saying is that I think you're taking the picture drawn far too literally. This is the same thing YEC's do with the entire text of Gen 1. Seems fairly obvious that the ancients knew where water came from, and it wasn't from beams or canopy coverings above:

Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
Pro 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

Why could the expression 'waters above the firmament' be taken as our phrase 'under the sea'? Because if you think about it, its the same thing. Fish aren't actually UNDER the sea but IN it.

I know Bob reasonably well through ASA - in fact we roomed together at one meeting - & appreciate some of his work, but he labors too much at scientific concordism. Translating raqia` as "expanse" doesn't change the fact that the picture that is being used is an expanse of metal.

You're missing his point though; the word being used denotes the expanding of the metal, not the object that is expanding. And yes, I think sometimes he's being a bit too scientific with certain texts.

reyvin

December 22nd 2004, 10:23 AM

Didn't forget that at all, but what I'm saying is that I think you're taking the picture drawn far too literally. This is the same thing YEC's do with the entire text of Gen 1. Seems fairly obvious that the ancients knew where water came from, and it wasn't from beams or canopy coverings above:

Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
Pro 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

Why could the expression 'waters above the firmament' be taken as our phrase 'under the sea'? Because if you think about it, its the same thing. Fish aren't actually UNDER the sea but IN it.

You're missing his point though; the word being used denotes the expanding of the metal, not the object that is expanding. And yes, I think sometimes he's being a bit too scientific with certain texts.

Erk....meant to say: Why could the expression 'waters above the firmament' not be taken as our phrase 'under the sea'? Because if you think about it, its the same thing. Fish aren't actually UNDER the sea but IN it.

George Murphy

December 23rd 2004, 06:04 PM

Didn't forget that at all, but what I'm saying is that I think you're taking the picture drawn far too literally. This is the same thing YEC's do with the entire text of Gen 1.Of course we have to allow for metaphor & other literary devices - in individual words and whole texts. But we also need some reason to think that such devices are being used beyond the fact that we just don't like the literal sense. The problem with YECs isn't that they interpret words "literally" but that they insist that we must read the whole text as accurate historical & scientific narrative. I.e., their problem is at the macro, not the micro, level.

Seems fairly obvious that the ancients knew where water came from, and it wasn't from beams or canopy coverings above:

Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
Pro 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.You're assuming that there is a unified understanding of meteorological phenomena among OT writers. I see no reason to assume that & good reason not to. Sure, there are the texts you cite but there is also reference to "the windows of heaven" in the flood story (Gen.7:11 & 8:2). You may say that that's figurative, but how do you know that? For people who were familiar with a limited part of the earth's surface, the idea that there were waters above a heavenly dome (see below) which could come through windows as rain isn't unreasonable.

Why could the expression 'waters above the firmament' [not] be taken as our phrase 'under the sea'? Because if you think about it, its the same thing. Fish aren't actually UNDER the sea but IN it.Because we know that that one is a common English idiom but we don't know that the other was a common Hebrew idiom. "Why couldn't P be true?" isn't the same as "P is true."

You're missing his point though; the word being used denotes the expanding of the metal, not the object that is expanding.1) How do we know this?

2) Granted that raqia` can convey the sense of "expanse," we immediately have to ask, "Expanse of what?" Just the abstraction "expanse" hardly fits with the picture being given in Gen.1 of the structure of the world. Expanse of air or vapor? There is nothing in the word or its context to suggest that, & it's only a desire to make the text into a something like a modern scientific picture of the world that suggests this.

Expanse of what? The Hebrew implies hammered or stretched out metal, so that when the related verb is used of God's "spreading out the skies" in Job.37:18 that phrase is immediately followed by "hard as a mirror of cast bronze." (Note that I'm quoting the NIV here!) Von Rad (Genesis, p.53) notes that a word with the same root in Phoenician means "tin dish."

The earliest translation of the Hebrew, that of LXX, renders raqia` as stereoma, which in classical Greek means "that which has been made firm or solid, a solid body" (Liddell & Scott). That is of course the same sense as the Vulgate's firmamentum or Luther's Veste. I stop short of modern translations & commentators which convey the sense I've argued for. Of course one can always say "my authority is better than your authority." But I don't know of any authority who tried to get away from the idea of "firmament" before some Christians started to get uneasy about the fact that the picture this called up didn't agree with the modern scientific picture of the world. Certainly the KJV translators weren't out to undercut the truth of scripture & weren't so enslaved to the Vulgate that they couldn't have used some other word if they'd thought it better.

So if you want to translate raqia` as "expanse," OK. But if we go on to ask what kind of expanse it was, and what the understanding of the biblical writer was, the answer is, "some sort of solid material over the earth with waters above it."

You can then say, "That doesn't mean that the Bible requires us to believe that there is, or was, such a solid dome over the earth, or waters above it." With that I would agree.

Shalom,
George

Augustine2004

December 23rd 2004, 07:56 PM

George Murphy

December 23rd 2004, 09:15 PM

I would say when asked about the inerrancy of Genesis that I think we just don't know enough and the Bible does not give enough details to enable us to make sense out of Genesis for scientific & historical purposes.Genesis 1 doesn't go into great detail but the physical picture of the world that the writer is assuming is fairly clear.

That seems a reach even for ancient Hebrews. I mean, I doubt they took the word that was translated 'window' in the same sense as we take for the english 'window.' Maybe all they understood by 'windows' in that context was 'something through which air, light, or water can come through.' 'Heavens' surely can't mean anything other than 'sky' in that context, whatever they may have thought the sky was. If you disagree, you're probably guilty of chauvinism, whether cultural, chronological, or something else.This is hardly an idiosyncratic idea of mine - check Westermann's Genesis commentary or the IDB article on "Cosmogony," especially the disgram on p.703. & if you disagree, you're probably guilty of anti-intellectualism, fundamentalism, and other naughty things. (Come on!)

Might you not be guilty of violating the hermeneutical principle that says to select the interpretation of the that seems to be the least foolish, I mean to interpret so that it does not make the writer seem foolish? I forgot what the principle is called, exegetical charity?Might you not be guilty of another type of the chauvinism, the idea that people living in a limited part of the earth ~3000 years would have been "foolish" if they hadn't been able to achieve the level of scientific knowledge we have now? Might you not have to say that Dante was "foolish" for accepting a geocentric view of the universe when any school child knows better today? Might you not have to label Kelvin, Lorentz, & other great physicists of the 1890s "fools" for believing in the lumeniferous aether? Personally I don't think that people of previous eras - whether 300, 600, or 100 years ago - were "foolish" for having pictures of the world that seemed reasonable to them in terms of the evidence they then had, even though we know have broader & more accurate data.

Let me add a more general observation. It would be foolish to deny that Genesis 1 & 2 can be read as historical narrative. Most Christians did for something like 1800 years. My point is not that that's foolish or impossible, but that it is also possible to read these texts - especially in the larger canonical context - in another way, a way which is open to an evolutionary understanding of creation. And since the scientific evidence definitely supports an old earth and an evolutionary view of the cosmos and of life, I read them in that second way - a way which is (to return to my original post) fundamentally christological.

Shalom,
George

Mercury

December 23rd 2004, 09:26 PM

Excuse me for jumping in here, but I'm bored today. :teeth:
That seems a reach even for ancient Hebrews. I mean, I doubt they took the word that was translated 'window' in the same sense as we take for the english 'window.'Certainly. Probably "openings" would be a reasonable definition. I don't think anybody's implying these were windows with valances or anything ridiculous like that.
Maybe all they understood by 'windows' in that context was 'something through which air, light, or water can come through.'I'd limit that to "something through which water can come through". Are there any biblical examples of the windows of heaven being opened to let through air or light?
'Heavens' surely can't mean anything other than 'sky' in that context, whatever they may have thought the sky was.Genesis 1:8 links the heavens/sky to the firmament/expanse, whatever they thought that was. I think they thought it was something solid and transparent, which is why it needed openings to let water through but not for daylight to pass through.
Might you not be guilty of violating the hermeneutical principle that says to select the interpretation of the that seems to be the least foolish, I mean to interpret so that it does not make the writer seem foolish?I don't think that most people who take the ANE mindset into account think the writers were foolish. They just weren't 21st century North Americans. I don't think we should anachronistically read our science into their writings. This has been tried many times before with dubious results -- a good example is the claim that Genesis 10:25 describes the dividing of the continental plates. Even most YECs now admit that this was wrong, but now many read this event into the flood account instead. Rather than trying to fit what we feel is the best science into these texts, we should look for an interpretation that would have made as much sense to the original audience as it does to us.

Oh, and I now see that GM beat me to some of these points.

Constantine

December 24th 2004, 02:56 AM

As some of you may know, I've been doing research on how the Early Church Fathers interpreted Genesis. Although they certainly didn't all agree on any one particular interpretation, there is one thing they all seemed to share.

All of them interpreted Genesis under the assumption that the Ptolemic model of the universe was correct. They apperently didn't find any conflict between an earth-centered view of the universe and Genesis. So it should serve as a caution not to read the Genesis account of Creation as a scientific narative.

hopefully I will have my full list of quotes and my essay ready for Glenn next week.

Augustine2004

December 24th 2004, 03:55 AM

Genesis 1 doesn't go into great detail but the physical picture of the world that the writer is assuming is fairly clear.Assuming? You don't go into great detail here, but I think you mean the writer is inspired but still wrote in terms of what the ancient Hebrew could understand, which is a poor fit to what did really happen.

