Olam Olam-The Bible's way of telling us the earth is very old [Archive]

View Full Version : Olam Olam-The Bible's way of telling us the earth is very old

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 07:03 PM

Since Jason G decided to chicken out on a debate with me on the question of whether the Bible teaches an ancient earth, (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=844137&postcount=21), I decided to post what would have been my first argument in that debate here.

A prefatory remark is in order. I am convinced that the TE’s will not succeed at convincing the young-earthers that TE is ok, until there is a theology to go with TE that the YECs don’t think destroys the Bible. This post is part of my efforts along those lines.

The YECs need to know from both scripture and ancient –prescientific sources that the Bible does not necessarily teach what they have been taught. I believe that there are numerous indications in Scripture that the earth is old and that evolution is allowable. But their YEC teachers not only don’t teach them what is out there in geology, their YEC teachers don’t teach them what is in the Scripture, preferring instead to stick like bull-necked individuals with one and only one possibility. I hope this will open other possibilities for the YEC, like my discovery that God ordered the earth to do the bringing forth in Genesis 11:11, 24.

There is a Hebrew world which the YEC literalists seem always to ignore and never incorporate into their thinking. The word is Olam. It refers to an indefinite period of time with the connotation of infinity.

Strong defines it as:
properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always:—always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end)

Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as:

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
1b) (of future)
1b1) for ever, always
1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The thing to note about this word is that it has a semi-infinite connotation to it. It is the word which is used in verses where eternity is described.

The everlasting God
Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting[olam] God.

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

The ‘everlasting to everlasting is olam olam. From everlasting (olam) to everlasting (olam).

This is the word which the Bible uses to describe how long God’s promises will last.

Gen 17:19 I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting[olam] covenant, and with his seed after him.

The YECs will like this one. God promised that when he looks on the rainbow he would not forget his promise

Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting[olam] covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Now, with that as a back ground, I have looked at every single occurrence of Olam in the Old Testament. It is translated 269 times as ‘for ever”, 64 times as ‘everlasting’, 26 times as ‘old’, 22 times as ‘perpetual’, 16 times (with another word) as ‘never’, 15 times as ‘evermore’, 6 times as ‘ancient’, 3 times as ‘always’ with a handful of other words.

Clearly this word has the connotation of eternity or eternal, which is why I said it has a connotation of the infinite.

Now, when faced with a word like olam, in a context like this:

Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting[olam] hills kjv

What is one to think? A word used to express God’s eternal nature, past and future is applied to the hills. A look at other translations of this passage don’t help us out of the problem.

The blessings of your father are greater than the blessings of the oldest mountains and the riches of the ancient hills

If the word progenitor applies to the progenitors of the hills, then this translation ensues.

Gen 49:26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills.

Everlasting hills? That makes them quite old. But this isn’t the only place that this phrase appears. Olam is also used to describe hills in Deut. 33:15:

Deut 33:15 And for the chief things of the ancient (qedem) mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting(olam) hills

The olam hills. As an aside, qedem is the word translated as ‘east’ in Genesis 2:8 so that verse might actually be read as “God planted a garden of old in Eden”

So how old are the olam hills? Well if one wishes to limit the time to a mere 2000 years prior to the writing of these verses, then one would have to change his concept of how long God’s eternal past is. Instead of from ‘everlasting to everlasting’, the Hebrew phrase olam olam would mean ‘from 2000 years ago to the future’. And that doesn’t sound very glorious now, does it?

If the word merely means 2000 years, then in

1 Chron 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.[olam olam]

Means that God is blessed for only 4000 years. Yippee.

The word means a much longer time than a mere 2000 years and it is applied to both God’s covenants, the length of God’s existence(past and future) and the age of the hills.

There are two verses which use a double olam to discuss the pre-flood world. Lets look at Joshua 24:2

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time[olam olam], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”

The time frame referred to is similar to our colloquialism, an eternity ago. I would argue that this construction is indicative that the writers did not view the flood as having happened just merely 1000 years before their time.

Isaiah 64 uses the same phrase but the translator uses one olam as beginning and the other as world, a strange choice given the use elsewhere.

Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning[olam olam] of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

But other translators have used a more consistent meaning:

The NRSV says “From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you,”

And the American Standard says: “For from of old men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen a God besides thee, who worketh for him that waiteth for him.”

This is not referring to a short time ago. Everywhere olam olam is used, it is in reference to God’s eternity and thus the phrase, if used of the time before the flood or the creation, implies a length of time somewhat comparable to our puny conceptions of God’s own eternity.

While not a proof, the use of olam olam and its use with God’s eternity indicates to me that the flood was long long ago, long before the timeframe most Christians ascribe to it.

Here are all the verses which use olam olam.

Joshua 24:2 “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time[olam olam], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”

1 Chron 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.[olam olam]

Psalm 41:13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting[olam olam]. Amen, and Amen

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam], thou art God

Psalm 103:17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

Psalm 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting[olam olam]

Psalm 145:1 Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever[olam olam]

Isaiah 64:4 For since the beginning[olam olam] of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.

Raptor

January 2nd 2005, 08:58 PM

:popcorn:

grmorton

January 2nd 2005, 09:43 PM

:popcorn:

Go Sooners.

shunyadragon

January 2nd 2005, 09:54 PM

Jack777

January 2nd 2005, 10:04 PM

edit: I was writing while shunyadragon was, and I agree great job!

I love that popcorn thingy. That is a scream!!!!!!

Really and truly, you have hit upon something there. In the NT the phrase is in Greek only it is aion. There was a lot of stuff written on this in the 19th century but it is needful today I think.

Olam olam means age to the end of the ages, like that. They are saying in the OT and NT that there have been a lot of ages, just like you think. It is about the equivalent to the Hopi and many other people aware of the different "worlds". We are fixing to do the fourth soon. That is in the Bible too. The olam olam deal refers only to mankind not the whole age of the earth in the surface text, but you are on the right track.

The latest olam olam, aion aion as you put it is only about 12,000 years old now (see I did not beat you up about your Greek or Hebrew as the idea is important and surely you could be kind to YECs who are as sloppy with science--I am not going to use the right fonts as I do not have my computer available and I would have to do graphics to reproduce the right words). There have been several before this one. It does not further the millions of years but it could get people off of 6,000 years.

The Sumerians had a king's list you should check out sometime, I think it would interest you. I think it was Rawlinson who discovered it and figured the math was messed up. I don't think it was, but you see. The cunieform is specific and they got dividing up the day into parts right as well as hours. In fact we liked it so much we have 3600 seconds in an hour.

reyvin

January 2nd 2005, 10:27 PM

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 12:09 AM

From one who just learning the details of scripture, this knowledge in this context is gold to me. Five pearls to you for your preparation. I had known about this in a general context, but I had never thought of it as part of an argument for an ancient earth.

Thanks for the kind words. Glad this could be of some use.

The other side of the coin is that I disagree with your objection to TE and who will succeed in convincing the YEC that the earth is genuinely ancient. First, TE does not necessarily rely on a rational argument for belief in making peace between the scripture and science. It accepts science based on objective reality and scripture based on faith and a belief in God. Second, the TE believers do not discount many of the arguments you present and indeed welcome them as not necessarily OEC ID arguments, or uniquely gmorton.

I know they will use them but my point really is that TEs, including me, have spent most of our time talking science, but too little laying out a truly theological position which shows the flaws of YEC. I have no doubt there will be some TEs who say this isn't so, but frankly, when a YEC I never saw a theological argument that made waver save the one I mentioned earlier about God telling the earth to bring forth. Mostly what I have seen are statements that Genesis isn't meant to be taken as history, which frankly won't get the YECs because it requires them to accept as axiomatic what they reject.

Second, even though OEC and ID believers accept science, there is still an element of manipulation that is attempted to make science fit the Bible.

And precisely what is wrong with that? Isn't there manipulation in all interpretive schemes? Isn't that the very nature of an intepretive scheme? Surely you don't believe that it is not a manipulation to say it is all non-history do you? We all do it, even the YECs who deny they do it.

Having done graduate work in philosophy, I can assure you that there is manipulation in the interpretation of Kant, Descartes and all the other writers. It is part of the scenery when one tries to understand a written text.

Third, this is one more of many very convincing arguments presented from both the Biblical and scientific points of view that YEC is a terrribly weak position, but I doubt that this would convince those entrenched in a worldview of Christian apologetics. I am sure as most of the prominant ones are either academic theologians or scholars in Biblical languages, and they should know about the implications of 'Olam'. They either chose to keep it to the side and hidden and not bring it to the table, or they will provide their own duck, bobb and weave contortionist arguments to explain it away. Others are simply driven from the table and remain stoically silent like JasonG.

I have no doubt that their leaders know about this, or ought to. And it makes me ask the question once again, why don't the YEC leaders ever tell their followers the whole story?

spiritmech

January 3rd 2005, 12:12 AM

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 12:13 AM

Olam olam means age to the end of the ages, like that. They are saying in the OT and NT that there have been a lot of ages, just like you think. It is about the equivalent to the Hopi and many other people aware of the different "worlds". We are fixing to do the fourth soon. That is in the Bible too. The olam olam deal refers only to mankind not the whole age of the earth in the surface text, but you are on the right track.

Amazing. we agree on something. :teeth:

The Sumerians had a king's list you should check out sometime, I think it would interest you. I think it was Rawlinson who discovered it and figured the math was messed up. I don't think it was, but you see. The cunieform is specific and they got dividing up the day into parts right as well as hours. In fact we liked it so much we have 3600 seconds in an hour.

I have in my database both the Sumerian and Egyptian king lists. While I don't think the details on them are correct, it is very true that the kingly lines of both civilizations go way back before historical times.

REcently in Egypt, historical records were pushed back another 150 years, if I recall correctly.

GrayPilgrim

January 3rd 2005, 01:14 AM

snip
A prefatory remark is in order. I am convinced that the TE’s will not succeed at convincing the young-earthers that TE is ok, until there is a theology to go with TE that the YECs don’t think destroys the Bible. This post is part of my efforts along those lines.

The YECs need to know from both scripture and ancient –prescientific sources that the Bible does not necessarily teach what they have been taught. I believe that there are numerous indications in Scripture that the earth is old and that evolution is allowable. But their YEC teachers not only don’t teach them what is out there in geology, their YEC teachers don’t teach them what is in the Scripture, preferring instead to stick like bull-necked individuals with one and only one possibility. I hope this will open other possibilities for the YEC, like my discovery that God ordered the earth to do the bringing forth in Genesis 11:11, 24.I think this is it. I am not a YEC because it is fun being a troglodyte (although it can be :smile:). I think that it is the intertextual issue at stake not just a single verse here or there that build the argument (for both positions). Second, I think (read know) we will disagree on the relative weight of external evidence for this discussion. For my part I cannot comment on the geological evidence other than to say that I agree that it is evidence but I will not necessarily agree with your theories and interpretation of the facts in much the same way you will not agree with my interpretations of the Scriptures, because these are fundamentally basic components to our different fideistic conceptions of reality which require not just an inordinate amount evidence, but a whole shift in the tectonic plaits of a believe structure to overturn. To put it differently, for you to convince me that person A, whom I previously thought was an honest person, is a crook; will not take much because it does not have a large effect on my understanding of reality. But to convince me that, say God is dead, which would completely undermine my understanding of reality will require you to have mountains of evidence. I say this to point out that for either of us to expect the other to change our minds on something that is fundamentally basic to our understandings of reality and the nature of the world is less likely. What makes this more difficult in this case is an understanding of the referentiallity and necessity of certain statements in the NT in regards the historical referentiallity of those statements for the basis of the doctrine of atonement, e.g. Romans 5 inter alia.

Since I am guessing that the descent of Arphachshad from Shem or Terah from Nahor has no bearing on this discussion you meant Gen 1:11, 24. From the context I would say that these are God establishing the processes that we call nature, but are inextricably linked with his creation of them and his maintenance of them. So from what I think you are saying here I would say we agree.

There is a Hebrew world which the YEC literalists seem always to ignore and never incorporate into their thinking. The word is Olam. It refers to an indefinite period of time with the connotation of infinity.

Strong defines it as:

snip

Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as:

snip[/cite]I would prefer to use HALOT, not because it is in my favor, but it has the benefit of 100 years or more of lexicographical discoveries and studies.

—1. long time, duration (usually eternal, eternity, but not in a philosophical sense) THAT 2:235f: ymel.A[Å[ db,[, a slave for life Dt 1517 1S 2712 Jb 4028 (Ug. Ábd Álm), [ db,[,Å[ tx;m.fi Is 3510, [ tx;m.fiÅ[ rk,zE Ps 1126, [ rk,zEÅ[ ~ve Is 565, [ ~veÅ[ tr;h] Jr 2017, [ tr;h]Å[ tP;r>x, Is 2340; [ tP;r>x,Å[ occurs thus in many phrases: with tyrIB. Gn 916 (16 times), with xl;m, tyrIB. Nu 1819, with tZ:xua] Gn 178, with tQ;xu (23 times) Ex 1214.17. cj. Ezk 4614 see Zimmerli 1168, with -qx' (11 times) Ex 2928 3021, with tN:huK. Ex 4015 Nu 2513, with ds,x, never-failing kindness Is 548.

—2. future time (THAT 2:232ff): a) ~l'A[ adv. (acc. Gesenius-K. §118q, MSS often ~l'A[Å[l.) Ps 618 667 892.38, cj. 48; b) with prep: [l.Å[l. Gn 322 (164 times), cj. Ps 875 (BHK :: BHS) and 2C 337; [l.Å[ d[; (Deir Alla 1:9; Hoftijzer-vdK. Deir Alla 200) Gn 1315 (60 times) and [ d[;Å[l. d[; 1C 2325 287 (cf. Ug. bÁd Álm, Ád Álm … Álmt); [l. d[;Å[l. parallel with rDo rdol. Ex 315; rDo rdol.Å[ d[; parallel with rdow" rdol. Is 3417 (7 times); d[,w" Å[[l] Ex 1518 (15 times); lÅ[h'-d[; Ps 289 1333; [h'-d[;Å[-d[;w> hT'[;me Is 96 (8 times); d[; ymel.A[-d[; for all times Is 4517; d[ ymlw[l 1QH 18; d[ ymlw[lÅ[l. d[;l' Ps 1118 1486; c) ~ymil'A[ times to come Ps 778 1K 813 = 2C 62 Ps 615 14513 Da 924 :: former times Qoh 110 (THAT 2:241).

