Discussion of von Rad's _Genesis: A Commentary_
Garamond Lethe
<me>
[W]hy couldn't God have created the universe by setting up a few
physical law, starting up the big bang, and letting it fly? It
doesn't mean He loves you any less, nor that He's any less powerful.
Or, more bluntly, why should God be constrained to how you can imagine
life could be created?
<Zoe>
God could have created the universe the way you describe, except that
if you are referring to the God of the Bible, He says that that is not
the way He did it. [1]
Rather than leave things at that, Zoe has graciously agreed to
participate in a discussion of Genesis, specifically Gerhard von Rad's
commentary[2]. I'd like to state at the outset that I'm not particularly
interested in converting Zoe to my point of view. Instead, I'd like to
simply work through a non-literal interpretation of Genesis from someone
who was both a Christian and a respected scholar. If she (or anyone
else) doesn't find it convincing, I hope that it will at least be seen as
plausible.
Biographical details can be found at [3][4]. The Amazon reviews are
mildly amusing[5]. And with that, let's get started.....
Garamond
[1] <7kisi399226q713cp...@4ax.com>
[2] von Rad, Gerhard. _Genesis: A Commentary_. Translated by John H.
Marks, The Westminster Press, 1961.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_von_Rad
[4] http://www.bookrags.com/biography/gerhard-von-rad/
[5] http://tinyurl.com/2aqekt
Garamond Lethe
First, a few general impressions from the Introduction.
von Rad is writing for a scholarly audience, specifically an audience
where quite a number of issues are taken as settled that you might not
agree with. I can recall being taught that "Moses wrote the first five
books of the Bible." This isn't the current consensus, but vR only
addresses this in a throwaway line:
"The preceding discussion presupposes the recognition of a fact that has
become accepted in contemporary Old Testament science after almost 200
years of research: The books Genesis to Joshua consist of several
continuous source documents that were woven together more or less
skillfully by a redactor." (pg 23).
It's certainly reasonable for you to ask for the evidence to this
conclusion, and it's unfortunate that this particular book doesn't use
more citations. I expect this research forms an interesting story in its
own right (well, at least to those of us who like that sort of thing),
and if you like we can take a short diversion and read up on that.
Wikipedia, as always, has an article[1].
There's another issue with a scholar writing for scholars: terms of art
are used that have meanings quite different from everyday use (esp.
"cult" and "saga") or are far, far outside my vocabulary ("aetiological"?
"hermeneutical"? "kerygma"?!?). vR appears to have defined most of these
terms, but not necessarily before they are initially used. Also note
that the translator has used the word "history" to cover two very
different German terms (which appear to the right in parentheses). I've
not seen that convention before, but it didn't take too long to figure it
out.
I found the meat of the introduction (and perhaps the whole book) best
laid out in the long footnote starting on page 18. vR details how a
cultic tradition limited in space and time becomes first interpreted and
then doctrinalized, with all three version preserved[2].
Now I'll be the first to admit that this is pretty heavy going. If
you're willing to accept all of this as an interesting hypothesis, I
think you'll enjoy going forward. But if you haven't been exposed to the
idea of multiple authors with differing intentions collating multiple
sources into the Hexateuch then I can see how this would be a bit much to
swallow all at once. I'm happy to take a step backwards and explore the
issue (to the best of my ability).
And there are far too many exclamation points for my taste. Oh well.
Over to you....
Garamond
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship
[2] The example used is the Manna story, with vR placing Ex 16:4-5,13b-15
and 27-30 in the cultic tradition ("must be understood quite objectively
and is filled with historical difficulties"), the Priestly document at Ex
2-3, 6-13a, and 16-26 ("The event is apparently described concretely, yet
in such a way that no reader is detained by the external details .... A
miracle, limited in space and time, becomes something universal, almost
timelessly valid.") Finally, this is contrasted with the retelling in
Deut 8.3: "[T]he Deuteronomist gave up the old meaning altogether. He
speaks only indirectly of actual eating ... and substitutes for it
feeding on God's word." (pg 18)
John Wilkins
Geschichte and Historie are both terms used by theologians to have a
particular meaning. One might consider that Geschichte is a narrative,
while Historie is just one damned thing after another.
Hermeneutics is a theological concept that relates to thinking as if you
were a member of the community in which texts are written. It was
developed int he 19thC and has spilled over into ordinary historical
studies (e.g., via Collingwood).