Might you not be guilty of another type of the chauvinism, the idea that people living in a limited part of the earth ~3000 years would have been "foolish" if they hadn't been able to achieve the level of scientific knowledge we have now? Might you not have to say that Dante was "foolish" for accepting a geocentric view of the universe when any school child knows better today? Might you not have to label Kelvin, Lorentz, & other great physicists of the 1890s "fools" for believing in the lumeniferous aether? Personally I don't think that people of previous eras - whether 300, 600, or 100 years ago - were "foolish" for having pictures of the world that seemed reasonable to them in terms of the evidence they then had, even though we know have broader & more accurate data.

Let me add a more general observation. It would be foolish to deny that Genesis 1 & 2 can be read as historical narrative. Most Christians did for something like 1800 years. My point is not that that's foolish or impossible, but that it is also possible to read these texts - especially in the larger canonical context - in another way, a way which is open to an evolutionary understanding of creation. And since the scientific evidence definitely supports an old earth and an evolutionary view of the cosmos and of life, I read them in that second way - a way which is (to return to my original post) fundamentally christological.
One question the Bible does not answer is which part of the detailed history of the universe is miraculous, which can be explained naturalistically even today, and which other can be naturalistically only in the distant future. Moreover Mercury wrote better than I did: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44264

My suspicion is that Genesis is a terse description of the history of the early times of the universe and that these times are so extraordinary as to be nearly beyond even 21st C description. For an analogy, how to explain the first second of the Big Bang hypothesis to an ancient Hebrew in a few sentences? Might not the actual early development as reported in Genesis be equally beyond our modern understanding as well?

A Beautiful Truth

December 24th 2004, 12:17 PM

I don't think that most people who take the ANE mindset into account think the writers were foolish. They just weren't 21st century North Americans. I don't think we should anachronistically read our science into their writings. This has been tried many times before with dubious results -- a good example is the claim that Genesis 10:25 describes the dividing of the continental plates. Even most YECs now admit that this was wrong, but now many read this event into the flood account instead. Rather than trying to fit what we feel is the best science into these texts, we should look for an interpretation that would have made as much sense to the original audience as it does to us.

Yes, and I have come to think this is very important. I think we 21st century North Americans are missing so much in not understanding the culture in which the text was written. It borders on arrogance, I think.

As an analogy, how do the most successful missionaries enter into a culture to witness? They learn the language, they learn the culture, they learn as much as they can about them so as to be the most effective for the Lord. It is even the case that God may have put the seeds there (as with the "unknown God" statue that Paul used) and one can discover and use it IF THEY UNDERSTAND THE CULTURE, (even as Paul did). It is imperative.

So why do we come at the Bible and try to fit it as a 21st century industrialized culture? We don't do this with the gospel accounts. We understand there was a different way of writing and referencing and such. We understand this there but then seem to forget that allowance when it comes to the rest.

reyvin

December 25th 2004, 09:43 AM

Of course we have to allow for metaphor & other literary devices - in individual words and whole texts. But we also need some reason to think that such devices are being used beyond the fact that we just don't like the literal sense. The problem with YECs isn't that they interpret words "literally" but that they insist that we must read the whole text as accurate historical & scientific narrative. I.e., their problem is at the macro, not the micro, level.

You're assuming that there is a unified understanding of meteorological phenomena among OT writers. I see no reason to assume that & good reason not to. Sure, there are the texts you cite but there is also reference to "the windows of heaven" in the flood story (Gen.7:11 & 8:2). You may say that that's figurative, but how do you know that? For people who were familiar with a limited part of the earth's surface, the idea that there were waters above a heavenly dome (see below) which could come through windows as rain isn't unreasonable.

Because we know that that one is a common English idiom but we don't know that the other was a common Hebrew idiom. "Why couldn't P be true?" isn't the same as "P is true."

1) How do we know this?

2) Granted that raqia` can convey the sense of "expanse," we immediately have to ask, "Expanse of what?" Just the abstraction "expanse" hardly fits with the picture being given in Gen.1 of the structure of the world. Expanse of air or vapor? There is nothing in the word or its context to suggest that, & it's only a desire to make the text into a something like a modern scientific picture of the world that suggests this.

Expanse of what? The Hebrew implies hammered or stretched out metal, so that when the related verb is used of God's "spreading out the skies" in Job.37:18 that phrase is immediately followed by "hard as a mirror of cast bronze." (Note that I'm quoting the NIV here!) Von Rad (Genesis, p.53) notes that a word with the same root in Phoenician means "tin dish."

The earliest translation of the Hebrew, that of LXX, renders raqia` as stereoma, which in classical Greek means "that which has been made firm or solid, a solid body" (Liddell & Scott). That is of course the same sense as the Vulgate's firmamentum or Luther's Veste. I stop short of modern translations & commentators which convey the sense I've argued for. Of course one can always say "my authority is better than your authority." But I don't know of any authority who tried to get away from the idea of "firmament" before some Christians started to get uneasy about the fact that the picture this called up didn't agree with the modern scientific picture of the world. Certainly the KJV translators weren't out to undercut the truth of scripture & weren't so enslaved to the Vulgate that they couldn't have used some other word if they'd thought it better.

So if you want to translate raqia` as "expanse," OK. But if we go on to ask what kind of expanse it was, and what the understanding of the biblical writer was, the answer is, "some sort of solid material over the earth with waters above it."

You can then say, "That doesn't mean that the Bible requires us to believe that there is, or was, such a solid dome over the earth, or waters above it." With that I would agree.

Shalom,
George

But mind reading is a horrible mistake. How can anyone know several centuries later what the writer had in mind exactly? If we were all wiped out now and an alien race found a diary describing the weather one day as raining cats and dogs, would they then have to assume we were a society that literally believed this? Even after studying every root-word known to the english language by your reasoning the answer would be 'yes'. What about butterfly? Such examples could be multiplied.
As I understand it, Newman (in the book I suggested above) goes into 'root word' discussion in his book.
Why can the windows of heaven not have a less than literal understanding than what you think? I mean its easy for me to turn the question back at you and ask, 'Well how do YOU know what they were thinking?'.

Do you believe the Bible is inspired George? Perhaps this is a bigger question that needs answering first. It is what God has to say and not what the writer may have pictured as being important. Did the writers have in mind the exact picture of Jesus as the long awaited Messiah when they penned their prophecies? What about your 'theology of the cross'? Were any of the writers thinking such a thing when they were writing? How do you know this?

As to your closing statement 'You can then say, "That doesn't mean that the Bible requires us to believe that there is, or was, such a solid dome over the earth, or waters above it." With that I would agree.' I'm with you wholeheartedly.

George Murphy

December 25th 2004, 06:55 PM

But mind reading is a horrible mistake. How can anyone know several centuries later what the writer had in mind exactly? If we were all wiped out now and an alien race found a diary describing the weather one day as raining cats and dogs, would they then have to assume we were a society that literally believed this? Even after studying every root-word known to the english language by your reasoning the answer would be 'yes'. What about butterfly? Such examples could be multiplied.
As I understand it, Newman (in the book I suggested above) goes into 'root word' discussion in his book.
Why can the windows of heaven not have a less than literal understanding than what you think? I mean its easy for me to turn the question back at you and ask, 'Well how do YOU know what they were thinking?'.You have failed to address the major point which I raised: Translating raqia` as "expanse" & thinking you can just leave it as an abstraction is inconsistent with the type of concrete picture of the world that is sketched in Gen.1. & as soon as we ask "expanse of what?" & start looking at the meanings of the word as witnessed by other biblical usages and the earliest translation (LXX), without even getting into cognates in other semitic languages, it becomes clear that what is in view is something solid. Trying to figure out what the biblical writer was thinking isn't as nebulous a matter as you suggest. There is plenty of linguistic evidence to suggest that what would have been in mind is something solid, and no evidence at all to suggest that it was air, vapor, &c -the type of thing scientific concordists want.

Do you believe the Bible is inspired George? Perhaps this is a bigger question that needs answering first. It is what God has to say and not what the writer may have pictured as being important. Did the writers have in mind the exact picture of Jesus as the long awaited Messiah when they penned their prophecies? What about your 'theology of the cross'? Were any of the writers thinking such a thing when they were writing? How do you know this?Yes, I believe that the Bible is inspired - that the Holy Spirit used human writers to convey what God wanted to about God & God's relationship with humanity and the rest of the world. & the fact that the picture of the world itself that we have in those writings sometimes doesn't agree with the way the world is indicates that that's not the type of thing that God was trying to communicate but that God was willing to let the message be accomodated to the state of understanding of the culture in question. & that idea of accomodation is in very good agreement with the idea of divine kenosis that is part of the theology of the cross.

As to your closing statement 'You can then say, "That doesn't mean that the Bible requires us to believe that there is, or was, such a solid dome over the earth, or waters above it." With that I would agree.' I'm with you wholeheartedly.Let's be clear here so that we don't claim a superficial agreement that we later find is illusory. What I mean by this is that as Christians we are not bound to think that there is a solid dome &c even if the biblical writers apparently pictured it that way.

Shalom,
George

George Murphy

December 25th 2004, 07:02 PM

Assuming? You don't go into great detail here, but I think you mean the writer is inspired but still wrote in terms of what the ancient Hebrew could understand, which is a poor fit to what did really happen.Not only what other ancient Hebrews understood, but what the writer himself understood.