—3. a long time back, dark age of prehistory (Pedersen Isr. 1-2:491; THAT 2:232): a) ~ymil'A[Å[ tb;yae Ezk 2515, [ tb;yaeÅ[ tb;h]a; Jr 313, [ tb;h]a;Å[ t¿AÀ[ob.GI Gn 4926 Dt 3315, [ t¿AÀ[ob.GIÅ[ ~[; Ezk 2620, [ ~[;Å[ yxet.Pi Ps 247.9, [ yxet.PiÅ[ tAmy> Dt 327, [ tAmy>Å[ ymey> Mal 34, [ ymey>Å[ yteme those long dead Lam 36, Ps 1433, [ ytemeÅ[ xr;ao Jb 2215 (:: Pope Job 166), [ xr;aoÅ[ tAbtin> Jr 616, yleybiv. Å[ Jr 1815, [Å[ tAkylih] Hab 36, [ tAkylih]Å[ lWbG> Pr 2228 2310 (?); b) ~l'A[ Dt 3315 and ~ymil'A[ Is 519 parallel with ~d,q,, ~d,q,Å[ parallel with rAdw" rAD Dt 327; c) ~l'A[me ever since, from of old (THAT 2:231f): Gn 64 (15 times, Mesha. 10), Sir 4221 518, cj. 2S 1318 (:: Hertzberg ATD 102:2641) and Is 447; ~l'A[meÅ[h' !mi Jr 288 Jl 22, [h' !miÅ[h'me Å[h' d[;w> Ps 4114, [h' d[;w>Å[h' d[;w> Å[h' !mi Ps 10648, [h' !miÅ[-d[; Å[me Ps 902, [meÅ[-d[;w> Å[me Ps 10317.

—4. of God: [meÅ[ yhel{a/ everlasting God Is 4028 (see Seeligmann 986), [ yhel{a/Å[ lae Gn 2133 (THAT 2:236f; Cross HTR 55 (1962):236ff; OSin. Àl dÑ-Álm, Albright Proto-Sin. 13, 38; F.M. Cross Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973):49f: "El lord of eternity"), [ laeÅ[ $.l,m, Jr 1010 (cf. Ug. mlk Álm, THAT 2:237), [ $.l,m,Å[ t[odoz> Dt 3327 (Cross-Freedman JBL 67 (1948):20985; THAT 2:236), ~ymil'A[ rWc Is 264; ~ymil'A[ rWcÅ[h' yxe Da 127 (= Arm. am'l.[†' yx; Da 431) the ever-living one (see Baudis-sin Adonis 486ff).

—5. misc. Aml'A[ tyBe his house of eternity, meaning grave Qoh 125 (also Deir Alla 2:6. Pun. Palm. Syr.; orig. Egyptian, see THAT 2:242; H.P. Müller ZDPV 94 (1978):63); (sense of) Aml'A[ tyBeÅ[ placed in people’s hearts Qoh 311 (THAT 2:242; Barr Biblical Words for Time (London 1962):117f4: enduring state referring to past and future; Gese Vom Sinai zum Zion (1974):177: lapse of time :: Gray Legacy2 274f), parallel with lKoh; (ï lKo 1, a, i); ~lw[ meaning "world" occurs first in post-Biblical Heb. (THAT 2:242f; Hertzberg KAT 17/4:100 and 106f), Palm. aml[ arm the Lord of the World, DJD 1: no. 20:ii: line 5, p. 87 (THAT 2:242f; Galling ZThK 58 (1961):2ff).

—Emendations: 1S 278 for ~l'A[me prp. ~l'yJemi :: Stoebe KAT 8/1:474; Seebass VT 15 (1965):389ff: ~l'y[e, the same ~l'y[eÅ[e as in Gn 141 (!), Sept. Gelam[your]); Is 5711 rd. ~yli[.m;W; Is 644 for [;ve†W"nIw> ~l'A[ ~h,B' prp. [v'p.NIw: $'m.l,['heB., alt. [v'r>NIw: (BHS :: KBL; Westermann ATD 19:3108); Jr 4936 K ~l'A[ rd. with Q ~l'y[e; Ps 128 Wz demonstrative pron., not relative ?, cf. Gesenius-K. §126y (Kraus BK 152:234 :: Dahood Psalms 1:75); Pr 2310 for ~l'A[ lWbG> (so 2228) rd. ? hn"m'l.a; ÅG> (BHS).

The thing to note about this word is that it has a semi-infinite connotation to it. It is the word which is used in verses where eternity is described.I would disagree with this on a few grounds, but most notably is Psalm 139. If you will see my article on Psalm 139 from last year sometime you'll see that I argued that ~l'(A[ %r<d<äB. meant in the old way referring to the previous relationship the Psalmist had with Yahweh, not as in the way of eternity. This is just one usage so it does not enervate your argument as a whole but just shows that I would like you to soften that statement to "that it can have a semi-infinite connotation," as long as we understand this in a non-philosophical sense of infinite.

snip The ‘everlasting to everlasting is olam olam. From everlasting (olam) to everlasting (olam).

This is the word which the Bible uses to describe how long God’s promises will last.
snip The YECs will like this one. God promised that when he looks on the rainbow he would not forget his promise

snip

Now, with that as a back ground, I have looked at every single occurrence of Olam in the Old Testament. snipOkay of the 439 (18 of which I assume are your handful) occurrences how many refer to God and how many refer to other entities? Because language referring to God should be taken univocally to be the same usage when it refers to something else (at least working within a Christian framework, as I assume we both are). The issue is not how it is "translated" because translations are often more interested in particular agendas or based upon contemporary idioms and less with the intent of a passage. All that to say I think a more in depth study of the usage of these 469 usages taking into account the genre, and context are required before making any assumptions about the semantic domain of ~l'(A[.

Clearly this word has the connotation of eternity or eternal, which is why I said it has a connotation of the infinite.As I said above it can, but does not. As HALOT pointed out it can refer to the lifetime of a slave per Deuteronomy.

Now, when faced with a word like olam, in a context like this:

snip
What is one to think? A word used to express God’s eternal nature, past and future is applied to the hills. A look at other translations of this passage don’t help us out of the problem.Or could it not mean that as you look at those mountains which are obviously old, God is older still. You see the usage of language especially in poetry has to be taken much more sensitively than this comment asserts. For Just because I use a word in one context to refer to God does not mean that you must bring all those categories over when I use the same word to refer to a light bulb, i.e. God is light and that is a light bulb. My use of light in both contexts have different denotations. the light bulb refers to its luminosity. In reference to God, as per 1 John, it refers to his moral perfection.

snip If the word progenitor applies to the progenitors of the hills, then this translation ensues.

snip Everlasting hills? That makes them quite old. But this isn’t the only place that this phrase appears. Olam is also used to describe hills in Deut. 33:15:

snip The olam hills. As an aside, qedem is the word translated as ‘east’ in Genesis 2:8 so that verse might actually be read as “God planted a garden of old in Eden”I could use your argument here to say that the earth is co-eternal with God, and thus a dualistic conception arises, for if God did not create the earth it is co-eternal and beyond his capacity to control. I do not think you are saying that, but that is the problem with your current argument, it needs nuancing.

Hal8247 ~d,q,

—1. in front ~d,q,w" rAxa' Ps 1395, ~d,Q,mi from the front Is 911.

—2. in front, east (Michel Grundlegung 1:76):

—a. acc. locative ~d,q, eastwards Jb 238, cf. (also in b) Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §20b;

—b. i. ~d,Q,mi from the east Gn 112 1311 Is 26 (cj. for ~d,Q,miÅQ,mi prp. e.g. Q,miÅQ,mi ~ymis.qo, see Wildberger BK 10:93, BHS);

—ii. in the east Gn 28 (Westermann BK 1/1:287) Zech 144;

—c. l. ~d,Q,mi east of Gn 324 (Westermann BK 1/1:373; Gese Vom Sinai zum Zion 107) Gn 128 Nu 3411 Jos 72 Ju 811 Ezk 1123 Jon 45.

—3. a. ~d,q, east: ~d,q,Åq, #r,a, Gn 256, q, #r,a,Åq, bveyO those living in the east Ps 5520;

—b. q, bveyOÅq, ynEB. the people of the east (KBL sv. 3: easterners), meaning those living in Transjordan, perhaps particularly in the Hauran, see H.P. Müller ZDPV 94 (1978) 61 (with bibliography in note 30) :: Simons Geog. §35: those living in the Syrian-Arab desert, nomads and semi-nomads: Gn 291 Ju 63.33 712 810 1K 510 (THAT 2:587f), Is 1114 Jr 4928 Ezk 254.10 Jb 13;

—c. i. q, ynEB.Åq, yrer>h; the mountains of the east Nu 237, for their location see b; q, yrer>h;Åq, ynEB. see Müller ZDPV 94 (1978) 61;

—ii. ~d,Q,h; rh; this hill country to the east Gn 1030, mean-ing the northern edge of Mount Sinai, Jebel TÌuwaiq (KBL, sv. 3) :: Westermann BK 1/1:704: unidentified topographical name.

—4. ~d,q, (temporal) before, earlier, in olden days (THAT 2:588f):

—a. ~d,q, wyl'['p.mi the earliest of his works Pr 822;

—b. ~d,q,K. as of old Jr 3020 Lam 521; ~d,q,K.Åq, yxer>y: previous months Jb 292;

—c. i. ~d,Q,mi from before, in advance Is 4521 4610 (Vogt Biblica 48 (1967) 59-63);

—ii. from time immemorial Ps 7412 776.12 1435.

—cj.: Neh 1246 for ~d,Q,mi prp. ~d'qip.W (Rudolph Esr.-Neh. 200; BHS :: KBL, sv. 4: with MT, for the first time).

—5. prehistoric times, primeval time:

—a. from prehistoric times, since primeval time Mi 51, cf. W. Beyerlin Die Kulttraditionen Israels 78ff; K. Seybold Das davidische Königtum 109ff: Hab 112 Ps 742, ~d'qip.WÅq, yNImi Ps 782;

—b. q, yNImiÅq, ymey> days of primeval time 2K 1925/Is 3726 Is 237 519 Jr 4626 Mi 720 Ps 442 Lam 17 217;

—c. i. q, ymey>Åq, yhel{a/ God since time immemorial Dt 3327;

—ii. q, yhel{a/Åq, yrer>h; ancient mountains 3315;

—iii. q, yrer>h;Åq, ykel.m; kings of a primeval age :: ? kings from the East Is 1911, on which see Wildberger BK 10:702, 719; cf. ~dq ykysn leaders of a primeval age Sir 167;

—iii. ~dq ykysnÅq, ymev. (the) heaven of primeval time, meaning eternal heaven Ps 6834; from pl. #r,a, ymed>q; primeval times of the earth Pr 823;

—d. adverb ~d,q, (temporal acc., cf. Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §100b):

—i. from before Ps 742;

—ii from time immemorial Ps 119152. †

So while in certain usages qdm does refer to temporal usages, there is also this geographical connotation, and unless you are willing to build an argument for this usage in this context I'll stick with geographical context. A word with multiple definitions does not bear them all in every usage, otherwise communication becomes impossible. If everytime I use the word "front" it must mean:

the foremost part
a person or thing that serves as a cover or disguise for some activity
to face in opposition...
Then you are unable to understand what I am saying and communication becomes an exercise in deconstruction, which seems fun at first (and in fact is the source of much comedy, but renders meaningful communication impossible. So all this to say I would not press your point on qdm.

So how old are the olam hills? Well if one wishes to limit the time to a mere 2000 years prior to the writing of these verses, then one would have to change his concept of how long God’s eternal past is. Instead of from ‘everlasting to everlasting’, the Hebrew phrase olam olam would mean ‘from 2000 years ago to the future’. And that doesn’t sound very glorious now, does it?

If the word merely means 2000 years, then in

snip

Means that God is blessed for only 4000 years. Yippee.

The word means a much longer time than a mere 2000 years and it is applied to both God’s covenants, the length of God’s existence(past and future) and the age of the hills. It can be, but as per some of the Psalms and deuteronomy it could be as short as 5 years too, it is a referential word to a long period and in some contexts 5 years is long. there is nothing inherent in olam which means eterntiy. It is in the usage. So thus I am left saying that I agree in that when in reference to God it does mean from eternity, but your usage argues not for a world that began at some prehistoric date billions(?) of years ago, but it has always been and always will be...

[quote]There are two verses which use a double olam to discuss the pre-flood world. Lets look at Joshua 24:2

snip

The time frame referred to is similar to our colloquialism, an eternity ago. I would argue that this construction is indicative that the writers did not view the flood as having happened just merely 1000 years before their time.

Isaiah 64 uses the same phrase but the translator uses one olam as beginning and the other as world, a strange choice given the use elsewhere.

snip

This is not referring to a short time ago. Everywhere olam olam is used, it is in reference to God’s eternity and thus the phrase, if used of the time before the flood or the creation, implies a length of time somewhat comparable to our puny conceptions of God’s own eternity.

While not a proof, the use of olam olam and its use with God’s eternity indicates to me that the flood was long long ago, long before the timeframe most Christians ascribe to it.

Here are all the verses which use olam olam.

snip[QUOTE]
As I said each one requires a genre specific, sensitive treatment. Who knows maybe you are correct. But as of this post I would say that you need to nuance your argument more.

Once again, I agree that just pointing at a single verse is not going to change my mind, as me doing the same will not change yours, but a detail comprehensive analysis of the whole Bible will show that there are consequences fro both of our positions that require alteration and those humility is required on both sides.

As one of my professors pointed out, when we get to heaven God will show us how it really was and both of us will say, "of course, that is what it says." But that may be rather different than what we thought it said.

GP

kofh2u

January 3rd 2005, 01:44 AM

"why don't the YEC leaders ever tell their followers the whole story?"

I'm not so sure that's the case. There are many people who want to keep a literal interpretation of the OT. So you get to choose literal-YEC or nonliteral-OEC. I agree with you that there is a third way but it will take some time to develop a hermeneutic that doesn't rule out TE.

SM

1) Socrates (?- I forget how this twebber called himself) was a very active poster @6 mos ago. He was a YEC, one rather distinguished for/by his defense of that view.

I asked him, at one of his weak moments, why he wouldn't admit that YEC was a deterent, and an unnecessary stumbling block to proseltyzing educated people. A stumbling block placed in the first chapter of the bible.

My point was that science people quit, refuse to go further, if they must need entertain such a view. They never get to the important message of Christ. It all is dismissed as ancient foolishness.

