I've been reading an insane amount lately. I can't stop. I should stop. I have music to write. Lots of it. I am stuck on...You ready for this...Physics, science, design.
Intelligent design has had a bad rap lately but I really don't care. All of this started way back in my sophomore year in College before Intelligent design was a big fat sword of the religious right to smack everyone around the head with.
I have never liked math or science. In fact, I have hated it. Partly because I have had the real-life versions of the teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day off." Bueller...Bueller...anyone?
Anywho, it wasn't until an ex-construction-company-owner who decided to get a masters in Math and taught a class one summer at my hometown college MSU that mathematics, that physics took hold of my imagination. (It also helped that I went straight from this class to Astronomy) Somehow this guy was able to relate math to life. I don't mean everyday life as in, "is a 45 degree angle the distance between the ladder and the wall then what is the blah blah blahdidy blah let me polish my pocket protector." I mean philosophy, math, life, the Science of God.
We miss out on this in our schools. The great mathematicians were also great philosophers. Pythagoras, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle. They were also great thinkers and dreamers. Einstein, Newton, Galileo. It took great imagination to dream up all that these chaps dreamed. I just wish that these subjects could be taught now with the awe and wonder that they deserve. Not cut off from the things that could cause us to wonder and dream. I wouldn't be slaving over relativity now at 30+ when the file cabinets of my mind are already heavy and full of TV shows and endless, useless movie quotes.
For instance, did you know that one of the leading atheist physicists of our day has stated, after studying and searching in vain for the smallest particle/energy/building block of life, that "we are almost more of a thought than anything" As a Christian my mind wonders at this statement. Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God or the "thought" of God. Paul and John says all things are held together by and through Him, Christ, the Logos or "thought" of God. Just one of the many things that keep me fired up about science these days.
So what do you think of Intelligent Design. What do you know about it? If you had the opportunity as a teacher, would you slip it in? Is teaching evolution WITHOUT the option of a Creator (or "Mind" as the LEADING SCIENTISTS OF THE DAY INCLUDING STEPHEN FRIGGIN HAWKINGS call it so why can't we?,) the same as teaching from an Atheistic perspective?
97 comments:
Eh... ID is one of those things that has such a stigma to it, from my point of view, that even if I accepted some of its tenents, I couldn't endorse its claims.
Here's the problem: We've crammed ourselves into another mind-numbingly stupid corner where we have forced a false dichotomy on the teaching of science in the schools. For some reason it has to be either ID or Darwinian Evolution. The problem is you're being forced to argue for teaching one unprovable theory over another. And I don't think the solution to the problem of Darwinian Evolution being taught as gospel truth is to replace it with an equally unprovable theory.
I think the answer has to be honesty about the discussion. Teach what can be proven. Too many pinhead high school science teachers approach their subjects as if they hold the only valuable information being dispenced in the schools. As if they are the only ones teaching truth.
And the truth is, nearly everything science holds dear has replaced faulty notions from the past. And you'd have to be a monumental fool to believe that on this day, unlike every other day that has passed, we have all knowledge. It's just not true.
I would so much prefer to see science taught from a truthful perspective that says, "This is the current limit of our understanding. Hopefully in your lives, you will improve upon our knowledge. We do not know the origins of the universe. We have a number of interesting theories. You don't have to decide what you believe about it all in here, you just need to be aware of the major advances in understanding and theories that we currently have available." Wouldn't that be refreshing?
So, no, I'm not nuts about ID. I think it just does the same thing that is wrong with our current system: it pushes a theory as fact. I think a better solution is to be honest about what we really know and don't know.
Would anyone mind explaining the theory of Intelligent Design?
I thought I knew, but from reading the comments, maybe I don't?
Oh man would that EVER be refreshing. It would also be refreshing if we could teach a holistic approach to every subject. It would be cool if we just taught ALL of our subjects inelligently, not just Design. And I believe this has something to do with the corner fear-laden American funamentalists have pushed us into.
The reaction to this has been the sterilization of subjects. The way that subjects like math and biology are taught today are the equivalent of someone teaching a baking class but splitting it up into sections where the person handling the flour has to learn his measurement as if he has nothing to do with the person who in the next class learning about the proper measurements for sugar.
No one really teaches students TO learn anymore. They teach them to retain mostly useless sterilized facts and hopefully when they graduate from college someday they will find a job that they will never worry about using 90 percent of those facts. And if Christians tucked away in a fundie 12-person private school grow up never learning about evolution or the big-bang then they are pretty much are growing up nincompoops. However it works the other way around as well.
I guess what I am talking about is freedom. Real freedom. I see ID as a sad and feeble attempt at a return to pre-Puritanical notion of Science. We vilified Science with the great demon Darwin (ooooOOOOOoooo) until we recently discovered that “hey, this could be cool… DUUUHHHH!!!” So in a way, its our own darn fault for this unhappy and embarrassing reunion.
I don't know, help me out. Am I being to idealistic here?
I don't know if you're being idealistic, but I appreciate the use of the word "nincompoop."
Although this is not a word created by bloggers, because of its sheer hilarious appearance when written and hilarious effects when said inside one's head, it is now deemed worthy of the...
BLOGTIONARY!!!
It seems that I'm only speaking of the Blogtionary of late. I do think on other things, and comment accordingly. The subject of intelligent design, however, might be one that I opt out of, unless, someone can explain, or I read up on, the theory of intelligent design. What it really is.
Actually some think the word might have derived from the judicial expression non compos mentis, (Latin) meaning "not of sound mind". But I just can't immagine a hick medieval Latin-speaking guy mispronouncing it like "Dat der Agricola est noncompoopstis" (said with an Olkahoma latin accent)
I just like it because it has the word "poop" in it.
Please know that the irreligious can be fundamentalist, too.
I.D. is, essentially, mathematics. Is it science? Well, it's a manner of scientific thinking. Those mocking I.D. principles when applied to biology -- including, for some reason, Christians -- don't balk at all when the precise same logic is applied every day in fields like archaeology or forensics.
But when one is utterly committed to a particular philosophy, one doesn't accomodate other views easily. We've seen Christians do this in the past, and it turns out that non-believers are quite capable of it, too.
"Evolution" is, in a sense, completely incompatible with design. That's capital "E" brand of evolution, which is scientism.
To say "Science cannot accomodate a designer" -- that in itself is philosophy, not science. It's not test-able, it's not verifiable -- it's philosophy about science, and it's taught in schools. It's a philosophical view about religion and reality, and it's taught in schools, and some don't want it challenged by open minds.
It's highly odd to me that a Christian believer -- someone who, by definition, believes the universe was, in fact, designed -- would sponsor a "science" that can't entertain that truth. One has to assume they either really don't believe the Jesus story, or they don't want to be unfashionable.
Further, leaving OPEN the idea of design as a possibility yields benefits, scientifically. We wouldn't have written off "waste DNA" for instance, when thinking that we actually might be reverse-engineering the greatest engineer ever.
Sorry to back up the truck -- I type fast, and the kids are wrestling around my computer...just thought I'd throw in the two cents...
Brant
So after reading a bit, and really only just a bit, (I'm learning here) it appears that ID is faith cloaked in science, possibly even creationism cloaked in science?
One ID point says that the systems of the cell are so complex, irreducibly complex, meaning that if you take one part of the system away, the system completely breaks down. And ID supporters conclude it must have been designed that way.
Evolutionists, those that study natural selection, see the same complex system, yet state that sure, you take one part away, it's not the same system, but the lesser system (with the part removed) can still and has still performed a function. So the system can still evolve, from less complex to more complex. (I think, anyways)
Now I don't understand all this at the scientific level, and I don't feel like trying. It just seems that it's not a scientific issue to me. It's faith, it's philisophical. It's either we're here for a purpose because a greater force, being, GOD, wanted us to be. Or we're here by accident.
With that being said, couldn't evolution be the how of a design? God could have purposed evolution, even if it LOOKS like natural selection, maybe even if it IS natural selection.
Brandt, thanks for joining us here. I enjoy reading your thoughts, on your blog and your comment here. Why do you say that "Evolution is, in a sense, completely incompatible with design."?
frankly, i think that we all for lack of a better phrase, "just get our panties in a wade," when it comes to all this stuff. God could have created it all with a "big bang," or He could have created it all to evolve. it's all possible. the point is, no one knows for certain, and we can't really rule anything out. Oh, accept, that we come from monkeys. i think that we can safely rule that out.
I can't resist. oooo oooo oooo aaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa aaa. (says in monkey tones) sorry it just slipped out.
I agree with Amber. It's a matter of faith. And that's exactly the problem when it comes to teaching creation/evolution in the schools. In a public school, you just can't teach kids that our Christian God created everything. But you also shouldn't be able to teach evolution as a fact when it's actually an unproven theory. And in a Christian school, you should be able to teach kids about theories other than creationism/ID, and have healthy discussions about each theory out there. As a Christian, though, it's difficult for me to think of ID as just a "theory." I know from the Bible that God created everything...it didn't just happen. I can believe some of the evolution theory when it comes to evolution within species, but I have a hard time seeing how evolution between species could ever be true (especially since as far as I know no interspecies fossils have ever been found). And since God says He created man in His image, I have a hard time believing that God looked like a monkey and had a brain the size of a pea. But my main problem with evolution is the SOUL. How do you evolve a soul??? I don't think you can; it's something that God ordained for each person before they were even conceived (Psalms 139). The biggest difference between chimps and humans is that we have a soul and they don't. They don't have the capacity to know right from wrong (if they did, monkeys would have wedding ceremonies and monkey prisons). So no matter what my kids learn in school, at home they'll hear that God created the whole universe. I don't know how he did it or when; all I have to know is that he did it. And He did a pretty darn good job of it!
Well, I think here's confusion (it's deliberate, in many cases) because defenders of scientism will interchangeably use "evolution" in two different senses:
1) Long-term adaptation of species (in too-shorthand.) Yes, this seems perfectly compatible with design.
2) A theory of the ultimate origin of living things. This is not at all compatible with design. It's also philosophy about religion.
When a school in Georgia wanted stickers in their textbooks, saying, essentially, "Evolution does not explain the ultimate origin of all living things," the reaction was "That's unconstitutional." But it's a fact: evolution does not explain the origin of all living things, period. Never has. So why the resistance to acknowledging that fact, even from Christians?
Another issue: Sure, if you define science in a certain way -- excluding design -- design can't be scientific. Of course.
I.D. is a mathematical tool. It's about probabilities, essentially, and this sort of logic is applied all the time in other scientific fields, without batting an eye.
Now, it's out of bounds, because it steps on the official religious view that's not happy about being challenged. (Evolution as philosophy IS a religious view.)
If we're actually interested in how things actually ARE and came to be -- the truth, in other words -- isn't it odd to define science in a way that philosophically might exclude it? (How bright is that, "Let's endorse the teaching of stuff that isn't true -- that way we're scientifical!")
And if you're a Christian who opposes allowing I.D. to be considered in schools, why would you support a particular definition of "science" that must reject what you know to be truth about nature?
The problem is that a particular religious view IS taught in government schools, but it deliberately excludes another philosophy -- one that might also make legitimate truth claims.
If science is to only be about test-able, know-able, repeat-able, experiment-able science, so be it. But advocates of scientism overstepped that bound a long, long time ago.
Let's see: The government, endorsing a particular religious (ultimate truth) view. That sounds vaguely unconstitutional. I say if metaphysics is taught as science (and it IS) I.D. more than belongs.
(I think some Christians have a strangely exalted view of scientist-philosophers. I'm not sure if it's borne out of self-hate, or embarrassment, or what. But I'd caution anyone from having a higher opinion of these philosophers' and authors' impartiality than they would of fundamentalist Christian preachers. Humans are motivated by a lot of things.)
Best,
Brant
Wow!
Hey Brant!
Well said my friend. Many Christians do idealize great Scientists whom they admire, mostly because they do not want to identify themselves with other fundamentalists of any kind and they feel it their task to help the image of Christianity to "look better" to the outside "thinking" world.
It is a wonder that most of the greatest scientific minds have been theists or Christians. Very few of the well known scientists have been true atheists. As a matter of fact most of the important discoveries in science in the past and present have been by believers in a God. Hawkings, Lematre, Einstein, Newton, to name a few. -beside the point. Atheism is a belief. And it is from that perspective that we are taught science in school and no other, therefore pissing me and others off.
What I think is sad is that we truly compartmentalize ALL learning. As if learning ANYTHING is bad. This is just stupidity. Science had a violent divorce with Religion with Darwin, mainly in Protestant fundamentalist America. (I don't mention Catholics because their theologians been saying Eden could be Allegorical since Augustine)Darwin wasn't even an atheist till later in his life after his daughter died and THAT was because he couldn't believe that a good God could exist if their was evil. - Not even a scientific question. His scientific views and persecution by the church was just icing on the cake. Anyway, the point being, Religion is a part of us as human beings. Even the Atheist can't deny its importance in our history.
Personally I never want to promote what can be construed as "the God of the Gaps" I would rather think of it as the God in the Gaps and everywhere else. This is unique about Christianity and it is why Christianity alone has stood up to the greatest scientific theories and some of their theorists have been Christians. How many Pantheist or Hindu apologists do you know of? It is a weird and wonderful thing that Christianity attepts. It atempts to not only to reconcile Science with God, but it uses that belief as inspiration for finding more.
I agree that I.D. is statistical. Scientists find them self in an unfortunate condundrum when they ask "how is it all here so fine tuned if everything is by chance...the statistics and chances of it being so this one time around here are... well lets just drop it shall we"
But that shouldn't be good enought for a Christian. We shouldn't stop here, wave our flags in triumph at this and say "see I told you so!!!"
Tomorrow they may find out why. Someone may stumble along the grand unifying theroy tomorrow and say, well here it is... This is the Scientists problem with ID.
Here is my ONLY beef with ID. First let me say that I have no problem with a teacher saying "well, it does seem as though the whole show was a put up job" Or "hey, it does seem to have order behind it, what would that imply?" or "isn't it interesting that religion strangley intersects with scientific discover all the time. What does that tell us about us, the universe, or anything?"
O.k. so back to my only beef...
We are stuck on the Aquinas system of proving God's existence. It is a great and powerful system and I am not about to dog on Aquinas, however I think we are misreading it a bit.
Basically in one of his great 5 proofs Aquinas said that every thing in motion must have had a mover. and when you trace it back far enough the first mover must have been unmovable, infinite, and outside of time and that mover must be and is God.
I love this proof, but what we keep looking for in ID is the place where the movement started and lean on statistics to prove a reality that might possibly be just another gap. I would say the the miracle that we are looking for is actually all around us. God holds all things together from nothing. NO THING. ZIP. Time as we are discovering is totally relavant. It doesn't move linearlly so much as we thought. It can be streched and bent and turned inside out. So therfore is the original motion is always there.
Anywho, my point is that we need not keep looking for hints of God in statistics, He is here at every moment, holding the show together. This has our scientific buddies in a constant state of wonder. They cant figure it out.
However, the Statistics are marvelous in their suggestive powers and their implications should be discussed and mulitple theories encouraged. And why not?
WHY THE CRAP NOT????
I say lets all shake this asinine fear, believers and nonbelievers alike. What are we afraid of? The Christian is afraid of NOT finding God and the Atheist afraid of FINDING Him. Why not present both sides??? Would it not inpire more wonder than extinguish?
We know one thing for certain. God will never rob us of our ability to choose. The signs of Him will always be there but then again He won't show Himself so much as to steal our choice. Faith will always be our plight as humans, for the Christian AND the Atheist. But lets just hear both sides of the story shall we instead of just one.
Well said!
I'm reminded of a Bible verse:
Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
I also love Job 39:1-30. I feel like Job did when he replied to God in verse 4 of the next chapter. :)
I'm impressed with how much you guys know about physics, astronomy, etc. I'm learning a lot by reading your posts!
I agree with much of what has been said here about the seeming conflicts in teaching origin theories as science when they are not in fact. However, I maintain that the answer is not to add an equally unprovable theory to the pile. Of course I believe in design as a Christian, but I don't entrust the government, (i.e. the schools), with teaching that to our kids. Nor do I want them preaching Evolution. If we start insisting that schools pile on every different theory just to make sure one that we support is included, we'll do ourselves no favors. I would so much prefer to see our schools teach actual science in science class.
Unfortunately though, that analysis is based on faulty Biblical scholorship that believes the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be a literal historical account of creation, which it is not. I'm well aware that by saying that, many people will stop reading what I would say or decide instinctively that they must disagree with any conclusions I draw, but it is true nonetheless. Young Earth Creationism relies on the Bible, a set of non-scientific documents, to inform science instead of using the Earth, a living scientific document, itself.
The Bible was not written to be used as a Western-style historical text. It is a theological text written by countless people, most of whom are anonymous, over centuries after many other centuries in which parts of it had their existence as an oral tradition. And it is full of contradictions! And that's fine. The writers weren't trying to write a linear history book! The writers of the first 11 chapters of Genesis weren't trying to tell the history of the Earth and mankind, they were trying to tell the story of God's relationship with his people. So as a scientific/historical text, I would say it is not only unreliable, it is relatively useless apart from the very real and concrete understanding that we are here because of God, our creator.