>
> I found the meat of the introduction (and perhaps the whole book) best
> laid out in the long footnote starting on page 18. vR details how a
> cultic tradition limited in space and time becomes first interpreted and
> then doctrinalized, with all three version preserved[2].
>
> Now I'll be the first to admit that this is pretty heavy going. If
> you're willing to accept all of this as an interesting hypothesis, I
> think you'll enjoy going forward. But if you haven't been exposed to the
> idea of multiple authors with differing intentions collating multiple
> sources into the Hexateuch then I can see how this would be a bit much to
> swallow all at once. I'm happy to take a step backwards and explore the
> issue (to the best of my ability).
>
> And there are far too many exclamation points for my taste. Oh well.
>
> Over to you....
>
> Garamond
To my taste, this tradition of interpreting the "inspired text"
historically holds within it a serious flaw: why should a text that
evolved historically be thought to have divine inspiration? But if you
read the critical historical material as a study of the evolution of
(religious and social) traditions in an economic and ethnic context, a
lot of the tension eases.
>
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship
> [2] The example used is the Manna story, with vR placing Ex 16:4-5,13b-15
> and 27-30 in the cultic tradition ("must be understood quite objectively
> and is filled with historical difficulties"), the Priestly document at Ex
> 2-3, 6-13a, and 16-26 ("The event is apparently described concretely, yet
> in such a way that no reader is detained by the external details .... A
> miracle, limited in space and time, becomes something universal, almost
> timelessly valid.") Finally, this is contrasted with the retelling in
> Deut 8.3: "[T]he Deuteronomist gave up the old meaning altogether. He
> speaks only indirectly of actual eating ... and substitutes for it
> feeding on God's word." (pg 18)
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Harshman
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>
> To my taste, this tradition of interpreting the "inspired text"
> historically holds within it a serious flaw: why should a text that
> evolved historically be thought to have divine inspiration?
This from a person who (if I recall) has frequently supported the notion
that evolution doesn't conflict with theism, because God could have used
evolution as his method of creation?
If you accept that a historical process can (in theory) produce a
divinely created world, why is it more difficult to accept that it could
also produce a divinely created word?
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
> >
> > To my taste, this tradition of interpreting the "inspired text"
> > historically holds within it a serious flaw: why should a text that
> > evolved historically be thought to have divine inspiration?
>
> This from a person who (if I recall) has frequently supported the notion
> that evolution doesn't conflict with theism, because God could have used
> evolution as his method of creation?
>
> If you accept that a historical process can (in theory) produce a
> divinely created world, why is it more difficult to accept that it could
> also produce a divinely created word?
There's a world of difference between saying that something *might* be
true and that it *is* true. I do think that there is a reason to think
that if you hold to a religion that is not counterfactual, that it might
have evolved to be truth-bearing - after all we think that *science* is
a truth bearer and the faculties for *that* evolved. But that doesn't
mean I have to say it *is* so. For that claim I'd need some positive
reason, and I have none.
If a theist comes to me and asks "Do you think that evolution disproves
religion or the existence of a God?" I must honestly say No. But if they
ask me "Do you think that the evidence, including evolution, supports
the existence of a God?" I must also answer No. Hence my being an
agnostic about this. You don't get me with an excluded middle here,
because the questions cut the possibility space in different ways.
>
> > But if you
> > read the critical historical material as a study of the evolution of
> > (religious and social) traditions in an economic and ethnic context, a
> > lot of the tension eases.
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
> To my taste, this tradition of interpreting the "inspired text"
> historically holds within it a serious flaw: why should a text that
> evolved historically be thought to have divine inspiration? But if you
> read the critical historical material as a study of the evolution of
> (religious and social) traditions in an economic and ethnic context, a
> lot of the tension eases.
Yes. Perhaps the strongest "challenge" to a liberal theological
understanding of Christianity (from "within" the community of faith)
is the meaning of "inspiration" or "revelation" with regard to the
received texts. Or -- to avoid some of the nastiest questions in
that vein -- what it could possibly mean for a prophet (Amos, Isaiah,
...) to speak "the Word of the Lord". It's not too hard to come up
with some "culture/historical" sense that could be read into that
from the outside, but the question for believers is how to go from
that perspective to something that is, in some sense, "authoritative"
in the canonical texts.