His answer was that, further down the track, when other ideas arise that defy sensible explanation, those same scientist will be asked to accept other important theological concepts.

Those ideas will also require a faith, a belief, in some metaphysical irrationality. So, he said, to capitulate immediately, in Genesis 1, would just strengthen the demand for rational meanings where there were none. Go figure!

This may seem like I am making it up, but not only did he say what is the truth of the matter, as I had already suspected, but he soon left tweb. He never responded to my question concerning how he differentiated between faith in the ultimate emergence of Truth as it is found in the bible, and Faith as required in accepting some "truth" supposed in theological doctrines.

I sum this to mean that YECs have an interpretation which basically is surrealistic and metaphysical throughout. It was once an effective story, one useful in proseltyzing. It was effective in spinning acceptable meaning for scripture in a day when people had no reasons, no knowledge, no information to dispute the ideas.

Bearing this in mind, that the paradigm of society has changed with a lag in the church doctrine, the YECs hold on, well, for dear life. They have no comprehensive interpretation that meets rational, 21st century, requirements.

2) So, if true, then it is encumbered upon the TE to state in one simple paragraph, how TE leads to Christ, basically as we all generally understand this to mean.

So, if you ARE a TE, what is your one paragraph overview? I have mine!

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 08:19 AM

GP, I am honored to have you back. You are the oft referred to, seldom seen, demigod of Hebrew. Last time I heard from you you called my views heretical (at least that is the way I took your comments). Then you disappeared and wouldn't pay a bit of attention ot any of the geological problems YEC brings up. I have them collected at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm if you wish to review any of them.

I think this is it. I am not a YEC because it is fun being a troglodyte (although it can be :smile:). I think that it is the intertextual issue at stake not just a single verse here or there that build the argument (for both positions). Second, I think (read know) we will disagree on the relative weight of external evidence for this discussion.

Darn tootin. In my mind it isn't logical for God to say lots of things absolutely contrary to what we can observe. God is truth, I believe that the Scriptures say.

For my part I cannot comment on the geological evidence other than to say that I agree that it is evidence but I will not necessarily agree with your theories and interpretation of the facts in much the same way you will not agree with my interpretations of the Scriptures, because these are fundamentally basic components to our different fideistic conceptions of reality which require not just an inordinate amount evidence, but a whole shift in the tectonic plaits of a believe structure to overturn. To put it differently, for you to convince me that person A, whom I previously thought was an honest person, is a crook; will not take much because it does not have a large effect on my understanding of reality. But to convince me that, say God is dead, which would completely undermine my understanding of reality will require you to have mountains of evidence. I say this to point out that for either of us to expect the other to change our minds on something that is fundamentally basic to our understandings of reality and the nature of the world is less likely. What makes this more difficult in this case is an understanding of the referentiallity and necessity of certain statements in the NT in regards the historical referentiallity of those statements for the basis of the doctrine of atonement, e.g. Romans 5 inter alia.

I agree that a change of world view is not easy. It was the most painful experience I ever went through. But to make things clear, I am not trying to teach you that God is dead. I am trying to show you that God is just as alive and powerful but in a different way than you conceive him to be. The universe, within my viewpoint is still designed (I have posted a thread on that here and got relatively little flack from the atheists compared to what the ID guys get). I believe Scripture is historically true and that is what you want, at heart--a real history and you can't have that with the interpretation you place on scripture. I sould suggest that you seriously re-evaluate all your worldview assumptions, painful as that is.

Since I am guessing that the descent of Arphachshad from Shem or Terah from Nahor has no bearing on this discussion you meant Gen 1:11, 24. From the context I would say that these are God establishing the processes that we call nature, but are inextricably linked with his creation of them and his maintenance of them. So from what I think you are saying here I would say we agree.

All I know is that the earth is the entity which actually did the 'bringing forth' God did it indirectly. It doesn't say he instituted nature, it says the earth brought forth life.

I would prefer to use HALOT, not because it is in my favor, but it has the benefit of 100 years or more of lexicographical discoveries and studies.

I don't see much different in HALOT than strongs or BDB. The word implies a very very long time and when used twice seems in a Cantorian sense (Cantor was a mathematician who studied infinities) to double the infinity.

[quote]I would disagree with this on a few grounds, but most notably is Psalm 139. If you will see my article on Psalm 139 from last year sometime you'll see that I argued that ~l'(A[ %r<d<äB. meant in the old way referring to the previous relationship the Psalmist had with Yahweh, not as in the way of eternity. This is just one usage so it does not enervate your argument as a whole but just shows that I would like you to soften that statement to "that it can have a semi-infinite connotation," as long as we understand this in a non-philosophical sense of infinite.

I didn't see that post being too often engaged in Natural science and other Christian sites. I would be interested in seeing it, but I am curious. I only find olam appearing once in Psalm 139 and that is at the very end. Psalm 139:24 And seeH7200 ifH518 there be any wickedH6090 wayH1870 in me, and leadH5148 me in the wayH1870 everlastingH5769.(olam)

Are you using another text? That verse doesn't sound like a relationship issue but a sense of future everlasting. What is the link to your post?

Okay of the 439 (18 of which I assume are your handful) occurrences how many refer to God and how many refer to other entities? Because language referring to God should be taken univocally to be the same usage when it refers to something else (at least working within a Christian framework, as I assume we both are). The issue is not how it is "translated" because translations are often more interested in particular agendas or based upon contemporary idioms and less with the intent of a passage. All that to say I think a more in depth study of the usage of these 469 usages taking into account the genre, and context are required before making any assumptions about the semantic domain of ~l'(A[.

Yes, we are both Christians. Do I need to recite the apostle's creed or something to prove it to you? Do you want my testimony? (I am still thinking of your last comments to me a year and a half ago). I looked at lots of different translations to try to avoid the issue, but I would disagree with you that how it is translated is not the issue. It is the issue. I think it is a safe assumption that in general (sure there are exceptions) most translators want to get the word right and since they are in a committee, it tends to minimize personal agenda. Most of the occurrrences of this word apply to God and that to my mind sets the connotation for the word as implying an extremely long time, if not infinity. It is used of God both past and present and then there are a handful of cases where it is used of hills so

As I said above it can, but does not. As HALOT pointed out it can refer to the lifetime of a slave per Deuteronomy.

When you are not having fun, time passes very very slowly. That one is explainable as a metaphor.

Or could it not mean that as you look at those mountains which are obviously old, God is older still. You see the usage of language especially in poetry has to be taken much more sensitively than this comment asserts. For Just because I use a word in one context to refer to God does not mean that you must bring all those categories over when I use the same word to refer to a light bulb, i.e. God is light and that is a light bulb. My use of light in both contexts have different denotations. the light bulb refers to its luminosity. In reference to God, as per 1 John, it refers to his moral perfection.

[quote]I could use your argument here to say that the earth is co-eternal with God, and thus a dualistic conception arises, for if God did not create the earth it is co-eternal and beyond his capacity to control. I do not think you are saying that, but that is the problem with your current argument, it needs nuancing.

No, I am not saying it is co-eternal and that is why I don't think the word actually means infinite time. It is used in some ways that are demonstrably not infinite but, it isn't a word used for yesterday's lunchtime either. That argument about Eden was an aside. I found it interesting the use of it as old, and then the use of it with Eden and that word is not, of course, olam and it isn't olam olam--a double dose of olam.

source of much comedy, but renders meaningful communication impossible. So all this to say I would not press your point on qdm.

I am not pressing it. I even said in the post "as an aside" if you understand that colloquialism in American English.

It can be, but as per some of the Psalms and deuteronomy it could be as short as 5 years too, it is a referential word to a long period and in some contexts 5 years is long. there is nothing inherent in olam which means eterntiy. It is in the usage. So thus I am left saying that I agree in that when in reference to God it does mean from eternity, but your usage argues not for a world that began at some prehistoric date billions(?) of years ago, but it has always been and always will be…

I haven't seen your citation in psalms. I just went through the occurrences again in Psalms. Of 135 verses (my count may be off one or 2), 4 are never, 4 are old, 1 is long as in 'long dead', one is world, and all the rest are forever, everlasting, or perpetual. I see absolutely NOWHERE that it refers to 5 years. Please provide the example.

As I said each one requires a genre specific, sensitive treatment. Who knows maybe you are correct. But as of this post I would say that you need to nuance your argument more.

Given your reputation, if the worst you can say about my argument is that I need to be more nuanced, then I am pleased indeed. That I need to be more nuanced can be said of almost all things we humans do.

Once again, I agree that just pointing at a single verse is not going to change my mind, as me doing the same will not change yours, but a detail comprehensive analysis of the whole Bible will show that there are consequences fro both of our positions that require alteration and those humility is required on both sides.

That pesky observational evidence is what we need to pay attention to--like the YECs who paid attention to stellar parallax and rejected the geocentrist interpretation of the Bible. It seems that we have more difficulty paying attention to things other than stellar parallax.

As one of my professors pointed out, when we get to heaven God will show us how it really was and both of us will say, "of course, that is what it says." But that may be rather different than what we thought it said.

Amen to that. But while I am on my way, I want to do something useful other than awaiting enlightenment. I want solve some of the issues that face the church and YEC won't do it because they are absolutely unchanging in their view no matter what picture you put in front of them. YEC drives most of my fellow geoscientists away from Christianity because they know what they have seen and you never get to see it since you and lots of other YECs look at a text rather than the rocks. And as a result, I can hardly have any impact talking to my fellow geologists about Christ. They view Christianity as requiring a lobotomy.

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 08:20 AM

geochron

January 3rd 2005, 08:23 AM

1) Socrates (?- I forget how this twebber called himself) was a very active poster @6 mos ago. He was a YEC, one rather distinguished for/by his defense of that view.

I asked him, at one of his weak moments, why he wouldn't admit that YEC was a deterent, and an unnecessary stumbling block to proseltyzing educated people. A stumbling block placed in the first chapter of the bible.

My point was that science people quit, refuse to go further, if they must need entertain such a view. They never get to the important message of Christ. It all is dismissed as ancient foolishness.

His answer was that, further down the track, when other ideas arise that defy sensible explanation, those same scientist will be asked to accept other important theological concepts.

The Bible can lead us to know God, just as Dr Seuss can help us to read. But neither being a Christian nor being able to read depend on the literal truth of the book in question.

Biblical literalism in itself is/was a relatively harmless eccentricity, IMHO, until some Biblical literalists started insisting that they were the only true Christians.

Ironically, many seem to me to say that they believe in God because they believe in the Bible.

spiritmech

January 3rd 2005, 08:42 AM

Go look at all the geological arguments and data that they never ever put in their slick little journals. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm

When you see that over and over, it is easy to be suspicious that they aren't telling the entire theological story either.

I'll give you the one concering the geological issue. But you can't blame anyone for giving the default theological story that's been assumed for hundreds of years. Until there is another equally strong TE hermeneutic it is going to have the advantage of history and habit.

SM

reyvin

January 3rd 2005, 09:37 AM

Once found this posted by Burgy and thought it was very enlightning:

Here is a letter to Mr Ham and anyone who adds to scripture in violation of Rev. 22:18

Dear Mr. Ham,

We talked after your presentation in Denver on a Thurs. evening in October. My most important point was that we should not add to the scriptures and say they say things that they dont actually say but only imply if interpreted certain ways. The same goes for the scientists who would do well to qualify what is based on clear evidence and what is conjecture or filling in the blanks. When we say the Bible says something that it really doesnt and later what we claimed it said is shown to be in error it causes people to throw the Bible out instead of looking more closely or from a different angle. People assume we as Christians know the Bible so they take our word when we say the Bible says something. You said that the Bible says the earth is not millions of years old - it does not say that. You said that the Bible says that thorns and did not exist before Adam sinned. It does not say that. It says that the ground will produce thorns and thistles for you. There may have been special protection from these plants in the special Garden of Eden God made (which may have had some different rules or conditions than the rest of the earth - the whole earth was not the Garden of Eden) but more likely thorns and thistles appeared as pioneer plants when Adam tilled the ground. Besides if genes and the plants they produce are creations of God then you are saying God didnt finish creating the plants until after the fall. In fact the incredible transformation you claim all meat eaters went through implies that you believe in some natural process that is much more evolutionary that the most ardent evolutionists - that all the characteristics of plants and animals that are related to catching prey or escaping predators (from camouflage to speed and teeth and fangs and claws and horns and antlers etc etc) developed in just a short time. If they were latent genes in the creation then you are saying God still created the food chain and its death. I am impressed with the mathematical odds against even a small piece of DNA forming by chance - never mind millions and even billions of bits of DNA code. As a result I dont believe tooth and claw could evolve - I dont think this is Satans creation - it is Gods. In contrast you imply that little of todays creation is really from God according to you - most of it is fallen and changed - not what Psalm 19 and Ro 1:20 imply. I ask you to not add to scripture and violate Deut. 4:2, 12:32, and Rev. 22:18-19.

We got side tracked on the 24 hour day issue. The interpretation I like best at this point has the commands of creation given in 6 literal 24 hour (or so) days that were either separated by or followed by long periods of fulfillment. (The nation of Israel took time for God to form - even the Red sea parting included a wind all night - not instantaneous) The fulfilling or completion of those creative events and it was so may have been much later. Eternity Magazine published over a dozen different interpretations of Gen 1 back in the 80s. We cannot always have closure on every question we have - I think the jury is still out on exactly how Gen. 1 and Geology fit but I believe someday we will see how.