But back to the subject at hand, ID, I would issue some caution there too. Craig correctly sums up the basic tenet at the bottom of ID: the complexity and order of the universe implies that it must have been designed by some intelligent being. Okay, that's fine. But the form the ID discussion takes too often dabbles in philosophy, religion, and politics for my taste. I believe in design in as much as I believe we have a creator; I am not necessarily a proponent of ID as a philosophy/scientific teaching.
Craig, what an interesting post! I like the idea of science supporting a young earth. I never had a problem with the idea of long creation days until I really thought about the verses in Genesis that say, "...and there was evening, and there was morning - the second day...", etc. Why would God go to that much trouble to describe the beginning and ending of a day if he didn't really mean it literally? What do you guys think?
On a similar subject, check out this article about red blood cells recently found in a t-rex's bones:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
Cach, I certainly think you have a healthy perspective of educating our kids in school. I wonder though, and this is me rethinking all my time in public school, is it possible to separate any subject from ANY subject?- like religion from philosophy or philosphy and religion from science? When did we start doing this? This was not always the case. It seems if you follow current scientific trends and theories, Science is on a fast track to Cosmology anyway. It just is. It took a short detour about 100 years ago or so and now it is coming back to where it has been for centuries on end.
I wonder if protecting ourselves from any knowledge is healthy. That includes what you said about the Bible in your previous post. To fully understand the Bible one must embrace all aspects of it.
Now I am not saying that we should be teaching our junior High science students out of the Karma Sutra book or anything (they do that themselves these days) but I do think that one should be inpired to learn rather than to stop the thinking process. For instance.
Let's say we are sitting in a class and the teacher starts talking about the big bang and then we get to the singularity. The student asks; "where did the singularity come from?"
the teacher answers well there are a few theories but we don't know for sure the teacher then offers all that he/she knows as far as they know. Student: "well what about God"
teacher "this is not a religion class, it is a science class and besides if I tell you what I think about God, I'll get fired."
To me this conversation is a bit counterproductive. The student is immediately taught that science is the enemy of religion, which it is not, and that to ask these questions is to threaten the existence of God, which it does not. Now it should be made clear that a supernatural explanation is certainly not scientific and cannot be reproduced however neither can the Multiple Universe theory OR String Theory.
The bottom line is this: We are afraid. Afraid that someone will teach our kids something contrary to our beliefs and they won't grow up to be good Atheists or Christians like dear old dad or mom. Well thats a bunch of hogwash. They are going to learn it somewhere else and where will they learn it? maybe Madonna, maybe Tome Cruise maybe Pat Robertson or Hal Lindsey.
I guess I am for learning everything. The whole show, all the options. Learn to question young, not when you are a college student where you first find out that the Bible wasn't written by on guy at one time and that the world very well could be older that 6000 years. I am for a free society. Not one where the child gets sent to the office for saying "Merry Christmas" Or asking about God in a Science class(this happened to a piano student of mine)
How bout' a society where we are ALLOWED but not required to use any knowledge we have to inspire others to learn. However I may be missing out on something here, help me out.
Great discussion!!
Craig, you can enter the discussion anytime, not just when your sister requests. Jump right in!
Well I don't know much about I.D. at all, but I am for a free society, too. I am for learning all the wonders of every subject and how that effects our lives. I really don't like that math is boreing to me, I wish I could see the wonder of it. I really dont think that it is because "I don't have that kind of mind", blah blah blah. Maybe I've been programed somehow by this system...I don't know. I hope I can still have enough simplicity to want to learn even when I'm 60. I hope I always will be learning. The thought of not learning, i.e. not being in wonder makes me cringe.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Seth, that's precisely it. If all truth is God's truth, we can pursue knowledge relentlessly. I'm all for it.
...but the current reigning orthodoxy doesn't allow it. There are conclusions already drawn, and other ways of thinking are simply disallowed. It's not cool when Christians do it, and it's equally silly when purported atheists do it.
(I say "purported" because I'm convinced atheists believe in God. Another long discussion, but denial is a well-established phenomenon.)
For some reason, the ID-type thinking is not only allowed, it's utterly embraced when it comes to the SETI program. We're looking for that ONE breakthrough suggestion of mathematical likelihood -- design -- from a non-human intelligence out there.
This, while we stare mathematical likelihood in the face daily of another ETI.
For the orthodox: So long as that non-human intelligence is presumed to make no claims on our moral behavior, (or, in fact, to "set us free" from prior claims) we're all for ID. In fact, it's the very same ideologues standing against ID who can't get ENOUGH of using ID principles for this purpose, hoping against hope. Odd, huh?
Here's to pursuing truth, even of the unfashionable variety.
Best,
Brant
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! :)
Snoopy, I wasn't mocking Young Earth believers at all. I think YE is an unreliable and untenable position, but I never said anything about the people who believe it. I did not call you or anyone else a fool, and I certainly didn't attack your standing in Christ. Yet you seem to imply that I don't believe the Bible. Not cool at all. There's got to be room in the body of Christ for disagreement or heaven's going to be quite sparsely populated.
Respect goes both ways. My opinions aren't empty. And I would be a great fool to hold a position that I couldn't back up, wouldn't I? But I understood this to be a discussion about ID, not the origin of Scripture. I was trying to stick to the subject, not duck my assertions.
To answer your questions, of course I think the Bible is reliable, and completely reliable. Reliable does not mean literal. Why do we apply standards to the Bible that it doesn't apply to itself? What does infallible, or my favorite little word, inerrant mean? Does it mean completely literal? Why? Since when? Where does Scripture claim that about itself? And why do Christians use those words as weapons?
All Scripture is inspired, but it gives us no idea how that inspiration takes form. We are the ones who have made up the standards of inspiration. Scripture never says that God dropped it on us mysteriously completed or that he possessed its writers. Yet the literal perspective so ties 'inerrancy' and God's identity that people are left saying that if Scripture weren't literally true, inerrant, and without contradiction, then God can't be God.
But what does inerrant mean? What is an error? If an error is an intent to lead astray or deceive, then we agree. But if an error is a statement contrary to scientific or logical fact derived from a limited understanding then we are on very shaky ground when we apply that standard to Scripture. As I said, Scripture is full of contradictions. These don't detract from its truthfulness since they aren't attempts to lie to or deceive us, but they are examples of 'error' in Scripture.
Since I know just saying that isn't enough, take Mark 4:31 where Jesus says that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. This is botanically false. Was Jesus lying? Or rather was he illustrating truth using the understanding of a 1st Century Jew? I say Scripture is true without needing to be literal.
Or Matthew 27:9-10 where a quote is attributed to Jeremiah yet that quote appears nowhere in the book of Jeremiah. Or how about Mark 1:2 where Mark quotes Isaiah except that the words he uses are actually from Malachi 3:1? Then Matthew, written later and based largely on Mark, corrects that quote in 3:3 by correctly quoting Isaiah. Does the fact that the wrong source is quoted invalidate the truth behind the statement? Can we only believe Matthew and not Mark? Of course not, that's absurd, yet it is an example of 'error' in Scripture.
How about Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 saying that rabbits chew cuds? Biologically false.
Who caused David to take a census in Israel? In 2 Sam. 24:1-2 it is God. But in 1 Chron. 21:1-2 it is Satan.
And of course, who killed Goliath? 1 Sam. 17 has one of the most famous Bible stories of all in which David killed him. But in 2 Sam. 21:19 we are told Elhannan killed Goliath.
But what's the point? Am I trying to prove Scripture false? Not at all! I believe the whole of Scripture to be absolute truth. I just can't define truth in terms of literal, scientific, historical accuracy. Truth is so much bigger than that. Why can't God use anything apart from our limited little Western understanding of what history and truth are to communicate to us? Why can't he use allegory? Jesus certainly did every time he opened his mouth. Scripture tells us Jesus constantly spoke in parables. Does that make Jesus a liar? Of course not! It makes him bigger and more astonishing. But it makes him far from literal. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written by modern Western minds, but by ancient Easterners who weren’t concerned with the same things as us.
When I say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis aren't a literal historical account of creation, I'm not taking away from God or Scripture, and I don't appreciate the implication. I believe them to be complete truth, but not literal. That's how my point connects to the YE argument. If the beginning of Genesis isn't literal, and if the ancients weren't concerned with the same things as us such as timelines and archaeology, then there is no YE argument. Not only because it doesn't stand up, but because it isn't important. And if you need some internal evidence that the first 11 chapters of Genesis aren’t literal history, read chapters two and three. They are separate accounts of the creation of man. This is because they weren't written by a single author; rather they are edited from multiple strands of narration. The early compilers of the oral tradition thought so much of the worth of the traditions that rather than choose one over the other, they included both.
No, the Bible doesn't have "One Author." I assume that you're implying that God is the only author, and that's not the point. God inspires, but he left it to people to write. And people wrote, and others rewrote, and others edited, and others redacted, and others compiled, etc. It is a book that represents a far larger tradition and more complex picture of God and his relationship with people than we could possibly know.
And all of this information only makes God bigger, and stronger, and more wonderful. It allows him so many ways to reach us and communicate with us. It robs us of our ability to explain everything about him. It enhances his majesty and tells a much bigger story of who he is and who we are as well.
But this is still something of a problem. You see, I'm not arguing for or against YEC from a scientific perspective at all, I'm looking at it theologically. The problem is not that YEC's don't have a scientific argument. Scientists don't arrive at a YEC point of view by starting with science, evidence, and the Earth, they arrive at it by starting with the Bible. But if the Bible isn't written as a scientific empirical document then it would be like using sheet music to discern the recipe to a cake.
And while I would never call a congregant 'unenlightened,' I definitely have a responsibility to teach about the truth and nature of Scripture. That's what all pastors do. That we disagree doesn't bother me, but the notion that I should somehow be cautious because I advocate for some off-the-beaten-path radical idea is both wrong and a bit insulting. The American South is the only place in the world where you will find a majority opinion in favor of literal fundamentalist thought. The interpretation of Scripture which I advocate is actually the viewpoint held by the majority of Christians in the world.
The same is true of my resulting conclusions about the age of the earth. I'm not saying that YEC is without its proponents in the scientific community, but it still must be acknowledged that it is held by a very small minority. That’s not to say that is necessarily invalid, but numbers of supporters shouldn’t be used as a rubric for validity.
So while there are definitely arguments on both sides, no, I don't find the YEC one valid. I am very familiar with AIG; this is not a topic that I am tackling without a thorough knowledge of all sides of it. I'm not the kind of guy to stake out a position without a full understanding of that position, the opposing positions, and the implications of both positions.
Even AIG acknowledges that YEC is not their point: theology is their point. The YEC argument is so often made as a scientific one when the truth is, as I've tried to stick to, it is really a theological one. The scientific arguments do not propel YEC because they start with the Bible, which, as I've said, is not a scientific text.
So I'm back to saying that if their Biblical interpretation is wrong, then there is no YEC argument. That's why I said that YE isn't important and doesn't stand up. I wasn't trying to be insulting; I said it because YEC is not the point. Biblical inspiration, authority, and interpretation is. These are things that Christians have and will continue to disagree about. And that's fine. But we can't be the ones who put ourselves in God's place by deciding which positions constitute Christianity and salvation. And we can't infringe upon one another's conscience by suggesting that it is okay to hold a position, but quite another to tell anyone about it. It seems contradictory to me when a fundamentalist colleague 'tolerates' my opinion but then advocates that validation of their version of 'inerrancy' must be a litmus test for allowing me in a pulpit.
Sorry for being a bit late to the discussion here. Things have been a bit busy in the Seth and Amber House-sitting business... anyway, I will not get in the Cachinator/Snoopy dialogue. It is too healthy and insightful to interrupt. I will say that learning can be a painful thing and when a belief is shaken that we felt would never be shaken then we learn. At this juncture our faith is either increased and sharpened or abandoned.
Anyway, I would like address a comment earlier that Craig made about death entering the world. The death that Genesis speaks of is not death in the way that we think. We are equating death with sin. Sin is not sickness or dying. They are definitely related as far as creation goes but we are only told fully of how it is bound up with us. However we know that sickness is not sin. No one could call the turning of leaves sinful or unclean. It is beautiful and powerful. If sickness were the same as sin then catching a cold would be considered sinful and we would need to repent of the condition of the cold. The physical death we suffer is horrible for different reasons. To begin, the author/authors inspired by the spirit (we all agree)writing Romans and Genesis were talking about man.
Man is unique in all creation because he is both creature and spirit. What was most extraordinary and powerful about man was that his spirit had dominion over his flesh. God infused this spirit into flesh, essentially an animal, and through it man had what theologians call impassibility. He was and is unique in all creation. He will be the only created thing keeping our mighter brothers, the angels company in Heaven. (sorry grandma, fifi probably won't be joining the ranks of the saints) Nothing in creation could harm him. God would not allow it. His flesh did not decay, he would suffer no physical death. It was when the spirit lost this dominion over flesh and our bodies decayed, and eventually would die, separating us from our spirits. The death Paul and the authors of Genesis speak of as our inheritance is a spiritual separation of spirit from our body and a physical death. Nothing was ever truly obliterated in this death, which is really much worse than the alternative, a complete nonexistence. Except we lost our freedom to NOT sin. This is worse and different than the death that an animal or plant experiences. When they are gone, they are gone. Their matter and flesh become something else entirely. If I die without God, I would rather be no-thing at all then to be a something suffering the expanse of eternity separated from God, only to be more tormeted by the fact that my very exsistence still depends upon Him while knowing that I will never be fulfilled in any way- completely alone and abandoned by God and His Love. This would be unfathomable torture. We catch a glimpse of it when Jesus cried out to God from the Cross)
On a side note- This also my give us a bit of insight into why Satan and the fallen angels hate so much, and wish to see everything else in suffering. It might just faintly give them a moment of pleasure knowing that one more soul cannot experience this happiness. Anyway, mostly speculating there of why they do what they do.
Back to the point-
What made the death of man so tragic was that his communion with God was interuppted and severed. Dominion was passed on to whom Jesus refered to as "the prince of this world" Man lost all that was his in the beginning and has toiled and groped in vain to recover it ever since. So the real question at hand-did man cause phyisical death in creation?
We cannot know fully. There are differing views of this in theological circles. We DO know that Adam did caused man to inherit sin causing death, and that is our tradgedy and the tragedy Paul adresses. Some theologians surmise that all creation was cracked and damaged when sin entered through its first sinner - Satan. I have even heard stuff like "the Gap" theory where there is a supposed gap between Genesis 1 and 2. When Satan was cast from heaven "like a bolt of lightening" he was cast to Earth and it sort of wiped out everything. God started over with verse 2. "and the Earth was without form and Void". Here again, one starts incredible speculations that are a bit of a stretch. We must accept that some things just aren't revealed to us. Some say suffering and a general hostility in all creation came because of Adam's lack of power to govern creation for it's original intent. Whatever the case we know that from the great rebellion in Heaven all creation ain't been the same. Through Christ we see this made right in Colossians when "Christ reconciled all things in heaven and on earth unto Him"
So the fact that plants were dying or a few T-Rex's bit the dust from a big asteroid was not what Paul spoke of when "since by One man came Death" He was talking about us and how we became like all other creatures in creation the greatest tradgedy being that our souls would endure punishment and our bodies would endure decay, suffering, and death. This is as Cach was stating, a theological statement, not a scientific observation.
I hope this made some sense. I am a bit brain fried. If I am not clear tonight, I'll try to be tomorrow after catching some Z's.
Great discussion people!! I love it!
cach and craig, and snoopy, kudos to all of you for hurting my brain and actually making me think tonight. i am going to go to sleep wondering how God made the earth. I mean, wondering in a good way. It's fun to listen to a theologian argue with a scientist. But, should they be so seperate? (referring to seth's earlier statement about teaching subjects so seperately.) anyways, thanks.
Thank you, Snoopy. I appreciate the way you approach this discussion. And no, I wasn't implying that you would deny me pulpit, I think I know you better than that. But I'll just say that many people throw the word 'heresy' around much too lightly.
As for your question about the majority view on interpretation, you made one very excellent observation that I share: your distrust of the majority. Generally speaking, I'm right there with you. This one is a bit deceiving though, since the majority opinion is not the most vocal or visible one. The Catholic Church holds the view that Scripture uses many kinds of literary genres including allegory, myth (not in the fairy tale sense), and apocalypse among others to communicate with us. That alone would make it the majority opinion among Christians, but many Protestant denominations hold similar views of Scripture including many Presbyterians, Lutherans, and moderate Baptists.
It is interesting, however, that it surprises many outside observers to learn that since the most vocal and visible Christians almost always trend the other way. So it's an interesting majority. But also consider that a non-literal interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis does not dictate that a big fuss is necessary about the origins of the world since we're pretty sure that not only is it ultimately unknowable, but also ultimately unimportant. Whereas the subject is extremely important to literalists.
As to your second point, I hope you know that no disagreement is ever cause to belittle a person. I wouldn't do that and I don't think you would either. If someone held a position that I found not only incorrect but even offensive or destructive it wouldn't be cause to attack the person. That is both contrary to Christ's teaching and unproductive in gaining your desired outcome. Keep digging, great discussion.