I'm not sure of the referent of "which" in your last clause. Does it refer to my view (so that you're saying that my view doesn't fit with the way the Bible was actually written) or to the way the ancient Hebrews undertood things (so you're agreeing with me)?

One question the Bible does not answer is which part of the detailed history of the universe is miraculous, which can be explained naturalistically even today, and which other can be naturalistically only in the distant future. Moreover Mercury wrote better than I did: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44264

My suspicion is that Genesis is a terse description of the history of the early times of the universe and that these times are so extraordinary as to be nearly beyond even 21st C description. For an analogy, how to explain the first second of the Big Bang hypothesis to an ancient Hebrew in a few sentences? Might not the actual early development as reported in Genesis be equally beyond our modern understanding as well?I think a better way to approach the question is to ask what scientific investigation can tell us about the early universe & the origins of life & then to ask how that scientific knowledge looks when placed in a theological context provided by (among other things) Gen.1

Shalom,
George

Augustine2004

December 26th 2004, 02:07 AM

. . . but I think you mean the writer is inspired but still wrote in terms of what the ancient Hebrew could understand, which is a poor fit to what did really happen.
I'm not sure of the referent of "which" in your last clause. Does it refer to my view (so that you're saying that my view doesn't fit with the way the Bible was actually written) or to the way the ancient Hebrews undertood things (so you're agreeing with me)?Sorry! I meant the latter alternative. It now looks like I'm agreeing with you.

I think a better way to approach the question is to ask what scientific investigation can tell us about the early universe & the origins of life & then to ask how that scientific knowledge looks when placed in a theological context provided by (among other things) Gen.1But it looks like you're assuming that we now have a good scientific understanding of what happened. I'm not so sure.

George Murphy

December 26th 2004, 08:44 AM

But it looks like you're assuming that we now have a good scientific understanding of what happened. I'm not so sure.It seems to me that we have a better understanding of the development of the universe and of life, from a purely scientific point of view, than people did 3000, or even 100 years ago. That certainly doesn't mean that we have a complete understanding. I expect that our understanding of things we're now uncertain or just ignorant of (dark matter & energy, quantum gravity, origin of life - chemical evolution, &c) will grow. But science will never be able to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" because science can only work by having something (laws, fields, strings &c) to start with.

Happy Feast of St. Stephen -
George

reyvin

December 26th 2004, 09:16 AM

You have failed to address the major point which I raised: Translating raqia` as "expanse" & thinking you can just leave it as an abstraction is inconsistent with the type of concrete picture of the world that is sketched in Gen.1. & as soon as we ask "expanse of what?" & start looking at the meanings of the word as witnessed by other biblical usages and the earliest translation (LXX), without even getting into cognates in other semitic languages, it becomes clear that what is in view is something solid. Trying to figure out what the biblical writer was thinking isn't as nebulous a matter as you suggest. There is plenty of linguistic evidence to suggest that what would have been in mind is something solid, and no evidence at all to suggest that it was air, vapor, &c -the type of thing scientific concordists want.

I haven't 'failed' to address anything. I gave specific examples of how your argument fails in regards to our own language itself.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The raqia is specifically named 'sky' in the Genesis account itself. There are three different definitions for shamayim in the Bible and one of them is sky, so why not assume that one here? Seems to make the most sense.

The entire point of me bringing up Newmans book was to give a suggestion for anyone interested in reading it which addresses your objection above about root-words. You haven't indicated that you've ever read it but rather told me you once bunked with him and he is too scientific in his understanding of the Bible.

George Murphy

December 26th 2004, 05:02 PM

I haven't 'failed' to address anything. I gave specific examples of how your argument fails in regards to our own language itself.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The raqia is specifically named 'sky' in the Genesis account itself. There are three different definitions for shamayim in the Bible and one of them is sky, so why not assume that one here? Seems to make the most sense.

The entire point of me bringing up Newmans book was to give a suggestion for anyone interested in reading it which addresses your objection above about root-words. You haven't indicated that you've ever read it but rather told me you once bunked with him and he is too scientific in his understanding of the Bible.My objections were not simply about "root words." You have not addressed my arguments, & simply saying you have doesn't make it so. I won't repeat them here: See my earlier posts.

I do not wish to rely simply on authority, but that is what many debates about translation finally come down to. Furthermore, your citation of Newman & (if I remember correcly) NIV on another thread in regard to this same matter perhaps justifies my pointing out that commentators such as Von Rad, Speiser & Westermann, as well as translations such as LXX, Vulgate, Luther, KJV, RSV, NRSV, & NEB, agree with the view I'm presenting.

If you wish to keep on thinking that the writer of Gen.1 didn't picture a dome, firmament or vault over the earth, or that there were waters above it, fine. Ssalvation doesn't depend on having a correct view on this matter & for my part I see little to be gained by arguing it further here.

Shalom,
George

reyvin

December 27th 2004, 08:12 AM

My objections were not simply about "root words." You have not addressed my arguments, & simply saying you have doesn't make it so. I won't repeat them here: See my earlier posts.

I do not wish to rely simply on authority, but that is what many debates about translation finally come down to. Furthermore, your citation of Newman & (if I remember correcly) NIV on another thread in regard to this same matter perhaps justifies my pointing out that commentators such as Von Rad, Speiser & Westermann, as well as translations such as LXX, Vulgate, Luther, KJV, RSV, NRSV, & NEB, agree with the view I'm presenting.

If you wish to keep on thinking that the writer of Gen.1 didn't picture a dome, firmament or vault over the earth, or that there were waters above it, fine. Ssalvation doesn't depend on having a correct view on this matter & for my part I see little to be gained by arguing it further here.

Shalom,
George

And as for yourself, you've ignored every single argument I've offered back. I send you a scriptural citation and it gets blown off, I give you a resource (Newman) as a suggestion, and it gets blown off, I give you examples from our very own language and it gets blown off. As a counter example, I asked you in return to tell me exactly why you think the ancient authors had this 'theology of the cross' in mind and to give scriptural proof of that assertion and you didn't. I personally believe that God is able to inspire a book that makes sense through time, regardless of what the writers' personal belief was (this comes back to the Messianic point I brought up that you didn't address also).

Don't take the high ground with me, George. I won't fall for that. Just because one english translation followed another, doesn't mean it is necessarily correct in using the word firmament. You realize that, don't you? Tell you what, why don't you challenge JP Holding to a debate on the issue as he's dealt with this before from one Paul Seely. He's much more oriented with ANE culture than I and is better suited to haggle over this type of issue.

Oh and just for fun, here's some water above the raqia if you insist on reading it hyperliterally: http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/

I suppose you're going to suggest that the ancients really believed that rivers and trees clapped their hands also? Psalm 98:8; Isaiah 55:12

G'day George.

George Murphy

December 27th 2004, 08:56 AM

And as for yourself, you've ignored every single argument I've offered back. I send you a scriptural citation and it gets blown off, I give you a resource (Newman) as a suggestion, and it gets blown off, I give you examples from our very own language and it gets blown off. As a counter example, I asked you in return to tell me exactly why you think the ancient authors had this 'theology of the cross' in mind and to give scriptural proof of that assertion and you didn't. I personally believe that God is able to inspire a book that makes sense through time, regardless of what the writers' personal belief was (this comes back to the Messianic point I brought up that you didn't address also).

Don't take the high ground with me, George. I won't fall for that. Just because one english translation followed another, doesn't mean it is necessarily correct in using the word firmament. You realize that, don't you? Tell you what, why don't you challenge JP Holding to a debate on the issue as he's dealt with this before from one Paul Seely. He's much more oriented with ANE culture than I and is better suited to haggle over this type of issue.

Oh and just for fun, here's some water above the raqia if you insist on reading it hyperliterally: http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/

I suppose you're going to suggest that the ancients really believed that rivers and trees clapped their hands also? Psalm 98:8; Isaiah 55:12

G'day George.What I've been trying to do, both in this thread and in the "Deep Theistic Evolution" one, is to discuss evolution in the context of the theology of the cross. Unfortunately few people have wanted to accept that offer and several people have - like you - wanted to deflect the discussion onto concordist interpretations of early Genesis. I didn't respond immediately to your recent question about the theology of the cross because it wasn't immediately germane to the question at hand. But if you really want to pursue that, great. I Corinthians 1:18-31 is a good start.

Again, you may think you've responded to my arguments but you haven't, & what you say here suggests that you haven't understood them. E.g., LXX (the Septuagint) is not an "English translation."

I'm not trying to get you to "fall" for anything & am not going to take any further trouble debating raqia` and the waters above the firmament with you.
I am not going to challenge anyone to a debate on this topic. Knowing Paul Seely, I'm sure he presented the case quite competently.

As I've pointed out before, this issue is a secondatu one for both the threads you've on which you've responded to me. If you'd like to stay on topic, good. If not, drop it. & if that's "taking the high ground," so be it.

Shalom,
George

reyvin

December 27th 2004, 10:52 AM

What I've been trying to do, both in this thread and in the "Deep Theistic Evolution" one, is to discuss evolution in the context of the theology of the cross. Unfortunately few people have wanted to accept that offer and several people have - like you - wanted to deflect the discussion onto concordist interpretations of early Genesis. I didn't respond immediately to your recent question about the theology of the cross because it wasn't immediately germane to the question at hand. But if you really want to pursue that, great. I Corinthians 1:18-31 is a good start.

First off, I didn't bring this raqia issue up, you did. Secondly I have no problem with discussion interpretation of scripture through the lens of Christ. Totally acceptable. But you're missing my point either intentionally or I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm not certain how else to make it clear but it seems like a head-butting contest at this point.

