RBerman on TE

[lilpixieofterror]

The problem I have with geocentrism is the same problem I have with you: A failure to utilize the phenomenological category.

And where did anybody figure out the geocentric system was wrong based upon the Bible alone and not upon science? Nowhere because it was scientific investigation that begin to open up a more metaphorical view of these passages and yet you seem to condemn views that are not YEC views upon the same grounds you turn it around and attack.

Geocentrists go from "the sun appears to move" to "the sun literally circles the earth." That's extrapolation from the phenomenological to the technical, and it's not warranted.

And did anybody, from before the scientific evolution, find this out or was the result that the scientific revolution brought about a different way to look at what once was seen as a literal view of scripture?

You, on the other hand, go from "the sun appears to move" to "That's just poetic language." Well, it's not. Phenomenological language deserves its own category separate from poetic language like "God is my rock." Geocentrism was not a belief derived simply from reading the Bible; it was derived from secular science of its day, as evidenced by the fact that ancient philosophers who rejected or were ignorant of the Bible still believed in geocentrism. It was the prevailing secular view, and it colored the reading of Scripture until it was proved false. It's a great example of why you should not assume that science is right when you read the Bible.

Playing word games doesn't change the facts we got before us and it shows your general ignorance of history and classical interpretations of the Bible. Christians of the classical era denied that the universe always existed because it went against what the Bible plainly taught and scientific support for the idea that the universe always existed came straight from the very same sources that you claim that our church fathers simply believed without evidence. That is silliness, the church didn't accept scientific ideas they believed went against scriptural teachings (such as the universe being a created thing) and support for that idea didn't come until 20th century when science actually supported what our early church fathers had been saying for centuries. In other words, the reason they accepted Geocentrism was not because of what you want to claim, but because they believed that the Bible plainly supported such a position and thus accepted a Geocentric belief system. So despite you saying they accepted science and simply read the Bible as such, that's foolishness, they saw what the scriptures plainly taught and let the scientific belief support them, not the reverse. Likewise, you are letting the scientific evidence tell you that a 'literal interpretation' is impossible due to the scientific evidence, which is the very same measure you attack other positions for. So if anything, the YEC view, as you present it, is the only contradictory position that exists.

You're right that Christian scientists should not accept the secular party line about all things having natural causes. That's my point: Creation is not a natural event. It's a special act of God and deserves to be treated as one, especially by those who name the name of Christ. That's why I say that OEC are inconsistent in their application of science to Scripture.

Sounds like to me you are trying to bring the cart before the horse and argue that since science 'goes against' your preconceived notion of a young universe, a young universe must be true and therefore anything that goes against yoru belief in a young universe, is wrong. I again ask you, why does God need the universe to be 6,000 years old? Why would the same God that tells us that he could be trusted also tries to fool us into falsely believing the universe is far older then 6,000 years old by placing tons of false evidence, of events that never happened and lives never really lived to start with. Finally, the current scientific evidence points to an incredible discovery, the dozen or so variables needed to bring about the universe we got today is an amazing stream of just rights. For example, if the big bang would have gone too slow, the universe wouldn't be able to expand and would have fallen back into itself and if the universe expanded too fast, gravity wouldn't be able to hold things together. Variables like that take a pretty awesome God to me, what about you?

[KBertsche]

"Pedantic" maybe, but not "idiosyncratic". Most translations smooth up the waw-consecutive as either "and" or "then", as your quotes have showed. The NASB is one of the most consistent; it seems to almost always use "and". When you see a sentence or independent clause starting with "and" in the NASB OT, it is probably a waw-consecutive.

Oops, a typo! Please replace every occurrence of "NASB" above with "ESV". The ESV text dealt with the waw-consecutive consistently. In the ESV text of Day 4, every time a sentence or independent clause starts with "and", it is a translation of the Hebrew waw-consecutive, and has sense of "and then".