I'm really enjoying the dialogue between you guys, and I'm learning a lot. Thanks for encouraging the rest of us to dig a little deeper!
Hi, all! Operapapa here (operamama’s hubby). First, a preface - I am a layman in science, philosophy, and religion. Although I spent 6 years, three of which were full time, in a Christian fundamentalist cult (Bill Gothard’s IBLP program) and am a engineer and instructor by trade I recognize my views as elementary and my opinion only. I do not have truth by the tale and hope everyone feels free to disagree with what I say below. I think you all have a great discussion going here and I respect the diversity of opinion.
With regard to Seth’s original post that public schools and academia in general teach subjects in a compartmentalized way that robs students of the fun part learning by dissociating interesting intersections of subjects - I disagree. Two arguments come to mind. First, efficiency. Given the finite amount of time to learn a subject, say, math for example, there is not enough class time to add enough enecdotes and applications to make it enjoyable for everyone. The overhead of adding enough salty facets and asides would make it difficult if not impossible cram thousand of years of written study on any subject into 16 years of school. Now, I admit that math like all subjects had it’s boring moments but for the most part it was the rigors, the concentration of mind, the beauty of the subject that gave me a buzz. To think about it another way, it would require so much chopstick-esque like material in a music class to make a college level music class palatable to me that most of the other die-hard music students would be counting tiles on the ceiling in frustration. Public education by nature panders to the least common denominator – the agreed upon basics. I think all classes should be as interesting as possible and if the teacher has some way to involve all types of minds in the subject matter that is great. But teachers got to teach at the college level by devoting themselves to that subject. The good teachers are the well rounded ones who are curious enough about life to explore many areas, but let’s face facts – most people just aren’t that well rounded. Kudos to you Seth for being well rounded. Seriously, I respect that.
Now the second point. Pure science and pure religion are academically opposed. Pure science forms a hypothesis, creates an experiment, gathers data, and then evaluates the original hypothesis in light of the data. There is no hope or fear or desire that the hypothesis is right or wrong (unless you have ED and are working on a Viagra experiment). Religion, at least from my perspective, starts with faith and some pre-conceived ideas about the world. It is attuning one’s self with the God shaped vacuum inside every man and trying to fill it and figure it out. I can feel the vacuum in myself and I think we all can, even atheists, to an extent. But to fill it, we need “a being” – (A Buddha, an Allah, a Jesus). We give this “being” attributes – It loves ___, It hates ____, It wants _____,It did ____, in the end It will ___.
Then comes the interesting intersections of science and religion, (the American version); e.g. if God loves life and people, then we shouldn’t kill unborn babies. Science answers with trying to define when life begins. Other examples - If God created male and female, what are hermaphrodites? How did the world begin?
Since history has shown that religion is not tolerant of science because religion has pre-conceived ideas about how man hopes or fears the universe (God included) is, it corrupts pure science. How can you be objective when your greatest hopes and fears hang in the balance of the decision you started to answer scientifically? I hang with Cach about how science classes should handle the issue of beginnings. The interesting intersections are philosophy – NOT science and NOT math. Rebuttals?
I see your point my friend. You can't really waist toooo much time on deep thoughts by jack handy in Trig. However I think that I am kind of going for something different and a little broader than Intelligent design here. I was reading an article on NPR's website about science from the Brian Greene, author of "The Elegant Universe" He does a little better job at explaining my frustrations.
" One day when I was about 11, walking back to Public School 87 in Manhattan after our class visit to the Hayden Planetarium, I became overwhelmed by a feeling I'd never had before. I was gripped by a hollow, pit-in-the-stomach sense that my life might not matter. I'd learned that our world is a rocky planet, orbiting one star among the 100 billion others in our galaxy, which is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies scattered throughout the universe. Science had made me feel small.
In the years since, my view of science and the role it can play in society and the world has changed dramatically.
While we are small, my decades of immersion in science convince me this is cause for celebration. From our lonely corner of the cosmos we have used ingenuity and determination to touch the very limits of outer and inner space. We have figured out fundamental laws of physics -- laws that govern how stars shine and light travels, laws that dictate how time elapses and space expands, laws that allow us to peer back to the briefest moment after the universe began.
None of these scientific achievements have told us why we're here or given us the answer to life's meaning -- questions science may never address. But just as our experience playing baseball is enormously richer if we know the rules of the game, the better we understand the universe's rules -- the laws of physics -- the more deeply we can appreciate our lives within it.
I believe this because I've seen it.
I've seen children's eyes light up when I tell them about black holes and the big bang. I've received letters from young soldiers in Iraq telling me how reading popular accounts of relativity and quantum physics has provided them hope that there is something larger, something universal that binds us together.
Which is why I am distressed when I meet students who approach science and math with drudgery. I know it doesn't have to be that way."
Here is the part that really gets to my point and I can relate this to the way music theory is taught in Universities as well.
He continues-
"Even more troubling, I've encountered students who've been told they don't have the capacity to grasp math and science.
These are lost opportunities.
I believe we owe our young an education that captures the exhilarating drama of science.
I believe the process of going from confusion to understanding is a precious, even emotional, experience that can be the foundation of self-confidence. I believe that through its rational evaluation of truth and indifference to personal belief, science transcends religious and political divisions and so does bind us into a greater, more resilient whole.
I believe that the wonder of discovery can lift the spirit like Brahms' Third Symphony.
I believe that the breathtaking ideas of science can nourish not only the mind but also the soul."
I'll post more in a bit, I gotta go play and sing.
Snoopieeee! Good to hear from you too. We should catch up sometime. My wife misses you - come see us. I agree with all you say. When we leave to observable realm then we are in speculating only. Some people are more honest than others when admitting they are only peculating. What kills me is "opinion presented as fact" especially when it's coming from a 40+ yr old science teacher or pastor or cult leader (no these are not all the same except that they share a position of authority)talking to youth. I think we'd all do well to drink a big cup of humble serum and admit we don't know jack sh!t about the way it all began. The problem is Reginald O'Rielly III who has devoted his whole life to proving that such and such is the way it all began. For his theory to hold he needs nine other unprovable theories to be true as well. Admitting that any of them are not provable means his life's work is based on dreams is not possible for him.
Seth, please finish your post. I'm with you (and Greene) so far. If I misunderstood your original post, excuse me. I should insert here my personal experience and thus sensitivity with the "life is a curriculum so tie it all together crowd". These people, many homeschoolers in particular, say all subjects are interrelated and should be studied in a stream of consciencousness type flow from one random topic to the next. I don't them justice here and that's probably an exaggeration but I think I've got it partially correct. Montesory schools are a better version of this i.e. learn what you are interested in. I think this has it's value especially in the early years of child development. My counter point is this - mental discipline and concentration pay dividends. Sometimes when the subject gets hard and non interesting the brain must get creative in developing the application or finding a tie/metaphor to something that is more interesting. Rigor is good for rigor's sake. I personally think memorizing long lists is not fun but if the list is presidents or elements it will pay dividends. Have, has, had, do, does, did, shall, will, should, would, may, might, must, can, could. It's the mental fortitude to bear down, learn it, and hold it.
After reading your last post I think I got a better read on you. I agree science can be much more interesting than it is presented in schools today. But then aren't we really just saying, "I wish I had a better science (or insert least favorite subject here) teacher." Which I totally agree with. I'm finding enthusiasm goes a long way in anything especially teaching. Interestingly enthusiasm's roots are "in" and "theos" or "in God". People who see the bigger picture are always more interesting than those who tunnel visioned into there particular area. So I gotta agree we need better teachers.
As for the whole ID thing - I agree with the fundamental premise. That is, IT SEEMS TO ME there is a higher intelligence out there who created/energized the system. All things tend towards maximum entropy and like Craig said it's a reduction in organization we observe not an increase. Call me niave or silly but when I consider the eye or heart as an organ I can't concieve that it just evolved as time progressed. Valves, chemical reactions, muscles, signals, nerves, timing, structure - it's all to "organized" to be an accident. I also prefer ID to a literal seven day creation because it's more flexible and admits that the Genesis is not scientific on this. Craig correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it scarry to think we all came from a gene pool of one. Bottom line for me, we have no written account of the beggining so we should humbly approach the subjects as speculators not authorities.
Great thoughts operadaddio! Okay what I am getting at here goes back to my original idea in my post. I became interested in Math because I had a teacher in college who related math occasionally, when appropriate to philosphy. He did this inadvertantly and sparingly. It was extremely effective nonetheless. For instance, (if I remember correctly, its been 10 years or so, so cut me some slack!!) An asymptote (used to call them ass n' toes) approaches the x or y axis infinitely. So if it approaches infinity it goes on forever. What is infinity?
Or the fact that we can never really get a perfect physical measurement of anything. We can conceptually through math but no one can ever really measure a perfect inch.
Math is the underlying governing laws and universal language of the whole show. Math is a glimpse into the mind of the Almighty. (these things seem kind of simple or extraneous but they inspire nonetheless)
I totally agree about training your imagination and exercising your intellect. One needs to learn to concentrate. We live in a society where the English teacher has to practically twist balloon animals to get the student to learn what a preposistion is. You are also correct in assuming that what we may need is just better teachers. I just believe that one way to open up a subject's interest is by relating it to different parts of our humanity. This may sound kind of touchy-feely to science but books sales are showing that people want to relate to these kind of things. No one should not be limited in what you use to help students to be interested in science or math. One of the reasons Hawkings's book is so popular is because it borders on the spiritual quite a bit. It addresses important questions that are on everyone's mind. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? where did everything come from?
These questions come from simply being a human being. They should not be shunned in ANY subject. I agree that no science course should turn into a religion course.
I guess overall what I am trying to say is this; There are many reason we study science, learn math, learn music, study philosphy. One of those reasons is the discovery and understanding why we are here and how things work and why they work that way. Religion, beauty, art, philosophy, science, math-these are all related. The intersect from time to time, sometimes violently but at their best they can inspire the greatest of concepts.
Antoher example of what I am talking about..
Music theorists have been using mathematical techniques to devise new systems of compostions for the past 60 or so years. It was a mathmetician that invented equal temperment. Subjects intersect and intertwine. In budhism, They beleive that their is a universal pitch and through meditation they become a part of this universal vibration. Well, I find this very cool since physicists have discovered a faint universal vibration or pitch (Bb) to the universe.
In the post earlier, the atheist scientist stated that "we are more of a thought than anything at all" Christianity teaches that We are held together by the "thought" or Logos or Word of God.
I'll stop there for now. I am trying not to ramble.
Tru dat bro. I agree whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. I misunderstood. Call me jaded but these great teachers you speak of are few and far between. What we really need is parents who can start stimulating conversations about topics the students are learning at school and take these to the next level. Your dad is one of these types - he can talk about anything and add the SALT, the connections, the big picture, the humor and enthusiasm it takes to reach a seeker. I wish more teachers could do this but fundamentally it's my job as parent to make sure these connections are being made, to make sure they know how to have these conversations with thier peers and me, to THINK, to question. Case and point, Seth and father. Thinking dad begats thinking son and daughters.
Good blog. Fun stuff. I hate this damn 2" x 2" window. Will copy and paste from MSWord from now on.
I love this. Thanks, everyone, for enriching my mind. I have so much to think about, it's crazy.
Hey OpDad! I very much enjoyed reading your thoughts. One point you made among many struck me as, well, just struck me.
You said: "religion has pre-conceived ideas about how man hopes or fears the universe (God included)"
and then, "How can you be objective when your greatest hopes and fears hang in the balance of the decision you started to answer scientifically?"
Our greatest hopes and fears. Man's search for God is a search to find answers to man's greatest hopes and greatest fears. It's interesting to me that when we look for God, we want so much to find him. All the while, so scared that we won't. Before there is even a direction to our faith, there is a need for it. A desire for it. A hope in it.
Definitely not scientific.
I just realized, OpDad, (if that title is an acceptable derivative of Operapapa), we could from here on out refer to you as O.D. Finally, Seth, someone else to share in your pain!
ha ha! very funny amber!
Amen and amen. He was a good dad to have for the inquisitive minded kid.
Speaking of good teacher-dads, I bet I know two kids that are never going to have a problem finding help with math. I mean Operamama is a math GENIUS. (long pause)
You do know that means if you all live near us in the future you might also be helping the Ward twins with their advanced math as well. Shoot, I probably couldn't properly FOIL a problem properly these days.
btw Ned Horner still calls word problems "story problems"
Snoopy you remember Ned right? They guy who asked you out and waved a toot on you in the 11th grade.
Sorry for the delay, there. I've been busy.
Snoop, as for Dr. Barr's quote, I have not a clue where he's coming from. Almost every serious OT professor I know rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Especially the Jewish scholars.
A few examples: John J. Collins at Yale, James C. Vanderkam at Notre Dame, Marvin Sweeney at Claremont, Carol Newsom at Candler, Walter Brueggemann (a personal favorite) at Columbia Seminary, Thomas Mann at Princeton, David Gunn at Columbia, Patrick Miller at Princeton, Richard D. Nelson at Gettysburg Seminary, Alice Ogden Bellis at Howard, Steven McKenzie at Rhodes, Dennis Tucker at Truett Seminary, Richard Friedman at UCSD, and even Kenneth Matthews at Southern Baptist Seminary.
And that "Should Genesis be Taken Literally" article is actually pretty flimsy. I can see how it would be effective and convincing on its own, but it is completely without balance of any kind. The problem with an article like that is that it asks an open question and then provides a closed answer. There is no counterpoint presented and it is not an article designed to let the reader make up his/her own mind. It is a coercive article. I could take it apart line by line, but the average reader doesn't benefit from another point of view. Therefore, any response to that argument is automatically forced to be an 'alternative' perspective; as if the norm has been established and any other point of view is contrary to that norm. And that way of holding a 'scholarly' debate is fraudulent and a disservice to any reader.
We're having a great discussion here about a number of cool topics. I love it.
BTW, I'm the son of a teacher and I'm married to a teacher. Parents are more instrumental in education that we can measure. And so many kids either don't have both parents or don't have involved parents. And that makes all education difficult. I was so blessed. I hope we'll all step into the gaps to 'parent' kids around us who need it.
Hey Snoop, yeah, all of those guys and gals are Hebrew scholars/Old Testament professors. And again, that quote is very strange to me because most Hebrew/OT scholars do not take a literal interpretation. This includes the Jewish ones. I didn't inlcude any non-believers in that list. I would say almost 100% of non-believing Bible scholars, (and yes they exist in droves), do not take a literal approach, but their lack of the faith element weakens their argument in my opinion. Like I've said, I believe a non-literal interpretation actually strengthens Scripture and is a bolder testament to God's work.
And Amen on the one-sidedness of science books and other documents. I think that dovetails nicely into our original discussion about teaching Evolution/ID in the classroom. I again reiterate that I think it wrong on both sides to teach a theory as a fact. I would prefer we were honest about what we knew and open about what our theories were. Great point.
Seth, sorry to be a, (take note Fancy), bloghog. I am enjoying this topic though. Hope you don't mind.
Yessss.
Good one.
Bloghog, n.: 1. A humble-intentioned, interested blogger who, because of his/her vast amount of knowledge of the topic at hand, comments so frequently to the post that one wonders who actually wrote the original post.
2. A blogger who, because he/she struggles with posting posts of his/her own, gets excited and accidentally leaves extremely long comments on another's blog.
3. An evil, conniving blogger who secretly wishes to take control of the world, and so uses the blogosphere as his/her initial mission.
With that being said, I would like to add one more word to the Blogtionary. It is:
blogchick, n.: A blogger who loves to comment on others blogs and finds them fascinating, but is too "chicken" to start his/her own due to lack of time, and perhaps laziness.
I am a blogchick. And perhaps also a bloghog for posting this random comment on a blog about science.
Fancy - I like "bloghog", your definitions are great.
I'm a little concerned about "blogchick" though, because I've known of or seen at least several female bloggers (floggers?) who used that name or some variation of it to mean "a chick who blogs".
I'd suggest possibly "blogloader", sort of like a freeloader, somebody who uses others' space for blogging without using their own space.
I'm a bit of a bloghog, and a bit of a blogloader.
(And feeling a little ashamed, because I find the subject matter on this thread fascinating, have spent countless hours as part of "faith and science" forums, and have seen many of the subjects that have been touched on here debated to death. And yet I've added absolutely nothing myself. But it's been thoroughly interesting nonetheless, thanks.)
C-Hammer,
Ha! Ok, you're right. Here's what we'll do.
blogchick, n.: 1. A blogger who loves to comment on others blogs and finds them fascinating, but is too "chicken" to start his/her own due to lack of time, and perhaps laziness; also known as blogloader. (See def. blogloader) (aside, which will come later. No time)
2. A chick who blogs
Oh which case, I fit both definitions.
And, C-Hammer, it seems the discussion is still going, so if you get the hankerin', join right in!
Speaking of being overly literal, I was not asking for clarification on the dictionary definitions of the terms "infallible" or "inerrant." I was obviously talking about their usage and implications. Given that, I agree with Craig's assessment that 'inerrant' and 'infallible' do not equate with literal. Unfortunately, those words are far too often correlated.