John Harshman
Very philosophical of you, but it all sounds weasely to me. My point is
that the two situations (historical assembly of the world vs. historical
assembly of the bible) are isomorphic, and you do seem to be treating
them differently despite your protestations. You never say "To my taste,
this tradition of interpreting the "created world" historically holds
within it a serious flaw: why should a world that evolved historically
be thought to have a divine origin?" Or are you just being tactful in
such cases? Is a created world more or less plausible than an inspired
scripture? Why or why not?
John Wilkins
Yes, yes, we all know that philosophy is just logic chopping and useless
in the eyes of a scientist...
> My point is
> that the two situations (historical assembly of the world vs. historical
> assembly of the bible) are isomorphic, and you do seem to be treating
> them differently despite your protestations. You never say "To my taste,
> this tradition of interpreting the "created world" historically holds
> within it a serious flaw: why should a world that evolved historically
> be thought to have a divine origin?" Or are you just being tactful in
> such cases? Is a created world more or less plausible than an inspired
> scripture? Why or why not?
They are on a par as far as I am concerned: that is, neither view has
the slightest evidence in its favour. I am not saying either view is
ipso facto false, but I am unconvinced. And as to not saying that a
created world is flawed, I believe I have said that a few times over the
past 15 years here. Perhaps you missed it.
But yes, I am being tactful - if someone thinks the world is created, or
the scripture is inspired, that's their lookout. It's not up to me to
defend it, because it's not my view, but I don't think people who hold
it are stupid (some of the time). But there is a real problem
understanding aspects of the Bible if you think it was delivered on Mt
Sinai, and yet if you think it developed according to the Historical
Critical hypothesis, I fail to see how one might read it as inspired
(and yes, I have similar problems with those who read the "book of
nature" the same way. So what's the beef?
John Harshman
Just acting in my role as universal guardian of consistency. An evolved
but divinely inspired bible is just as reasonable/silly (take your pick)
as an evolved but divinely created world.
Now my claim would be that both scenarios, if examined in detail, would
tend to fall apart. They aren't strictly disprovable, but they seem less
reasonable than alternatives. Which seems to be your claim too, though
if you have said this before about the universe, I have missed or
forgotten it.
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:DTg3j.4352$AR7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
[snip]
> ... An evolved
> but divinely inspired bible is just as reasonable/silly (take your pick)
> as an evolved but divinely created world.
A very interesting analogy. I take it that you lean toward the 'silly'
position.
The notion that revelation has evolved to become more perfect and in
accordance with God's intention does indeed seem parallel to the
notion that the biosphere has evolved to become more perfect and
in accordance with God's intention. The only silliness I see though
(other than a complete lack of supporting evidence) is the unwarranted
assumption in both cases that we have now finally reached perfection.
Though I suppose it is just a bit less silly to claim that we have
reached exactly the level appropriate for this stage of evolution.
John Harshman
This actually seems to be a natural implication of Christian theology.
What is Jesus if not an addition to the message, a sort of divine course
correction? And it's frequently been supposed that divine inspiration
applies to other than the writing itself. The Council of Nicaea is often
supposed to have been inspired in its adoption of the canon, and many
fundamentalists have claimed that the KJV is a divinely inspired (and
thus entirely perfect) translation. Who's to say the higher critics
weren't inspired too?
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> > To my taste, this tradition of interpreting the "inspired text"
> > historically holds within it a serious flaw: why should a text that
> > evolved historically be thought to have divine inspiration?
>
> This from a person who (if I recall) has frequently supported the notion
> that evolution doesn't conflict with theism, because God could have used
> evolution as his method of creation?
>
> If you accept that a historical process can (in theory) produce a
> divinely created world, why is it more difficult to accept that it could
> also produce a divinely created word?
I know this is little (or nothing) more than moronic cheer leading
but I found the above idea to be absolutely brilliant.
Michael Siemon
<78d4f017-7910-45d4...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <Eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Umm, some consideration of the consequence -- on both sides -- may
suggest that it is rather less than brilliant. The notion of divine
creativity through natural processes immediately raises, very
insistently, the problem of theodicy: why, if God is indeed behind
all this, is there so much agony, grief, waste and (in the human
case, sin)? Garden of Eden fairy tales are utterly inadequate to
deal with that question, as are the simplistic pieties of naive
believers. Indeed, our historically produced scriptures have, in
parts that specifically claim to be the word of God, statement by
God that explicitly contradict any idea of divine omnibenevolence.