On a more important issue. I was concerned that you negated the truth from Gods creation (General revelation) by saying it is fallen. We humans are fallen so we may have less that perfect reasoning and perception but if we deny all our thinking ability then how do we know we can even understand the Bible? Just because the creation is groaning doesnt mean it cant be understood. Even if it was totally reworked - lions not eating meat and later able to eat - or as some even go so far as to say the 2nd law of thermodynamics wasnt working (the sun shining is evidence of the 2nd law working - even the fact that Adam and Eve ate implies that they got energy and burned energy from food and radiated away heat etc.) it does not mean that what evidence it does have is not true and understandable as scripture implies in Ps. 19 and Ro. 1:20. In fact the message given before your talk was on Rom. 1. In verse 20 it says that Godĺs invisible qualities have been CLEARLY seen, being understood from what has been made (I assume that means the creation = nature). Psalm 19: 1-4 (referred to in Rom. 10: 18) says that people can learn about God from the heavens. They pour forth speech and knowledge. Your view that truth cannot be gained from Gods creation is clearly unbiblical and has set you on a path of thinking that distorts the scriptures. For example you misused I Cor 15: 3-4. You claimed that the only way we know about the resurrection is from the scriptures - not from some scientific observations. Yet the way the disciples knew Christ was alive was through direct observation with their fallen eyes. Scripture is a record of human observations of reality. According to the scriptures is better understood to mean that Christ died and rose as predicted by or required by the scriptures. The disciples were then eye witnesses of those events and recorded them in scripture. Early in your talk you said something to the effect that non - Christians and Christians are both working with the same facts or evidence but our biases prevent us from seeing the truth. You discount creation altogether so you are not allowing God to speak through His general revelation. You are not working with the same facts. Concerning bias, you have so connected certain interpretations of scripture with your salvation and morality that you feel obligated not only to reinterpret all of creation in light of no death before the fall etc. but to actually throw out creation as fallen and untruthful. It seems that one who believes God could use whatever method he wanted to create would be less biased in interpreting creation evidence. The phrase ôthe earth brought forthö for some leaves room for some evolution before human times. If God sends rain using His natural processes of condensation and the water cycle and if God created me through His natural processes then creation is not necessarily contradictory to the use of long processes. The laws of nature are Gods laws - he made them. It is dangerous to tie morality to a particular creation method - but not to the Creator. Gen. 1 is NOT the same form or style or clarity of scripture concerning the method of creation as the Gospels are in accurately and with great detail describing the resurrection. To put the resurrection in the same category as a young earth interpretation is really stretching it and creating a dangerous rigidity by linking them so that for either to be true both must be true.

I understand your argument about the foundations of Secular Humanism and Christianity being key but you have confused a particular process with the real foundation which is God. It is creation no matter what process God uses. There are instant creationists who are atheists - they believe an extra terrestrial race designed us and seeded us on earth. This extreme view just illustrates that it is not how fast or slow God created or whether he used His laws of nature or not but that HE created. By the way there is no evidence against a special creation of Adam and Eve in a garden even if there were other human - like creatures around before. God could still make a sinless Adam directly from dust. There is good evidence in scripture for this. However the image of God is not physical for God is a spirit and Jesus took on human physical form for the first time when he was born in a body.

In our conversation you said that if there werent the Bible you too would conclude that the earth is old - yet earlier in your talk you claimed something to the effect that the majority of the evidence pointed to a young earth. You cant have it both ways. You also cant use any evidence from creation if you feel we cant understand it or that it is distorted - such as scientific evidence or mathematical probability that questions evolution. Bible does not seem to indicate that we can no longer trust our eyes or brains if used correctly. In fact it counts on us being able to reason and look and observe. It assumes we are using our brain and senses. Your view taken to the extreme could imply that we canĺt trust our eyes when we look at the written symbols of fallen ink on the fallen paper pages that the Word of God was written on.

Flood geology is not consistent with many passages of scripture. The Bible refers to pre and post flood geography as if they were the same - Land of Havilla where there is gold and the Tigress and Euphrates rivers etc. Gen. 1-6 were all revealed and written down after the flood. Flood geology says that about a mile or more of sediment in the Mid-east was laid down during the flood and that the continents drifted apart in a year or less - but scripture does not support this. It would use different names if the rivers and places were not the same. Even the fact that the birds could fly after the flood implies that the air pressure was the same and that there was no loss of some thick canopy of water that would have increased the air pressure by 2 fold or more. Your illustration of the back of the eye created to reduce damage by UV light seems to imply that you dont think there was a canopy filtering out UV radiation before the flood.

For years I puzzled over why good Christians could have so many differences on the subject of creation. I know we are fallen and can misinterpret scripture and creation - or else weĺd agree on major issues like the morality of war, the time of the rapture, predestination and free will or eternal security. As I listened to speakers and read books it hit me that one of the sources of disagreement came from people adding to scripture - reading between the lines - over interpreting and then attributing all the implied ideas directly to scripture as if they were in the scriptural text. We must not ignore verses either, but we should always clearly qualify what is interpreting between the lines and what is actually written in scripture.

As far as Galileo and the Geocentric universe; there are many verses that imply that the earth was stationary and the sun was moving - in non poetic books such as Joshua 10:12-14, Hezikiaĺs sign of the sun reversing. See Dr. Gerardus D. Bouwĺs book A Geocentric Primer published in 1999by the Biblical Astronomer for numerous other examples. The only way we know such verses are figurative or from a human perspective is because we have accepted the scientific study of Godĺs creation that gives us truth that helps us better understand the scriptures - as studies of archaeology and linguistics and history and geography also help us better understand scripture. It may be that the perception of time being short in some scriptures is also from a human point of view since all that really matters to our race happened in that last few thousand years. Animals reproduce after their kind in human history - from a human time perspective as any scientist would agree. From a human perspective the earth is the center of our universe - and our time is the center of what is important.

I have many questions about evolution - especially the incredible information content of DNA but I cant totally rule out all evolution on scriptural grounds. Gen 1:12 says the land produced plants - it does not say how - some evolution could have been involved. When Darwin first published his ideas they were accepted by many Christians. Only when we hardened certain interpretations in response to the new theories and the way atheists used them did the great controversy heat up. Partly this was a response to the some scientists claiming that the new theories made God obsolete. Meteorology also makes God obsolete in explaining rain - but we donĺt call weathermen evil or anti God - although we do have some bad feelings towards them at times for their mistaken predictions. Evolution or more instant formation are processes. If God used either one then it is still CREATION whether it took 6 seconds or 6 billion years. It is confusing and misleading to say that the issue is creation verses evolution for evolution could ôtechnicallyö have been part of the way God created depending on how you interpret kinds and reproducing after your kind. Most evolutionists believe that trees will evolve after the kind of trees and never turn into frogs. The real battle is between atheism and theism. We do not further the cause of truth by adding to scripture and puching a pseudo science that has many scientists questioning the honesty of some Christians apologists who attack straw men and misrepresent scientific theories. I saw Henry Morris debate a Christian Ph.D. in geology when I was in college. Henry Morris did poorly in the debate - which was over the age of the earth (not evolution). Later his Acts and Facts presented it as a victory - and left out all the good arguments of the geologist. I, as a Christian question the honesty of some of the speakers I have heard when they tell half the theory and rebut straw men in front of lay audiences that dont know any better. Have you seen Dr. Stoners A New look at and Old Earth where he shows the fallacies in the typical young earth arguments. In fact contrary to what you said he knows of no solid evidence for a young earth! From what Ive seen over the past 30 years I would say he is much closer to the truth than people who claim that the majority of evidence is for a young earth and then site a list of minerals in the ocean.

Finally, the view that there was NO DEATH before the fall of Adam and Eve does not fit the evidence of creatures eating - especially fish and many creatures that have no way to eat plants - rattle snakes etc. that are specially designed with hundreds of complex genes to make fangs and poison. I donĺt see how they could have evolved. In fact if you believe all the food chains and prey and predator relationships and the structures needed to catch prey or escape being caught developed after the fall then you appear to believe in the most incredible and rapid evolution of all. The Bible says death came (Ro. 5:12-14) to all MEN through Adam - it is over interpreting to assume it came to all animals as well. God killed innocent animals in the flood. He can be severe. Whether God made meat eaters or allowed them to evolve or built into them the potential to become meat eaters - He created killers - if not then you are saying God is not the creator of most of present day life or of most fossil life as well. But physical death is not a big deal to God - God knows we will all die physically - even though we are born again and forgiven. He even barred the way to the tree of life so Adam and Eve would not life forever physically AFTER they sinned indicating that sin would not have prevented them from living forever physically (even if they were dead spiritually). Once you realize that animal death is not due to Adams sin (or that if it was it was applied retroactively to nature) then the biggest obstacle to accepting ancient fossils as being truly ancient is removed. A God of tooth and claw fits more with the wars and blood of the old testament where God took many years and much wasted life to form a nation and give them a promised land. The God of the flood that killed almost every innocent animal fits more with a God who has allowed most species to go extinct.

You are creating division by attacking believers that have honestly come to realize that the earth is old. Starlight appears old and God is still older. You may convert a few non scientists but the rest of us will spend the rest of our lives trying to undo the damage you have done to the cause of Christ in reaching scientists and anyone else who understands enough about Gods creation to be convinced of itĺs great age.

Paul Mason MS MA

shunyadragon

January 3rd 2005, 09:47 AM

Compare the two.

Deut 33:15 And for the chief things of the ancient (qedem) mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting(olam) hills

15 with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains
and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills;

Just a side note that the ancients may have realized how truely ancient the hills were. This was likely their way of saying that the hills were more ancient than the mountains because they were mountains erroded to hills over millions of years. A geology lesson from the writers of the OT that would in part answer Gray Pilgrim's question. They were expressing the relative age of the mountains to the hills. I do not think those that believe in YEC have realized this yet.

Of course I have no problem with the creation existing contemporaneously with God for eternety as the attributes of God. It does not have any implication of the lack of control whatsoever.

GrayPilgrim

January 3rd 2005, 01:18 PM

Yes, we are both Christians. Do I need to recite the apostle's creed or something to prove it to you? Do you want my testimony? (I am still thinking of your last comments to me a year and a half ago). I was not questioning anything, I was merely stating my assumption, sorry for any miscommunication here.

I can't find the link right now, but I'll try to track it down.

kofh2u

January 3rd 2005, 01:20 PM

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 08:38 PM

I'll give you the one concering the geological issue. But you can't blame anyone for giving the default theological story that's been assumed for hundreds of years. Until there is another equally strong TE hermeneutic it is going to have the advantage of history and habit.

SM

I agree and said that in my opening post. It is why I started posting things like "The earth brought for the living creatures" (which is what evolution says) and this post, my days of proclamation post, the views of the medieval Jewish authorities, the early Christians etc. Most of my theological views can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

And I agree that the TE's have simply not been doing enough along the theology lines--including me. I intend to take that advantage away.

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 08:52 PM

Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich (a large denominational
church), and increased with goods (accumulated art treasure, land, and income from tithes), and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations), and miserable, (entrapped in erroneous doctrine and blind dogma), and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):

I know lots of YEC churches to which that applies. I would also point out that all your parenthetical statements are additions to scripture and are thus your interpretation but are not necessarily the original meaning.

grmorton

January 3rd 2005, 08:54 PM

I was not questioning anything, I was merely stating my assumption, sorry for any miscommunication here.

I can't find the link right now, but I'll try to track it down.

I didn't mean to sound the way I did, but for 10 years I have had bucket loads of YECs claim I wasn't a christian because I am TE, (not because I didn't believe in Jesus as savior and lord). Thus, I must confess to a bit of jumpiness on that issue when dealing with YECs.

kofh2u

January 3rd 2005, 11:46 PM

I know lots of YEC churches to which that applies. I would also point out that all your parenthetical statements are additions to scripture and are thus your interpretation but are not necessarily the original meaning.

I am always amazed when people report to me that the brackets separate commentary from context. Is that not standard useof brackets?

I am equally amazed that people ignor the concise, direct, and specific commentary which is short and clear. They are able to ignor that long excerpts, to the side, have been the traditional method.
They either fail or pretend not to appreciate this approach to understanding how I am interpreting the passage.

Unlike yourself, they either do not respond, or report the passage is incomprehensible. Really?

I ask you, if you would, to pull some examples of this bracketed interpretation from many standard sources. Compare the same passages with exerpts from, say, The Interpretors Bible, or the Anchor Bible. After reading numerous pages, and reviewing all sorts of expert suggestions, it is rare that the passage is clearly stated.

I am not correct in this observation?

You, of course, are correct on two counts, also.

Your opinion is that the interpretation is appropriate.

Your sense that this method will rankle the practiced format for traditional Theological intercourse is/has proven to be true.

The moderators consider it so unorthodox that they have conspired to prohibit it as not Orthodox Christianity. Hence, they created Unorthodox Christianity as if the form of my comments is the substance.

In all this, it re-inforces the argument that, the last thing we need in uncovering the Truth in scripture is the truth in how we are actually reading the meanings of these passages.

In regard to the overview of a comprehensive TE theology, this bracketed approach, applied throughout the book essentially serves that purpose. The theme of TE is reinforced by all which follows

Genesis is capped with the final steps in tnis directed evolution.

But, this is to be seen in the full reading.

grmorton

January 4th 2005, 12:13 AM

I am always amazed when people report to me that the brackets separate commentary from context. Is that not standard useof brackets?

Then we agree here. That is the correct use of brackets.

I ask you, if you would, to pull some examples of this bracketed interpretation from many standard sources. Compare the same passages with exerpts from, say, The Interpretors Bible, or the Anchor Bible. After reading numerous pages, and reviewing all sorts of expert suggestions, it is rare that the passage is clearly stated.

My point is always that while the Scripture is Divinely inspired, our interpretations may or may not be so blessed. One always needs to be a bit careful about ascribing any divinity to our views.

That is mostly all that I am saying.

spiritmech

January 4th 2005, 12:15 AM

Very cool, very interested.
SM

I agree and said that in my opening post. It is why I started posting things like "The earth brought for the living creatures" (which is what evolution says) and this post, my days of proclamation post, the views of the medieval Jewish authorities, the early Christians etc. Most of my theological views can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

And I agree that the TE's have simply not been doing enough along the theology lines--including me. I intend to take that advantage away.

kofh2u

January 4th 2005, 05:24 PM

Then we agree here. That is the correct use of brackets.

My point is always that while the Scripture is Divinely inspired, our interpretations may or may not be so blessed. One always needs to be a bit careful about ascribing any divinity to our views.

That is mostly all that I am saying.

TE people need to set down the whole account from Genesis on in simple language.

Then, TE must demonstrate the compatlbility of this overview with scripture, OT and NT.

While the YEC and OEC people eye ball the parallels between their metaphysical circling around difficult concepts, and find no contradiction in substance, they can relax.

I suspect that the present denomonational leadership will need to opt for an immediate liberalization, or that they will make the mistakes of the Jews in 32AD and the Pope in 1632AD, (Luther).

Rev 3:17-8 is fair warning.

There will be many who demonstrate the human tendency to hold onto the previous paradigm, attendent with all the benefits of power, prestige,and position. But, thenext generation will not replace the dying membership in those organized religious institutions.

It is with this in mind that I am editing and preparing the publication of the bible interpreted throughout with concise TE connotations found explicit in brackets. The entire works allows for an exegesis that is comprehensive.