Again, you may think you've responded to my arguments but you haven't, & what you say here suggests that you haven't understood them. E.g., LXX (the Septuagint) is not an "English translation."

Professor of Hebrew John Collins regarding the 24 hour interpretation:

This argument (from tradition) assumes that the "vast majority" are right, regardless of the reasons that led to their reading. After the first century, very few Christians read Hebrew at all, until about 1500; this means that this "vast majority" arrived at their reading of Genesis on the basis of the Greek Old Testament in the Eastern Church, and the Latin Old Testament in the West. These translations are good in some places and bad in others, and our "vast majority" didn't have the resources to know which is which. Besides, when we consider that some of the best and brightest such as Augustine, Anselm, and possibly Aquinas did not take the days as the ordinary kind, we realize that the key questions is now, "How many people read it this way?" but, "What reasons did they have for their reading?"

Seems to apply to biblical interpretation as a whole, no?

I'm not trying to get you to "fall" for anything & am not going to take any further trouble debating raqia` and the waters above the firmament with you.
I am not going to challenge anyone to a debate on this topic. Knowing Paul Seely, I'm sure he presented the case quite competently.
As I've pointed out before, this issue is a secondatu one for both the threads you've on which you've responded to me. If you'd like to stay on topic, good. If not, drop it. & if that's "taking the high ground," so be it.

No problem, I'm fine with this stopping point.

George Murphy

December 27th 2004, 11:18 AM

No problem, I'm fine with this stopping point.OK with me. Do you want to discuss evolution in the context of a theology of the cross? If so, I'll be happy to start another threat. The "Deep Theistic Evolution" one has been pretty much pre-empted by psychological-Bahai debates which have little to do with the topic I originally set out.

Shalom,
George

reyvin

December 27th 2004, 12:49 PM

reyvin

December 27th 2004, 01:04 PM

In fact, why don't you let me start the thread. I'll put it up as 'Questions regarding Theology of the Cross'. That way I'll try and get a few things cleared up so you can expand.

George Murphy

December 27th 2004, 01:09 PM

In fact, why don't you let me start the thread. I'll put it up as 'Questions regarding Theology of the Cross'. That way I'll try and get a few things cleared up so you can expand.Fine. I should note that people use the idea of a "theology of the cross" in different ways so I'll need to explain what I mean by it.

Shalom,
George

lucaspa

December 30th 2004, 02:23 PM

There is a quite straightforward argument which shows that theistic evolution is theologically preferable to special creation (in particular, to the view that humanity was created separately from other species.)

1) "All things" (ta panta) are to be saved - reconciled to God - through the cross of God Incarnate (Col.1:20, Eph.1:10). If we take this seriously it means that all creatures - not just humans - find their fulfillment in & through Christ.

2) "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (Gregory Nazianzus). In the christological debates of the early church, this meant that any aspect of human nature could be saved only if it has been assumed in the Incarnation. Thus Christ had to have a human body, mind, will, &c. (Gregory's statement can be regarded as an inference from Heb.2:17.)

I appreciate your effort, but I can't help testing it. When I look at Eph. 1:10, I find that you have taken the passage out of context. If you start at 1:7, you find "in him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" That refers to humans, not animals. 9-10 "For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth ." In context, Paul isn't talking about animals, but about what is in heaven - angels or whatever.

Colosians 1:20 is similar: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Again this has nothing to do with animals, but with God and whatever else is in heaven.

I object when creationists take the Bible out of context to get it to say what it does not when arguing against evolution. I can't very well condone out-of-context just because it is being used by someone trying to support that God created by evolution. The ends do NOT justify the means.

2) The point Gregory is making is that Jesus MUST be totally human in order to have salvation. A very valid theological point. However, it doesn't matter to that point whether humans were created by evolution or special creation. Gregory's statement works no matter how God created. So this fails as an argument for evolution. Since 2) is not necessary, 3) does not follow as a conclusion.

Now, I think theistic evolution is theologically preferable to special creation, but the reasoning is very different. The reasoning is based on the belief that God actually did create . What did God create? The physical universe! Therefore, any evidence in the physical universe is put there directly by God. Not a human interpretation of scripture. But direct evidence against which we can test any ideas we have. Basically, it is the Christian idea that God has two books . Creation and scripture. "the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

Special creation demands that we ignore the other book of God. So it demands we ignore God. That can't be good theologically. Therefore theistic evolution -- which looks at BOTH books of God -- is theologically superior.

George Murphy

December 30th 2004, 02:40 PM

I appreciate your effort, but I can't help testing it. When I look at Eph. 1:10, I find that you have taken the passage out of context. If you start at 1:7, you find "in him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" That refers to humans, not animals. 9-10 "For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth ." In context, Paul isn't talking about animals, but about what is in heaven - angels or whatever.

Colosians 1:20 is similar: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Again this has nothing to do with animals, but with God and whatever else is in heaven.In both cases you're reducing "all things in heaven and on earth" to "all things in heaven and human beings on earth." I see no justification for this.

I object when creationists take the Bible out of context to get it to say what it does not when arguing against evolution. I can't very well condone out-of-context just because it is being used by someone trying to support that God created by evolution. The ends do NOT justify the means.Agree but I'm not doing that. Note also Rom.8:18-25 where "the creation" is unqualified.

2) The point Gregory is making is that Jesus MUST be totally human in order to have salvation. A very valid theological point. However, it doesn't matter to that point whether humans were created by evolution or special creation. Gregory's statement works no matter how God created. So this fails as an argument for evolution. Since 2) is not necessary, 3) does not follow as a conclusion.I don't think you've understood the argument. I didn't say that Gregory's argument depended on evolution. What I am doing is extending that argument: If Christ had to assume human nature to save humans then he had to assume the natures of other species to save them. This is possible at least in some sense with evolution - because of the evolutionary relationships that all humans, and Jesus in particular, have with other species - but not with special creation.

Now, I think theistic evolution is theologically preferable to special creation, but the reasoning is very different. The reasoning is based on the belief that God actually did create . What did God create? The physical universe! Therefore, any evidence in the physical universe is put there directly by God. Not a human interpretation of scripture. But direct evidence against which we can test any ideas we have. Basically, it is the Christian idea that God has two books . Creation and scripture. "the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

Special creation demands that we ignore the other book of God. So it demands we ignore God. That can't be good theologically. Therefore theistic evolution -- which looks at BOTH books of God -- is theologically superior.I have some problems with the way the "two books" metaphor is often used but that's not to the point right now (though it is on the theology of the cross & creation thread). But I agree of course that the scientific evidence for evolution is crucial. One value of the argument I presented here is that it shows that Christians should welcome that evidence and not just feel that there forced to accept it grudgingly.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

December 30th 2004, 07:10 PM

Special creation demands that we ignore the other book of God. So it demands we ignore God.I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from but let me help you out, lucaspa, don't go there any more!

That can't be good theologically. Therefore theistic evolution -- which looks at BOTH books of God -- is theologically superior.Your theology - and inferences drawn from it - are totally messed up (pardon my candor).
As a YEC I have yet to find anything in creation that doesn't support God and His Word (Scripture). Where you're completely mixed up is in confusing what we observe regarding God's creation with what (Naturalistic) science interprets from these observations. You compound the problem by equating these interpretations (not direct evidence) with the actual "second book". This is a common screw-up so you've got plenty of company.

Jorge

rogero

December 30th 2004, 07:35 PM

I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from but let me help you out, lucaspa, don't go there any more!

...
Jorge
Ok Jorge, why don't you answer the question I posed a week or so ago in another thread? What empirical scientific evidence do you give that supports a 6Ka special creation?

R

Jorge

December 31st 2004, 10:13 AM

Ok Jorge, why don't you answer the question I posed a week or so ago in another thread? What empirical scientific evidence do you give that supports a 6Ka special creation?

RI ignored it last time and came close to ignoring it again, rogero, for the simple reason, 'What's the point?'
Your mind is totally made up against YEC and you seem unable to comprehend the perfectly valid logic that leads to YEC. Note the question that you ask : "What empirical scientific evidence do you give that supports a 6Ka special creation?" You're already off to a bad start!

As a follower of Christ my foundation is faith in Him and in His Word. Therefore, my starting point is that Scripture says what it means and means what it says. I make every effort to NOT read anything into His Word that isn't there. For instance, I don't introduce a "Gap" of several billion years which, coincidentaly, agrees with what Naturalists say about the age of the Earth. A happy 'coincidence', indeed!

Now, you ask for "empirical, scientific evidence". What did you have in mind, rogero - a rock stamped "Made in 4,000 BC by God in Taiwan"? That's where you et al. are being as naive as any God-opposer I've ever met. You don't even know what questions to ask. In the tiniest nutshell, a billions-of-years-old universe is a product of Naturalistic assumptions, it's that simple! That's why starting with the Word of God one then looks out at the universe - it isn't (it can't be) the other way around (not for a Christian). Yet this is precisely what many Christians are now doing.

Are there questions and seeming paradoxes/mysteries to the YEC view? Yes, of course there are. So what?
The most ardent Atheist/Naturalist has several tons of questions and paradoxes/mysteries within their own materialistic view of the universe (although only the more honest of them usually admit so). ANY metaphysical view has questions and problemas - lots of them. IMHO this is so by Design.

I'll pray that the New Year brings you, grmorton, et al. the answers that you so desperately need. Be well.