Also unfortunate is poor literary and Biblical analysis that equates Matthew and Genesis. I've heard all this before. Unfortunately, the two are not equivalent. In fact, no writing styles in the New Testament are equivalent with the Old Testament. First there is the obvious fact that they were written hundreds of years apart. Then there's the fact that they were written in different languages. Then there's the fact that they were written by different cultures and to different cultures.
I've said this before, but our concept of 'historical narrative' as an objective verifiable source is a modern Western invention. The ancients who wrote the OT had no interest whatsoever in writing that style. Genesis 1-11 is not 'historical narrative.' It is theological narrative. It is by no means objectively verifiable.
I'm not advocating, and I don't think anyone else is either, that the 'light' God created is anything other than light. Non-literal does not mean darkly symbolic. What it means is that in ancient Hebrew where the word for 'day' is also the word for 'a space of time,' and the word 'Adam' means 'man,' and where contradictory timelines are presented for supposedly the same event, we most likely do not have a 'historical narrative.' We have a story explaining the beginnings of all things; that is to say we have a story that tells us that everything we know and everything we are was created by God.
How could this be 'historical narrative?' Who were the witnesses to verify it? Who wrote it down? It was written to serve as an explanation of the Hebrew's special relationship with God by numerous different authors and was edited at numerous different times.
Also, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 does not preclude in any respect a belief in a real literal fall into sin and death. This is something common to human existence. Our need of a savior due to our very real sin is undeniable. But a literal 'Adam' and a literal 'Eve' need not have eaten a literal 'apple' for us to have a real fall. The story is merely an explanation of the fact that we are fallen by our own sinful desires.
As for a bodily resurrection, I hope no one is expecting to have the same body in the next life that we have in this one. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
And a play-by-play knowledge of the moment of our creation is not necessary for our salvation to be real. It is much like Jesus' eventual return: the fact that we don't know the date nor do we know what the actual circumstances of his return will be does not make the reality of his return any less real.
It really is beginning to come down to an understanding of the cultures in which Genesis 1-11 was written, the people it was written for, and the people it was written by. You’ll note that I keep singling out Genesis 1-11 and not referring to the book as a whole. That is because it was not originally written as a whole. Genesis 12-37 and then 37-50 have a very different feel and incorporate very different writing styles, syntax, and grammar. But the primeval history presented in Genesis 1-11 is a separate and unique block within Scripture and is in no way at all comparable with the Gospels.
Keep it coming guys as long as you want. I am learning a ton and loving it!!!
Snoopy, I was taught many things at Truett, but Truett does not teach its students what to think or believe. I was taught the documentary hypothesis along with many other theories about the nature of Scripture. But Truett, unlike many other seminaries I know, does not endorse a point of view or indoctrinate its students to an ideology.
As for the documentary hypothesis, also called JEDP, it is merely as its name suggests: a hypothesis. It has a number of attractive features, but it is obviously incomplete for explaining the nature and origin of Scripture. Like I've said, there were no eyewitnesses and Scripture was not written by one person at one time, so we will never know the full story. The documentary hypothesis is simply one possible explanation. For my part, I think it unlikely that there were only 4 or 5 sources for the majority of the OT. But the strains identified as JEDP do have distinct cohesive elements that could be explained by a form of the documentary hypothesis. But no, I don't swallow any one theory like that hook, line, and sinker as the great golden truth.
Mosaic authorship on the other hand has a number of serious difficulties. First of all, nowhere in Scripture does Moses claim to be the author of Genesis or the narrative in Exodus. And actually, he does not claim to be the author of anything. Much of the law portions of the Pentateuch are referred to as the 'law of Moses' or the law that 'Moses taught.' But this is different than authorship. (I'll get to that later.)
But there are many internal problems with Mosaic authorship. Two of the most glaring are Numbers 12:3 and Deuteronomy 34:5. In the Numbers passage it is declared that Moses was the most humble man who ever lived. That would seem a bit contradictory coming from the author himself, don't you think? That was just the amusing one, but the Deuteronomy passage is the death of Moses. He wrote about his own death? Huh? He can't have written that. And as soon as you concede that someone else either helped or finished it, you no longer have the traditional concept of Mosaic authorship. (Again, I'll get to 'authorship' in a sec.)
Beyond that, check out Genesis 12:6 which refers to Canaanites being in the land in the past tense. That was never true while Moses was alive. Also, check Genesis 36:31. This passage speaks about the kings in Edom "before any king reigned over the Israelites." This passage assumes knowledge of Israelite kings which did not happen until long after the Exodus and Moses' death.
These are just a few examples of internal problems with Mosaic authorship. But beyond that, what is authorship? In our world, the author is the person who puts pen to paper. In the ancient world, authorship was attributed to the originator of the thought. Therefore, the person putting pen to paper is irrelevant. This concept extended into the NT where we know Paul didn't write many of his letters but was undoubtedly the originator of the thought, the message, and sometimes the words themselves. But Mosaic authorship is a tradition based on the fact that Moses is the central character of the Pentateuch and is responsible for the transmission of the law. But that does not make him the person who recorded these things. I may even allow that the Pentateuch was compiled based in part on actual documents that date back to Moses and certainly on oral tradition. But like JEDP, this is only a theory since no source documents remain.
Therefore, there is no problem with Jesus' references to the 'law of Moses' or to 'Moses' in general since that was the traditional name for the Pentateuch. He wasn't making a statement about the authorship of the work, he was making reference to the history and culture of the Jewish people and their law.
As for statements like "Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ," well, that's just ridiculous hyperbole. It's an effort to paint everyone who doesn't follow literal interpretation of portions of the Pentateuch as 'evil liberals.' And it's insulting.
What we have is mostly theory. Be careful of any theory that lays exclusive claims on the Truth. We don't have all the answers. But Mosaic authorship looks very doubtful to the point of being unreliable. And JEDP is only one possible explanation that most modern scholarship feels is incomplete at best, though it does have a great deal to bring to the table.
Well that's the thing. I don't think it is supposed to be a big mysterious puzzle left to confound us. I surely don't think we understand everything, nor can we, nor will we. But in this instance, Jesus is not speaking 'figuratively.' The phrase 'the law of Moses' and 'Moses and the Prophets' just don't mean 'the books of the Torah that Moses wrote.' Like I've said, it had become tradition to refer to the Pentateuch as 'the Torah of Moses' or 'the law of Moses' or just 'Moses' since he was the central character. Jesus isn't being tricky; he's just using a phrase that everyone in his audience would have understood.
A similar example would be the use of the word 'feet' in the OT. (I hope this helps and doesn't add confusion.) In Hebrew the word 'feet' was a euphemism for genetalia. This helps a bit to explain the very strange story in Exodus 4:24-26. Yet the Hebrew word for feet also meant actual feet. So which use goes when? That's the hermeneutic task. Similarly, in the NT times, the name 'Moses' could mean the person or the Pentateuch. We must use the best of our knowledge and ability to discern what Jesus is talking about.
All of these issues are actually even more confusing and difficult than I've laid out. By studying Greek and Hebrew you learn that we have many things in our English translations that the translators have changed from their literal meanings into phrases that we would understand. But others they've left intact. Most people don't have the time or ability to learn ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, so they trust the pastors to do their homework because getting at the meanings of Scripture is a grueling and ongoing process.
Not all pastors do that work equally nor do they agree on how that should be done. That's why I believe in a transparent pastoral process, Christian history education as a part of church life, and the freedom of each believer to raise questions and concerns at every turn until they can find peace in understanding with that pastor and in that church.
We should always take Jesus and the Bible at its word - we just have to study and learn what those words mean. I was raised in a pretty conservative Baptist tradition that tried to dictate the only way to interpret Scripture and presented the message from this high position of strength and authority. The result was that we all knew exactly what we were about to read every time we opened our Bibles. And that neuters the gospel. We should be ready to be amazed and shocked and inspired every time we crack it open. And one of the first sacred cows I had to sacrifice on my way to that bigger view of God's work in the world and in my life was that his word didn't fit into the neat little boxes I had tried to package it in before. It can be a bit messy. But it is so much deeper and so much richer than I ever imagined. It has so much more power than the confines of my modern Western mind that tries to categorize it according to my world and my experience.
Sorry Craig, but once again, you have presented faulty theology and hermeneutics. I do agree with your approach to this discussion though, and hope I may respond to your work without being seen as attacking you personally.
The Mark 4:31 passage says nothing about a Hebrew sower. Not even in the NIV, (which is an inferior translation to many that are available.) The NIV uses the word 'you,' which is where I assume Craig is reading the bit about a Hebrew sower into the text, for the Greek word 'spermaton', which is a third person plural imperfect indicative version of the word 'to sow.' The seeds are the third person plural part of that translation, and it is 'they' that are being sown. The NIV is simply trying to use more active voice than passive so they stuck the 'you plant' part in which does not appear in the Greek. And even if the passage could be translated 'seeds which you plant,' as is done in the NIV, this just doesn't limit the meaning of the passage to Hebrew sowers. That's not in the text. That's eisegesis.
And Jesus definitely used the mustard seed because it served his illustration: that was my point. It doesn't matter that it is a 'scientific' contradiction; it is Truth without conforming to the ridiculous modern Western fundamentalist standards of 'inerrancy.'
Matthew 27 and Mark 1 still don't say what Craig is trying to make them say, and he's making my point for me. The fact remains that the quotes are attributed to authors who did not say them. Still Truth, but they are quotes attributed to the wrong authors. That's a contradiction. Arguing that authorship is tied to authority was actually my point against strict literalism. It does not erase the contradictions, it explains them. The contradictions remain.
As for rabbits... I hardly think you can compare refection, which is pooping half digested food and then eating it again with the rumination which occurs in the other two animals in that list: the camel and the rock-badger.
As a further word of caution, we should always be careful when using science or archaeology to 'prove' Scripture since we must then be ready to admit areas where science and archaeology 'disprove' Scripture; and there are many such areas.
In 2 Sam. and 1 Chron. we are simply given two differing accounts of the same story. We are not told that when the Bible says 'God' it really means 'God allowed Satan.' Nor are we told that when the Bible says 'Satan' it really means 'Satan whom God allowed.' More eisegesis.
James has nothing to do with these passages. It was not written at the same time, nor was it written as a clarification of this problem. James is simply more information about the nature and character of God. (As a side note, it happens to be one of my favorite books in the Bible.) Sam. and Chron. were not written by the same person nor at the same time. They were not written as complimentary volumes, they were written exclusively from similar source material. They reflect differing worldviews. How can we read the Bible and not know that biblical writers disagreed with each other about some things including their interpretation about the nature of God? Ever read Ezra/Nehemiah and then Jonah? Talk about differing worldviews! Or Ecclesiastes and the Psalms?
And finally, sorry Snoopy, 1 Sam. 17 says David killed Goliath, and 2 Sam. 21 says Elhanan killed Goliath. There is no mention of a brother in 2 Sam. Not in Hebrew, not in English, not even in the NIV. Read any Bible. 1 Chron. 20 does say that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, Lahmi. But that doesn't change what 2 Sam. says. So, yes, there is a contradiction there.
So far everything being asserted against what I’ve said is found in Answers in Genesis. At best the organization should be knows as Arguments in Genesis because they can’t ‘answer’ anything. I am thoroughly familiar with all of their arguments and information. I invite anyone to read it and check it out themselves. It is full of some of the most outrageous speculation and fanciful circular logic that I’ve ever seen. The funny thing is, those are exactly the qualities they accuse their opponents of. Their process is faulty so their conclusions are bound to be similarly flawed.
we are going for 100 comments here, so here is my very small widow's mite to add.
fancy pants' blog dictionary is hilareous. very entertaining.
snoopy, craig, and cach are providing me with a "literal" bible boxing match like i've never read before, and it is adding a sporty spice to my dull-drum day. and i am learning ooddles. keep it coming. you're up craig or snoopy, cach got the last word so far.
(Preface: I didn't do a thorough job of copyediting this entry. Please forgive any spelling or grammar errors!)
I cannot even begin to say how much I appreciate the seriousness everyone takes Scripture in this discussion. One of the first mud slings that I usually hear when discussing these views of Scripture with my more conservative brothers is that the only way to take Scripture seriously is to take it literally. (Just to avoid confusion, I’m not liberal. Theological liberalism is something entirely different than political liberalism or social liberalism. I’m quite moderate.) I take Scripture very seriously, which is why we’re still having this discussion.
Now, as for the latest in the series here: In Mark 4, it may seem like splitting hairs, but Jesus does make a statement that is botanically false. The Greek words used here for seeds and sowing are the same that are used for all other planting of seeds. However, I would not expect Jesus to say anything else! What good would it have done his listeners if he named a seed that not only did none of them have knowledge of, but that no First-Century person could have knowledge of? Scripture cannot only be relevant to us now with our advanced knowledge. More on that later.
As for Matthew, I can absolutely see where you’re coming from with trying to stretch the words in Zechariah to the concepts in Jeremiah. And I think that realization actually bolsters what I’ve said about concepts of authorship in the ancient world. But we can’t have it every different way to suit our presuppositions. We can’t impose modern Western understanding on Mark but acknowledge that it is a different situation in Matthew. In the modern world, we would call the situation in Matthew a misquote. But remember, I don’t believe that it is!
As for the argument about rabbits, refection, and rumination, the idea that the word in Hebrew for regurgitation, ma’alat, could mean something other than ‘chewing the cud,’ I don’t think so. And here’s why: ma’alat is based on the root word ma’alah which in every case means to bring up, raise up, take up, etc. And its usage in the case of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is to say that the rabbit ma’alat garah which means to ‘bring up the cud.’ Any argument that ma’alat could mean something else is weak speculation given that ma’alah in Hebrew usage elsewhere always means ‘bring up, raise up, take up, etc.’
We agree that James informs our understanding about the nature of God, but unfortunately it was not available for hundreds of years between the writing of Samuel and Chronicles and the writing of the book of James. This is what I was talking about earlier. Scripture must have complete relevance in the situation into which it was written. Samuel and Chronicles can’t be incomplete without James. They must be able to stand on their own or else they were worthless and confusing to generations of people and only became useful Scripture once the book of James was written. This can’t be. What we can acknowledge is that OT writers disagreed about many things. This is one. The Chronicler and the writer of Samuel disagree about the cause of the census. Either way, it was part of the story of God. Do we not do this continually today within the church? We often disagree about the source or root of things. I think each writer spoke from the limits of their understandings of the world and of God. We have an even bigger picture, but ours cannot be ‘better’ than theirs since theirs was sufficient for their relationship with God at their time. Stick with me here, I’m building to something.
The issue of 2 Samuel vs. 1 Chronicles, we have a problem that I’ve alluded to before. The text in 2 Samuel wouldn’t even have an eye batted at it without 1 Chronicles. That’s because there is no problem at all with the Hebrew in 2 Samuel. It is clear and repeated frequently in the OT. But because 1 Chronicles differs, theories abound that somehow a perfectly written and clear passage in 2 Samuel must be corrupt. Here’s a breakdown of the Hebrew: Bethlehem is made up of two words ‘beth’ and ‘lechem.’ Beth means ‘house’ and lechem means ‘bread’ or ‘food.’ Bethlehem is the ‘house of sustenance.’ In English it is presented as one word, and actually in Greek it is also presented as one word. But in Hebrew it is always two words. In order for the words ‘brother of,’ achi, to be elided into Lachmi it actually has to disappear completely; that’s three letters and two spaces that have to go away in order for the copy error theory to even begin to be possible. But then there’s the word beth that still appears before the word Lachmi. For the copy error theory to work the word achi must disappear and the word beth must be ignored. It’s too much. The simpler and clearer explanation is that in 2 Samuel, Elhanan the Bethlehemite is said to kill Goliath. I hope that wasn’t too confusing. The Archer/Clarke theory just doesn’t hold water from a Hebrew linguistics standpoint.
Now after everything I’ve said over the past week or so, what if I were to say that I don’t actually believe that these things I’ve pointed out in Scripture are ‘contradictions’ or ‘errors?’ That is to say, I agree with Craig that I don’t like the idea of Scripture being full of ‘errors’ and that being okay. Here’s what I’ve been trying to say one piece at a time: our perspective, from which we read Scripture, is one of a modern Westerner who is thoroughly influenced by the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. It is beaten into us from the day of our birth. We are indoctrinated in that way of thinking all through school, (touching on our original topic!) Yet Scripture was written by Ancient Easterners. They did not have the same ideas about authorship. They were not concerned with empirical verifiability. Strict chronology was not even a matter in their head. They did not understand history in terms of events or sequences but in terms of people. Ideas that we see as conflicting, they would lay side-by-side and accept as facets of the same instead of polar opposites. These are traits that we observe not only in Scripture but in much ancient literature. And holy and inspired though it is, the Bible is still a work of ancient literature as well. That is its medium.