There is also the matter on many previously undefined elements found throughout scripture. These once hard to symbolize and almost impossible to explain components are now rather easily elucidated and at least hypothesized. I refer to "hidden mannas," the Urim and Thummim, the stone the builders forgot, the many strange acts of Jewish ritual, and, of course, the inordinate use of numbers like seven, four, and twelve and twenty-four, and such.

Nevertheless, inspite of good intentions, the road blocks expressed by yourself and Jack777, must be addressed. These attemptsbto delay the inevitable are found in the ridicule and opposition to the early introduction of these insights by both the secular community and the establishment of the religious community.

With this said, I commend both of you for your efforts here on Tweb and basically support you.

grmorton

January 4th 2005, 10:06 PM

TE people need to set down the whole account from Genesis on in simple language.

I would suggest that the YECs and OEC's should listen a bit more. I have laid it out, and what I have laid out does undercut many of the arguments the YECs rest on.

First, Nowhere can you find in Genesis 1 a statement saying, "God brought forth grass and herb yielding seed." I know many will object that God created the grass and herb yielding seed. But look at what it ACTUALLY says(hopefully in PLAIN language Kofh2u):

And God said, "…."

Oh, God is saying things, he isn't creating things, but anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety. Where is the verb Created that applies to God? It isn't there. What is inside the quote?

"Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed."

Where is God in that phrase? Who or what is bringing forth? A simple grammar teacher would tell you that the earth is the subject of that sentence and is the thing doing the action--which is, bringing forth.!!!! God didn't bring forth, the earth DID, but, anti-evolutionists never pay attention to that subtlety. Did the earth do it at God's command? Of course, but that doesn't mean God created the grass directly. He used the earth just like he uses us to spread the gospel. Both might be inefficient, but God seems to indicate that He isn't that interested in efficiency as we would judge it.

Now, look at the next verse. Genesis 1:12 It tells us what happened after God's command. What was it? Amazingly, God doesn't appear in this sentence either. Here it is: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself"

The Bible clearly says that the EARTH brought forth grass. It DOESN'T say, "God brought forth grass". The Bible is telling us that the earth was an active participant in creating the life forms. Yes, it was at Gods command, but then so are the laws of gravity which govern the motion of the planets.

Genesis 1:20 has a similar structure.

"And God said,"…" God is saying things, not doing them. God delegated to the waters the teeming with life:

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." Notice that the word God does not appear

God orders the water to teem with living creatures, but then in the next verse, it does give God the credit for creating the creatures, but then God gets the credit in Genesis 1:11 as well. God still performed the activity through the agency of water. There really isn't an inconsistency between these two verses when viewed from the TE perspective.

Genesis 1:24 Once again, "And God said"…" Again, God is saying. God is the subject, 'said' is the verb. It doesn't say 'And God created'. It says And God SAID. Why is it so difficult for anti-evolutionists to see that subtelty? This is why the days of proclamation is the way to go. God is proclaiming things in this chapter. All of the "God made's" or "God Called's" are after a proclamation. This is the writer giving credit to God. It is the part of the Days of Proclamation interpretation which makes the most sense. When God said, "let there be light", God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so". God didn't say the "and it was so" The writer did that to inform his readers in effect "look around--it is so" But YECs and anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety.

NOW, when it comes to mankind, God clearly indicates in his statement that he does that DIRECTLY.

And God said"…" What did he say? "Let US make man in our image…" That is, God is ordering HIMSELF to make mankind. This is the only place where God actually says HE is going to do something directly. Which is why my interpretation holds to the special creation of mankind as I describe elsewhere.

The important point is that all these verses here clearly indicate SECONDARY causation. God was the prime cause, but he USED matter to create life, with the exception of mankind. It is what the Bible says. It is the plain reading of scripture. It is the YEC reading which is twisted. They have God creating rather than SAYING.

The order of events in Genesis 1

The Days of Proclamation view holds that the proclamations were those made by God PRIOR to the creation. Nowhere does it say, "and God said "Let there be light instantaneously". In none of the statements is there an indication that what God said must be fulfilled INSTANTLY. Indeed, when God gave the prophecy of the Messiah, it didn't happen instantly either.

Because of this, I believe that Genesis 1 is largely pre-temporal, which aligns well with an ancient Hebrew view of the Torah.

“The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.”

Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud. It says:

“R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created.”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_88.html#PARTb

Surely one can't claim that a 5th century text was corrupted by modern science. It is an ancient view and fits quite well with modern science, if interpreted and fit in correctly.

Evolution

Nowhere in the Bible can you find a sentence with the subject 'animal', the object animal and the verb 'brings forth' Find one, I dare you! That means that no where is the statement found "animals bring forth animals after their kind". Nowhere in the Bible can anyone find a statement "animals reproduce animals after their kind". Nowhere can one find in the Bible the statement "Animals reproduce after their kind" Indeed, nowhere can one find the two words "animals reproduce" in the bible.

But in spite of this obvious LACK of Scriptural support, almost all YECs and antievolutionists THINK, erroneously that the Bible DOES contain such a statement. It doesn't and that means that the Bible does not rule out morphological change in the animals. It doesn't rule out speciation. This entire rejection of evolution is based, in my view, upon a gross misreading of the text. All those phrases, after their kind, means OF VARIOUS KINDS, which is entirely different. The earth brought forth animals OF VARIOUS KINDS. The earth brought forth grass and herb OF VARIOUS KIND. It says nothing about their sexual proclivities.

Plain reading Kofh2u

When it comes to the flood, when the earliest commentator in Christendom, that of Philo, seems to indicate a local flood, a Mediterranean flood, one doesn't have to believe the YEC version either. They can't claim historical christian precedence.

Then, TE must demonstrate the compatlbility of this overview with scripture, OT and NT.

I think this post will make a good start.

I refer to "hidden mannas," the Urim and Thummim, the stone the builders forgot, the many strange acts of Jewish ritual, and, of course, the inordinate use of numbers like seven, four, and twelve and twenty-four, and such.

I am glad you mentioned the urim and Thummim. Most authorities believe it was an object which relied on chance. The ancient hebrews thought God ruled chance which is why the tribes cast lots for the land. Thus, if the Bible indicates that God controls, chance, the anti-evolutionary argument that chance would leave God out of our universe is also not supported Biblically.

Here is something from an article I was privileged to co-author with Gordon Simons:

“One of the difficulties raised by the rejection of chance in nature lies in the fact that God ordered or allowed the use of such systems at critical places in the biblical history. If God is incompatible with chance in his dealings with this world, it seems odd that He allowed and commanded the use of such systems. The Urim and Thrummim which the priest carried is widely believed to have been a tool for casting lots before the Lord.7 The Hebrews believed what Prov. 16:33 says "The lot is cast into the lap, but every decision is from the Lord." Prov. 18:18 would indicate that the Jews thought God was the true decision maker when chance was involved. That verse says: “Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.” In 1 Chron. 24:1-5, 1 Chron. 24:31 and 1 Chron 25:8, David cast lots to determine the order of the service for the sanctuary officials. God used the chance lots of the sailors to identify Jonah as the source of their troubles (Jonah 1:7). In Lev. 16:8 God told the Israelites to cast lots for the sacrificial goat. God told Joshua to cast lots in order to identify Achan, the guilty keeper of the Canaanite booty. In Joshua 18:8, we see Joshua casting lots for the assignment of land to the various tribes. In Acts 1:24-26, the disciples used chance, the casting of lots, to determine who should take over the apostolic ministry of Judas. Because of the biblically widespread use of chance to determine God’s will, it is truly amazing that many modern Christians reject chance in biology as being totally incompatible with God’s control. “
“If God can’t control chance, how can he control the lots above? God predetermined the result yet used a tool of chance. If God can not use chance, then one must logically conclude that God didn’t foreknow how the land would be divided among the tribes, that God didn’t foreknow that Jonah would be picked, that God did not foreknow that Achan was the one who would be chosen or that Matthias would step into the apostolic line. This is a position which basically says that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. If God can use chance in his dealings with Israel and the early church, then why do we say He has no ability to use chance in biology? God can, has and does control the stochastic process even if we don’t understand how it happens. “

With this said, I commend both of you for your efforts here on Tweb and basically support you.

Thanks for the kind words.

shunyadragon

January 4th 2005, 11:03 PM

Amen to that. But while I am on my way, I want to do something useful other than awaiting enlightenment. I want solve some of the issues that face the church and YEC won't do it because they are absolutely unchanging in their view no matter what picture you put in front of them. YEC drives most of my fellow geoscientists away from Christianity because they know what they have seen and you never get to see it since you and lots of other YECs look at a text rather than the rocks. And as a result, I can hardly have any impact talking to my fellow geologists about Christ. They view Christianity as requiring a lobotomy.You said that your experience as a Geologist coming face to face with overwhelming geologic evidence and the ridicule you saw of YECers by the scientists led you to the realization that YEC was a false doctrine. You told of one particular inscident where this evidence was revealed in great detail.

Being a very stallwart believer before I will assume that your Bible knowledge had a good foundation in scripture. I have an interesting question for you Glenn. What was your view and other apologists to these quotes when you were in the inner circle?

The avalanche of silence from the YECers concerning this thread is overwhelming.

grmorton

January 5th 2005, 12:06 AM

You said that your experience as a Geologist coming face to face with overwhelming geologic evidence and the ridicule you saw of YECers by the scientists led you to the realization that YEC was a false doctrine. You told of one particular inscident where this evidence was revealed in great detail.

Being a very stallwart believer before I will assume that your Bible knowledge had a good foundation in scripture. I have an interesting question for you Glenn. What was your view and other apologists to these quotes when you were in the inner circle?

I am fascinated that you use the term, 'inner circle' I wasn't quite as inner as some, but I personally met every one of the real YEC leaders when I was a YEC-- Steve Austin, Ken Ham(on his very first visit to the US--he was concerned with women going bra-less--this was the 70s), John Mackie, Henry Morris, John Morris, Humphreys, Slusher, Barnes, Baugh, Patton, Woodmorappe {aka the name every atheist knows and only John thinks his pseudonym hides him}, Gish, Wise, Nelson, etc etc etc And even since my change, I have met almost all the ID folks as well.So, I have been fortunate to know some really strange characters.

You know, I never heard these verses and quotations when I was a YEC. I think it is part of the fact that YECs don't really do research and they are not sceptical about anything they are taught if it supports YEC. and they don't look for reasons that YEC might be wrong. Sadly, I was exactly like that as well. I and my fellow YECs didn't challenge each other, we didn't test our ideas (which is why each and every YEC does his own thing). The individuality of each YEC is because each is doing what is right in his own eyes (if you don't recognize that phrase, look it up. it is the story of Judges)

But YECs here can't say they haven't had the opportunity to hear this interpretation of Scripture. It allows a valid historical view and allows one to cease the ceaseless fight against modern science and everything we can see in our universe. YECs desperately want the respect of the world, even if they won't admit it. In their deepest thoughts, many will know this is true--at least the rational ones will. I would cite Gray Pilgrim's comment

I think this is it. I am not a YEC because it is fun being a troglodyte (although it can be ).

As evidence that the rational YECs know that there is a big problem but they don't know how to get down from the ledge they have climbed up on to. These rational YECs, like me when I was a YEC, also know that there is a bunch of kookiness among many of the YECs. This embarasses the rational YECs, They know it in their heart of hearts, but they won't admit it. I wouldn't have admitted it even when I thought it. It embarassed me to be associated with guys like Carl Baugh (who tried to get me to do a video for him). His ideas were a real fruitcake and none of my fellow YECs would criticize him. I will tell you that that really hurt.

Here is an example of Baugh's wonderful leadership for God.

"The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. They existed supposedly around one hundred million years ago in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something unusual. IN the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years. After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead at their feet. This creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black, leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately identified this creature as being a pterodactyl. This was all reported in The Illustrated London News, February 9, 1856, page 156. They examined the limestone from which the creature had been released and found there a cavity in the exact mold of the creature's body. If this is true, it is absolutely impossible for that creature to have lived more than a few thousand years in any form in hibernation. It would have been impossible for it to have lived more than a few thousand years under those circumstances. The worldwide, biblical Noahic flood explains this phenomenon far better than the evolutionary process."

The guy believes that pterodactyls can live for hundreds of years inside solid rock, and YECs don't find this strange. And they won't attack a fellow YEC, which makes them complicit in the outrageous claims.

It truly saddens me that YECs, my fellow christians, won't condemn the misquotations seen in another thread in Natural Science and wont' condemn the farcical nonsense like that above for fear of giving support to an enemy they truly despise and fear--the evolutionist. Pearls to the first YEC to condemn Baugh's silliness.

The avalanche of silence from the YECers concerning this thread is overwhelming.

It is hard to speak when your head is buried in the sand and your mouth full of sand.

kofh2u

January 5th 2005, 03:33 AM

I am fascinated that you use the term, 'inner circle' I wasn't quite as inner as some, but I personally met every one of the real YEC leaders when I was a YEC-- Steve Austin, Ken Ham(on his very first visit to the US--he was concerned with women going bra-less--this was the 70s), John Mackie, Henry Morris, John Morris, Humphreys, Slusher, Barnes, Baugh, Patton, Woodmorappe {aka the name every atheist knows and only John thinks his pseudonym hides him}, Gish, Wise, Nelson, etc etc etc And even since my change, I have met almost all the ID folks as well.So, I have been fortunate to know some really strange characters.

You know, I never heard these verses and quotations when I was a YEC. I think it is part of the fact that YECs don't really do research and they are not sceptical about anything they are taught if it supports YEC. and they don't look for reasons that YEC might be wrong. Sadly, I was exactly like that as well. I and my fellow YECs didn't challenge each other, we didn't test our ideas (which is why each and every YEC does his own thing). The individuality of each YEC is because each is doing what is right in his own eyes (if you don't recognize that phrase, look it up. it is the story of Judges)

But YECs here can't say they haven't had the opportunity to hear this interpretation of Scripture. It allows a valid historical view and allows one to cease the ceaseless fight against modern science and everything we can see in our universe. YECs desperately want the respect of the world, even if they won't admit it. In their deepest thoughts, many will know this is true--at least the rational ones will. I would cite Gray Pilgrim's comment

As evidence that the rational YECs know that there is a big problem but they don't know how to get down from the ledge they have climbed up on to. These rational YECs, like me when I was a YEC, also know that there is a bunch of kookiness among many of the YECs. This embarasses the rational YECs, They know it in their heart of hearts, but they won't admit it. I wouldn't have admitted it even when I thought it. It embarassed me to be associated with guys like Carl Baugh (who tried to get me to do a video for him). His ideas were a real fruitcake and none of my fellow YECs would criticize him. I will tell you that that really hurt.