[RBerman]

And where did anybody figure out the geocentric system was wrong based upon the Bible alone and not upon science? Nowhere because it was scientific investigation that begin to open up a more metaphorical view of these passages and yet you seem to condemn views that are not YEC views upon the same grounds you turn it around and attack...And did anybody, from before the scientific evolution, find this out or was the result that the scientific revolution brought about a different way to look at what once was seen as a literal view of scripture?... Playing word games doesn't change the facts we got before us and it shows your general ignorance of history and classical interpretations of the Bible. Christians of the classical era denied that the universe always existed because it went against what the Bible plainly taught and scientific support for the idea that the universe always existed came straight from the very same sources that you claim that our church fathers simply believed without evidence. That is silliness, the church didn't accept scientific ideas they believed went against scriptural teachings (such as the universe being a created thing) and support for that idea didn't come until 20th century when science actually supported what our early church fathers had been saying for centuries. In other words, the reason they accepted Geocentrism was not because of what you want to claim, but because they believed that the Bible plainly supported such a position and thus accepted a Geocentric belief system. So despite you saying they accepted science and simply read the Bible as such, that's foolishness, they saw what the scriptures plainly taught and let the scientific belief support them, not the reverse. Likewise, you are letting the scientific evidence tell you that a 'literal interpretation' is impossible due to the scientific evidence, which is the very same measure you attack other positions for. So if anything, the YEC view, as you present it, is the only contradictory position that exists.

Your comments here show that we have failed to make any progress on distinguishing between scientific, phenomenological, and figurative language. Until that hurdle is crossed, there's really nothing that I can say that wouldn't cater to your false paradigm.

Sounds like to me you are trying to bring the cart before the horse and argue that since science 'goes against' your preconceived notion of a young universe, a young universe must be true and therefore anything that goes against yoru belief in a young universe, is wrong. I again ask you, why does God need the universe to be 6,000 years old? Why would the same God that tells us that he could be trusted also tries to fool us into falsely believing the universe is far older then 6,000 years old by placing tons of false evidence, of events that never happened and lives never really lived to start with. Finally, the current scientific evidence points to an incredible discovery, the dozen or so variables needed to bring about the universe we got today is an amazing stream of just rights. For example, if the big bang would have gone too slow, the universe wouldn't be able to expand and would have fallen back into itself and if the universe expanded too fast, gravity wouldn't be able to hold things together. Variables like that take a pretty awesome God to me, what about you?

You have been very consistent in mischaracterizing my view as believing that God "needed" to do things in one way or another. I encourage you to reread my previous posts where I tried to correct your misapprehension.

[KBertsche]

I've read Stambaugh's article previously. It's not that he "fails to note them" as if he's unaware that those waw are there, or that he has never thought about them.

I didn't guess as to why he omitted mention of these occurrences, I only noted that he had omitted them. I wish he had discussed them; I would have liked to see what he said!

It's more likely that, like all the translators of all the popular English Bibles, he simply doesn't attribute the significance to them that you would like to attribute. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm simply not open to being persuaded that I should trust your personal translation of the Bible over the consensus of ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, etc.

Look again at the ESV. As I said, it is consistent in how it translates the waw-consecutive, at least in the narrative of Day 4. If you replace the "and then" of my "personal" translation with the "and" of the ESV, they agree.

The significance was put there by the original author of the Hebrew text. Neither I (nor the ESV) invented it.

I know enough about language to know that translation is an art, requiring a thousand judgment calls that ought not to be trusted to amateurs (not necessarily meaning you, but definitely meaning me) armed with "my favorite Hebrew grammar text." That's how many a heresy has begun.

Yes. Many heresies have also begun by basing one's doctrines on an English translation instead of on the originals.

Most Evangelicals hold that the original manuscripts were inerrant, but that modern translations aren't necessarily so. But if we refuse to study and believe the original languages, what good does this doctrine of inerrancy do us? It becomes purely academic and theoretical.

[RBerman]

I didn't guess as to why he omitted mention of these occurrences, I only noted that he had omitted them. I wish he had discussed them; I would have liked to see what he said!

I agree. It seems more likely to me that he considered the matter and thought it non-germane than that (a) he didn't consider it at all, or (b) he considered it, knew it went against his preconceived notion, and decided not to mention it. Obviously there's no way to answer that question now.

Look again at the ESV. As I said, it is consistent in how it translates the waw-consecutive, at least in the narrative of Day 4. If you replace the "and then" of my "personal" translation with the "and" of the ESV, they agree. The significance was put there by the original author of the Hebrew text. Neither I (nor the ESV) invented it.

Sure, if ESV translated things your way, then it would agree with you. But it didn't.

Yes. Many heresies have also begun by basing one's doctrines on an English translation instead of on the originals. Most Evangelicals hold that the original manuscripts were inerrant, but that modern translations aren't necessarily so. But if we refuse to study and believe the original languages, what good does this doctrine of inerrancy do us? It becomes purely academic and theoretical.