I'd expect honest and educated believers in this idea to be quite
seriously troubled by some such reflections. That doesn't mean the
view is _wrong_ (or is thereby disproven), just that it's messy.
A similar review of "divinely inspired" scripture leaves any honest
reader with as much confusion of ill-fitting and conflicting parts
as any honest examination of biological systems. The notion (big
with some churches) that this mess can lead to a consistent and
unquestionably (and unchangingly) "authoritative" body of doctrine
is simple nonsense. Again, that doesn't mean one is necessarily
wrong in attributing the scriptures to the Spirit as one attributes
the world to the Creator. But it is equally messy to do so, and it
[IMO] _absolutely_ rules out all claims of final authority and
interpretation (such as those of the Catholic Church and such
modern wannabees as the Southern Baptist Convention).
Roger Pearse
wrote:
> correction? And it's frequently been supposed that divine inspiration
> supposed to have been inspired in its adoption of the canon...
Just a correction of detail: the First Council of Nicaea did not in
fact make any statements about the canon. (The idea that it did is a
widely circulating myth, recently given new vogue by the Da Vinci
Code) All the ancient source docs that mention the council are here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Apart from anything else, the Arians after Nicaea objected to the
Nicene formula on grounds that it wasn't in scripture. What actually
was scripture was clearly not an issue.
> Who's to say the higher critics weren't inspired too?
Well, anyone who asks for some evidence. Traditionally claims of
divine inspiration are tested by demanding evidence of general
respect, holiness of life and the working of miracles. Few of the 19th
century higher critics would manage the first, fewer the second, never
mind the third.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
John Wilkins
I fully agree with you about the third (but then I think there is a
marked lack of individuals at any time in history who qualify in that
respect); as to holiness of life, I think you are unqualified to judge
(rumour has it there's a judge who is qualified, but I've never been
served with a summons ot that court). As the the first, I do not have a
clue what you mean.
That said, it seems to me that the higher critics of whom I have any
personal information that they have been honest, careful and serious
people who take their religious duty to be to discuss the truth. As the
higher critical hypotheses have survived over a century of testing and
rebuttal, I think that honest intellectual people must take it to be
seriously established.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
And, of course, the higher critics did not rest their case on
"inspiration" divine or otherwise.
John Harshman
> On 28 Nov, 17:23, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>correction? And it's frequently been supposed that divine inspiration
>>applies to other than the writing itself. The Council ofNicaeais often
>>supposed to have been inspired in its adoption of the canon...
>
>
> Just a correction of detail: the First Council of Nicaea did not in
> fact make any statements about the canon. (The idea that it did is a
> widely circulating myth, recently given new vogue by the Da Vinci
> Code) All the ancient source docs that mention the council are here:
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
I stand corrected. So who did decide the canon, and when? At any rate,
it doesn't affect my point, which was about beliefs, not facts.
> Apart from anything else, the Arians after Nicaea objected to the
> Nicene formula on grounds that it wasn't in scripture. What actually
> was scripture was clearly not an issue.
>
>
>>Who's to say the higher critics weren't inspired too?
>
>
> Well, anyone who asks for some evidence. Traditionally claims of
> divine inspiration are tested by demanding evidence of general
> respect, holiness of life and the working of miracles. Few of the 19th
> century higher critics would manage the first, fewer the second, never
> mind the third.
If you want to call that evidence, sure. But why should any of those
criteria be relevant to divine inspiration? God can inspire anyone he
likes. Are you restricting him to inspiring saints, and if so why do you
place such limitations on his power? Further, what evidence do we have
about the personal lives of any of the biblical writers that would
suggest, even under your criteria, that they were divinely inspired? We
know nothing of them other than their writings. Finally, miracles? Are
you seriously proposing that there is real evidence of the working of
miracles by anyone associated with writing or otherwise influencing the
bible?
Friar Broccoli
> In article
> <78d4f017-7910-45d4-97a3-28e3feb9b...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
My comment was not about truth.
I only found the idea extremely elegant and beautiful.
Pointless and useless as well probably, but ...
Roger Pearse
I'm not sure who is qualified to judge holiness of life -- surely we
are all qualified to judge the lack of it! step forward L. Ron and
raise your hand! -- , but it's usually considered a pre-requisite to
any valid claim to divine inspiration, isn't it.