Here is an example of Baugh's wonderful leadership for God.

"The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. They existed supposedly around one hundred million years ago in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something unusual. IN the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years. After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead at their feet. This creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black, leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately identified this creature as being a pterodactyl. This was all reported in The Illustrated London News, February 9, 1856, page 156. They examined the limestone from which the creature had been released and found there a cavity in the exact mold of the creature's body. If this is true, it is absolutely impossible for that creature to have lived more than a few thousand years in any form in hibernation. It would have been impossible for it to have lived more than a few thousand years under those circumstances. The worldwide, biblical Noahic flood explains this phenomenon far better than the evolutionary process."

The guy believes that pterodactyls can live for hundreds of years inside solid rock, and YECs don't find this strange. And they won't attack a fellow YEC, which makes them complicit in the outrageous claims.

It truly saddens me that YECs, my fellow christians, won't condemn the misquotations seen in another thread in Natural Science and wont' condemn the farcical nonsense like that above for fear of giving support to an enemy they truly despise and fear--the evolutionist. Pearls to the first YEC to condemn Baugh's silliness.

It is hard to speak when your head is buried in the sand and your mouth full of sand.

I have great empathy for you. The clue that you are on target with your ideas is that you are blessed with the wrath of "pharisees."

You no doubt have not yet realized that the audience for your ideas is in the field of virgins to Bible interpretatiin, not those who are already "saved" regardless the interpretation of scripture which convicted them.

Unless you are researching how barren is the response to your TE exposition of these rather new takes on interpretation, do not count the numbers who people who you convert to this new approach. Make note of how foolish your competition is. Your sheep will hear your voice, and they has probably already heard thise other ridiculous, metaphysical, unrealistic, surealistic commentaries that are making an easy target out of bible thumpers.

After practicing here, look forward to speaking to audiences where secular people gather. The field is wide open there. Many look for just the intelligent path to a spiritual understanding as you are/have been honing. Try Netscape/religious groups.
If you want www let me know.

Rev. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, (passive, and neither
coldly intolerant nor enthusiastically hot), I will spue (organized religious doctrines) out of (the Word from) my mouth.

grmorton

January 5th 2005, 07:38 AM

I have great empathy for you. The clue that you are on target with your ideas is that you are blessed with the wrath of "pharisees."

You no doubt have not yet realized that the audience for your ideas is in the field of virgins to Bible interpretatiin, not those who are already "saved" regardless the interpretation of scripture which convicted them.

Unless you are researching how barren is the response to your TE exposition of these rather new takes on interpretation, do not count the numbers who people who you convert to this new approach. Make note of how foolish your competition is. Your sheep will hear your voice, and they has probably already heard thise other ridiculous, metaphysical, unrealistic, surealistic commentaries that are making an easy target out of bible thumpers.

After practicing here, look forward to speaking to audiences where secular people gather. The field is wide open there. Many look for just the intelligent path to a spiritual understanding as you are/have been honing. Try Netscape/religious groups.
If you want www let me know.

Rev. 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, (passive, and neither
coldly intolerant nor enthusiastically hot), I will spue (organized religious doctrines) out of (the Word from) my mouth.

I might get the www in the future or you might pm it to me. Right now I am on 2 different fora and I wouldn't have time for another one. But when I tire of this place, I would like to go somewhere else.

As to speaking, no one ever invites, which, given the reaction to my views, is not at all surprising.

Solly

January 5th 2005, 08:25 AM

kofh2u

January 5th 2005, 01:49 PM

I might get the www in the future or you might pm it to me. Right now I am on 2 different fora and I wouldn't have time for another one. But when I tire of this place, I would like to go somewhere else.

As to speaking, no one ever invites, which, given the reaction to my views, is not at all surprising.

1) I believe your work here at Tweb has let many people experience the meaning of the verse, "They shall know a prophet has been among them."

2) You have an unabiding consistent faith in Truth.

3) Your tireless effort, long hours and years of scholarly research are a testimony to your belief in the every premise of Christ: beyond the Truth will out, past the larceny of the establishmentarianism of comfortable religious organizations, you understand long suffering and patience is the true prophet's reward.

4) I wonder what you think of this verse, just how your TE concept interprets "image."

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

"We all have the power, (to evolve), to BECOME, (YHVH), the sons of God, (immanently).

grmorton

January 6th 2005, 12:09 AM

This is the thread I have been waiting for for 18 months. Well done Glenn, and thanks for the input of others, espeicially GP: Nice to see the Titans clash, and find it's not such a fist fight after all.

Solly, coming from you it is the highest of complements I could imagine. Thanks. I am humbled.

Edited to add: Thank A Beautiful Truth. I probably wouldn't have posted any of this if it hadn't been for her.

grmorton

January 6th 2005, 12:27 AM

1) I believe your work here at Tweb has let many people experience the meaning of the verse, "They shall know a prophet has been among them."

2) You have an unabiding consistent faith in Truth.

3) Your tireless effort, long hours and years of scholarly research are a testimony to your belief in the every premise of Christ: beyond the Truth will out, past the larceny of the establishmentarianism of comfortable religious organizations, you understand long suffering and patience is the true prophet's reward.

I am truly humbled, kofh2u. And not used to things like this being said about me. I would state that I am no prophet. I spent 24 years of my adult life misleading people with what I taught as a YEC. I repented of that, but the best I can hope for is that God will forgive me, which I believe He has. And I pray that what I teach today is closer to the truth because I do fear James 3:1. To me that is a very, very serious warning for people who teach the flock.

4) I wonder what you think of this verse, just how your TE concept interprets "image."

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The image is what God put into mankind. My belief, and that is what it is, is that God directly created man, but used the preexisting material of the body of an ape. The image is why we have language and rational abstract thought and the animals don't. Indeed, if one looks at language in the human brain, it occurs in an entirely different part of the brain than that used by animals for communication.

The bible clearly says we are like the beasts:

Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.

And more to the point, Ecclesiastes 3:18

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Yes, we are a special creation of God but we are also connected to the rest of creation. We are beasts which God honors greatly with His image.

reyvin

January 6th 2005, 08:12 AM

Yes, we are a special creation of God but we are also connected to the rest of creation. We are beasts which God honors greatly with His image.

I know for a fact there is someone from past times who brought this point up also....think it was Aquinas perhaps? I'll try and look it up.

shunyadragon

January 6th 2005, 09:54 AM

The image is what God put into mankind. My belief, and that is what it is, is that God directly created man, but used the preexisting material of the body of an ape. The image is why we have language and rational abstract thought and the animals don't. Indeed, if one looks at language in the human brain, it occurs in an entirely different part of the brain than that used by animals for communication.

The bible clearly says we are like the beasts:

Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish.

And more to the point, Ecclesiastes 3:18

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Yes, we are a special creation of God but we are also connected to the rest of creation. We are beasts which God honors greatly with His image.
This is the thread that will likely break the camel's back.

kofh2u

January 6th 2005, 05:21 PM

This is the thread that will likely break the camel's back.

Hmmm..... "I, the son of man, have the power of becoming the son of God?"

Well, you could be right, about the camel. Shall we again swallow a metaphysical "camel" as concerns "image?"

Tweb has a surprising number of physicists, among a group of other scientists. They have spent a long time reflecting on this matter of evolutionary analogy in Genesis. This suggests that intuition and logic are compatible here.

The next issue, nevertheless, does concern this idea of "let us" and the meaning of "in the image" of God.

The faith which TE people have demonstrated must continue. TE is seeking total compatibility between what we believe, that is, what has been written in our scriptures, and what we know.

In this age, we have come to rationally accept much, in the light of the Scientific Method. This Truth that the science community has so painstakingly uncovered, can be expected and anticipated to verify, support, and elucidate the Truth of scripture.

It is with such an appeal to the self confidence of TE people that I suggest the hypothesis of the following interpretation:

Gen. 1:27 So God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), created man (whose facility of mind enabled him to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created (the external theistic Universal Force), God, him (man, in God's own immanent reflection); male and female created he them.

How else may it be?
How, that our scriptures end with such a promise?
How, that in the long process of refinement, man ultimately is ready to become... as YHVH suggests, in its Hebrew meaning, "I, the son of man, have the power of becoming the son of God?"

shunyadragon

January 13th 2005, 09:17 PM

The next issue, nevertheless, does concern this idea of "let us" and the meaning of "in the image" of God.The use of the word 'us' here may have several meanings without assuming their must be one understanding. God of course likely was never alone in the infinite vastness of existence. It is often assumed that at some point in the past God was some how alone and then God created. This mechanical view of God is most likely just another foolish egocentric vision of how some view how God, and also the soul, must be, and other views must be heretical. The truth is the accusation of heresy is the doctrine of fear, not truth. The human vanities cannot define God, the soul or time. Olam! Olam! is the best we can do.

In this age, we have come to rationally accept much, in the light of the Scientific Method. This Truth that the science community has so painstakingly uncovered, can be expected and anticipated to verify, support, and elucidate the Truth of scripture.True, but all the knowledge of the people and scripture of the world can be used to verify, support, and elucidate the Truth of the nature of reality, we will never know anything that would approach the absolute Truth.

I told Glenn I had seen these quotes before, but not used specifically in the context used here. When I asked him about his knowledge of these quotes and how they were referred to when he was an apologist he said,

You know, I never heard these verses and quotations when I was a YEC. I think it is part of the fact that YECs don't really do research and they are not sceptical about anything they are taught if it supports YEC. and they don't look for reasons that YEC might be wrong. Sadly, I was exactly like that as well. I and my fellow YECs didn't challenge each other, we didn't test our ideas (which is why each and every YEC does his own thing). The individuality of each YEC is because each is doing what is right in his own eyes (if you don't recognize that phrase, look it up. it is the story of Judges)I did here these quotes used before. As an ardent explorer of different churches and religions, I attended an Episcopal Church over the years, which was my family (the Protestant part) church. The church generaly believed in a nonliteral interpretation of Genisis. In observance of Earth Day some of these quotes were prominantly displayed in acknowledgement of the true ancientness of Gods creation and our obligations of stewardship of the earth for the brief period of our residence.

The overwhelming silence and avoidance to address these quotes, and the selective use of scripture overall by the apologists, further demonstrates the weakness of the their claim of YEC. The literal interpretation of the six days of Creation, becomes an anachronism along with flat earthers. The problem is that like the foolish belief in the flat earth, it never was the consensus of believe in the whole history of Christianity.

kofh2u

January 14th 2005, 01:14 PM

Shuny, your comments are always a useful backdrop. Christians have been enculturated such as to create certain unstated/unstatable mind sets that frame what they hear, and more important, what they WILL hear.

This is not to pick on Christians, Everone has been raised in an environment that sort of "brainwashed" them. Obviously, if a person had been born in another culture, even adopted into it, by a very early age, they would be zBuddhist, or Taoist, or whatever, for life... usually.

Successful proseltyzing by Christians not to the contrary, Islam, for instance, was effective in insisting upon the conversion that measures 1 billion members today.

There is no doubt, of course, that people have changed thir religion for one reason or another. Jesus claimed that when they do, the religious forces at work soon make these poole worse off than before.

What I am saying supports your statement below, that they have eyes but don't see their own limitation, and they have ears but hear only confirmations of t
eir psychological set.

Quote, Shuny:
"The overwhelming silence and avoidance to address these quotes, and the selective use of scripture overall by the apologists, further demonstrates the weakness of the their claim of YEC. The literal interpretation of the six days of Creation, becomes an anachronism along with flat earthers."

What you will see, even from so called TE people, is a sudden return to traditional interpretations once the undebatable reasonableness is accepted, interpreting Genesis 1 as an unstated Darwinian process.

They will not let go of literal "floods of water" nor will they recognize the logic of reading Genesis 4,5,6 as a sketch of the ascent of man. It goes too far, raises fears that holes will be found in such a pronouncement which will demonstrate they are grasping at personal interpretations which are unfounded.

Nevertheless,if TE is correct, then the sense of the whole of scripture not only is changed, BUT must be demonstrated as such. ,What I am charging against TE people, like George and Morton, is that they "hold the keys to the kingdim of heaven, refusing to actually, totally enter in themselves, but then revert to the worst of their own previous adversaries, preventing other from entering.

Like, Geneis 4,5,6, which can be demonstrated to parallel our most recent paleonotological understanding, albeit, a little sparse on our science facts right now. There, they will balk in the unchartered waters as regards evolution, the evolution concerning the ascent of man. The point of TE is t
at it is leading, ultimately, to the expected and coming next evolution.
That is, TE is the "becoming of God," YHVH, the Immanent God reigning in the kingdom within.
TE is not simply an addendum to a Creztionistuc inte pretation with circumvents resistance by science and academivians, It is the scriptures' amazing insight, offered by divine revelation, long before this Age of Information.

TE doesn't stop at day six, it continues through the maturation and development of a species of man, basical ourselves. It is expounded in t e New Testament, promising something very big in a mere change. Iin a twinkle of increased Consciousness, Paul tells us of the last step in this ascent.

But, the trip starts in Genesis 1, is underwritten in Genesis 1:26,7. It is expounded upon in Genesis 4,5,6, while initiated in Genesis 4:

Gen. 4:1 And Adam (Ramaphitecus Man) knew Eve (mother of all hominoids) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD.

Gen. 4:2 And she again bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel
(Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.

Can you see that this is more than they can bear?

Zech. 12:4 In that day, (2K4 AD) saith the LORD, I will smite every
horse, (every Social Group in every culture: [Rev 6:1-8]) with
astonishment [Rev 1:16], and his rider, (the various leaders and
priests: [Rev 6:15-6), with (observable) madness: [Isa. 41:21], and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every (rabbinical) horse (of the Judaism) of the people with blindness: [Isa 41:22].

grmorton

January 14th 2005, 01:24 PM

Nevertheless,if TE is correct, then the sense of the whole of scripture not only is changed, BUT must be demonstrated as such. ,What I am charging against TE people, like George and Morton, is that they "hold the keys to the kingdim of heaven, refusing to actually, totally enter in themselves, but then revert to the worst of their own previous adversaries, preventing other from entering.