See ya'll "next year".

Jorge

shunyadragon

January 1st 2005, 02:13 AM

I ignored it last time and came close to ignoring it again, rogero, for the simple reason, 'What's the point?'
Your mind is totally made up against YEC and you seem unable to comprehend the perfectly valid logic that leads to YEC. Note the question that you ask : "What empirical scientific evidence do you give that supports a 6Ka special creation?" You're already off to a bad start!

As a follower of Christ my foundation is faith in Him and in His Word. Therefore, my starting point is that Scripture says what it means and means what it says. I make every effort to NOT read anything into His Word that isn't there. For instance, I don't introduce a "Gap" of several billion years which, coincidentaly, agrees with what Naturalists say about the age of the Earth. A happy 'coincidence', indeed!

Now, you ask for "empirical, scientific evidence". What did you have in mind, rogero - a rock stamped "Made in 4,000 BC by God in Taiwan"? That's where you et al. are being as naive as any God-opposer I've ever met. You don't even know what questions to ask. In the tiniest nutshell, a billions-of-years-old universe is a product of Naturalistic assumptions, it's that simple! That's why starting with the Word of God one then looks out at the universe - it isn't (it can't be) the other way around (not for a Christian). Yet this is precisely what many Christians are now doing.

Are there questions and seeming paradoxes/mysteries to the YEC view? Yes, of course there are. So what?
The most ardent Atheist/Naturalist has several tons of questions and paradoxes/mysteries within their own materialistic view of the universe (although only the more honest of them usually admit so). ANY metaphysical view has questions and problemas - lots of them. IMHO this is so by Design.

I'll pray that the New Year brings you, grmorton, et al. the answers that you so desperately need. Be well.

See ya'll "next year".

Jorge
Now yo have Jorge's answer. It is fideist to the core. Any reference to science is incidental and used only in an attempt to discredit evolution. Science to Jorge is simply a byproduct of naturalist assumptions and nothing more, its that simple.

George Murphy

January 1st 2005, 02:36 PM

Now yo have Jorge's answer. It is fideist to the core. Any reference to science is incidental and used only in an attempt to discredit evolution. Science to Jorge is simply a byproduct of naturalist assumptions and nothing more, its that simple.& even at that, the fides that his post represents is not simply faith in God, or even in the truth of scripture, but in one particular way of interpreting scripture as the only possible way. This is shown by the fact that he reacts in the same knee-jerk way not only to scientific evidence for evolution but to any theological argument that implies an openness to evolution.

Shalom,
George

shunyadragon

January 1st 2005, 11:56 PM

OK with me. Do you want to discuss evolution in the context of a theology of the cross? If so, I'll be happy to start another threat. The "Deep Theistic Evolution" one has been pretty much pre-empted by psychological-Bahai debates which have little to do with the topic I originally set out.

Shalom,
GeorgeNot sure of your meaning of 'psychological-Bahai debates?', but it was never my attempt to pre-empt anything. I was very interested in this thread as presented, but things kind of wandered around. Presenting alternative views to 'The Theology of the Cross', should not be considered threatening or pre-empting a debate.

You may be referring to our Freudian friend that I dialogue with occassionally, but I do not share his interpretation of the Bible.

I do not consider his understanding of the Bible any more unusal than the fideist approach, but it is hard to understand at times.

I would not consider Baha'i psycological.

I was at one time interested in the resurrection of the mythical Gray Pilgrim in hopes he would present his views, but after seeing him botch the text with dull axe concerning polygamy and the number of horses to a chariot, I am far less enthusiastic about the reality of his reputation and what he may contribute.

George Murphy

January 2nd 2005, 07:17 AM

Not sure of your meaning of 'psychological-Bahai debates?', but it was never my attempt to pre-empt anything. I was very interested in this thread as presented, but things kind of wandered around. Presenting alternative views to 'The Theology of the Cross', should not be considered threatening or pre-empting a debate.

You may be referring to our Freudian friend that I dialogue with occassionally, but I do not share his interpretation of the Bible.

I do not consider his understanding of the Bible any more unusal than the fideist approach, but it is hard to understand at times.

I would not consider Baha'i psycological.

I was at one time interested in the resurrection of the mythical Gray Pilgrim in hopes he would present his views, but after seeing him botch the text with dull axe concerning polygamy and the number of horses to a chariot, I am far less enthusiastic about the reality of his reputation and what he may contribute.What I meant by "psychological-Bahai debates" was just the fact that kofh2u & you were arguing from, respectively, psychological & Bahai angles respectively & as far as I could see not getting much of anywhere.

Discussing alternatives to the theology of the cross is certainly legitimate but at some point establishment of a new thread would be appropriate. It seems to me that - as I've told him - kofh2u ought to do that to present his views.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

January 2nd 2005, 08:16 AM

Now yo have Jorge's answer. It is fideist to the core. Any reference to science is incidental and used only in an attempt to discredit evolution. Science to Jorge is simply a byproduct of naturalist assumptions and nothing more, its that simple."Fideist"? To a large degree, yes ... absolutely! But you make it sound "dirty" or at least "wrong" when you haven't even taken the time to realize a point that I've promoted all along : in essense we are all 'fideist'.

Answer this : do you truly believe that the materialistic Atheist - believing that everything is nothing more than the product of matter and energy - is NOT essentially a practicing fideist? Let me assure you, their foundation in faith is every bit as real as that of the Snake Worshippers of Bali.

And I can't let this one slide : no, No, NO! - I do NOT believe that "science is simply a byproduct of naturalist assumptions and nothing more ..." How you people arrive at your wacky conclusions is one of those mysteries in the universe that one day I hope to resolve. :lol:

Jorge

Jorge

January 2nd 2005, 08:24 AM

& even at that, the fides that his post represents is not simply faith in God, or even in the truth of scripture, but in one particular way of interpreting scripture as the only possible way. This is shown by the fact that he reacts in the same knee-jerk way not only to scientific evidence for evolution but to any theological argument that implies an openness to evolution.

Shalom,
GeorgeYeah ... I know ... it's a fault of mine - I "react in the same knee-jerk way" whenever I come across baloney.

I'll have to work on that ... you know, learn to take in nonsense as if nothing were happening. :rasberry:

Jorge

shunyadragon

January 2nd 2005, 10:30 AM

"Fideist"? To a large degree, yes ... absolutely! But you make it sound "dirty" or at least "wrong" when you haven't even taken the time to realize a point that I've promoted all along : in essense we are all 'fideist'.

Answer this : do you truly believe that the materialistic Atheist - believing that everything is nothing more than the product of matter and energy - is NOT essentially a practicing fideist? Let me assure you, their foundation in faith is every bit as real as that of the Snake Worshippers of Bali.No, I do not believe 'that everything is nothing more than the product of matter and energy'. I believe in TE.

And I can't let this one slide : no, No, NO! - I do NOT believe that "science is simply a byproduct of naturalist assumptions and nothing more ..." How you people arrive at your wacky conclusions is one of those mysteries in the universe that one day I hope to resolve. :lol: It is not hard, I simply referred to your posts particularly the last post, which pretty much reflects that view. Being a fideist to a large degree is the same as being to a large degree pregnant. At this point you are or you are not. Since 95%+ of all scientists and 99%+ scientists in related fields support evolution it would be difficult for you to present a positive view of science from the fideist position. Are all these scientists 'a byproduct of naturalist assumptions', because they believe in evolution?

Most scientists and science as a whole interacts with evolution and the principles that relate to an ancient earth and cosmology as a regular part of their research and work.

Jorge

January 2nd 2005, 12:01 PM

No, I do not believe 'that everything is nothing more than the product of matter and energy'. I believe in TE.I was giving an example, dragon. Since you apparently didn't get the gist of my example, let's try again.
As a TE, are you aware of the fideist foundation that you have? THAT was my point.

It is not hard, I simply referred to your posts particularly the last post, which pretty much reflects that view. Being a fideist to a large degree is the same as being to a large degree pregnant. At this point you are or you are not. Since 95%+ of all scientists and 99%+ scientists in related fields support evolution it would be difficult for you to present a positive view of science from the fideist position. Are all these scientists 'a byproduct of naturalist assumptions', because they believe in evolution?

Most scientists and science as a whole interacts with evolution and the principles that relate to an ancient earth and cosmology as a regular part of their research and work.You're mixing apples with nuclear warheads. You don't even fully understand what you're saying, dragon. It's not 95% or 99% ... 100% of all scientists support evolution ... heck, 100% of all YECs support evolution!

I'll bet you have that deer-in-the-headlights-look right about now. :stunned:

[HINT : recall that there's scientific evolution and then there's an evolution metaphysic a.k.a. a world view.]

Jorge

George Murphy

January 2nd 2005, 01:56 PM

Yeah ... I know ... it's a fault of mine - I "react in the same knee-jerk way" whenever I come across baloney.The primary fault of yours is that you never give any substantive response to anybody who disagrees with you, but content yourself with lame sarcasm & namecalling. Closing your post with this - :rasberry: - shows the intellectual level at which you apparently prefer to operate.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

January 2nd 2005, 05:04 PM

The primary fault of yours is that you never give any substantive response to anybody who disagrees with you, but content yourself with lame sarcasm & namecalling.Sarcasm is just a means of keeping my sanity in the face of so much nonsense (such as you display here).

Closing your post with this - - shows the intellectual level at which you apparently prefer to operate.

Shalom,
GeorgeClosing my post with :rasberry: and others is merely a way of expressing a number of sentiments.