Sure. I'm all for expertise in the original languages. But I'm not so naive as to believe that picking up a Hebrew grammar book makes me an expert in those original languages, qualified to translate the Bible in one way when every scholarly translation of our day translates it another way. You're not going to get any traction from me on this matter, KB.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your comments here show that we have failed to make any progress on distinguishing between scientific, phenomenological, and figurative language. Until that hurdle is crossed, there's really nothing that I can say that wouldn't cater to your false paradigm.

I understand the difference just fine, you are just refusing to see the evidence before you and making up explanations to avoid having to admit to the fact that it wasn't anything in the Bible that lead humanity to a heliocentric belief at all. It was scientific evidence that did this and then people started to think, "Well, maybe these passages are not to be taken literal, but taken some other way instead." and thus the reason we today take other views towards these seemly supportive statements towards geocentric belief today. Which is fine, but you go around and claim that TE's can't use modern science to support their views about an old earth and if they do, they have to hold to a 'contradiction' but you seem to have no issue with using modern science to support your belief that the earth revolves around the sun. If you can produce any sort of evidence that the people of the ancient world thought otherwise, you are welcome to bring it forward, but none have done it yet because I don't think the evidence for such a belief existed.

You have been very consistent in mischaracterizing my view as believing that God "needed" to do things in one way or another. I encourage you to reread my previous posts where I tried to correct your misapprehension.

And I do not believe that is a wrong way to take your words at all, but you seem to imply that if others disagree with a 'literal view of Genesis' they are not taking God's word for what it says. The problem is that we are, I just do not believe that Genesis 1 and 2 is being literal when it talks about creation and don't interpret those verses as such. That is the issue, it is not about anything other than that.

[oxmixmudd]

But I'm not so naive as to believe that picking up a Hebrew grammar book makes me an expert in those original languages, qualified to translate the Bible in one way when every scholarly translation of our day translates it another way. You're not going to get any traction from me on this matter, KB.

Translations that are targeted for a common audience and 8th grade reading level can not and do not capture the subtleties necessary for this level of discussion.


Jim

[KBertsche]

Sure, if ESV translated things your way, then it would agree with you. But it didn't.

No, take a look at the ESV again! The ESV does agree with me, in that it recognizes all of the waw-consecutives in the Day 4 account and renders them all the same way.

Sure. I'm all for expertise in the original languages. But I'm not so naive as to believe that picking up a Hebrew grammar book makes me an expert in those original languages, qualified to translate the Bible in one way when every scholarly translation of our day translates it another way. You're not going to get any traction from me on this matter, KB.

But it's not true that "every scholarly translation of our day translates it another way"! The ESV translates the waw-consecutive in a consistent manner, like i do, while the others you have quoted do not.

Since you don't trust yourself with the Hebrew, and we both seem to like the ESV rendering, take a look at the ESV again. Notice at the beginning of each Day, "And God said ...". This is the next action in the narrative after the end of the previous Day, as Stambaugh says. As the author relates the events of Day 4, he presents them in the same sort of consecutive progression; "And God made (the lights)... And God placed them ...". This is the same Hebrew construction and same English translation as "And God said ..." at the beginning of each Day. They are presented as a consecutive sequence of events.

[RBerman]

I understand the difference just fine, you are just refusing to see the evidence before you and making up explanations to avoid having to admit to the fact that it wasn't anything in the Bible that lead humanity to a heliocentric belief at all. It was scientific evidence that did this and then people started to think, "Well, maybe these passages are not to be taken literal, but taken some other way instead." and thus the reason we today take other views towards these seemly supportive statements towards geocentric belief today. Which is fine, but you go around and claim that TE's can't use modern science to support their views about an old earth and if they do, they have to hold to a 'contradiction' but you seem to have no issue with using modern science to support your belief that the earth revolves around the sun. If you can produce any sort of evidence that the people of the ancient world thought otherwise, you are welcome to bring it forward, but none have done it yet because I don't think the evidence for such a belief existed.

The verses used to support geocentrism are not the same ones used to support TE. The geocentrism verses come from poetic parts of the Bible. Genesis 1 is not poetry in that sense.

And I do not believe that is a wrong way to take your words at all, but you seem to imply that if others disagree with a 'literal view of Genesis' they are not taking God's word for what it says. The problem is that we are, I just do not believe that Genesis 1 and 2 is being literal when it talks about creation and don't interpret those verses as such. That is the issue, it is not about anything other than that.