So when we do things like try to square the conflicting chronologies in the gospels, we miss the point. The gospel writers weren’t concerned with that as they wrote it. When we try to force ourselves to take Genesis 1-11 literally, we miss the point. It was written as a theological history of the Hebrews. Take for example the fact that many other ancient written sources contain nearly the same stories as Genesis 1-11. Most of them predate Genesis. (For reference: the Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic, Atrahasis, etc.) But what is unique about Genesis? Nowhere else in all of literary history do all of the stories that appear in Genesis 1-11 appear together. Genesis 1-11 is a very carefully assembled collection which is placed in an order that builds upon itself in order to tell the story of who God is.
Now I know that many of you may have trouble accepting those ideas given what you’ve been told all your lives. I wrestled with it myself. But just for the sake of exploration, assume that they are true. Does the question of a literal interpretation of Genesis even make sense anymore? Does the question of YEC matter anymore? Does a ‘contradiction’ in the text, (but not, of course, the Truth), still vex the same? Or rather, don’t we have a stronger Scripture that God inspired men to write using every different resource and source of the divine here on Earth to bring us a work so big and powerful and mysterious that it will still and always be the Word of God? I think we do ourselves harm when we make claims on Scripture that it doesn’t make on itself and then force ourselves to jump through every hoop imaginable in order to square seeming problems with our imposed views.
I love this discussion. I advocate so much for this view of interpretation and inspiration because I believe it to be true of course. As I’ve said, I’m terribly afraid of people who use words like ‘Truth’ as a weapon, so I’m absolutely willing to confess that I know I will arrive at the throne of God and find out that I was wrong about a great many things. But this is one thing that I don’t feel is thin ice. Scripture has been misinterpreted throughout Christian history, so I’m not worried about the world ending over this matter. We always seem to develop. You should read some of the old allegorical interpretations of Jesus’ parables! Talk about missing the point! We must always continue to dig and seek God’s face and will knowing that for now we see through a glass darkly.
well. i decided to make it an even 70. it looks like you guys finally slowed down. thanx for all the learning.
I've been out of town. Needless to say, I've got a reply up my sleeve. I'll get to it shortly. But first I'll say that I've just been accused of inconsistency, being seduced by wrong philosophies, being disingenuous, not knowing my true motives, being influenced by nonsense, and - by implication - of leading people astray among other things. But of course, it's all done in Christian love. Interesting.
I've been very consistent in debating ideas without questioning motives or labeling people. Unfortunately for Craig's argument, all of his comments about science vs. Scripture and such can be flipped right over back on his points. And I will do so soon.
Also, I don't need an education about the definition of logic. However it seems that I may need to give one about the contextual use of Scripture and the dangers of throwing verses around scattershot to make a point completely unrelated to the subject of those verses.
As I said, I'll have a reply soon.
I eagerly await the response. I just tuned back in. I thought this was finished. I am going to move it back up the playlist.
Okay, here goes:
Back to the rabbit thing again. Although I would have thought it obvious at this point, I’ll say again, the thing to note is that this is a list of animals that are forbidden to eat. The characteristics of the group are given and then the animals are named. The rabbit is listed along with the camel and the rock-badger. Neither of the other two animals eat their own poop. The Hebrew uses the words that mean ‘to bring up.’ That should make it obvious that we aren’t talking about poop. You have to run yourself in circles to ignore the obvious and simple truth that Leviticus and Deuteronomy make what we in the 21st Century would consider a scientific error. But this is all missing the point!
The point is that in an argument about whether or not the Bible is a science book; this is merely an example of why it should not be read as a science book. It does not claim to be a science book. It was written from a scientifically limited point of view. It’s okay that there is what we would consider a scientific error here because it is a theological text. It’s not about giving the Bible the benefit of any doubt. It’s about not putting the Bible in doubt by reading it for what it is. As I’ve said, reading the Bible to learn science is like using sheet music to learn how to bake a cake. This by no means puts science above Scripture. That’s a false argument. It’s simply to say that God has given us the tools with which to observe and learn about the world around us. That’s science. I believe it informs our relationship with God. The Spurgeon quote is pointless because I’m not subjugating God to science nor am I using science to disprove God. I’ve already said that science is not the rubric for faith. Again, as I’ve said, I quite agree with Spurgeon. Science is continually changing and evolving. To pretend like we have reached the pinnacle of understanding at this time is as foolish today as it was fifty years ago. But it is equally foolish to pretend that we have learned nothing in the three thousand years or so since Scripture began to appear.
As for Scripture beginning to appear, there are no ‘autographs.’ This is a baseless theory invented to explain textual variants, copy errors, and contradictions. And before accusing me of supporting an equally baseless theory, relax, I don’t support any such theory. As I’ve been saying, there’s much we cannot know. And this was how we got into all of this to begin with: I advocated against slamming multiple unprovable theories up against each other. More on ‘autographs’ later.
Back to Mark: the obvious implication that seeds don’t sow themselves does not mean that Jesus was limiting his remarks to Hebrew sowers. He was using a specific example to make a universal point. And that specific example involves what we would consider a botanical error though his hearers would not. And did Jesus know in his own mind that it wasn’t the smallest seed? Who knows!? I would tend to think that he didn’t because he didn’t need to, but it makes no difference. His botany is not the point, his point is the point. Mark is not a scientific text. Jesus was not teaching a science lesson.
Archer’s Hebrew is terrible. That’s the only conclusion I can draw from his quantum leaps of logic and language. First of all there’s the problem of chronology. Samuel was written before Chronicles, but for Archer’s argument to work, it would have to be the other way around. So from the get-go his argument fails. But to the language: Could the sign of the direct object be confused for the word for brother? Possibly, they both have two letters, the first letter in each word is the same and the second letter in each word looks similar to each other. But then there’s the problem of the third letter present in ‘brother’ which makes it possessive. But then Archer asks the copyist to conjure a letter and add it in. This is something that copyists almost never did. When alterations such as the one being suggested here have occurred, they have almost always been a copyist dropping a letter for clarification or simplicity, but never adding to Scripture. And the letter Archer wants the copyist to conjure is not a small insignificant letter, it is a rather large and bold one. In fact, Archer wants the copyist to conjure one letter and change another one. This isn’t like English where two vowels might accomplish the same sound, in Hebrew there are no vowels, so this is a completely different sound made. Archer wants the copyist to add a letter and change a letter on one word, and change a letter and drop a letter on another word in order for his theory to become plausible. Therefore, in short, it is not plausible.
As for the weaver bit, I could keep going here, but at this point the copyist just sucks if he’s screwing all this up too. The much more likely explanation is that the David story and the Elhanan story come from two different sources being compiled into what we know as Samuel. The copyist, a good one I should add, decided against editorializing by harmonizing the texts and simply included them both. Chronicles, written later and with a decidedly cleaned up and David-ized bent, does that harmonization there as it does in other places. Is it possible that Elhanan killed Lahmi and not Goliath? Sure it is, but we can’t know that and the text certainly doesn’t say it. But again, this is not a discussion to prove the Bible false, it is simply one to show that Scriptural inspiration and authorship are not what we have long taken them for. This whole thing is an error. Yes, they appear in the Bible. It makes Scripture no less reliable. It simply means that we are going to have to do some good hard work to understand this book.
This leads back to the ‘autographs’ nonsense. There are no ‘original’ copies of the Bible. The ‘Bible’ as we have it did not even appear as a collected work for centuries after its individual parts were written. Early collections of Hebrew Scripture existed, but not in the size or order that we have them. Very few books of the Bible had a single author and none appear free of editing. This makes it impossible for there to be an ‘autograph.’ We are not ‘duty bound’ to harmonize contradictions. This is asking us to look at a tomato and an apple and say they are the same thing. They are not. These contradictions pale compared to the ones present in Jonah vs. Nehemiah/Ezra. And that makes Scripture fuller and richer. Different people at different times have had different understandings of God. And there’s some measure of truth there when we can recognize that God is a mystery and we do not understand him.
As for the census, the ancient Hebrews had no problem assigning God the role of tempter. Pharoah, anyone? Job’s got nothing to do with it. The Chronicler wasn’t influenced by Job, he was influenced by Samuel and the reality of his world and faith. But again, the Chronicler was writing a very pro-David account of his life for the sake of the Davidic line of kings and therefore changed the source material in Samuel to place the blame on Satan. This is because it was written at a time in which the Hebrews did not believe that God tempted. But the writer of Samuel did. Both writers ultimately found David at fault, but again, the point is not to say, “Aha! See, the Bible is wrong!” The point is to say that the Bible presents a variety of understandings about who God is and how He interacts with his people. God did not write the Bible. God inspired people to write it. He did not grab their hands or dictate into their ears. He moved among his people and they were inspired to tell it!
To Matthew and Jeremiah, Craig, when one person says something, then another person says something, and a third person uses the words of the second without mention of the first, you are stretching to say that the third person is really quoting the first even though he doesn’t mention his name or use his words. That’s a stretch. Matthew didn’t quote Jeremiah, he quoted Zecheriah. And you missed the point about authorship. The point is that if what counts is who originated the ideas and expressed them first in determining who to give credit to, which is exactly what you did, then we have a fine example of the Ancient Eastern concept of authorship. Not my idea of that concept; their concept.
Mosaic authorship: Craig is right. Absence of a claim is not proof that Moses didn’t write it. But it sure is one heck of a bad place to start an argument that he did write it. Yes, in Exodus it says that Moses wrote the words of the Lord. It does not say that he wrote what we have as the Pentateuch. I’m great with the idea that Moses wrote a lot of things. But since the books of the Pentateuch weren’t assembled until long after his death, we don’t know what came from him, what came from oral tradition, or what came from other sources.
Yes Scripture is God-breathed, but how does he breathe? We don’t know. Pretending that we do doesn’t get us anywhere. Where does God say that he inspired the exact words? In which case, did he inspire the words we use in English translations? Because we don’t have words for a lot of the concepts in Greek and Hebrew. We do our best. Does God require us all to learn perfect Hebrew and Greek? It’s pointless to conjecture about how God inspired Scripture.
And the ‘originators of the thoughts’ are not always who Scripture says they are. Paul did not write all of the epistles that bear his name. Neither did one man write Isaiah. What this shows is that we don’t know how God inspired, only that God inspired. Authorship is not always what we’ve thought it was, and it certainly isn’t the most important thing.
So back to Moses, his claims are not claims about the books we now have at all. They may not even be claims about the portions of Scripture to which they pertain. All they say is that he wrote what God told him to write. What happened to that writing is a mystery.
And as for the internal issues, pardon me, but foisting miraculous claims upon Scripture where it makes none for itself? Scripture isn’t shy about miraculous claims. Why the end of Deuteronomy? This has nothing to do with miracles or the resurrection. And if Joshua finished the book, we already have multiple uncredited authors. For some reason, it’s okay there, but not elsewhere. Writing ahead about his death? Come on, again, why jump through so many hoops and twist ourselves into knots to try to work out a theory that isn’t even advocated within Scripture!?
“Why must we subject what the Word of God plainly says to all of this scrutiny? Why can't we just trust it?” Seriously? What if we misunderstand? What if it is plain that God supports slavery and misogyny? We certainly can trust Scripture, but we must use every gift and tool God has given us to understand it.
I am not an evolutionist. Period. That position is just as foolish, flawed, and unprovable as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
When I said what I did about the Hebrew word for day, I was not advocating an evolutionist understanding that Genesis is literal except for the fact that we misunderstand the word ‘day.’ I was saying that we impose our worldview on the writers of Genesis who did not share that worldview. The stats about uses of ‘yom’ don’t mean anything since I wasn’t saying the six literal days are actually six literal periods of time.
No, I didn’t care for what Dr. Barr said. It doesn’t ring true to what I see in the wider scholastic world. And my list was merely a few examples because I was being questioned about them. I’m not trying to compare experts here. Oxford is a very good school. Who cares? Teaching at a good school doesn’t make you right.
Finally, I do not use evolution to inform my hermeneutic, and I resent the implication that I am unaware of my ‘true motives.’ I have not sought an interpretation that squared with evolution; I have never advocated evolution! I don’t know what more I could do to again and again and again prove that I’m having a theological conversation and not a scientific one. Of course, it’s much easier to dismiss what I say if I’m some nut who doesn’t even understand his ‘true motives.’ That slur is shameful.
I also resent being told that I’ve been influenced by ‘nebulous ideas of truth and error.’ I have not ‘bought into’ anything and your language makes your condescension plain. I don’t care what Ian Plimmer said. And you have already said that you believe exactly what I’ve said about truth when you acknowledged the value of the parables. There was no widow with a mite, there was no man who bought a field, there was no prodigal son, yet Jesus spoke complete truth. So don’t pretend that you have some higher understanding of truth than I do. All I’ve ever said about truth is that the theological truth of the Bible is not subject to scientific boundaries or understandings. Jesus’ saying about the mustard seed is true without being scientifically accurate.
Your use of Scripture at the end of your last post is terrible. Not a single passage of Scripture you cited is used in correct context. Not a single passage is properly applied. It does no one any good to throw around verses that aren’t anchored in their context. Anyone can support any position from Scripture that way. Using it with a shotgun approach as you did at the end there is the gimmick of someone who can’t actually support their point from Scripture. You can do better.
Bravo Cach, Bravo
If Craig can use the "shotgun" approach to apply scripture to life, does that mean i can have Multiple wives like David, Soloman, Jacob, etc did??? Cause that's scritptural and could make for a good 60 minutes interview
(this is said with complete humor and should in no way be taken seriously)
Well understood Boscoe since we all know you're having enough trouble getting one wife, let alone wives...
keep it comin' craig and cach--bible retard here is learning a ton. you have an audience at this point. but, don't let it go to your heads, this is just highly interesting. i'm encouraging more debate.
Well, as the argument has simmered down a bit between Craig and Cach I would like to thank you both for being as clear as possible and taking the time to express the complex issues discussed here.
I have a few questions. I'll start with Craig. Craig, you said:
"Why must we subject what the Word of God plainly says to all of this scrutiny? Why can't we just trust it?"
In all of your arguments you seem to be bent upon finding no botanical or mathematical error in the bible, anywhere. Even when there seems to be at the very least, on the surface, some blaring contradictions.
One of the problems I have with this statement of yours is that you are assuming that God wants us to say “adios amigos” to our intellect, the intellect that He has given us and in some cases call a triangle a square. When in fact He tells us to not “lean on our own understanding” not altogether ditch it. I believe that this error correction is doing exactly that, -leaning on our own understanding. WE MUST make it true to OUR standards or God is not true.
Without meaning to sound harsh or judgmental, what it really sounds like is that it is you who does not actually trust what God has spoken through the Prophets. I hope that I will always trust in God alone. God alone is perfect. I also know that my concept of perfect in it’s most perfect perfection still cannot measure or encompass the great mystery that is Holy Trinity. There are three parts to the Holy Trinity, not four. My question for you is this; If there were errors in the bible, such as the mustard seed, the rabbit cud, Moses not actually writing all those books, would this weaken your faith? Would this be calling God imperfect?
I believe that one should for sure believe and trust in the Word of God. The living Word that put on flesh and dwelt among us. This is the true Word of God. He is the ultimate truth of God without error. This is where we place our complete faith. Even if all the faith we have amounts only to that debated mustard seed. That is the truth of that statement by our Lord.
God uses the Bible to strengthen us, give us clarity about his character and tell the great drama of his reaching into mankind to restore us to Himself. I believe this is miraculous and beautiful. However, I do not believe the beautiful to ever be without some strangeness in proportion. These idiosyncrasies are the very things that give the scripture the aroma of the real.
Honestly one of the things that causes the bible to ring true to me, from beginning to end are these small, wonderful "errors." It tells of a people who are concerned with a greater truth, not correcting errors. They copied them as they were. Do you think that the old Jews didn't catch these little bits? Do you think that it didn't cross their minds about Moses? I tend to think that when they read these scriptures and passed down these stories from generation to generation they were doing so to find God and Remember Him and HIS truth rather than a preserve a well copied and recorded, mathematically correct matrix of revelation.
One of the reasons we can know that the Gospels are true 1st century documents is that they are so well preserved with all of their different chronologies and discrepancies. At the end of the 1st century Jerusalem fell and fell hard. In fact it was pretty much burned to the ground. What was in circulation at the time stayed preserved without change. This tells us that something really happened. Several people recorded the event, possibly drawing from one source, and they remained unaltered instead of the original documents thrown out replaced by perfected and harmonized text.
I believe that God always requires faith. He never robs of our free will. But it is never a blind faith. Making the presented assumptions here seems more like a blind faith to me.
Snoopy, in case you missed it, I have never commented one bit about Craig's person or his profession. I have stuck with ideas, theories, and beliefs. And actually, I also never questioned his sincerity. That's the one thing I'm totally sure of. You seem to have confused the two of us here. It was Craig who questioned my sincerity. He questioned my sincerity and my motives. He assumed the worst of where I was coming from, not the other way around. And he's the one who shot warnings and advice towards my career, again, not the other way around. That’s the reason my last response was a bit more pointed. But reread it; I never questioned Craig’s sincerity or character.