I'm quite serious about this stuff, George, as I regard evolution as an extremely dangerous idea for Christians and non-Christians alike. However, when I see myself faced with unassailable ideological positions, I conclude that satire-sarcasm are as good a thing to toss out as anything else since, after all, you guys aren't listening anyway.

Interesting how you do notice the little emoticons - maybe you're a visual learner. :lmbo:

Jorge

George Murphy

January 2nd 2005, 11:21 PM

Sarcasm is just a means of keeping my sanity in the face of so much nonsense (such as you display here).It doesn't seem to be working.

Shalom,
George

Jorge

January 3rd 2005, 07:37 AM

It doesn't seem to be working.

Shalom,
GeorgeYou're wrong there ... without such a venting mechanism I'd be checking myself into the loony bin every now and then. But then again, shrinks are no help ... they're wackier than any of us. :teeth:

Jorge

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 09:08 AM

In both cases you're reducing "all things in heaven and on earth" to "all things in heaven and human beings on earth." I see no justification for this.That's not my intention. My intention is to show that the passages are talking not about animals in the "all things on earth" but rather using the earth as a comparison to heaven. When you dropped the comparison, you lost the meaning. There is nothing in the text itself to indicate that Paul was considering animals. You are reading into the text what you want to be there.

Agree but I'm not doing that. Note also Rom.8:18-25 where "the creation" is unqualified."we who hve the Spirit as the first of God's gifts also groan within ourselves as we wait for God to make us his sons and set our whole being free". No salvation for plants and animals. What Paul is doing in these passages is inventing meaning from Genesis 3. Genesis 3 is clear that not all Creation fell. Instead, the disobedience of Adam and Eve had very limited consequences, all spelled out in Genesis 3. Like you, Paul feels able to add to scripture whatever he feels like, so he has made the Fall apply to all Creation when scripture is clear it doesn't. Now you use Paul's misunderstanding to justify your own addition to scripture. :smile:

I don't think you've understood the argument. I didn't say that Gregory's argument depended on evolution.What you said was that Gregory's argument supported evolution more than special creation. I am saying that Gregory's argument applies no matter whether humans got here by evolution or special creation. Therefore, you can't use that argument as support that evolution is theologically superior.

What I am doing is extending that argument: If Christ had to assume human nature to save humans then he had to assume the natures of other species to save them.But there is nothing in scripture explicitly saying that Christ is saving other species. Paul in Rom 8:23-24 says that only humans have the "Spirit" and therefore only humans get saved.

This is possible at least in some sense with evolution - because of the evolutionary relationships that all humans, and Jesus in particular, have with other species - but not with special creation.Unfortunately, Jesus does NOT have an evolutionary relationship with other species. Jesus is a special creation. He's not Mary's genetic child, is he? If not, then Jesus shares no alleles with the rest of humanity and, by extension, with other species.

However, let's also look at the argument assuming special creation is real. Now, since Jesus' conception and birth is miracle, even if special creation is true and there is no relationship among species, the miracle could extend so that Jesus takes on the nature of other species miraculously. After all, under special creation species are created miraculously, therefore Jesus can equally have their natures miraculously. You still haven't made the argument that evolution is theologically superior this way.

I have some problems with the way the "two books" metaphor is often used but that's not to the point right now (though it is on the theology of the cross & creation thread). But I agree of course that the scientific evidence for evolution is crucial.The evidence can't be crucial unless it is theologically equivalent to scripture. This is what the creationists do: downgrade evidence for evolution because it comes from Creation and not scripture.

One value of the argument I presented here is that it shows that Christians should welcome that evidence and not just feel that there forced to accept it grudgingly.I realized that. As I understand, I appreciate the effort. However, my problem is that your argument doesn't stand testing against scripture and theology. Christians should accept evidence from Creation gladly. Most Christians have. The people who don't are those who have chosen to worship their man-made literal interpretation of scripture in place of God or Christ. Since your argument isn't based on their literal interpretation, I don't see that it will make a dent in creationism, even if I agreed with it.

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 09:10 AM

Ok Jorge, why don't you answer the question I posed a week or so ago in another thread? What empirical scientific evidence do you give that supports a 6Ka special creation?

RRogero, wrong question. The problem is, as Popper showed, that you can find supporting evidence for ANY theory if that is all you are looking for. So asking for such evidence only leads you into a futile argument on whether that evidence is valid.

What you need to do is focus on the evidence that falsifies a theory. There are literally mountains of evidence that falsify a 6Kya special creation.

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 09:18 AM

I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from but let me help you out, lucaspa, don't go there any more!Sorry, Jorge, but I will keep "going there" because it is correct. God created, right? Then what did God create? The physical universe! Right? Did any other entity create? Nope! Therefore, all the evidence we get from Creation was put there by GOD! Ignoring it means ignoring God.

As a YEC I have yet to find anything in creation that doesn't support God and His Word (Scripture).1. The "Word" is not scripture! The Word is Jesus. You have just told us that you are now worshipping your literal interpretation of scripture. False idol worship.
2. There are literally mountains of evidence that contradict a literal reading of Genesis 1-11. After all, you accept that there is evidence in creation that contradicts a literal reading of Luke 2:1, don't you? After all, not the whole world was enrolled, was it? So you have already found evidence in creation that contradicts a literal reading of scripture.

Where you're completely mixed up is in confusing what we observe regarding God's creation with what (Naturalistic) science interprets from these observations.What does "science interpret" from these observations?
Define "naturalistic science", please.

You compound the problem by equating these interpretations (not direct evidence) with the actual "second book".Jorge, all ideas we have about the second book are compared to the direct evidence -- observation -- of the second book. If the ideas are wrong, the second book tells us so. Unfortunately, YECers even ignore the clear text in scripture that their interpretation of scripture is wrong.

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 09:29 AM

As a follower of Christ my foundation is faith in Him and in His Word. There's teh first problem. Look at John 1, Jorge. What is the Word? Is it scripture? NO! Already you are promoting false idol worship.

Therefore, my starting point is that Scripture says what it means and means what it says.IOW, your man-made literal intepretation. Sorry, we aren't dealing with "Scripture" or even God/Jesus. We are dealing with a man-made interpretation that we are supposed to believe is God. That's making your literal interpretation into a false idol. Violation of the First Commandment.

I make every effort to NOT read anything into His Word that isn't there. For instance, I don't introduce a "Gap" of several billion years which, coincidentaly, agrees with what Naturalists say about the age of the Earth. A happy 'coincidence', indeed!So you don't like Gap Theory. Yet where do you get the women for Cain and Abel to marry? Don't you read into scripture daughters of Adam and Eve that aren't mentioned as existing yet?

In the tiniest nutshell, a billions-of-years-old universe is a product of Naturalistic assumptions, it's that simple! Sorry, Jorge, but this ignores that YEC was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1800. The scientists (all of whom were Christians and many were ministers) did start with a literal interpretation of scripture. What they found was evidence in God's Creation that meant that the literal interpretation was wrong. Thus the second quote in my signature.

That's why starting with the Word of God one then looks out at the universe - it isn't (it can't be) the other way around (not for a Christian). Yet this is precisely what many Christians are now doing.Yes, Christians are looking at both books of God. It is only the false idol worshippers who mistakenly call themselves "Christian" that look only at their literal interpretation of scripture.

The most ardent Atheist/Naturalist has several tons of questions and paradoxes/mysteries within their own materialistic view of the universe (although only the more honest of them usually admit so).AH, be we aren't talking about atheists/philosophical naturalists here. We are talking theists who take God at His word about how He created. Instead of imposing a method of creation on God. Telling God how He must do things is never a good idea. Ask the Pharisees about this. :smile:

ANY metaphysical view has questions and problemas - lots of them. IMHO this is so by Design.Oh, cool! Another variant in the Argument from Design. Tell me, Jorge, why should truth have problems? Why would God so design as to hide truth? I love how YEC ends up destroying the very religion it is supposedly trying to save! Of course, this is understandable when you realize that YEC isn't trying to save Christianity; it's trying to save the religion of worshipping a man-made idol of literal interpretation of the Bible.

I pray that you will find God and leave your false-idol worship before it is too late for you.

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 09:39 AM

You're mixing apples with nuclear warheads. You don't even fully understand what you're saying, dragon. It's not 95% or 99% ... 100% of all scientists support evolution ... heck, 100% of all YECs support evolution!

I'll bet you have that deer-in-the-headlights-look right about now. No. After all, once AiG and ICR accepted speciation, they accepted evolution. ALL of it, including what they call "macroevolution". The problem is that they still don't realize that they have accepted evolution. :smile: However, not 100% of YECs accept speciation. Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya, for instance, still deny speciation. You should know your YECs better than you do.

[HINT : recall that there's scientific evolution and then there's an evolution metaphysic a.k.a. a world view.]
Then stop confusing the two. At least call the "evolution metaphysic" by a new name so we can tell when you are talking about it and not evolution.

The problem, Jorge, is that you want to argue against atheism. However, you are making the wrong fight on the wrong battlefield when you try to argue against atheism by arguing against evolution. You can't "win" against atheism the way you are going about it.