On the other hand, do the Higher Critics seriously make the claim?
> That said, it seems to me that the higher critics of whom I have any
> personal information that they have been honest, careful and serious
> people who take their religious duty to be to discuss the truth. As the
> higher critical hypotheses have survived over a century of testing and
> rebuttal, I think that honest intellectual people must take it to be
> seriously established.
In view of the fact that their probity was questioned at the time,
surely it is not unreasonable if people do have doubts today, tho?
Particularly when we can see that some of the work done at the time
was more than questionable? I've made no systematic study -- a morose
topic -- but there is a paper (Holst, "Lucian and the Germans") in
some festschrift which tells us that the consensus of German scholars
on Lucian (Lucian=rubbish, and probably Jewish) up to 1945 was derived
entirely from a single influential article, which in turn was verbally
identical with passages in an article written by Houston Stewart
Chamberlain in an anti-semitic propaganda sheet a few months before.
This is the curse of the humanities. It lacks a proper mechanism to
ensure that, on topics of controversy -- religion or politics -- that
scholars do not mainly reflect the spirit of the age, rather than the
data.
Incidentally are we sure that the 'higher critical hypotheses' have
survived? -- weren't the ideas of the Tubingen school pretty
conclusively demolished by the arrival of archaeology in Palestine
from 1900 on? (I suspect that I am missing your point, tho)
As far as I can tell, 19th century scholarship of that period *in
general* has not fared well. French sources routinely refer to it as
"l'hyperscepticisme". For instance the Vienna edition of the works of
Tertullian was edited by Emil Kroymann, who made real contributions to
the study of the text. But in general modern scholars consider his
edition unreliable, as he made changes to the text which are today
considered too arbitrary. Over the last century scholars have tended
to reject the methods of that period and to move much closer to the
transmitted text. It was not long ago that I read one of Richard
Burgess's works on the Chronography of Eusebius, in which he stated as
undisputed fact that source criticism -- the darling of the higher
critics -- was now largely discredited as a useful tool, being found,
again, simply too subjective. Whether or not he is right, he is
certainly an excellent text critic, working in the field today, and
making remarks about his friends and colleagues.
Just my thoughts, all probably rubbish, but mine own.
Roger Pearse
wrote:
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > On 28 Nov, 17:23, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>correction? And it's frequently been supposed that divine inspiration
> >>applies to other than the writing itself. The Council ofNicaeais often
> >>supposed to have been inspired in its adoption of the canon...
>
> > Just a correction of detail: the First Council of Nicaea did not in
> > fact make any statements about the canon. (The idea that it did is a
> > widely circulating myth, recently given new vogue by the Da Vinci
> > Code) All the ancient source docs that mention the council are here:
>
> >http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
>
> I stand corrected. So who did decide the canon, and when?
Not an easy question to answer! We get unanimity more or less
drifting into position by the end of the 4th century. But in reality
no-one seems to have worried; everyone knew there were 4 gospels,
acts, Paul's letters, 1 Peter, even by the time of Irenaeus and
Tertullian. I don't think we really know.
> At any rate, it doesn't affect my point, which was about beliefs, not facts.
Actually I didn't follow the general argument; I was just picking up
on that.
> > Apart from anything else, the Arians after Nicaea objected to the
> > Nicene formula on grounds that it wasn't in scripture. What actually
> > was scripture was clearly not an issue.
>
> >>Who's to say the higher critics weren't inspired too?
>
> > Well, anyone who asks for some evidence. Traditionally claims of
> > divine inspiration are tested by demanding evidence of general
> > respect, holiness of life and the working of miracles. Few of the 19th
> > century higher critics would manage the first, fewer the second, never
> > mind the third.
>
> If you want to call that evidence, sure. But why should any of those
> criteria be relevant to divine inspiration?
They seem like good first demands to me.
> God can inspire anyone he likes. Are you restricting him to inspiring saints,
> and if so why do you place such limitations on his power?
I'm not sure on what basis you make these assertions, but I suspect
that they are not orthodox, and so perhaps you are claiming revelation
yourself. May I see your proof of holiness of life please? And a
small miracle? <smile>
Seriously, I'm sure that L. Ron Hubbard would use similar arguments.