This is the first time I have heard that I have been charged with such a crime. I really don't know what you are talking about here so can you expand.

shunyadragon

January 16th 2005, 10:34 AM

This is the first time I have heard that I have been charged with such a crime. I really don't know what you are talking about here so can you expand.
It would be interesting to hear kofh2u reply. I feel he believes that the entire literal interpretation of scripture begins to fall like a house of cards. Glenn on the other hand considers scripture quit literal beyond the six-day creation being billions of years, thus Olam! Olam!, and the flood being a regional real event in human memory that likely took place in the Mediterranian.

kofh2u

January 16th 2005, 03:01 PM

It would be interesting to hear kofh2u reply. I feel he believes that the entire literal interpretation of scripture begins to fall like a house of cards. Glenn on the other hand considers scripture quit literal beyond the six-day creation being billions of years, thus Olam! Olam!, and the flood being a regional real event in human memory that likely took place in the Mediterranian.

Shuny:
It would be interesting to hear kofh2u reply. I feel he believes that the entire literal interpretation of scripture begins to fall like a
house of cards. Glenn on the other hand considers scripture quit literal
beyond the six-day creation being billions of years, thus Olam! Olam!,
and the flood being a regional real event in human memory that likely
took place in the Mediterranean.

KOFHY:
Yes, that sums up the TE differences between myself and those who have not enough faith.

Faith in that "if", if this TE is true, that the Word was meant to speak
to us in this advanced Information Age, in the current paradigm appropriate today, for sensible people in these times, then TE people MUST go with it.

The devil hates a coward, and most traditionalists see the devil's hand in such a radical insight as TE.

Either the scriptures were meant to speak to all men, in all times, in
all ways, comprehensibly to them, or TE must fail at some point. It must fail on the same premises as it is supposedly founded.
It succeeds or fails upon the complete contextual exegesis of a rational, non-metaphysical, myth-less, scientific and academically sound notion of interpretation.

It is all or nothing.

That is why I post the FBI bible interpretations. The context of scripture MUST be demonstrated as compatible from cover to cover.
TE must be the prime superimposition upon every passage and in every book.

How else can we envision so many difficult to understand predictions which are to be fulfilled in the last days to come?

Look at what Isaiah says about the common man who may have had little religious interest and is enculturated into one doctrinal interpretation or another:

Is 32:4-6 Even the hotheads among them will be full of sense and understanding, and those who stammer in uncertainty will speak out plainly.
In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes! Wealthy cheaters will not be spoken of as generous, outstanding men!
Everyone will recognize an evil man when he sees him, and hypocrites
will fool no one at all. Their lies about God and their cheating of the hungry will be plan for all to see.

ALSO:
Daniel says the mystery of scripture will be shut up until the advent of the Information Age of this day. So,... so traditional doctrines of interpretation CAN NOT be correct!
It would violate Daniel's word.

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words of the Old Testament, and seal the book of death and hell, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, traveling freely by land, sea, and even air, and knowledge in an Age of Enlightenment shall be increased.

ALSO:
Under what circumstance can we envision fulfillment of Zech 14?
Except we that we recognize the coming harmony between the intuitive insight of ancient scripture and the gradual secular understanding of Evolution as analogous with it? It must come to be that interpretations all agree.

Zech. 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of
all the nations (and denominations of Christian religions) which came
against (this New) Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to
worship the King, (the lion of Judah, root of David), the LORD of hosts, (Lord of the myriad of Christians), and to keep the feast of tabernacles, (and build cube shaped geometries as if Sukkots).

TE people MUST say more.
They must have the courage to go beyond cajoling and groveling for
inclusion in the Traditionalist Dogma, asking only for the crumb of an OEC addendum, that is, evolution as the process of, as the tool of God.
TE's must unequivocally state that YHVH is the name of Him who is
becoming, ... is evolving and manifesting.

1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (of awakened Unconscious
Mind) shall sound (in our thoughts), and the dead (Collective Unconscious Minds) shall be raised incorruptible (unperverted in clarity and memory), and we shall be
changed (into Homoiousian beings).

grmorton

January 16th 2005, 04:52 PM

Glenn on the other hand considers scripture quit literal beyond the six-day creation being billions of years, thus Olam! Olam!, and the flood being a regional real event in human memory that likely took place in the Mediterranian.

One little nitpic with that. Since the Bible doesn't literally say WHEN the creation was, I can claim my view of the time is as literal as anyone else's view of when Genesis 1 took place.

kofh2u

January 16th 2005, 08:07 PM

One little nitpic with that. Since the Bible doesn't literally say WHEN the creation was, I can claim my view of the time is as literal as anyone else's view of when Genesis 1 took place.

I guess you mean your entire view is totally literal, fundamentist.

Are you denying TE as legitmate, then?

I tend to object to the designation
"literal." I like to think that the whole of scripture is "literary." It is a form of communication, and as such, the purpose is to get meaning across, and to educate us, in regard to that the "author" is trying to tell us.

Since this Bible was written to speak to future generations, knowing it would pass through many ages, and many different mind-sets, even different nationalities and cultures of peoples, it is a work of art. The bible is like Modern Art. It is a Picasso to the field of literature.

From this point of view, I understand people appreciate the bible from different perspectives.
What a peron means, when one says "literal," is not that metaphor, similes, hyperbole, symbolism, and such are absent. What they mean is not that "God said it, that's the truth, that's the end of discussion."
What they really mean is, that no matter how wild or surrealistic or irrational the Art of this Picasso comes across to them, they love it. They axcept the beauty of it, as they perceive the "canvass" of its written text. It is communicating its message to them, as eould a Picasso, the beauty and the art AND the affect in the eye of the beholder.

I believe people who readily accept what they understand the bible to actually be saying, inspite that even they know that, the way they are looking at it, is in a "fairy tale" atmosphere way. They are saying to us in their defense of their inte pretation, "I abdicate rationality." In bending their knee, they recognize the powers of understanding beyond themselves. Their mental state is on a level different than rational, logical, semantical. They have transcended into a state that gave rise to the word "spiritual" when observed thinking this way.

I believe that in accepting irrationality, especially an informed physicist submits to a power beyond his understanding, in a gesture of submission not inappropriate.

I also believe there is joy more abundant awaiting the true believer, those people able to experience faith in this marvelous book, in these metaphysical and supernatural readings.
Abraham Maslow said a truly well adjusted and sane, actualized, person should/ought expect to paricipate in "the peak mystical experience!"

Why not the sincere bible student, then?

But, the happiness people know, content already with their particular interpretation, can only burst into proud joy when even the hotheads of traditional interpretors, and/or the atheists detractors, attempting to denigrate scriptures and believers alike, are confronted with secular support of scripture from TE.

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to openthe book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

grmorton

January 16th 2005, 09:15 PM

I guess you mean your entire view is totally literal, fundamentist.

Are you denying TE as legitmate, then?

No of course not. I think the Bible literally teaches evolution. When God said to the earth to bring forth plants and animals, this is the indication of evolution. Didn't you understand my post on how I think Genesis 1 should be read? It was addressed to you. You commented on it and seemed to like it but then what do I know.

I tend to object to the designation
"literal." I like to think that the whole of scripture is "literary." It is a form of communication, and as such, the purpose is to get meaning across, and to educate us, in regard to that the "author" is trying to tell us.

You seem to hold different views on different days as far as I can see.

kofh2u

January 17th 2005, 02:20 AM

grmorton:

No of course not. I think the Bible literally teaches evolution.

KOFHY:
Oh, good.

I guess you are right in assuming I seem inconsistent in my comments concerning how I understand your position.
I thought you were TE as regards Genesis 1, but I know your can't buy into Gen 6-9 as a metaphor for the sudden population explosion of Homo sapiens which "flooded" the world of Neanderthal man, and decimated him in the process.

grmorton:
Didn't you understand my post on how I think Genesis 1 should be read? It was addressed to you. You commented on it and seemed to like it but then what do I know.

KOFHY:
Yes.
Everything I said still holds.
I was commenting on Shuny's observation, that beyond Gen 1, we seem to part company.
You fall back into acceptance of metaphysical ideas, while quite OK, it differs from my recognition of an easy compatibility with secular facts.

grmorton:
You seem to hold different views on different days as far as I can see.

KOFHY:
Maybe I'm evolving?
Haha...

No. I do think we differ on the verses below, do we not?

Gen. 4:1 And Adam (Ramaphitecus Man) knew Eve (mother of all hominoids) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD.

Gen. 4:2 And she again bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel
(Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.

grmorton

January 17th 2005, 08:14 AM

grmorton:

No of course not. I think the Bible literally teaches evolution.

KOFHY:
Oh, good.

I guess you are right in assuming I seem inconsistent in my comments concerning how I understand your position.
I thought you were TE as regards Genesis 1, but I know your can't buy into Gen 6-9 as a metaphor for the sudden population explosion of Homo sapiens which "flooded" the world of Neanderthal man, and decimated him in the process.

Genesis 6-9 is not a metaphor IMO. That is where the Messinian flood comes in. See my posts on this page http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43494&page=1&pp=16 for my explanation of it.

grmorton:
Didn't you understand my post on how I think Genesis 1 should be read? It was addressed to you. You commented on it and seemed to like it but then what do I know.

KOFHY:
Yes.
Everything I said still holds.
I was commenting on Shuny's observation, that beyond Gen 1, we seem to part company.
You fall back into acceptance of metaphysical ideas, while quite OK, it differs from my recognition of an easy compatibility with secular facts.

Then you really don't understand my approach. I don't fall back to metaphysical ideas. You need to look at what I and George Murphy have debated about over the years at the ASA list. My flood is not metaphysical, I don't believe the fall is metaphysical. I am absolutely gob-smacked that you think this. Obviously I am a terrible communicator.

maudman

January 17th 2005, 12:21 PM

kofh2u

January 17th 2005, 12:53 PM

Gmorton:
Genesis 6-9 is not a metaphor IMO. That is where the Messinian flood comes in.

KOFHY:
Now don't get upset that we have differences here.
I am not knocking your rationale, nor do I attack your arguments.

I merely offer a different take.

You have posted many interesting and feasible facts about a very big flood. Iit might be a good point that it is all hyperbole, the destruction of all lower forms of mankind along with all animals not on the ark. It certainly is useful as a stepping stone, one or two, removed from the most Fundamentalists insistences.

Reflect on t he recent spate of "humorous" secular books, laughing at the animal/ark logistics, and the overt attacks by atheist/abortionist/liberal agenda.

These rational criticisms of Noah/arks/dinosaurs/lack of space, added to evolutionist ridicule, (not of scripture, but what Christians insist scripture means), makes spiritual people stumble.

You seem in the posts I have read, to argue with facts for a "kind of world-wide" flood.
But the ark story, you are for it, are you not?

Metaphysics ha been necessary to answer Ark "problems." Space on the ark has required special miracles of miniturized dinosaurs and such.

This is what I mean when I observe your opinions seem half way measures between total rational, scientifically mainstream acceptability of scrpture and partial birth new idealistic meta-science.

No offense intended, just stating my understanding of where you are coming frim.

Gmorton:
Then you really don't understand my approach. I don't fall back to metaphysical ideas. You need to look at what I and George Murphy have debated about over the years at the ASA list. My flood is not metaphysical, I don't believe the fall is metaphysical. I am absolutely gob-smacked that you think this. Obviously I am a terrible communicator.

KOFHY:
I said above, maybe I do not..." really don't understand my approach."

I admit to not reading beyond your arguments against Neanderthal's replacement "40,000 years ago of days and nights."

You seemed to discount this coincidental information of an emense population explosion of Modern Homo sapiens and the ultimate demise of Neanderthal over that same span of 40,000 years.

Am I wrong in assuming that, IYO, this totally rational interpretation has too many holes in it?
Do you not propose that we must use some unexplainable "meta-science" to find compatibility with scripture?

Gen. 6:8 But Noah, (the predecessor of the Modern Homo sapiens whiom were to emerge), found grace in the (pantheistic) eyes of the LORD, (the concrete Universe and all that is therein:[Rom 1:20]).

Gen. 6:9 These are the generations (of humanity) that followed Noah, the three racial stocks of Homo Sapiens):
Noah was a just man and perfect, (for he experienced the truth of Reality in nature), and Noah (who thought rationally and realistically;[Gen 1:26-7]) walked (immanently) with (the pantheistic expression of) God, (to whom he had adapted).

Gen. 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, (three Homo Sapiens members from his racial stock); Shem, (the Mongoloid Stock); Ham, (the Negroid Stock); and Japheth, (the Caucasian Stock).

Gen. 6:11 The earth, (as it appeared in the consciousness [Gen 3:5]* of those humanoid forms before the evolution of Noah), also was corrupt, (out of harmony) before God, (the Universal Power, and before his natural reality upon this earth), corruption was in their hearts, (their minds were) filled with violence.

Gen. 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, (and the way hominoids
thought), and, behold, it was corrupt, (their thinking); for all flesh had corrupted his way, (man's thinking was erroneous and out of harmony) upon the earth.

Gen. 6:13 And God, (in the voice of his natural processes of Evolution), said unto Noah, "The end of all flesh, both what has been called men and the animal life (all which interact with with man), is come before me, (and great evolutionary progress has been authorized); for the earth (and that consciousness now in Hominoids:[Gen 3:3]*), is filled with violence (against themselves, through them); and, behold, I will destroy them, (as I have the dinosaurs, along with the abstraction of this earth that they mentally envision in their
conscious misunderstanding).

Gen. 6:14 Make thee, (O' Modern Homo sapiens, as if) an ark of gopher wood, (a Homo sapien brain that thinks sanely and truly reflects my Reality); rooms, (of various levels of consciousness) shalt thou make in the ark (of this brain), and shalt pitch it within and without, (covered by the skull), with the pitch (of twenty-two bones, one for each letter of my Holy Word).

*Gen. 3:5 For (the pantheistic reasoning of) God doth know that in the day ye contemplate (Consciousness) thereof, then your (thinking will see things with different) eyes (which) shall be opened (and awakened), and ye shall be as (mythological, anthropomorphic caricatures of) gods, knowing (the Free Will of) good and bad.

**Gen. 3:3 But of the fruit, (Consciousness), of the tree (of your psychic apparati) which is in the midst of (the fenced off area the mind:[Hebrew: gan]), the "garden" (of now unconscious, instinctual human thinking), God hath said, Ye shall not (take Consciousness into consideration), eat of it, (conscious awareness), neither shall ye ([Hebrew: naga/ lie with it as a woman]: to reach out to it, to lie with it, intimately) touch it, (Free Will), lest ye die (psychologicallymspeaking: [Hebrew: muwth/lose one's life).

grmorton

January 17th 2005, 10:55 PM

Gmorton:
Genesis 6-9 is not a metaphor IMO. That is where the Messinian flood comes in.