As for what you said to Seth, no, I'm sorry; a PhD in Astrophysics does not automatically dismiss Seth's theory. Surely you can't be honestly contending that. Were that the case, then I'm afraid my MDiv would mean I automatically won every theological discussion. And no one seems to have accorded me that place. Having a degree doesn't necessarily make you smart or right. That's why we've had this discussion rather than just finding the highest degreed person we could and asking him/her for the official line.
And again, I don't appreciate the tone that you fire off towards me. That last line is very telling that you hold me in quite a bit of disdain when I've not made a single disparaging remark about anyone's person or career. You expect me to be somehow lower or less worthy because you disagree with my positions. That's hardly fair. I haven't mentioned Craig's future as an astrophysicist because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Coincidentally, I hope he has a wonderful career. More importantly, I hope he has a wonderful and blessed life. I really don't care nearly as much for careers as I do for lives.
Do I pray for him? Or you? Or Seth? Or this discussion? Well, I've already begun compiling my notes for a manuscript as I hope that it will be the result of my time spent mentoring before being awarded my MDiv. I plan to continue to study Biblical inspiration and interpretation in even more depth and make it my culminating project before graduating. I take this very seriously and yes, I pray for you all and about this often. Why would that be in doubt?
okay, just wanted to say that i know it is hard, but let's keep it as impersonal as possible because, the ol' devil doesn't want to see us you all debating anymore in the future; because frankly, it has been reaching too many people. anger aside, let's move to forgiveness, humility, ect. ect., all those good christian virtues we've all been taught. skip the feathers being ruffled.
i have learned so much from both arguements and i would hate to see these great minds never meet again. come on people! peace. keep it comin'. i need to learn more. take the high road.
man, i really can't spell.
one more thing. for the sake of getting to 100, and also for an outside, and not "hacked off" perspective.
i grew up not being in the slightest bit intimidated by whether or not every word in the bible is true or not. i wonder what the danger in rabbit cud, mustard seeds, and goliath's demise really is. it all seems petty and unimportant. however, correct me if i am wrong here craig, i am just trying to get to the over-all point; are we really sub-consciously affected by modern science? do we really adapt our beliefs to modern science and we don't even know it? is this your overall point?
and cach, isn't your overall point that we should use the bible as a tool to have a relationship with the living God, not as a science book at all?
opera papa and i could use a summary from both cach and craig, just to clarify what the overall assertion of each person is.
summarize it for me. i am still learning and mulling it over. i am being stretched here.
Chilliax Snoop. I calmly and honestly expressed my views. I have a great deal of respect for Craig and I hope that was conveyed. I am sure that Craig is plenty capabale of defending himself and doesn't need Mother Bear lashing away at people who disagree with his points.
In all honesty when you unsheathe your sisterly sword you aren't helping him to prove his points. However, having a few protective sisters I can surely understand your reaction. But again, relax.... breath.... be nice.
If I have misread Craig's remarks then I am totally ready to hear his counter-remarks.
That being said, Craig, if I have insulted you then I truly, offer my sincere apologies. Please continue to speak your mind for as long as you like. I have rather enjoyed this discussion even if it does get a bit heated from time to time.
one last thing in a british accent! Cheerio!
Snippy, i mean,...Snoopy, ( JUST KIDDN'!!!)
you said:
"We MUST make it true to OUR standards!" What the heck is that? OUR standards?!!!! You honestly believe that, Seth? I'm totally shocked."
I was actually making a statement on how "MAKING something true to OUR standards" is what people are doing when they try to correct clerical or grammatical contradictions in the Bible for the purpose of supporting THEIR theory or concept of inerrancy. In their minds, how can they trust in "Scripture Alone" if there are ANY errors of ANY kind? In short, I was trying to say that I DO NOT buy into that mindset. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
"Sola Scriptura" has turned into "Worshipa Scriptura" and it is fueling the flames of the very kinds of legalism that Luther was trying to destroy by embracing it... It has become in itself a tradition, but that is for another discussion.
And for the record, how could anyone pay attention in geometry class when your teachers comb-over is flapping like a flag?
A summary would be a great idea, O-mo. I'll work on it soon.
hey guys just thought i'd
get us to that 100 marker.
and not think that the discussion must end.
Here goes my shot at a summary to this point:
I tried to avoid getting bogged down in a debate about how and why certain perceived ‘errors’ appear in Scripture because that debate completely misses the point. So here’s the point:
The Bible is an inspired collection of writings that tell us about our God and his interaction with and plan for people. It is authoritative to shape our reality and change that reality supernaturally by the power of God. More than that, it can create our reality; a new reality – as we become new creations in Christ.
But where does that power come from? Scripture’s power, its authority, is not its own. The whole of the Old Testament, while standing on its own, points to Christ and yearns for him. It leans towards messiah at every step. And the New Testament is witness to and recollections of Jesus, both God and man, during his time on Earth. God’s incarnation, that act, is the source of authority to which the Old Testament leans and the New Testament recalls. God is the authority.
Scripture is the revelation of God through the community of faith. It is not God and its authority is not its own. The community of faith has been very different at different times. Therefore we should not be surprised to find differing theology reflected within Scripture. (This is very clearly illustrated in Jonah vs. Nehemiah/Ezra) Yet we are the richer for the tension there. We have reflections of God as seen through different communities of faith right next to each other! And since Scripture is not the authority itself, but rather a reflection of authority, the discrepancies cannot lessen Scriptural authority. So when Kings and Chronicles disagree, we do not have one ‘right’ account and one ‘wrong’ account; we have two accounts that reflect different communities of faith and their understanding of and relationship with God. What changed? The community. What didn’t? The authority: God. Differing accounts of one event do not need to be harmonized; they are different reflections of God. And they are both authoritative because they both are responses to the same authority. So the various and differing ways that the events of Christ are retold and recalled, the perceived ‘errors’ and ‘conflicts’ of the Old Testament, and the differences in multiple reports of the same events do not lessen Scripture’s authority. That authority is not its own! It is derivative of God and is in sympathy with his authority and his reality and his truth. Scripture is the compass, not the magnetic force.
Ultimately, acceptance of Scripture’s authority and inspiration is a matter of faith. It is not internally verifiable because it contains or points to some great internal ‘Truth.’ It points to God – a Being not a concept. The Bible is not authoritative because it is ‘True.’ Rather it is true because of whose authority it has. But that urge to insist that the Bible is ‘True’ and therefore must be internally consistent and historically verifiable remains appealing because it seems somehow stronger than acknowledging that our acceptance of Scripture is in the end nothing more nor less than a matter of faith. So if the Bible then has its authority because it is ‘True,’ it must be without error, or inerrant. And yet those errors, contradictions, discrepancies, tensions, and problems remain. (Those are what we’ve been going back and forth about through this posting.) So in order to harmonize those problems, in the end, it always comes down to “autographs” and “copyist errors.” In order for the internal ‘Truth’ appeal to work, there must exist unverifiable documents that can never be found and never be proved. There must have been mistakes made that cannot be witnessed or traced. At best, motives must be guessed at to explain to our satisfaction how something seemingly contradictory is actually harmonious. And so without being aware of it, the effort to gain something stronger than acceptance of inspiration and authority on the basis of faith comes down to blind faith that those mysterious “autographs” exist or those copyists must have made an error despite lack of proof.
So in truth, rather than Scripture having power and authority because of what it is, (inerrant, literal, historical), it has that power and authority because of what it does. Scripture, after all, is still authoritative and inspired because its source is still so. God is, and therefore the power lives on. Scripture changes us, as I’ve said. It shapes our reality and creates our community of faith new each day just as the community of faith brought it into existence. This is why the formation of the canon took the process that it did. Read about the Council of Nicaea. Canon was not formed by a process of discerning ‘Truth’ within the various Scriptures, it was a response to how those Scriptures were being used within the community of faith. Canon had authority because of what it was doing within the community to shape and create it. The power of Scripture is now; its power is not confined to what it once was, (i.e.: inerrant autographs.)
So no, the Bible does not have to agree with nature and Genesis 1-11 does not need to be literal or historical. The Bible is God-inspired, not God himself. Creation preceded Scripture, and Scripture is the inspired description by the community of faith of the acts of God. Scripture is not the authority nor is nature. God is the authority. God is omniscient; Scripture is not.
Can Jesus have made a statement that doesn’t correspond with nature? Of course he can. Jesus is God and was begotten not made. He was there from the beginning in a way we cannot understand. Neither can we understand fully the incarnation. How was he God and man at the same time? How could God be born? Be wholly dependant on a human mother? Bleed and die? Though Jesus was fully God, he was also fully human. And though he is eternal, he was also temporal. Jesus was not wrong about nature; he was speaking from the self-imposed limitation of a first century Jew.
This whole discussion about the mustard seed is continually missing the point. The point is that this is a wonderful example of how Scripture is not authoritative over nature: God is. Neither is Scripture subject to nature. They need not be harmonized since they both derive authority from God. Look instead to the authority. That is what Scripture tells us to do. All of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament bear witness to a higher authority and a higher power. Even Jesus points to his Father in Heaven. So don’t get caught up in wrestling matches with yourself trying to make square pegs fit in round holes. Let the richness and diversity within Scripture be yet another light that points to the ultimate authority behind it all: God. And recognize that your best efforts will fall short; it requires faith.
Romans 10:17 - Part of a larger teaching by St. Paul that tells us that salvation is for everyone. This is a missional passage that contradicts the teaching of Judaizers who believed that salvation was only for Jews and legalists that held to salvation by law.
The verse actually says, "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ." Note that this is 'word' not 'Word.' That's because the Greek is 'hrema' not 'logos.' Logos is the heavy word that means 'word, matter, or deed' and refers to the incarnate God. 'Hrema' means a 'word or saying.' What Paul is saying is that faith, (the faith that is referred to in Rom. 10:6 and 8), comes from what Christ said and taught. Again, we have Paul pointing away from himself to a higher authority. He wasn't talking about Scripture at all; He wasn't even talking about the incarnation. There was no canon when he wrote this nor even a collection of writings that would fit under the designation of New Testament. Paul is saying that faith comes from the sayings and words of Christ which must be passed on through the community of faith.
Scripture speaks very little about itself because it has no sense of self - only a sense of God.
To interject for a bit; Craig, you said:
"One of the ways around what I just wrote is to redefine the word "truth". Let's not do this. Truth may be defined as "that which does not distort the facts". If Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, while the fact is that it is not the smallest seed, then He has distorted the facts and not told the truth. He is either ignorant or lying."
The issue is inerrancy and are their different levels of inerrancy and not Absolute Truth. You are using God as your standard of what is 'truth" then you say that the scripture is NOT God, then you say that Scripture is "true" just as God is True, in EVERY aspect, therefore claiming it has all of the fullness of the diety of God-the ultimate Truth. Why not just come out and say that the bible is God? However if you accept the idea of different levels of inerrancy then you can allow for gramatical, clerical, statistical errors and the message of the Scripture- the Love of God- remains true. You might ask "well how can we know if any of it is true if some of it might be wrong?" well, my friend, Faith, understanding, wisdom, tradition, and a the Holy Spirit working in them all. It starts with God and ends with God. In the middle is limited man writing down the inspired thoughts.
I imagine that the idea of different levels of inerrancy must be a tough pill to swallow for a man of science or Math but then again, like it has been said here many times before by you and Cach, She ain't a science book.
I like what C.S. Lewis says here about the inerrancy of the Good Book.
"Therefore, I think, RULE OUT the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients."
As stated before, you are demanding a type of inerrancy from the authors that would not have crossed their minds.
Back to your Jesus/ignorant statement:
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
The co-existenc in Christ of a human intellect with the divine intellect may at first seem more difficult to conceive than the coexistence of two wills. That the human intellect proceeds toward knowledge "discursively", as philosophers say, step by step. The external world hits us in the face, the soul forms its concepts, compares the concepts to form judgements, and as experience increases, its knowledge grows. This is how Jesus "Grew in Wisdom" But this is all still limited.
I will be the first to admit that it is very hard to understand that the one identical person who by his divine nature knew all things could also proceed to aquire by the operation of His human intellect scattered sparkles of the infinite light of knowledge in which He already lived. It is hard to conceive but not inconceivable.
The human nature and the divine nature belonged to one person, but they are not one nature. The one person could operate, really and truly, in both natures. If Our Lord wanted to lift a load, He could have lifted it either by the effortless motion of the divine will (by simply willing it) or by the hard effort of the human muscles. His human nature was a reality, his human senses and His human intellect were reality. His human senses could not do other than receive the impact of the external world; His human intellect could not do other than act upon their evidence to form concepts and judgments. Let us be really careful not to fall into some early heresies about Christ. The Godhead did not swallow up the manhood. So you could say, He chose what he needed to know.
That ALLLLLLL being said, I acutally think He knew, but hey, He might not have. However, I don't think that was the point of the story. If he would have used a different seed than the mustard seed, the one that the Hebrew would have identified as the smallest of all seeds, the analogy would have been pretty much worthless.
this is like, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
if i may add, in layman's terms, not at all learned mind you, my humble opinion. (in other words, i feel a bit silly because i am just giving my impression here, and it's not at all scholastic.) aside: where is fancy pants?
in the book of John it begins something like this...in the beginning was the word and the word was flesh and dwelled among us. my impression was that John was referring to Jesus here. my point of saying that was to say that Jesus and the word are the same. I think that craig's point is, how can Jesus contradict himself if he is the word? However, i think that cach is saying that it takes faith to know Jesus, and the true "word" is not the scripture, but Jesus himself. thus, knowing Jesus is knowing the word. However, how can you know Jesus, if you don't read the written scripture--another one of craig's points. But, Jesus can come to someone without them ever having read the word--like when he revealed himself to Paul. I think this is where you have to believe in the trinity of 3, instead of 4, which means that the bible is not part of the divine trinity. But, how can you know about the trinity without reading the bible? arrrgggghhhh....
just read seth's comment, was commenting at the same time....must ponder...
I'm here, OpMom!
I've been absent from the blogosphere as of late...extremely busy. Wish I didn't get behind on this one, though.
This is some spicy stuff!
I'm not done... I'll be back. Just really busy right now. I've got more to add. Just give me a day here...
Scripture is not a written record of what God has said, no. Scripture contains written records of what God has said. The difference is significant. Scripture is not intended to be authoritative over nature. It does not claim to be, it is not used as such within itself, it does not need to be.
Paul knew what God authorized the same way I do: the Holy Spirit through the mediation of the community of faith. In Paul’s case it was oral, for me it is written in Scripture, and for both of us it is transmuted through the community of believers. Would anyone suggest that the medium by which Paul heard the words and message of Christ is inferior to mine simply because mine was written? Isn’t the message the same? Then the content of the message, not the medium, contains the authority and inspiration. This is why the Holy Spirit can reach someone who has been witnessed to and not just those who are literate and have access to a Bible. The authority is God – not Scripture.
O-mo, you are correct, in John 1, Jesus is the Word. But when John says that Jesus is the Word, he does not mean that Jesus is Scripture. Scripture, as such, did not exist in John’s time; at least not the New Testament in any form, and not the Old Testament in a fully collected form. What John means, and this is one of the most beautiful and poetic passages in Scripture, is that Jesus is the eternal source and deed of God. To the Greeks, to whom John wrote and from whose culture he wrote, when a thing was spoken it took life. When a logos, or word/matter/deed, was spoken it was a unique and living thing. John is saying Jesus is the eternal logos. From the beginning he was. From the beginning he is God’s mediation to creation.
So yes, O-mo, it takes faith to know Jesus. And Jesus is the Word; not Scripture. Scripture is called the Word of God, but not in the Bible. And the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three parts – all God. But the doctrine of the Trinity is something else that isn’t in the Bible. The word ‘Trinity’ appears nowhere in Scripture. It is part of Christian doctrine because it has been communicated to us through Scripture and the community of faith, but it is not spelled out in Scripture. That’s one reason that so many people misunderstand it; it is difficult to understand.
So it’s not really ‘chicken or egg’ since it’s not ‘which comes first: faith or Scripture?’ God is first. Revelation comes from God. Faith follows revelation. Scripture is one way, one of the very most important ways, that God reveals himself. It is not the only way, but it is one of the most beautiful and wonderful ways.
Seth, may I copy and pull some of the discussion from this post for a post over on my site?
Seth, thanks for pointing this thread out again. I read through it yesterday and found it very helpful and thought-provoking. (and when I copied and pasted it into Word, it was 76 pages long :-)
Cach, thanks for taking the time to explain the things you have. You mentioned a number of things I hadn't heard before that are helpful as I'm forming what I believe about scripture.
Go for it! Pull it all if you like. However the sucker is 76 pages as Stephen discovered.
Cool, thanks man. I'm going to be doing a few different things over at Cachinnation Central in the coming days.
And Stephen, thanks for the encouragement. It's a privilege.
Apparently the link I tried to put in that last comment was no good. Let's try again.
I suck.
Okay, I think I've got it now.
Did anyone catch Newsweek's interview with Billy Graham? You can find it on the web here.
Here are some excerpts from the interview that touch on this subject:
The new interviews with NEWSWEEK, however, reveal a more intriguing figure than either his followers or his critics might assume. He is an evangelist still unequivocally committed to the Gospel, but increasingly thinks God's ways and means are veiled from human eyes and wrapped in mystery. "There are many things that I don't understand," he says. He does not believe that Christians need to take every verse of the Bible literally; "sincere Christians," he says, "can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology—absolutely."
