On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[HMS_Beagle]

If you think thats going to stop me laughing at your bare face lying skills you got another guess coming kid.. That one was quite the whammy. If Sam harris was anywhere giving a lecture on how atheists can be moral and honest he just slammed down his papers, muttered to himself and walked off the stage after hearing about your lie

Thanks Stinky for another demonstration of your bizarre psychological need to be the all conquering Christian hero.

[Mikeenders]

I assumed from the start that we shared the same viewpoint...that's the reason I upvoted you. My current engagement with you on tone was in hopes that we could come to an understanding on how best to engage the OP. I see now that that was in vain. Having never really interacted with you before I thought you could be reasoned with, but it appears you're not that type of poster.

Yea and it seems you are the kind of poster that just loves to opine and stand on a soapbox pontificating as if you don;t have the same obligation you preach about - to listen to other viewpoints and angles. You are too busy feeling sanctimonious about yourself while oblivious to the context of the board and that this thread was started primarily to address me and my points. You don't know how to best engage the Op you just swear you do but you have now made your mission int his thread to discuss me rather than the subject of the OP. continue......it probably hasn't dawned on you you failed in knowing how to engage me so there may be gaps in your greater understanding.

[HMS_Beagle]

Yea and it seems you are the kind of poster that just loves to opine and stand on a soapbox pontificating as if you don;t have the same obligation you preach about - to listen to other viewpoints and angles. You are too busy feeling sanctimonious about yourself while oblivious to the context of the board and that this thread was started primarily to address me and my points. You don't know how to best engage the Op you just swear you do but you have now made your mission int his thread to discuss me rather than the subject of the OP. continue......it probably hasn't dawned on you you failed in knowing how to engage me so there may be gaps in your greater understanding.

Wow Stinky. You must have some severe psychological problems that make you attack and spit on everyone you meet just to make yourself feel better.

[Mikeenders]

being the Brave Christian Knight savior is very interesting from a psychology angle though.

Yes I could see where it might. Its rather fetching an image. i Like it! thanks so much. I knew just by pure luck you might have something interesting to say every few hundred posts. This one breaks your drought. i must go polish the armor now.

[Mikeenders]

Wow Stinky. You must have some severe psychological problems that make you attack and spit on everyone you meet just to make yourself feel better.

I feel rather good actually . the armor is dashing. Adrift? did he have any point to make in his last three posts besides me? nope. His subject matter was adrift. no spitting just an observation of his type of poster as he made of my kind of poster.

[Truthseeker]

The typical ANE audience or readers were high context. Did Oxy assume that the audience/readers were low context? It seems so.

The ANE audience was probably familiar with the idea of spiritual death. It probably was apt to interpret Genesis that way.

[oxmixmudd]

I for one believe both Adam and Eve that day in the garden did in fact die. Though as yet they for all appearances were yet alive. We make the interpretation and distinction between types of death.

Death in all its forms is the opposite from life.

In one sense they did die - exactly. But not the obvious one, the one a person hearing the words prior to the actual events of the fall would be inclined to take. And from the context this true sense was not well understood even by Adam and Eve. Indeed, the number of different takes on how to solve the surface dilemma (they didn't die that day) is prima facia evidence for my point. The solution isn't obvious, and the impetus to look for a solution doesn't even exist until one becomes aware there is a problem - which is the fall itself and the fact they did not die physically that day.

And this is precisely the sort of thing we are faced with in Genesis 1. Until we see the evidence recorded in the Earth for millions and billions of years of history, no impetus exists to look for alternate renderings of the text. We hum along happily taking the geneologies and deriving a creation date for the world that is around 6000 years ago.

Jim

[KingsGambit]

But why make the world that way in the first place? I think Ken Miller gives a very good answer. So that the universe would be a place where Adam could choose to sin, and his choice would not necessarily be eternal. So that the universe could be a place where Adam could choose, where his, and our, will to be what we want and to follow God or not follow God could exist unfettered by any external influence that would prevent the capacity for a fully free choice in the matter. And a place that would be suitable for the life of mankind regardless of the choice made.

Where does Miller state this? As somebody cautiously interested in this question (though relatively resigned to its inherently speculative nature) I'm intersted in more to chew on.

[Mikeenders]

In one sense they did die - exactly. But not the obvious one, the one a person hearing the words prior to the actual events of the fall would be inclined to take. And from the context this true sense was not well understood even by Adam and Eve. Indeed, the number of different takes on how to solve the surface dilemma (they didn't die that day) is prima facia evidence for my point.

Your point is already DOA because you didn't even bother researching the Hebrew in a hebrew text . Now you are just ignoring the best Hebrew translation because it blows up your "precedent" and claiming to know what was evident or not to Adam or eve . When did you interview them? Was this like a literal interview or spiritual one? if the latter what? like caught up into the third heavens like Paul? lol You keep inventing things in the text in order to get where you want to go. Nothing in the text tells us Adam and Eve were mystified.

which is the fall itself and the fact they did not die physically that day

only the Hebrew doesn't indicate that they had to die that day. Stick your head in the sand all you want - dying you shall die - it does not demand an immediate death but a certainty of death coming that is manifest on that day

And this is precisely the sort of thing we are faced with in Genesis 1.

nope this is precisely why you are ignoring the Hebrew text, inventing words like physical into the text and begging that Adam and Eve did not understand when theres nothing about that in the text. All so you can justify going where you want to go. Classic example of garbage in so garbage out. Take a bow for your track record on eisegesis and your low regard for letting the text say what it says.