George Murphy

January 3rd 2005, 10:27 AM

That's not my intention. My intention is to show that the passages are talking not about animals in the "all things on earth" but rather using the earth as a comparison to heaven. When you dropped the comparison, you lost the meaning. There is nothing in the text itself to indicate that Paul was considering animals. You are reading into the text what you want to be there.1st, it's not certain that Paul wrote Col. & Eph. (I'm inclined to think he may have written the former but not the latter) but let that pass. Ta panta means "all things." One might say that that's hyperbole but the addition of "things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph.1:10) & "whether on earth of in heaven" (Col.1:20) indicate that it really does mean "all things" without qualification. You've given no justification for your claim that these texts are "using the earth as a comparison to heaven" & are simply reading out of the texts what you don't want to be there.

It will do you no good simply to keep repeating that "all things in heaven and on earth" mean something other than what they say. Unless you can show some clear reason, other than your dislike of the idea of salvation of animals, that they don't mean that, just admit that you're wrong. It's no disgrace.

Of course you are not alone in trying to force such a limited meaning on these texts. Lohse, e.g., in his Hermeneia commentary on Col. says, "the great drama is for the sake of man alone." But like you, he offers no evidence in support of this claim.

"we who hve the Spirit as the first of God's gifts also groan within ourselves as we wait for God to make us his sons and set our whole being free". No salvation for plants and animals. What Paul is doing in these passages is inventing meaning from Genesis 3. Genesis 3 is clear that not all Creation fell. Instead, the disobedience of Adam and Eve had very limited consequences, all spelled out in Genesis 3. Like you, Paul feels able to add to scripture whatever he feels like, so he has made the Fall apply to all Creation when scripture is clear it doesn't. Now you use Paul's misunderstanding to justify your own addition to scripture. :smile: Thank you for agreeing that in this passage Paul clearly is speaking about the salvation of the non-human creation. Those who believe that the NT is authoritative scripture will understand that the inspired NT writers sometimes read fuller meanings into OT texts than the original writers intended and will not try to dismiss them as "misunderstanding." I already dealt with this in the theology of the cross & creation thread.

What you said was that Gregory's argument supported evolution more than special creation. I am saying that Gregory's argument applies no matter whether humans got here by evolution or special creation. Therefore, you can't use that argument as support that evolution is theologically superior.You seem to insist on reading my argument as something other than what I intended, in spite of my explanation. I did NOT say that Gregory's argument in itself supported evolution more than special creation. I took Gregory's argument as a starting point and then explicitly extended it to the question of how the non-human terrestrial creation could be saved.

But there is nothing in scripture explicitly saying that Christ is saving other species. Paul in Rom 8:23-24 says that only humans have the "Spirit" and therefore only humans get saved.So now Paul gets to be authoritative in v.23 because you think he agrees with you there but what he said in v.21 about the creation being set free & doesn't count? This is classic pick & choose theology.

Unfortunately, Jesus does NOT have an evolutionary relationship with other species. Jesus is a special creation. He's not Mary's genetic child, is he? If not, then Jesus shares no alleles with the rest of humanity and, by extension, with other species.Jesus is Mary's child. How one sorts out the genetics &c if Mary conceived him as a virgin I don't know. But the fundamental point here - more fundamental even than virginal conception - is that he was "born of a woman" (Gal.4:4). That is essential to his being a real human being, & that in turn is essential for Heb.2:17 & Gregory's argument.

However, let's also look at the argument assuming special creation is real. Now, since Jesus' conception and birth is miracle, even if special creation is true and there is no relationship among species, the miracle could extend so that Jesus takes on the nature of other species miraculously. After all, under special creation species are created miraculously, therefore Jesus can equally have their natures miraculously. You still haven't made the argument that evolution is theologically superior this way.This is a desperate last ditch "let's pretend" argument. It denies that Jesus was really human in the sense of sharing a common history with those he came to save. The Incarnation was not God dressing up as a human being. He really became human in the fullest sense: "The Word was made flesh."

The evidence can't be crucial unless it is theologically equivalent to scripture. This is what the creationists do: downgrade evidence for evolution because it comes from Creation and not scripture.Scientific evidence about the world is theologically relevant when it is placed in the context of revelation.

I realized that. As I understand, I appreciate the effort. However, my problem is that your argument doesn't stand testing against scripture and theology. Christians should accept evidence from Creation gladly. Most Christians have. The people who don't are those who have chosen to worship their man-made literal interpretation of scripture in place of God or Christ. Since your argument isn't based on their literal interpretation, I don't see that it will make a dent in creationism, even if I agreed with it.I don't expect this particular argument to be decisive in making a dent in "creationism." I do think that the fundamental approach connected with a theology of the cross can do that. (& I should say I'm not the only person trying to do that: Cf. Ted Peters & Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003), pp.139-146.)

As to "testing against scripture and theology", your challenges to my argument fail, as I've shown above.

Shalom,
George

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 03:50 PM

Thank you for agreeing that in this passage Paul clearly is speaking about the salvation of the non-human creation.George, you are providing strong evidence that you are no longer bothering to read my posts. Let's put what I said that you are responding to:
lucaspa "we who hve the Spirit as the first of God's gifts also groan within ourselves as we wait for God to make us his sons and set our whole being free". No salvation for plants and animals. What Paul is doing in these passages is inventing meaning from Genesis 3. Genesis 3 is clear that not all Creation fell. Instead, the disobedience of Adam and Eve had very limited consequences, all spelled out in Genesis 3. Like you, Paul feels able to add to scripture whatever he feels like, so he has made the Fall apply to all Creation when scripture is clear it doesn't. Now you use Paul's misunderstanding to justify your own addition to scripture.
Now, let's look at what I said:
"No salvation for plants and animals" How did you misinterpret that to agreeing with you about "the salvation of the non-human creation"?
I said "No salvation for plants and animals". The text of the letter (and I don't care if Paul really wrote it or not, that is irrelevant; saying "Paul wrote" was convenient shorthand) talks only about human salvation.

In other passages, Paul tends to write as tho the Fall applied to all Creation. That doesn't mean salvation comes to all Creation.

Those who believe that the NT is authoritative scripture will understand that the inspired NT writers sometimes read fuller meanings into OT texts than the original writers intended and will not try to dismiss them as "misunderstanding.""Fuller meanings"? Is this what you call inventing things that aren't there?

Look at Genesis 3. That text is clear that not all Creation "fell". Very limited disobedience, very limited consequences. I'm sorry, George, but you simply can't make up things for scripture from whole cloth. If you are going to use scripture as authority, then you can't invent things for scripture to say that it doesn't. Saying "inspired NT writers" is simply more of your circular reasoning.
NT writers are inspired. Their changes to OT is accurate. Because they are inspired. How do you independenlty verify "inspiration"? After all, Jehovah's Witnesses claim inspiration in changing NT text in translation. How do you know they are not inspired? Joseph Smith claimed inspiration to add a whole new testament. Why don't you accept his inspiration?

I already dealt with this in the theology of the cross & creation thread. You keep saying this. However, I am here and we are having our discussion here. So please cut and paste and deal with the issues here. Thank you.

You seem to insist on reading my argument as something other than what I intended, in spite of my explanation. I did NOT say that Gregory's argument in itself supported evolution more than special creation. I took Gregory's argument as a starting point and then explicitly extended it to the question of how the non-human terrestrial creation could be saved.But you haven't addressed how Jesus cannot take on the aspects of human or animals if they are specially created! And it is this difference -- Jesus can take on the aspects if humans evolved but not if specially created -- that is the heart of your extension and ultimate argument. Yet nothing in Gregory speaks that the initial argument doesn't work under special creation. So please show me how your extension doesn't work under special creation.

lucaspa
But there is nothing in scripture explicitly saying that Christ is saving other species. Paul in Rom 8:23-24 says that only humans have the "Spirit" and therefore only humans get saved.So now Paul gets to be authoritative in v.23 because you think he agrees with you there but what he said in v.21 about the creation being set free & doesn't count? This is classic pick & choose theology.Nice try at diversion. You claimed Rom 88:18-25 as support for your argument that animals will be saved. I'm saying that 23-24 in your support doesn't support you. You don't seem to be arguing that. Instead, now you change and say that verse 21 supports you. Verse 21 says "that creation will be set free from its slavery to decay" That says nothing about salvation. Only that 'decay' will stop. While wanting to use scripture as "authority", you seem to have your personal translation as to what the words mean.

Yes, I don't think Paul is correct about all creation being in decay. Why? Because that idea is contradicted by the Genesis 3 account that Paul bases the argument on. Paul bases the argument on scripture, and the scripture used doesn't support him. I would say I'm consistent in using all of scripture as authority. You are inconsistent in that you get to change scripture based on your a priori theology of the cross to say whatever you want it to say.

I think theology should be deduced from scripture, Creation, and personal experience. IOW, listen to God. You pick the theology first and then try to get scripture to fit. That to me is too much like telling God that He has to agree with you.

Jesus is Mary's child. How one sorts out the genetics &c if Mary conceived him as a virgin I don't know. But the fundamental point here - more fundamental even than virginal conception - is that he was "born of a woman" (Gal.4:4). That is essential to his being a real human being, & that in turn is essential for Heb.2:17 & Gregory's argument.
lucaspa
However, let's also look at the argument assuming special creation is real. Now, since Jesus' conception and birth is miracle, even if special creation is true and there is no relationship among species, the miracle could extend so that Jesus takes on the nature of other species miraculously. After all, under special creation species are created miraculously, therefore Jesus can equally have their natures miraculously. You still haven't made the argument that evolution is theologically superior this way.This is a desperate last ditch "let's pretend" argument. It denies that Jesus was really human in the sense of sharing a common history with those he came to save. The Incarnation was not God dressing up as a human being. He really became human in the fullest sense: "The Word was made flesh." George, PLEASE try to read what is written. Look carefully, "assuming special creation is real". We are only talking about Gregory's statement that Jesus is fully human. Does that statement work if humans and animals are specially created? This is back to the discussion about whether Gregory's argument and your extension apply only in evolution. If they apply equally well to special creation, then that argument that evolution is theologically superior to special creatoin doesn't work. Now, read that again carefully. Do you follow my argument?