Graham spends hours now with his Bible, at once savoring and reconsidering old stories and old lessons. While he believes Scripture is the inspired, authoritative word of God, he does not read the Bible as though it were a collection of Associated Press bulletins straightforwardly reporting on events in the ancient Middle East. "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years." He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative—a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California's San Bernardino Mountains. Troubled, Graham wandered into the woods one night, put his Bible on a stump and said, "Lord, I don't understand all that is in this book, I can't explain it all, but I accept it by faith as your divine word."
Now, more than half a century later, he is far from questioning the fundamentals of the faith. He is not saying Jesus is just another lifestyle choice, nor is he backtracking on essentials such as the Incarnation or the Atonement. But he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points. Like Saint Paul, he believes human beings on this side of paradise can grasp only so much. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror," Paul wrote, "then we shall see face to face." Then believers shall see: not now, but then.
Debates over the exact meaning of the word "day" in Genesis (Graham says it is figurative; on the other hand, he thinks Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale) or whether the "Red Sea" is better translated as "sea of reeds"—which takes Moses' miracle out of the realm of Cecil B. DeMille—or the actual size of ancient armies in a given battle may seem picayune to some. For many conservative believers, however, questioning any word of the Bible can cast doubt on all Scripture. Graham's position, then, while hardly liberal, is more moderate than that of his strictest fellow Christians.
Mr. C, I can appreciate your point about Jesus using the the "written word" to defeat Satan. I also appreciate what you said about admitting scriptural has errors can be a slippery slope to anything goes. I think you are right on both accounts. I'd like to hear you explain a couple of things though. This cannon you speak of - I assume you mean the Bible as the protestant church has it. What version of it is inspired? The apocryphal books, are they too inspired? If not, then don't we use reason and logic and things other than "scripture" to decide what is and isn't scripture. How can the Bible be higher authority than the intelect that went into deciding what constitutes the Bible? Second, the scriptures you listed speak of "Scripture" and "sacred command" but how can you take that to mean the Bible - both OT and NT? That concept didn't exist when that was written. If God meant the Bible when he used those words, Scripture and sacred command, I believe he would have defined it a little more clearly.
And now my BIG question, I think we agree that the Bible is God's message to us - literal, innerant, or just general concepts - It's His message to us. Agreed? If so, where in this Bible does it prophecy of itself? Where does it define itself? If God meant it to be taken as the ABSOLUTE measure or all things historical and scientific and philosophical, surely such a Holy Word would contain passages that speak of it's definition/origin. Why aren't there any prophecies about the Counsel of Rome or 66 books or any such thing?
Finally, I think fear of the slippery slope drives Christians to do things God doesn't like. I think a fixed standard or Biblical absolutes makes it easy for us to act without thinking. It's the mindset of "the Bible said it and I will obey without question." I personally don't think God ever intended us to subjegate the mind he gave us to anything except His will revealed TO US PERSONALLY. Fundamentalist like to use the inerant Bible as the fulcrum by which they lever the church to extreme poles which the Bible can be construed to endorse. If you turn your mind off and say the Bible says it, I will obey blindly, then you do yourself and God a diservice. He never asked us to do that. In my mind, God speaks to us individually if we take the time to listen. Sure this means that we will never agree on many doctrines because every man approaches them from his paradigm, his grid, his reality, but that's OK. Making the Bible innerant doesn't solve that problem anyway. As you mentioned, there are as many flavors of Christianity as there are Christians. Every one has his own spin if you will. Claiming the Bible is innerant is just man's desire for absolutes to build his worldview on. It's hard to want a fragmented society where each man follows God's voice revealed to him/her because it's nebulous and unprovable but I think it's powerful enough to draw us all in the same direction if we let it. Does any of this make sense? Keep in mind my opinions are just that - opinions. I claim no cornerhold on truth and will humbly and truly listen to counterpoints. Anyone?
raig, I appreciate your thoughts. I have not doubt that God is the author, inspiration, spirit, and truth behind scripture. So fear not, you are not the sole surviving torchbearer of Christian Orthodoxy.
The issue at hand is inerrancy. It has been the issue from the beginning when 6 days became the hot topic. You have your definition, I have mine. You hold the Bible to that set of standards and see it only through that lens. I believe that inerrancy is a made up word after the reformation to insure a stability of the reformation that didn't need to answer to the Catholic Church. Since that happened, the Protestant Church has split into a thousand parts. The very reason there are a thousand denominations goes back to the issue of inerrancy. Everyone has his or her standard. If I don’t like your standard and you don’t believe that last Chapter of Mark just as valid as the first chapter then by golly, I’ll just start my own church that believes you can pick up snakes and drink strychnine to prove that last chapter in Mark as valid. You say 6 days mean 6 days as we think of it today, I say that it could mean 6 time periods.
Augustine was one of the first Champions of the idea of the Bible being without error yet he also thought that the first 2 chapters of Genesis could be taken Allegorically and still be thought of without error. Your way of viewing Genesis has been the view of the majority of Protestant Christians for the past 200 years or so I think mine has gone back to at least Augustine and possibly the Savior Himself. “A day is but a thousand years...” Could it be in this statement that Jesus was alluding to that fact that things are a bit more complex than you can imagine them or communicate them?
You must realize that you draw from not only Scripture but also tradition. You know and agree with the dogma of Hypostatic do you not? I am glad you do because if you did not you would be considered a heretic by Orthodox Christianity. And what is the view of Hypostatic Union? Traditional Dogma. You use the word Trinity do you not? -Tradition accepted by vote and put in Creed at the council of Nicea. You trust the Cannon and the books that got voted in? Tradition.
What do I mean by tradition? Without opening ANOTHER a big can of worms, I mean God speaking through his Church by means of the Holy Spirit. (That isn’t my definition btw) What kept Jesus from being thought of as Half God half man rather than fully God fully Man???? A vote guided by the Holy Spirit working in his Church interpreting Scripture. That view was withheld and it was decided that was the will of the Holy Spirit to keep and NOT CHANGE that view. All views held by the Church (save a few) have been withheld by a great tradition in which you are a part of. The body of Christ is just that, HIS body. HIS tradition. And believing that the Scripture is the truth of God is a part of that tradition. “The very truth of God not the invention of any man” (Chesterton)
What do we have to keep that tradition in check? Scripture. What do we have to make sure the scripture is interpreted correctly? The Church Tradition to which Jesus told Peter that the Gates of Hell will not conquer. Who starts, guides, and finishes the whole process? God Almighty. That is why I said it begins and ends with Him. Why we all have different views of Communion is another argument, we all still take it do we not? You might not realize this but you view just about every theological iota that you hold dear, including the interpretation of the Scripture seen starting with the acceptance of the doctrines found in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds.
Again, no one is arguing whether God said these things in the Bible. No one is arguing whether we believe if God “penned” them. We are and have been arguing inerrancy and what this blasted word and “penned” really means. You gave a definition a few hundred posts back that went something like this. “One of the ways around what I just wrote is to redefine the word "truth". Let's not do this. (You are calling truth inerrancy) Truth may be defined as "that which does not distort the facts”
So is that God’s definition of Truth or Webster’s? What “facts” are you talking about? Are you calling 6 days a fact? By what standard do you measure the Fact? Your 21st century common sense standard? What does “distort” mean? Do you think that not taking the first couple chapters of Genesis as literal a “distortion”? You might, but I don’t.
So the question is and has been inerrancy. All questions in this discussion swing around, bounce, skip, and trot inside and out pertaining to this funny little word.
So the real question is this. Who decides just how “inerrant” something is? You? Calvin? Luther? Me? Cach? None of the above in isolation. (That is why I left tradition in my sentence and notice I said “the Holy Spirit working through them all”)
You said: “There is very little internal consistency within the "community of faith". However, there is always internal consistency within Scripture.”
It is that very lack of ‘Authority’ that causes so many arguments and internal inconsistencies. It is over the Scripture that the internal consistency arguments are made and different denominational lines are drawn. The very argument here is over that internal consistency. What ruler do you measure that “internal consistency” of the scripture by? Internal consistency is yet another way of jittering around the word inerrancy. The point that we have been trying to make from the beginning was that there are different levels of inerrancy, just like the Orthodox Church has believed down through the ages. BTW when you say Orthodox whose orthodoxy are you meaning? The Church of England? The Orthodoxy established by John Calvin? The… Catholic Orthodoxy? Or do you mean the agreed Orthodoxy of the Church on the whole conveniently found in the collected works of C.S. Lewis? If that is the case then we should have no problem with this quote I’ll take the time to show again.
“Therefore, I think, RULE OUT the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. THE VERY KIND OF TRUTH WE ARE OFTEN DEMANDING WAS, IN MY OPINION, NOT ENVISAGED BY THE ANCIENTS.”
It is the KIND OF TRUTH that you are demanding when interpreting the scripture is what we are disagreeing with here Craig.
Hey opera papa just say yours, will read tomorrow!
Good words Criag. Again, we disagree but I appreciate your tenacity and commitment in the face of opposition - a true soldier. I owe you words but need some time to digest and - dare I use this word - ruminate ;) Peace.
I am sorry for the length of this sucker but I have wanted to backtrack and clear up some contradictions I have felt were made in thing you wrote before I dive into that slippery little fish of a term called "inerrancy."
So here we go.
1.
you said: "I advocate reading the Bible plainly. By that, I mean to let poetry be read as poetry (certainly not nonfiguratively) and let historical narrative be read as historical narrative. In the first case (poetry) I would not read the Bible in a literal sense. In the second case (historical narrative) I would read the Bible in a literal sense."
By saying this then you actually agree with Lewis’s quote. You are essentially arguing for different levels of inerrancy.
Also, by using the word “plainly” do you realize that you set a standard for everyone else to read the bible as understood in your point of reference, in many cases endangering true context. They must be read in the context of your choosing for them to be truly understood. You are making the decisions on what is to be read as what. Is this not leaning on your own understanding? You are sort of trying to have your cake and eat it too here. As a matter of fact there is nothing plain at all about reading the bible. If the spirit isn’t in it, you ain’t gonna get it.
2.
“I do not believe that a literal historical understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is a necessary condition of salvation. I mean that the literal historical truth of Genesis is required for the gospel to be real and not some myth. One can believe like a little child without even being aware of the origins debate.”
In this paragraph you contradict yourself. You say that believing the Genesis story as literal is not a prerequisite of salvation but then you say that by not understanding it literally you are calling the Gospel a myth and not real. So it would be like me saying. “Craig, you don’t have to believe that I am rich to be rich, it is just that if you don’t except the fact that I am rich to my standads, you will only be fake rich.” In other words, you might reword it as this: “you don’t have to believe the literal translation to be saved, it is just that if you don’t, you are in turn saying that the Gospels are myth as well, therefore by virtue of a lack of faith, you are not saved.” You are setting the reader up to read with a cocked gun to his head. “Hey read it and live, and you don’t have to believe it as literal, but if you don’t believe it as literal then unfortunately the trigger on that gun goes off. It’s the derndest thing.”
3.
You say: “No, I'll not use the writings of ANY mere mortal as a basis for my beliefs.”
Then you are quick to quote your favorite scholars and Preachers to uphold your view of Scripture-
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said in 1877:__‘We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. ...ibid
4. (really a side note not contradiction)
While we are on authors, does Spurgeon hold more significance than Lewis. I am afraid not.
You quickly dismissed Lewis’s credibility by slinging without documentation, misinterpreted and slanderous statements about Lewis. When in fact not only did he believe in Hell but he also believed in Purgatory of some sorts. It is like saying, "not only was he a Lord of the Rings fan, but he could read and right Elvish." In the past 30 years, for some reason, there has been an onslaught of slanderous attacks on the theology of Lewis, possibly because fundamentalist have become more and more fundamental in the past 30 years. Some go as far to say that he was Catholic at the end, which is, when put lightly and elegantly, Bull Crapola. Even his Catholic FRIENDS agreed to his dying as a protestant.
Then I am afraid this next statement irritated me a bit. “Nevertheless, I'm sure God used C.S. Lewis in many good ways.” Without being disrespectful, this statement is a bit arrogant. There has nary been a more influential Christian Thinker in the 20th Century than Clive Staples Lewis. His influence in the Kingdom of God for good is more far reaching than you can imagine. Because he disagrees with your interpretation, or someone’s interpretation of Hell that you are reading, does not mean that his influence or importance is diminished. And for the recrod, this Hell misunderstanding comes from His statement about Hell being a state of Mind. Well, your mind is essentially your soul. So therefore it goes without saying that hell has a great deal to do with the state of your soul. Eternal separation from God is no laughing matter, with or without the fire. Nor does Lewis deserve the scraps from the table with any preface baring the word “nevertheless” as if he is a big screw up who accidentally did some good on Gods behalf. It is almost as strange as saying, “well Billy Graham doesn’t take the bible as literal as I’d like but, nevertheless, I am sure God did some good evangelical things through Billy.” Here again, I may be a little defensive here as a Lewis fan.
5.
You said: “When it makes a claim regarding nature, it must correspond to physical reality. It need not correspond to the science of the day.”
Is not your understanding of the Physical reality in which you live completely correspond to how you scientifically understand it? Which is why there are all these YE theories being proposed and attempts made at biblically substantiating them, mainly, because they feel that the scripture must be taken literally in the way the interpret it.
So once again by saying it needs to correspond to physical reality, you are really saying that it really does need the Science. If you lived 1700 years ago you wouldn’t have thought twice about thinking of a day as a period of time. Now with your scientific hindsight you not only think twice but you say that it must be literal days.
Cach summed it up best in this paragraph worth repeating:
Cach: here’s what I’ve been trying to say one piece at a time: our perspective, from which we read Scripture, is one of a modern Westerner who is thoroughly influenced by the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. It is beaten into us from the day of our birth. We are indoctrinated in that way of thinking all through school, (touching on our original topic!) Yet Scripture was written by Ancient Easterners. They did not have the same ideas about authorship. They were not concerned with empirical verifiability. Strict chronology was not even a matter in their head. They did not understand history in terms of events or sequences but in terms of people. Ideas that we see as conflicting, they would lay side-by-side and accept as facets of the same instead of polar opposites. These are traits that we observe not only in Scripture but in much ancient literature. And holy and inspired though it is, the Bible is still a work of ancient literature as well. That is its medium.
6.
“Traditions come and go. One day everyone is a Calvinist and the next we're all Arminians, etc. The Scipture is the one thing that never changes.”
Then you say
“My adherence to TIME-TESTED orthodoxy does, however. And that orthodoxy is based on the Bible itself.”
So in essence you do acknowledge the importance of tradition and its part in affirming Orthodoxy. This is exactly my point about the balance of tradition and Scripture. I couldn’t have said it better.
6.
You said, “If I draw from tradition at all, it is from tradition that is based upon the written word of God. I get neither the doctrine of the hypostatic union, nor the doctrine of the Trinity from any tradition; but ultimately from Scripture” and “These doctrines were not invented by a vote at the council of Nicea.”
Is that where you learned those terms? Hypostatic and Trinity? I am sure you just stumbled upon them and weren’t looking for greater understanding or aid from traditional Orthodoxy.
7.
Then you say:”The council of Nicea simply affirmed and DEVELOPED the teachings of the apostles”
So you say that these things weren’t invented (which I never claimed) but then you admit that they were "developed", based on the teachings of the Apostles. -My point exactly. That “development” that you speak of is the tradition that I am talking about. This tradition is tested by time just as you said. And through time God weeds out the lies. The Arian Heresy stuck around for a good 500 years and still crops its head up every so often. How does this truth endure? The Church and the Traditions of understanding Scripture that have been established infused with the light of understanding by the Holy Spirit.
OVERVIEW OF SCRIPTRURE FROM MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.
Here is the way that I look at it. God Spoke through the Prophets. These things were written down. In the earliest Church, people proclaimed the Good news by the power of the Holy Spirit infused at Pentecost. At first they did this totally by word of mouth, in all different languages. Everyone, including the Apostles thought Jesus was coming back in their lifetime. When the Apostles were dying off or killed rather, they rightly figured it a good idea to write their accounts down. Paul Came along and wrote letters to the Church explaining further the Christ event telling people to simmer down and get some order, essentially establishing a traditional way of doing things. He wasn’t the only one with these revelations. Others were given that beautiful light. The writer of Hebrews, Peter, John, James. Some Completely uneducated men in fact. So, Jerusalem fell and the Church went on. Apostolic succession was established of some sorts and Letters and Gospels were circulated. Was the Holy Spirit done? Don’t think so. God had set a Cornerstone of a larger structure. That Cornerstone was to continue to protect and interpret his revelation now preserved in the Scripture. The structure, his bride, will someday be completed when He returns. This preservation of that Structure until then is what we call tradition. Man did not make this tradition; it was made and decreed by Christ Himself to Peter. So when people came along and decided to interpret Scripture differently, the Church said no. That “no” stuck and gave clarity to the revelation. More tradition. (HOLY SPIRIT GUIDED TRADTION mind you.) If it were not for the Church authority, interpreting the scripture based on orthodox interpretation, and we were left to interpret scripture as we want, we might be all starting our own cults and churches ourselves. I can, and have come up with, ALL KINDS of fun little heresies left to me, myself and I and the Scripture. I need help. I admit that. It’s okay. Help is the there. The Holy Spirit and tradition to make sure it is the Holy Spirit talkin' and not the burito I had for lunch, or the infatuation I might have had for some girl.