KOFHY:
Now don't get upset that we have differences here.
I am not knocking your rationale, nor do I attack your arguments.

I merely offer a different take.

You have posted many interesting and feasible facts about a very big flood. Iit might be a good point that it is all hyperbole, the destruction of all lower forms of mankind along with all animals not on the ark. It certainly is useful as a stepping stone, one or two, removed from the most Fundamentalists insistences.

Reflect on t he recent spate of "humorous" secular books, laughing at the animal/ark logistics, and the overt attacks by atheist/abortionist/liberal agenda.

These rational criticisms of Noah/arks/dinosaurs/lack of space, added to evolutionist ridicule, (not of scripture, but what Christians insist scripture means), makes spiritual people stumble.

You seem in the posts I have read, to argue with facts for a "kind of world-wide" flood.
But the ark story, you are for it, are you not?

YEs, I beleive historicity is important. It is the metaphysical (I interpret this as metaphorical) part that gets me riled :sigh: Because everything I have proposed is something that COULD happen, not that I can prove that it DID happen, I do take ubrage when it is called metaphysical. :-)

Metaphysics ha been necessary to answer Ark "problems." Space on the ark has required special miracles of miniturized dinosaurs and such.

This is what I mean when I observe your opinions seem half way measures between total rational, scientifically mainstream acceptability of scrpture and partial birth new idealistic meta-science.

No offense intended, just stating my understanding of where you are coming frim.

If you are using the term metaphysical correctly (and I am not sure you are) then maybe I am reading all this wrong.

KOFHY:
I said above, maybe I do not..." really don't understand my approach."

I admit to not reading beyond your arguments against Neanderthal's replacement "40,000 years ago of days and nights."

You seemed to discount this coincidental information of an emense population explosion of Modern Homo sapiens and the ultimate demise of Neanderthal over that same span of 40,000 years.

Am I wrong in assuming that, IYO, this totally rational interpretation has too many holes in it?

I think that the Neanderthals were clearly replaced. What I am not so convinced of is that there is solid evidence that they left not a scrap of DNA in our. I will freelly admit that the N's left little genetic material in us, but this would be true if there were lots of interbreeding of a small Neanderthal population and a large AMH population due merely to genetic drift. Melanocortin is the gene for red hair. It is found only in the regions the Neanderthals lived in and the gene is 100,000 years old. There were no anatomically modern humans in Europe during that time. The most parsimonious explanation is that this is a gene which entered the human population from the N's. And this gene actually provides some protection against frostbite--something that the N's would have needed but the AMH's wouldn't have had a need for down in warm sunny Africa.

Do you not propose that we must use some unexplainable "meta-science" to find compatibility with scripture?

Exactly what would that be?

Gen. 6:8 But Noah, (the predecessor of the Modern Homo sapiens whiom were to emerge), found grace in the (pantheistic) eyes of the LORD, (the concrete Universe and all that is therein:[Rom 1:20]).

Gen. 6:9 These are the generations (of humanity) that followed Noah, the three racial stocks of Homo Sapiens):
Noah was a just man and perfect, (for he experienced the truth of Reality in nature), and Noah (who thought rationally and realistically;[Gen 1:26-7]) walked (immanently) with (the pantheistic expression of) God, (to whom he had adapted).

Gen. 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, (three Homo Sapiens members from his racial stock); Shem, (the Mongoloid Stock); Ham, (the Negroid Stock); and Japheth, (the Caucasian Stock).

Gen. 6:11 The earth, (as it appeared in the consciousness [Gen 3:5]* of those humanoid forms before the evolution of Noah), also was corrupt, (out of harmony) before God, (the Universal Power, and before his natural reality upon this earth), corruption was in their hearts, (their minds were) filled with violence.

Gen. 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, (and the way hominoids
thought), and, behold, it was corrupt, (their thinking); for all flesh had corrupted his way, (man's thinking was erroneous and out of harmony) upon the earth.

Gen. 6:13 And God, (in the voice of his natural processes of Evolution), said unto Noah, "The end of all flesh, both what has been called men and the animal life (all which interact with with man), is come before me, (and great evolutionary progress has been authorized); for the earth (and that consciousness now in Hominoids:[Gen 3:3]*), is filled with violence (against themselves, through them); and, behold, I will destroy them, (as I have the dinosaurs, along with the abstraction of this earth that they mentally envision in their
conscious misunderstanding).

Gen. 6:14 Make thee, (O' Modern Homo sapiens, as if) an ark of gopher wood, (a Homo sapien brain that thinks sanely and truly reflects my Reality); rooms, (of various levels of consciousness) shalt thou make in the ark (of this brain), and shalt pitch it within and without, (covered by the skull), with the pitch (of twenty-two bones, one for each letter of my Holy Word).

*Gen. 3:5 For (the pantheistic reasoning of) God doth know that in the day ye contemplate (Consciousness) thereof, then your (thinking will see things with different) eyes (which) shall be opened (and awakened), and ye shall be as (mythological, anthropomorphic caricatures of) gods, knowing (the Free Will of) good and bad.

**Gen. 3:3 But of the fruit, (Consciousness), of the tree (of your psychic apparati) which is in the midst of (the fenced off area the mind:[Hebrew: gan]), the "garden" (of now unconscious, instinctual human thinking), God hath said, Ye shall not (take Consciousness into consideration), eat of it, (conscious awareness), neither shall ye ([Hebrew: naga/ lie with it as a woman]: to reach out to it, to lie with it, intimately) touch it, (Free Will), lest ye die (psychologicallymspeaking: [Hebrew: muwth/lose one's life).

If the flood was as long ago as I think, then Noah did not give rise to three families of AMH, not at least directly.

And I don't understand all this pantheistic stuff. My views are hardly pantheistic.

kofh2u

January 18th 2005, 12:18 PM

YEs, I beleive historicity is important. It is the metaphysical (I interpret this as metaphorical) part that gets me riled :sigh: Because everything I have proposed is something that COULD happen, not that I can prove that it DID happen, I do take ubrage when it is called metaphysical. :-)

If you are using the term metaphysical correctly (and I am not sure you are) then maybe I am reading all this wrong.

I think that the Neanderthals were clearly replaced. What I am not so convinced of is that there is solid evidence that they left not a scrap of DNA in our. I will freelly admit that the N's left little genetic material in us, but this would be true if there were lots of interbreeding of a small Neanderthal population and a large AMH population due merely to genetic drift. Melanocortin is the gene for red hair. It is found only in the regions the Neanderthals lived in and the gene is 100,000 years old. There were no anatomically modern humans in Europe during that time. The most parsimonious explanation is that this is a gene which entered the human population from the N's. And this gene actually provides some protection against frostbite--something that the N's would have needed but the AMH's wouldn't have had a need for down in warm sunny Africa.

Exactly what would that be?

If the flood was as long ago as I think, then Noah did not give rise to three families of AMH, not at least directly.

And I don't understand all this pantheistic stuff. My views are hardly pantheistic.

Hi gmor,
Metaphor/metaphysical?

One explains a rose by another name.
The other accounts for roses by spontaneous generation.

Noah's ark could be argued as literally true, encouraging the ridicule presently offered in the bookstores..

Metaphysically, any idea that occurs to a person is an acceptable brainstorming hypothesis.

Metaphorically, it could be as these verses suggest:

Gen. 6:14 Make thee, (O' Modern Homo sapiens, evolve!) an ark of gopher wood, (a Homo sapien brain that thinks sanely and truly reflects my Reality); rooms, (of various levels of consciousness) shalt thou make in the ark (of this brain), and shalt pitch it within and without, (covered by the skull), with the pitch (of twenty-two bones, one for each letter of my Holy Word).

You ask, "And I don't understand all this pantheistic stuff."

Here is a verse from my poem and a verse from scripture. Hopefully, the pantheistic relationship between God and man is communicated to the best of my ability.

In understanding the creation
The creator is revealed.
Mind purified during evolution
Forges a frame heretofore concealed.

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (the Father of all nature, Reality), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his eternal (natural) power and (his Quantum Reality which is the) Godhead (of all things); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse (for denying the Word):

grmorton

January 18th 2005, 11:15 PM

Hi gmor,
Metaphor/metaphysical?

One explains a rose by another name.
The other accounts for roses by spontaneous generation.

Noah's ark could be argued as literally true, encouraging the ridicule presently offered in the bookstores..

Metaphysically, any idea that occurs to a person is an acceptable brainstorming hypothesis.

Metaphorically, it could be as these verses suggest:

Gen. 6:14 Make thee, (O' Modern Homo sapiens, evolve!) an ark of gopher wood, (a Homo sapien brain that thinks sanely and truly reflects my Reality); rooms, (of various levels of consciousness) shalt thou make in the ark (of this brain), and shalt pitch it within and without, (covered by the skull), with the pitch (of twenty-two bones, one for each letter of my Holy Word).

You ask, "And I don't understand all this pantheistic stuff."

Here is a verse from my poem and a verse from scripture. Hopefully, the pantheistic relationship between God and man is communicated to the best of my ability.

In understanding the creation
The creator is revealed.
Mind purified during evolution
Forges a frame heretofore concealed.

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (the Father of all nature, Reality), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made (and observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his eternal (natural) power and (his Quantum Reality which is the) Godhead (of all things); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse (for denying the Word):

I must confess to being totally confused now. I simply don't know what you are trying to say. Don't worry about it. I am getting very very busy right now.

kofh2u

January 19th 2005, 02:26 AM

I must confess to being totally confused now. I simply don't know what you are trying to say. Don't worry about it. I am getting very very busy right now.

Much confusion comes from pre-psychological sets in the thinking of a Bible reader.

Before reading, people tend to have the idea of searching the scriptures, because in them they seek answers and assurances concerning eternal life.

Heaven, death, hell, and salvation is the theme they presuppose.

This seems so conventional an assumption that it is hard to detour people. They resist going down the path of Evolution as the point of the Bible.
They are unprepared to entertain the idea that God, the ineffable, intangible, First Cause that pre-existed the material universe is evolving, becoming... YHVH, in the Hebrew.

God is manifesting among men, in the sense defined by the concept of Immanent God.

The dictionary says an immanent God is internal, mental, a spiritual quality of our mind, inside, in the Kingdom of God within.

How else do we understand that "We all have the power to become the sons of God?"

How else do you explain the end of the "stories" found in this writing of scripture?

The end of the Bible explains that Christ's followers are after the mode and model of the first born, the Son of God!

If TE is not saying that the process of evolution is the designing machinery, (ID), of an emerging intelligence that lives, and thinks, just as reality suggests it ought, then what is TE saying?

If God IS love, then, is not God immanent: in the minds of men who truly express such emotion?

Rev. 21:22 And I SAW NO TEMPLE therein: for the (theistic, transcendent) Lord God Almighty and (the immanent God,) the Lamb (within the mind of men) are the temple of it.

Rev. 21:23 And the "city," had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God, (the Urim and Thummim of the pattern of His Temple) did lighten it, and the Lamb, (the chief cornerstone of the geometry) is the light thereof.

What say you, item by item?

grmorton

January 19th 2005, 07:40 AM

What say you, item by item?

Nothing. I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

kofh2u

January 19th 2005, 11:22 AM

Nothing. I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

Zech. 12:4 In that day, (2K4 AD) saith the LORD, I will smite every horse, (every Social Group in every culture: [Rev 10:7]) with
astonishment [Rev 1:16], and his rider, (the various leaders and
priests: [Rev 6:15-16), with (observable) madness: [Isa. 41:21], and I will open mine eyes (Ez 1) upon the house of Judah, and will smite every (rabbinical) horse (of the Judaism) of the people (of Abraham) with blindness: [Isa 41:22].

shunyadragon

January 26th 2005, 07:36 AM

Just asking a question.

This may not be the place but you'll seem to debate certain things just want your take on something.

What if at the beginning of the physical universe at the advent of creation there was another god birthed. A god whose conception is unavoidable, a god by its very nature that would be an adversary in a metaphysical and emperical sense to YHWH. Does TE or OEC in its beliefs Make allowences for such a hypothesis.
A god who's power is derived from the power of the physical nature and as matter warps space and time it also warps the mind. Could a universe which had not Known such a force emperically and spiritually avoid the ramifications of such a creation.
TE and OEC would be related predominantly to Judaic,Christian and Islamic beliefs and the understanding of the Pentiteach and the beliefs you mentioned would not be very compatable, though any individual may include these beliefs.

TE is simply the acceptance of the findings of science concerning the physical history of the universe and life independent of theistic religious belief. Since the above beliefs would not be truely theistic thhey would not be compatable.

The above beliefs may be more compatable with Mormons.

The biblical concept of Olam olam! would support the TE, OEC and ID beliefs.

kofh2u

January 26th 2005, 06:19 PM

TE and OEC would be related predominantly to Judaic,Christian and Islamic beliefs and the understanding of the Pentiteach and the beliefs you mentioned would not be very compatable, though any individual may include these beliefs.

TE is simply the acceptance of the findings of science concerning the physical history of the universe and life independent of theistic religious belief. Since the above beliefs would not be truely theistic thhey would not be compatable.

The above beliefs may be more compatable with Mormons.

The biblical concept of Olam olam! would support the TE, OEC and ID beliefs.

TE is not a well defined.
No single all embracing doctrine has been agreed to. Many who refer to TE really limit the matter to a necessary and assumably sufficient compatibility with Genesis 1-2.
The thrust of their "TE" refers only to the controversy between Creationism and Evolution. That debate rages specifically in regard to interpretations of Genesis 1.

TE people have scratched only the surface of the task of making scripture compatible with present rational thinking.

The fundamental truth is that man thinks. He is the present end product of an evolution into Consciousness. This is analogous with our own quest in computer technology that strives for Artifical Intelligence, (AI).

The advent of AI will require a similar refection, some program that explains the computer-master relationship. The computer AI, after it has been developed, will then, and only then, "think" about the data it receives in regard to an "intelligent" understanding of its relationhip with it Creator, who said, "Let us create AI, enabling computers to think in our own way, to function in the image of human behaviors and interactions."

A total insight into TE, using this analogy clearly prohibits multiple anthropomorphic Godheads and can only insist upon one definition of a mono-entity creator.

Rev. 4:5 And out of the throne (of the Cerebrum) proceeded lightnings (of electromagnetic radiations) and thunderings (of thoughts) and voices (of understandings): and there were seven (subconscious centers of communication as if) lamps of fire burning before the throne (of this Cerebrum), which are the seven (Archetypal) Spirits of God, (the immanent God, the son of God with the kingdom of the Homoiousios Mind).