You claim that Jesus' humanity works better in evolution than special creation, based on Gregory. In fact, you extend that to Jesus' salvation of animals works better under evolution. Now, does Jesus' humanity work under special creation? I say "yes". Because humans are created by miracle then it is equally plausible that Jesus' humanity can be created by miracle. Where did you get the idea that Jesus was any less human? Miracle can make him completely human, can't it? After all, is it any greater miracle that Jesus is made completely human by miracle than it is for God to become flesh by miracle? I don't see how.

So, a basis for your argument that evolution is theologically superior falls apart.

lucaspa
The evidence can't be crucial unless it is theologically equivalent to scripture. This is what the creationists do: downgrade evidence for evolution because it comes from Creation and not scripture.Scientific evidence about the world is theologically relevant when it is placed in the context of revelation. I am talking about theologically equivalent and you say "theologically relevant". I'm saying that evidence from Creation is theologically equivalent to revelation. Now, what exactly are you saying?

I don't expect this particular argument to be decisive in making a dent in "creationism." I do think that the fundamental approach connected with a theology of the cross can do that. (& I should say I'm not the only person trying to do that: Cf. Ted Peters & Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003), pp.139-146.)That others are trying to do that does not necessarily make the argument valid. After all, how many creationists say that creationism is theologically superior to evolution? Do their numbers make their argument valid?

As to "testing against scripture and theology", your challenges to my argument fail, as I've shown above.

Shalom,
George[/QUOTE]

lucaspa

January 3rd 2005, 04:59 PM

lucaspa
However, let's also look at the argument assuming special creation is real. Now, since Jesus' conception and birth is miracle, even if special creation is true and there is no relationship among species, the miracle could extend so that Jesus takes on the nature of other species miraculously. After all, under special creation species are created miraculously, therefore Jesus can equally have their natures miraculously. You still haven't made the argument that evolution is theologically superior this way.
This is a desperate last ditch "let's pretend" argument. It denies that Jesus was really human in the sense of sharing a common history with those he came to save. The Incarnation was not God dressing up as a human being. He really became human in the fullest sense: "The Word was made flesh."George, if your conclusion from the logic "assume special creation is real" -- that Jesus real humanity is denied -- then you should have been thanking me rather than castigating me! After all, I've just shown you a whole new argument how evolution is theologically superior to special creation! Special creation denies the real humanity of Jesus!

When you write your next book and include this, I expect credit. :teeth:

Of course, I don't see how special creation denies the real humanity of Jesus. Unless you mean that he must share genetic continuity with humans to be really human. But Jesus cannot share genetic continuity because God isn't part of the human gene pool! Is He? The problem isn't with special creation or evolution, but with the idea of Incarnation.

BTW, if Jesus was fully human, did he go thru the terrible twos? :smile: My daughter had what we call "The Great Sunday Morning Poop". Your imagination can fill in the disgusting details. Did Jesus have one of those?

If God became "fully human", doesn't that mean Jesus also got Adam's sinful nature? By Paul's theology, then, Jesus would be sinful and need a Savior! Personally, I'd rather discard Paul's theology, but hey, it's something to think about. I don't think Chrisitianity has fully considered the implications of that "fully human" thing.

Jack777

January 3rd 2005, 06:25 PM

George Murphy wrote:

"Of course this does not answer any scientific questions about evolution. It does mean, though, that at the very least Christians should not object to evolution on religious grounds."

Christians should oppose evolution on religious grounds every step of the way.

George Murphy

January 3rd 2005, 07:23 PM

George, you are providing strong evidence that you are no longer bothering to read my posts. Let's put what I said that you are responding to:

Now, let's look at what I said:
"No salvation for plants and animals" How did you misinterpret that to agreeing with you about "the salvation of the non-human creation"?
I said "No salvation for plants and animals". The text of the letter (and I don't care if Paul really wrote it or not, that is irrelevant; saying "Paul wrote" was convenient shorthand) talks only about human salvation.
In other passages, Paul tends to write as tho the Fall applied to all Creation. That doesn't mean salvation comes to all Creation.Sorry, I thought you were reading what Paul said & just though he was mistaken. Now I understand that you aren't reading him and think he was mistaken. What he says is: "The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

As far as other Pauline passages are concerned, I've shown that your attempts to limit Eph.1:10 & Col.1:15-20 are wrong. We could talk about the different nuances of "salvation", "reconciliation", "recapitulation" & "liberation" if you wish but that's a secondary matter.

"Fuller meanings"? Is this what you call inventing things that aren't there?You seem to imagine that I accord myself the privilege of putting new meaning into OT texts. I don't. What I do is what the NT encourages me to do, read the OT intelligently in the light of Christ.

Look at Genesis 3. That text is clear that not all Creation "fell". Very limited disobedience, very limited consequences. I'm sorry, George, but you simply can't make up things for scripture from whole cloth. If you are going to use scripture as authority, then you can't invent things for scripture to say that it doesn't. Saying "inspired NT writers" is simply more of your circular reasoning.
NT writers are inspired. Their changes to OT is accurate. Because they are inspired. How do you independenlty verify "inspiration"? After all, Jehovah's Witnesses claim inspiration in changing NT text in translation. How do you know they are not inspired? Joseph Smith claimed inspiration to add a whole new testament. Why don't you accept his inspiration?You can't accuse a person of "circular reasoning" for appealing to his/her fundamental presuppositions, postulates, ... what ever you call them. The way such claims have to be tested is by seeing how well they help one to interpret experience. I am starting from the belief that Christ crucified, as proclaimed in scripture, is the most complete revelation of God.

You keep saying this. However, I am here and we are having our discussion here. So please cut and paste and deal with the issues here. Thank you.I have already taken more time than I should have responding to your repetitions. If you're going to debate with me on 2 threads, please try to keep track of what's been said. Thank you.

But you haven't addressed how Jesus cannot take on the aspects of human or animals if they are specially created! And it is this difference -- Jesus can take on the aspects if humans evolved but not if specially created -- that is the heart of your extension and ultimate argument. Yet nothing in Gregory speaks that the initial argument doesn't work under special creation. So please show me how your extension doesn't work under special creation.Because being human means, inter alia, sharing a common history. A specially created human being plunked down in Palestine ~ 4 B.C. doesn't share such a common history. Come on!

Nice try at diversion. You claimed Rom 88:18-25 as support for your argument that animals will be saved. I'm saying that 23-24 in your support doesn't support you. You don't seem to be arguing that. Instead, now you change and say that verse 21 supports you. Verse 21 says "that creation will be set free from its slavery to decay" That says nothing about salvation. Only that 'decay' will stop. While wanting to use scripture as "authority", you seem to have your personal translation as to what the words mean.Believe it or not, I'm trying to remain civil in the face of your snide remarks. I claimed that vv.18-25 in toto support my position. I didn't says that every word or verse taken out of context do. v.21 is part of 18-25.

don't think Paul is correct about all creation being in decay. Why? Because that idea is contradicted by the Genesis 3 account that Paul bases the argument on. Paul bases the argument on scripture, and the scripture used doesn't support him. I would say I'm consistent in using all of scripture as authority. You are inconsistent in that you get to change scripture based on your a priori theology of the cross to say whatever you want it to say.You are consistent in using the OT as your authority. Your statement that I am "changing scripture" is false. I am reading Romans as authoritative. If you don't think it is then say so.

theology should be deduced from scripture, Creation, and personal experience. IOW, listen to God. You pick the theology first and then try to get scripture to fit. That to me is too much like telling God that He has to agree with you.I am interpreting scripture from what is clearly the center of the NT, Christ. You have proposed no theological way of reading scripture at all.

s Mary's child. How one sorts out the genetics &c if Mary conceived him as a virgin I don't know. But the fundamental point here - more fundamental even than virginal conception - is that he was "born of a woman" (Gal.4:4). That is essential to his being a real human being, & that in turn is essential for Heb.2:17 & Gregory's argument.
George, PLEASE try to read what is written. Look carefully, "assuming special creation is real". We are only talking about Gregory's statement that Jesus is fully human. Does that statement work if humans and animals are specially created? This is back to the discussion about whether Gregory's argument and your extension apply only in evolution. If they apply equally well to special creation, then that argument that evolution is theologically superior to special creatoin doesn't work. Now, read that again carefully. Do you follow my argument?The issue here wasn't whether humans & other animals were "special creations" in the beginning but whether Jesus was a "special creation" in the sense of not being a biological descendant of Mary. You're the one who's not paying attention to what you yourself have written.

im that Jesus' humanity works better in evolution than special creation, based on Gregory. In fact, you extend that to Jesus' salvation of animals works better under evolution. Now, does Jesus' humanity work under special creation? I say "yes". Because humans are created by miracle then it is equally plausible that Jesus' humanity can be created by miracle. Where did you get the idea that Jesus was any less human? Miracle can make him completely human, can't it? After all, is it any greater miracle that Jesus is made completely human by miracle than it is for God to become flesh by miracle? I don't see how.I already explained this above.

Shalom,
George