8.
You said: "Who decides just how 'inerrant' something is?"__God decides. He already did when His Holy Spirit spoke the words of Scripture to the human writers.
But we are still left with you deciding how to interpret how and what God decides? Because believing in a literal 6-day span of creation is still your opinion of how the Scripture is interpreted my friend.
9.
I said, "What ruler do you measure that 'internal consistency' of the scripture by?"_
You said: “The only ruler is Scripture itself. We compare spiritual things with spiritual (II Corintians 2:13). Internal consistency is important because all Scripture is God's Word.”
Here you are once again saying scripture measures scripture but you are really saying is, YOUR interpretation of Scripture measures YOUR interpretation of Scripture. Unless of course you mean YOUR interpretation based on the traditional orthodox teachings of the Church about scripture, then you are in the clear my brother.
You so desperately want to rely on Scripture alone to discern truth. Yet you read other wise men and Saints of the past to help you. If you rely on Scripture Alone then why all the referencing? Why the need for context? It is the problem with the Idea of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. You stand on the Creeds and traditions of the Church and say that you don’t need them.
Allow me to indulge in a brief allegory to explain my view of tradition and your dependence upon it. It may come of childish and condescending and it might just make things more confusing but I want to establish what I mean by tradition. I probably need this more than you, so stick with me.
Let us say that you want to learn fly to the great Pilot. Along with a plane and you have been given the flight manual. This flight manual was in many parts at first because it was written by a small group of original pilots taught by the Great Pilot Himself. These pilots only wrote what the Great and first Pilot told them to say. Soon after these original pilots died their followers put the writings together and formed “The Manual” Some of the things in that manual are hard to read and understand. Some chapters have terms and concepts are difficult to define. It is a great comfort to know that the main Pilot taught the first group of Pilots and he established this school of Pilots that would pass on these traditions written in The Manual. He gave the school a name and said that it wouldn’t go bankrupt and it is also fire proof. It will always be there to protect the truth found in The Manual and as a matter of fact, the School will act as the Great Pilots VERY PRESENCE. Sometimes, others tried to come along and say that different odometers and switches meant different things. But because of The Author of the Manual, the Great Pilot said that no one would prevail, and no one has. That has not only included protecting the traditional teachings from the manual, but the very school itself. You can never kill all the people in this school, nor burn the building or the manual. They are all there to stay.
So Luckily, there have been many pilots who have flown before you and they have figured these concepts out with the help of the author of that flight book still speaking by means of the wind to future pilots. They write things down as well. The things they write aren’t meant to replace the manual, just there to solidify certain concepts that if misinterpreted, would cause you to crash. So, you go and get those tested and accepted teachings about the flight book and you learn from them. They stand the test of time because ultimately they coincide with the manual when tested. It is a good thing you are a part of a great tradition of Pilots who can aid you in understanding this manual. The spirit of the manuals author works in mysterious ways. He shows you how to interpret through individual revelation and he speaks to you through personal revelation and the revelation given through past pilots to whom the same spirit that is speaking to you spoke to them. You test your revelations by comparing to their time tested and manual tested revelations. In the end, both you and the traditions are subject to the manual but that does not make the tradition less important or helpful in understanding the Manual.
I hope that wasn’t a worthless analogy. It is all there to help understand that you are a part of a great tradition of Faith. “I will give thanks in the Great Assembly, among the throngs of people, I will praise you.” Psalms 35:18
More to come...
Craig, I really don't see any of this discussion as unhealthy nor have I seen any point in the discussion where things have become rude or inconsiderate. Passionate? yes. Defensive? maybe a few times but not unreasonably defensive. This topic is meaningful and personal to everyone and I wouldn't expect anything less than adamant when discussing it.
Your contributions to the post have been much appreciated. It is not easy to be arguing against many people and you did this willingly and with conviction. I have been in your very position many times on a different topic. (I grew up in a family that likes to debate. and have MANY ex-protestant Catholic friends/scholars)
That being said, you are free to continue discussing or arguing your position for as long as you like. Much has been learned from this discussion by not only by Myself, but by many others as well. Many I know personally are in full agreement with you, but are too chicken to speak up. So take heart my good friend! You are not alone. PLEASE don't feel disheartened about what you have said or for expressing you views. We all sharpen each other.
Again the internet is a poor conduit for expressing the whole spectrum of communication. It lacks the ability to express much our personalities, tone of voice, facial expressions. You are simply left with words, and words are fickle little boogers sometimes. So I wrote much of that at 3 in the morning so it might have came off harsher than it should have.
Hopefully, you didn't take any of my last post as an attack on your charachter or your intellect. These things had been on my mind for a while and I needed to get these out of the way before going futher as they were sort of knawing away at me. Anyway, no offense was meant by any of what was said and by the end of the day and I always learn something new, which is really the point in my book.
I claim no market on full understaning of truth, after all, at our best, " we see in part, a dim reflection, but then face to face", I am working out my Salvation with fear and trembling just like everyone else here so if it has come across as anything different, then, apologies.
Most importantly, if this has become anything other than fun or rewarding then by all means, cease and desist. But if you feel that you have been misunderstood or need to continue making your point, go right ahead, I look forward to reading it, as I have all of your other posts.
Peace my friend.
didn't craig and seth get C's at Glendale highschool and were both claimed "average" by the teachers. now, one is getting his Ph. d in physics, the other in Composition.
my point? public education in springfield sucks!
i need to thank and encourage all here to keep posting. (craig...you too! come back!) i look forward and anticipate reading this every day. so does opera papa.
where is cach?
I'm here! I just loved seeing more people get involved and wanted to let it happen without my big mouth in for a bit. I'm working on a comment here. Give me just a bit to finish it up.
I have enjoyed so much this discussion, and sincerely hope that we can prevail upon you, Craig, to continue in it. I’ll address the goals of this discussion later, but I never envisioned us changing each other’s minds here.
Yes, God is the authority – not Scripture. Scripture does not have authority independent of God in any way. Neither does the community of faith. I never vested authority in the community. Neither would I place it over Scripture. This understanding of the authority and inspiration of Scripture cannot be viewed in either/or terms. We hear the Word of God through Scripture, the community, and the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of primacy; both the Scriptures and the community are necessary.
God never intended us to be able to know him by sitting alone in our rooms with our Bibles. He intended us always to be a part of the community of faith. The role of that community is to teach each other, correct each other, and share with each other among other things. Remember Philip and the Ethiopian? That’s why Paul established churches – not just followers.
Is the community perfect? No! Is there much disagreement and confusion amongst them? Absolutely! And yet these are the people who wrote the Scriptures. That’s why you have disagreements in the text. And I’m not talking about copyist errors; about which, Craig is right in this respect: there are many! And I’m not talking about who killed Goliath. And I’m not talking about rabbits eating their poop instead of regurgitating. And I’m not talking about writers quoting the wrong sources. And I’m not talking about who told David to take a census. I’m not talking about any of those things. Those things are there in the text and you can either say they aren’t and try to wiggle around until you convince yourself that the emperor has clothes, or you can try to understand why those things are actually there.
I’m talking about the big stuff. I’ve mentioned it at least three times, but no one has picked up on it: what about Ezra/Nehemiah vs. Jonah? What about conflicting theology? At the end of the book of Ezra, (which was originally part of one work combining Ezra and Nehemiah), Ezra orders that the Israelites divorce all their foreign wives en masse and reject their children from those marriages. So horrible and hateful was the thought of mixing with non-Israelites that God wanted those women and children thrown out of the community. This was effectively a death sentence for many of them in that world where women divorced in dishonor had no hope of remaining in the community. Children who could not inherit would become slaves. Yet that was interpreted as God’s will. Then in Jonah, God was so concerned about foreigners, (and not only foreigners, Ninevites!, of all wicked people), that he sent Jonah to proclaim him to them. Jonah was likely written afterwards in response to that Zionist/xenophobic theology as a foil to that errant way of thinking. It clearly represents an opposing theology.
And that’s not the only example of exclusive vs. inclusive theology presented in Scripture. How do we deal with this? What we have are two different understandings of who God is and how he works written by different voices within the community of faith. Both of them inform us and our understanding of our relationship with God. I don’t want to be without one of them!
Now you may say, “Wait a minute, that’s not what Jonah is about! It’s about doing what God tells you to when he tells you to.” To a certain extent, I agree. This is only a problem if the aim of our investigation of scripture is to fulfill the very modern and scientific goal of getting to the one absolute ‘meaning’ of a passage of Scripture. Calm down, I’m not trying to say that all Scripture is just up for any interpretation. I’ll get to this later. I’m just trying to show that ‘meaning’ has multiple layers and levels. And as Craig pointed out, how often do we agree on the ‘meaning’ of a text? If we can’t agree on a goal, I think the search for one absolute interpretive method is going to be pretty fruitless.
We must look at bigger, more embracing, pictures. Examine Jeremiah 4:10 if you will. In it Jeremiah says, “’Ah, Lord God, how utterly you have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying ‘It shall be well with you,’ even while the sword is at the throat!’” Do we take from this that God is a deceiver? That God deceives his people with their destruction as his intent? Of course not! Yet Jeremiah does not retract this statement. His relationship and understanding develops over time, but he does not take it back. Rather, we benefit from knowing the whole of Jeremiah. We see his life in big-picture form with his various understandings and views of God. Yet all along, we know that God is there with him and in relationship with him.
This is how we should read Scripture as well. Rather than feigning consistency, Scripture is rife with disagreement and variety. And I thank God for it! In the end, it reads much like the life of Jeremiah here. Though at times we do not understand what God is doing, and at times we do not like what God is doing, we know the big picture of his relationship with us and plan for us. Even as Jeremiah did not always agree with himself, how should we expect a multitude of people to be always in full agreement with each other?
So I wonder how this understanding could possibly diminish the character or power of God. It can’t and doesn’t! It rather shows that in our numerous and various circumstances, God is there. In our prosperity, God is there. In our strife, God is there. He is so big and so encompassing that he is different things to us at different times. At one time he is shepherd, at another he is king, at another he is artist, at another he is judge. It is only natural that we should view him differently at different times. And the multiplicity of views that we see in Scripture only begin to describe him. That’s why the story isn’t done yet! That’s why the Holy Spirit communes with us still. That’s why we need each other in the church still. That’s why the Scriptures are still alive and fresh to us no matter how often we read them.
Scripture contains divine revelation in every page, but it is not the whole of divine revelation. That was actually the premise that started all of this. Intelligent Design is predicated upon the concept that the highly organized nature of the universe reveals a creator. This is what is normally known as general revelation. Additionally, we continue to experience revelation as Christians through the Holy Spirit, the community of faith, and the Scriptures. We have a God who is ever chasing us and continually revealing himself to us. Again, I appeal to a bigger picture. Were Scripture all that we needed, we could sit alone in a room, open it up, and never need another human being or encounter with the world. Yet this is not as God made us! God made us for relationships with each other and himself. Too heavy an emphasis on any one of the modes of revelation that I’ve outlined, (Scripture, community, and the Holy Spirit), always leads to a skewed and flawed relationship with God. Those who rely only upon community will eventually succeed in leading each other astray because none of us has a perfect will to love God. Those who rely too much upon the revelation of the Holy Spirit are those who claim authority for themselves that is unavailable to others. These are the cult leaders. Those who rely solely upon the Scriptures stunt their growth by ossifying its meaning in their limited understanding. Without the community to sharpen and challenge them, they can unwittingly believe that they have ‘arrived’ at that mystical ‘understanding.’ Without the Holy Spirit, it becomes possible to pick up the Scriptures and know exactly what God is about to say before giving him a chance to say it anew. (Try that with a woman – let alone God!) God must be given that room to reveal himself in new ways to us at all times. Of course that revelation will always be checked by Scripture and the community. We are not alone in this world and any move to spiritual self-sufficiency is a move away from what God intends.
So why are we having this discussion? It’s the reason I don’t want Craig to leave. I don’t believe we are trying to be ‘right’ about interpretive methods here. People will never agree on that. Like I said, we can’t and don’t agree on the ‘meaning’ of the text, so our hopes to agree on a method are pretty pointless. Does Scripture have a single meaning? Of course not. And again, like I said before, this is not to say that Scripture is just open for any interpretation. Yet that is the way we treat it sometimes. I heard a preacher recently give a sermon based on the text about Jesus calming the storm. The preacher said that this was God showing us that in our lives storms will come, and Jesus has the power to calm those storms. I sat slack-jawed listening to that crap thinking, “That’s not what the text says at all!” Yet I seemed to be the only one who noticed that the text was about the power of God over nature and the divine power of Christ and said nothing about figurative ‘storms’ in our lives. Those terms weren’t even used then! That awful interpretation relies upon an English figure of speech!
So no, I am most assuredly not saying that Scripture is just open to any interpretation we seek to give it. But then I ask you, what is the meaning of the story of David and Goliath? Is it about the providence of God? Is it about God’s continual preference for those that the world would reject? Is it about God’s promise to make a provision for Israel among its stronger neighbors? I would say yes to all of those; those are legitimate readings of that text. Yet they are not a single ‘meaning.’
If we’re not looking for the ‘meaning,’ then what are we doing or what should we be doing? I think we should be seeking ways to interpret Scripture that cause us to live faithfully before God and men. I think we should seek understanding that moves us to deeper relationship with him and love for him. I think we should be seeking to understand how Scripture is part of the revelation and Word of God that draws us into salvation for the here and now; not in some far off distant day and land. And my voice in this discussion has been to say that I think we unnecessarily limit God and what he can do by constraining him by our limited understandings. I think that solely a literal understanding of Genesis 1-11 unnecessarily limits how God can communicate with us. I think adherence to standards of ‘inerrancy’ to which Scripture does not even lift itself up unnecessarily limits how God may inspire us and give us a broader and deeper understanding of who he is and how he’s worked among us throughout history. I think insistence that the Word of God means only the written words of Scripture means that entire groups of people are separated from God and his plan by our imposed limitations.
If Scripture is the whole of God’s revelation and the only means by which he tells us who he is, what does that say for those who will never read Scripture? In the Great Commission we are instructed to go, make disciples, baptize, and teach. The message and story of God are the Word of God. The Scriptures are a vehicle for that message. They may be the very best vehicle, but they are the vessel, not the substance itself. If the words were the authority and inspiration, what does that say for missions to illiterate people? Is their salvation incomplete? Is the only way to bring them to Christ to read to them from the Bible? Of course not. Just as with the first disciples who came to know Christ through the words of others without the benefit of Scripture, the message is what is important. If understanding the Scriptures were required for salvation, what could we say about the retarded? They will never have that understanding, but their salvation is assured by the simplest understanding of God and what he has done and who he is. The words convey the message; they do not have inborn authority of their own.
This understanding does not diminish the authority of Scripture; quite the contrary, it enhances Scripture’s authority. That authority is God’s. There is no slippery slope into insubstantial relativism here. The slippery slope argument is a slippery slope. If the Bible is its own final authority, then we will begin to take our eyes off of God and put them only on the text to find its ‘meaning.’ And then there’s no room for God to speak freshly and reveal himself anew. Eventually, we become unthinking slaves to incorrect interpretations; and that result is as undesirable as the ‘anything goes’ relativism that scares Craig.
The Scriptures do have power and authority! And that authority is God’s. Jesus’ appeals to Scripture are completely in line with what I’ve said here. Jesus wasn’t appealing to written words; he was placing himself under the authority of God and in the midst of the community of faith. That community is not bound by time any more than it is by distance. When Jesus rebuked Satan with Scripture, he was saying very clearly that he is God’s Son and he is fully in line with God’s story as told through the history of God’s people. Jesus was agreeing with Moses, David, and the prophets. This is a perfect example of reading Scripture in community. My community is not only my family, my church, and my friends; it is also the ‘great chorus of witnesses’ and all those who have gone before me. That is the power of tradition. It is not about ritual or rite; it is about those who have gone before passing on blessing and wisdom to those who will come after. That is the record we have in Scripture, the Church Fathers, the saints, and all the rest. That is community and tradition, and it is a powerful tool of divine revelation.
There’s obviously much more to say. I sincerely hope we’ll keep saying it here together. I don’t want this conversation to be over yet with so much left to discuss. What do you all think?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller...?
beuller is here. i don't have much to say except, bravo cach, bravo craig, and bravo seth. it seems now that craig has dropped out, there is not much discussion left, since he was the opposing arguement. (though we are all on the same side.) i am going to recommend this discussion to others in my sunday school class, because i have thoroughly learned, and thoroughly enjoyed this. it's been my nightly newspaper, and i'll miss it. i'm going to still check it for a while to see if "craigers" comes back.
Post a Comment