I continue to deny that God needed to do things in any particular way. You continue to say things like, "I again ask you, why does God need the universe to be 6,000 years old?" If you can't digest what I wrote, then it's possible you'll have difficulty with other texts as well.

[RBerman]

No, take a look at the ESV again! The ESV does agree with me, in that it recognizes all of the waw-consecutives in the Day 4 account and renders them all the same way.

It renders them consistently in a different way than you do. I didn't argue that ESV was inconsistent. I argued that it disagreed with you about how to render waw.

Since you don't trust yourself with the Hebrew, and we both seem to like the ESV rendering, take a look at the ESV again. Notice at the beginning of each Day, "And God said ...". This is the next action in the narrative after the end of the previous Day, as Stambaugh says. As the author relates the events of Day 4, he presents them in the same sort of consecutive progression; "And God made (the lights)... And God placed them ...". This is the same Hebrew construction and same English translation as "And God said ..." at the beginning of each Day. They are presented as a consecutive sequence of events.

"And" is not used solely for consecutive events in Genesis 1, though. Look at verse 2: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Are those three consecutive events, or three different descriptions of aspects of a simultaneous reality? You're committing the semantic totality fallacy, in which words have only one shade of meaning. Doesn't verse 2 even begin with a waw? Gap Theory proponents think that means that verse 1 describes God making a whole universe which subsequently was messed up, with verse 2ff being a subsequent recreation. Modern YEC usually say that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement, so that that waw at the beginning of verse 2 would not indicate subsequent action at all but would function more as a grammatical marker between two independent thoughts, as English "and" often does.

[oxmixmudd]

The verses used to support geocentrism are not the same ones used to support TE. The geocentrism verses come from poetic parts of the Bible. Genesis 1 is not poetry in that sense.

it doesn't matter.

and joshua is not poetry.(which is at least one non poetic verse used to argue against Galileo)

I continue to deny that God needed to do things in any particular way. You continue to say things like, "I again ask you, why does God need the universe to be 6,000 years old?" If you can't digest what I wrote, then it's possible you'll have difficulty with other texts as well.

And where in the text you quoted and responded to did L'ilpx say anything about what God 'needed' to do? Is part of the problem here you don't actually read the posts you are responding to?


jim

[Catholicity]

I don't think you read my previous post, in which I explained that the main problem is not how old you think the earth is. The main problem is how you go about answering these questions. Do you assume the truths of our culture when you approach Scripture, and then try to find a way to read the Bible so that there's no conflict? Or do you assume the truth of God's Word and then fail to be surprised that modern culture disagrees on many issues, including the age of the earth?

So, why question a TE's or OEC's actual integrity. If merely the person believe's God created the earth, rather believes Genesis 1's day is allegorical, and still has not compromised his walk with God or His understanding of the nature of sin and the need for the Savior, why is this made to be a fine point? Look at it this way: The Baptists the Calvinists the Methodists, The RCC read one scriptural verse "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined" And each one take a WHOLE entirely new meaning on the subject: to the calvinist it says that he called only certain people and this only they will be saved. To the baptist they might say He called certain people chose them and now they have to choose, the RCC and the Methodist look and say He called all of us and he knows which ones will chose, for he fore knew all of us. So you see three pairs of glasses looking at one verse, yet all profess Jesus is Lord. Regarding Creation, its less important how we believe God went about doing it, rather more important that we believe He in his majesty formed creation.

[RBerman]

So, why question a TE's or OEC's actual integrity. If merely the person believe's God created the earth, rather believes Genesis 1's day is allegorical, and still has not compromised his walk with God or His understanding of the nature of sin and the need for the Savior, why is this made to be a fine point? Look at it this way: The Baptists the Calvinists the Methodists, The RCC read one scriptural verse "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined" And each one take a WHOLE entirely new meaning on the subject: to the calvinist it says that he called only certain people and this only they will be saved. To the baptist they might say He called certain people chose them and now they have to choose, the RCC and the Methodist look and say He called all of us and he knows which ones will chose, for he fore knew all of us. So you see three pairs of glasses looking at one verse, yet all profess Jesus is Lord.