[oxmixmudd]

Well I agree that Adam was not immortal by nature, that his continuing life was dependent on the tree of life. To me the bigger question is why did God create animal life with so much inherent harm and suffering. CS Lewis suggested that in the distant past the Devil monkeyed with nature, like he did with Adam - though I'm not sure that flies.

I like CS Lewis' take on much of this as well. Also his discussions of the Myth that is also reality.

I have no problem with this. Does Ken Miller believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

I've read his books but at the moment I can't recall his precise position on Adam and Eve as specific real persons. Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet.

I'm a recovering Calvinist, so...

I understand ...



Jim

[klaus54]

You point is already DOA because you didn't even bother researching the Hebrew in a hebrew text . Now you are just ignoring the best Hebrew translation because it blows up your "precedent" and claiming to know what was evident or not to Adam or eve . When did you interview them? Was this like a literal interview or spiritual one? if the latter what? like caught up into the third heavens like Paul? lol You keep inventing things in the text in order to get where you want to go. Nothing in the text tells us Adam and Eve were mystified.




only the Hebrew doesn't indicate that they had to die that day. Stick you head in the sand all you want - dying you shall die - it does not demand an immediate death but a certainty of death coming that is manifest on that day



nope this is precisely why you are ignoring the Hebrew text, inventing words like physical into the text and begging that Adam and Eve did not understand when theres nothing about that in the text. All so you can justify going where you want to go. Classic example of garbage in so garbage out. Take a bow for your track record on eisegesis and you low regard for letting the text say what it says.

So Stinky,

You're quick to criticize others, but what's YOUR explanation of A&E and death as a result of the Fall?

See if you can do it in two paragraphs or less.

[Mikeenders]

So Stinky,

You're quick to criticize others, but what's YOUR explanation of A&E and death as a result of the Fall?

See if you can do it in two paragraphs or less.

On the bright side it seems you have finally come to terms with your comprehension abilities being limited to short paragraphs and only two at a time. With time you will eventually come to see that its also limited to words no longer than five characters as well. Tip of the hat to your therapist. He's making progress which given you are the patient is remarkable. please pass this post on to him so he can translate (make easy) the words longer (not long) than five characters (alpha bet thing s) for you.

[HMS_Beagle]

So Stinky,

You're quick to criticize others, but what's YOUR explanation of A&E and death as a result of the Fall?

See if you can do it in two paragraphs or less.

Shame on you k54, asking Stinky to actually think for himself! Suppose he overloads both working brain cells? How them will he come up with his next batch of excuses and insults?

[Mikeenders]

Suppose he overloads both working brain cells?

that view is understandable. We tend to think everyone is like ourselves. You were kind though. You ascribed an additional brain cell over your own count.

[oxmixmudd]

Despite your claim to the contrary, it doesn't seem to me that this is the best subforum for this discussion. In an open forum like this you'll inevitably get white noise from those who are not Christian, and that's not going to be much help in selling your main point.

That's ok ...

But to the point, it seems to me that you're sort of missing the bigger issue. Many literalists don't have a problem with differences in interpretation so much; What they have a problem with is an approach to scripture that they see as (in a way) denying any interpretation altogether.

I'm not so sure it's that generous. Have you ever seen the Ken Ham & Jason Lisle/Walt Kaiser & Hugh Ross debate? Walt Kaiser is no scriptural liberal by any stretch, and neither is Hugh Ross, but to listen to Ham and Lisle, you'd think they'd forsake the faith, just barely Christians in their eyes. There is very little tolerance for even the slightest deviation from what they think is the only right way to read these passages. And likewise their kin here at TWEB.

So, using your example, it's not actually the case that spiritual death is a less literal interpretation. In fact it's a very literal interpretation. The narrative says they will die that day, and they do die that day. A spiritual death is just as literal a death as a physical death, and the interpretation assumes that the events actually happened as described. Many literalists don't reject that. What they reject is the idea that the whole narrative is mythical. The idea that God never really came to Adam and told him he would die if he ate the fruit. Or that there was any fruit at all. Or a garden. Or, perhaps, a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. Many Christian non-literalists see the entire narrative as something closer to something like a parable. It's a myth told to convey a greater truth, originally addressed to non-scientific people, without the need for any of it having actually happened. That's quite different, quite abstract from an interpretation that may need a little more explaining to understand the literal meaning, but in a spiritual sense.

Your point is valid, but again, I think too generous. But overall I think it misses the point of my OP. The point is not whether or not spiritual death is a valid reading. The point is that what God meant in the text of the words given was in many ways difficult to parse, hidden by the 'noise' of the most obvious rendering, the most direct one. Once we know that God does not always leave the truth on the surface, that sometimes he forces us to look beneath the surface, one can't honestly demand that we just ignore the evidence the world is very old when we read genesis 1.


So then what about the tendency to take it as all or mostly mythological, not based in real events? I don't quite go there. I think there are real events behind all of Genesis. But even for those that do, it would seem to me the real issue here is not so much whether or not the text has close ties to other mythologies, it is whether or not one can believe the text is truly inspired, truly the word of God if it is. I think the real issue is what we have convinced ourselves is a requirement of the text if it is to be God's word.

The reality is God is sovereign. And if he chooses to deliver His word through a donkey - what is that to me? He can do what He wants. It's not as if He never delivered His word through a donkey - right? So the important part is correctly understanding what the text is, how God was moving as He revealed and inspired it, and retaining faith in the process. Sure, there are limits, but its not as if God never uses parable or allegory to make a point. It really is more that if it's allegory or parable, we were wrong for a very long time about how we should have read it.


Jim