Are we really fans of 'divine fire in dirty vessels' arguments? In
general does it not smack of clerical self-serving: "do as I say, not
as I do -- and anyone for a trip down the brothel"?
Sorry, but I think we may reasonably expect some evidence of divine
inspiration other than someone of immoral life standing up and
demanding respect, money, etc, simply because he says so. I don't
suppose that you disagree with this, so we are probably talking past
each other here.
> Further, what evidence do we have about the personal lives of any of the biblical writers
> that would suggest, even under your criteria, that they were divinely inspired?
After 2000 years, I think we can take it that they were.
> We know nothing of them other than their writings. Finally, miracles? Are
> you seriously proposing that there is real evidence of the working of
> miracles by anyone associated with writing or otherwise influencing the
> bible?
Just a moment. If I understand you correctly you are asserting the
following propositions, all together:
1. The Higher Critics are divinely inspired
2. God never allows people to work miracles.
Are you quite sure that these are quite compatible positions?
Really? A God whose sole role in life is to inspire the Higher
Critics? :-)
But you know it's all very well to attack what I said. If you want to
make the claim for these rather ordinary men, you need to come up with
something. They don't pass the normal tests for divine inspiration,
as you know.
John Harshman
Why? Is there a statute of limitations? And does that mean that every
2000-year-old document was divinely inspired?
>>We know nothing of them other than their writings. Finally, miracles? Are
>>you seriously proposing that there is real evidence of the working of
>>miracles by anyone associated with writing or otherwise influencing the
>>bible?
>
> Just a moment. If I understand you correctly you are asserting the
> following propositions, all together:
>
> 1. The Higher Critics are divinely inspired
> 2. God never allows people to work miracles.
No, I'm asserting neither of these. In fact I don't think there is any
such thing as divine inspiration, or a divine at all for that matter.
I'm saying that if there were such a thing we would have no way to know
that the Higher Critics were not so inspired, or that the writers of the
bible were. Now, since we know nothing about the writers of nearly all
the bible's books (unless you are claiming that, for example, Moses
really did write the pentateuch), we can't know if they ever performed
any miracles (assuming that we believe there can be any such thing),
just as we know nothing about whether they were respectful or saintly.
So none of your criteria would seem to apply.
Further, I don't see any justification for the criteria you choose.
> Are you quite sure that these are quite compatible positions?
> Really? A God whose sole role in life is to inspire the Higher
> Critics? :-)
> But you know it's all very well to attack what I said. If you want to
> make the claim for these rather ordinary men, you need to come up with
> something. They don't pass the normal tests for divine inspiration,
> as you know.
I will grant that Paul may have written large parts of some of the
epistles attributed to him, and perhaps some of the other epistles were
written by the people whose names are attached to them too. But failing
those, how do you have the ability to apply your "normal tests" to any
part of the bible? Who wrote the gospel of Matthew? Nobody knows, and it
certainly wasn't Matthew. And so on.
Zoe
wrote:
>Hi Zoe,
>
>First, a few general impressions from the Introduction.
hi, Garamond,
thanks for starting the discussion. Please know that my intention
here is not to convince you to change your views but merely to offer
my personal understanding of the material.
>
>von Rad is writing for a scholarly audience, specifically an audience
>where quite a number of issues are taken as settled that you might not
>agree with.
von Rad's Foreword, p. 11, led me to believe that he would be writing
for the uninitiated: "... the exposition should be readable for
nontheologians..." but this nontheologian got hit with such terms as
paraenetic (why not just "exhortation"), or amphictyony, immanental,
theologumena, and more. Looks like he quickly forgot who he said he
was writing for.
Further in his foreword: "....limits were set in the discussion of
individual problems, namely, those of philological and archeological
nature."
......which is disappointing since it is that very background of
evidence that interests me. I do not look upon the Biblical record as
verbatim dictation from God, and because of this, I am interested to
learn how the human messenger expressed his encounters with God. But
this book promises no such insights.
Again, in the Foreword: "The theologian, especially the student, must
by all means consult in addition a more exhaustive scientific
commentary."
This statement seems to imply that the full-fledged theologian has
access to some more exhaustive scientific commentary, but since this
book is geared towards the nontheologian, that commentary will not be
offered......which is aggravating because I am now expected to take
von Rad at his word. Therefore, already, I find that I am not
inclined to offer this book as a good resource for facts, but merely a
suggested resource for ideas, if one is interested in new ways of
looking at the material.