What do you mean by "integrity"? I don't think OECs or TEs are dishonest. I think they're doing their best to understand Scripture, given the presuppositions they have accepted. You mention Romans 8:28 and the diversity of interpretations given to it. Not all those interpretations are correct, for they are mutually exclusive. (They could all be wrong, of course.) If one of those interpretations stands on false assumptions of some sort, those false assumptions will tend to color other things besides this one verse. If followed logically, it might lead to some fatal belief elsewhere. Mathematicians have shown that if you start with 1=2, you can prove literally anything you want. Thankfully, humans are inconsistent beasts, and we don't carry our errors through consistently. Otherwise all of us would be wrong about everything all the time, which is not the case.

[Catholicity]

What do you mean by "integrity"? I don't think OECs or TEs are dishonest. I think they're doing their best to understand Scripture, given the presuppositions they have accepted. You mention Romans 8:28 and the diversity of interpretations given to it. Not all those interpretations are correct, for they are mutually exclusive. (They could all be wrong, of course.) If one of those interpretations stands on false assumptions of some sort, those false assumptions will tend to color other things besides this one verse. If followed logically, it might lead to some fatal belief elsewhere. Mathematicians have shown that if you start with 1=2, you can prove literally anything you want. Thankfully, humans are inconsistent beasts, and we don't carry our errors through consistently. Otherwise all of us would be wrong about everything all the time, which is not the case.

Well that's kind of something interesting, that I'm hearing in your postings....I'm hearing that if you were to believe that Genesis 1's days were allegorical, it may lead you to a fatal miscalculation in another area in your set of beliefs, its kind of a black and white thinking about scripture (or anything else really, one deviation away and I'm going to fall away from God completely) Merely seeing one piece of scripture as a poetic writing, and still with the ability to understand that God created this universe, isn't compromising the intergrity or the accuracy of Genesis, nor is it compromising the Truth That what happened happened, God Created the heavens and the earth, He did. I believe what so many TE scientists seek to find (such as astronomers) is how awesome and incredible the creation is. And believe it or not, so many of them, the more they discover (eve though billions of years yes they do believe) the more awed and in awe of God they often stand.

[KBertsche]

It renders them consistently in a different way than you do. I didn't argue that ESV was inconsistent. I argued that it disagreed with you about how to render waw.

How does it disagree with me? I've already explained that I was taught to translate the waw-consecutive as "and then", but that most English translations smooth this up as either "and" or "then". As long as we understand that the sense is "and then", it doesn't matter which way we choose to render it, so long as we are consistent.

If you question whether or not "and then" is appropriate for the waw-consecutive, please re-read Stambaugh's article. He argues that the waw-consecutive implies consecutive events, and does not allow for overlapping or simultaneous events.

"And" is not used solely for consecutive events in Genesis 1, though.

No, of course not. Not every waw is a waw-consecutive. Many occurrences of waw are waw-conjunctives. The two grammatical forms are different in the Hebrew.

Look at verse 2: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Are those three consecutive events, or three different descriptions of aspects of a simultaneous reality?

Note that none of the waw's in verse 2 are waw-consecutives in the Hebrew. So what basis would someone have for claiming that they are consecutive events?

You're committing the semantic totality fallacy, in which words have only one shade of meaning.

Nonsense. I have claimed no such thing. Rather, I claim (with Stambaugh) that a specific grammatical construction (e.g. the waw-consecutive) has a specific meaning. Though I don't agree with Stambaugh's YEC position, I agree with him on these points of Hebrew grammar.

Doesn't verse 2 even begin with a waw?

Yes. But if you look at it, you'll notice that it is not a waw-consecutive construction.


RBerman, do you agree with the arguments that Stambaugh uses in his article? Do you understand them? Again, he argues that the waw-consecutive implies consecutive events, and does not allow for overlapping or simultaneous events. He uses the waw-consecutive construction to argue that the Days of Gen 1 cannot overlap. He admits that the waw-consecutive can sometimes act as a pluperfect and jump back in time, but he argues that this is non-standard, and that something in the context needs to indicate such a usage. (BTW, this is all pretty standard, basic, and non-controversial.)

If Stambaugh is correct on this, his same argument applies to the waw-consecutive constructions during Day 4. Specifically, God first made the lights, and then God placed the lights in the heavens. These are consecutive events, according to the text. The waw-consecutive construction is identical to that at the beginning of each Day. If one implies consecutive events, so does the other.

We can't just arbitrarily decide what we would like a specific grammatical construction to mean. We must discern and submit to what it actually does mean. Sorry, but for detailed grammatical questions like this, we must go to the Hebrew text (or to reference books, grammars, experts, etc who can explain the Hebrew to us). We can't treat any English translation as inerrant, because they're not.