> I can recall being taught that "Moses wrote the first five
>books of the Bible." This isn't the current consensus, but vR only
>addresses this in a throwaway line:
>
>"The preceding discussion presupposes the recognition of a fact that has
>become accepted in contemporary Old Testament science after almost 200
>years of research: The books Genesis to Joshua consist of several
>continuous source documents that were woven together more or less
>skillfully by a redactor." (pg 23).
I don't have a problem with the terms Pentateuch or Hexateuch. What
gives me pause is the term "redactor." I think that is an unfortunate
term because it implies editing in which multiple source texts are
combined together and subjected to alterations to make it appear that
they are a single work. Redaction, as defined, is often simply a
method of collecting together various writings on a "vaguely similar
theme," in order to create a coherent whole.
Well....if a redactor has pulled the Hexateuch together into a
coherent whole, then he did a poor job of it because it has always
struck me that many different works are evident in the first five or
six books of the Bible (not to mention the entire Bible) and it never
occurred to me that these works comprised a single work.
In any event, von Rad seems to contradict himself on the matter of
redaction. First he says, (p. 13) that a final redactor skillfully
combined the individual sources into the composition as a whole, and
in the next breath (still p. 13) he brings up later editors who
divided up the "originally unified" material into the Hexateuch. So
here we have a final redactor, followed by later redactors, and worst
yet, a total absence of the original UNunified material from which
comparisons could have been made to show where redactions truly
occurred. One now suspects that such redaction of "originals" may
have been pulled from von Rad's imagination, and since they no longer
exist as evidence to support the claim of redaction, we must take his
word for it.
>
>It's certainly reasonable for you to ask for the evidence to this
>conclusion, and it's unfortunate that this particular book doesn't use
>more citations. I expect this research forms an interesting story in its
>own right (well, at least to those of us who like that sort of thing),
>and if you like we can take a short diversion and read up on that.
>Wikipedia, as always, has an article[1].
sure, we can do that at a later date. But this is a discussion on von
Rad's commentary, so can we stick to that for now?
>
>There's another issue with a scholar writing for scholars: terms of art
>are used that have meanings quite different from everyday use (esp.
>"cult" and "saga") or are far, far outside my vocabulary ("aetiological"?
>"hermeneutical"? "kerygma"?!?). vR appears to have defined most of these
>terms, but not necessarily before they are initially used. Also note
>that the translator has used the word "history" to cover two very
>different German terms (which appear to the right in parentheses). I've
>not seen that convention before, but it didn't take too long to figure it
>out.
>
>I found the meat of the introduction (and perhaps the whole book) best
>laid out in the long footnote starting on page 18. vR details how a
>cultic tradition limited in space and time becomes first interpreted and
>then doctrinalized, with all three version preserved[2].
I think the introduction sets the tone for the entire commentary, and
one would first need to agree with the premises and foundations laid
out therein, in order to agree with the approach taken in the rest of
the book. But already I'm concerned that this book is not a source for
evidence but a source for von Rad's views which, so far, I find to be
myopic, sloppy, and filled with baseless conclusions.
Why myopic? Because vR studies Israelite history only in the context
of the Hexateuch, and more particularly in three passages that
summarize the historic Israelite experience. On pages 14 to 16 of the
Introduction, von Rad quotes three short passages that summarize
Israel's history, in saga fashion, but which history has been laid out
in far more detail in other books. Then he states, "None of the three
passages mentioned above contains even a parenthetical recollection of
anything historical."
It seems unreasonable to me to take three summaries of a larger
historical account and make these the main source for the theme of the
Hexateuch. And focusing narrowly on these summaries, he claims that
none of these three passages contain even a parenthetical recollection
of anything historical? What about the more detailed history as found
in the surrounding books? I don't know why vR ignores the weight of
the entire history elsewhere and emphasizes only the summarized
history found in those three brief passages. Seems upside down to me.
If anything, those three summaries are parenthetical to the full
history.
Why sloppy? von Rad uses "et cetera" in areas where I would have
liked for him to have finished the thought. And at one point, he
quotes a text that is not there. On p. 52, he refers to Genesis
32:47, but chapter 32 does not have 47 verses. Well, that might be a
typo or proofreading failure in translation from German to English,
but I am now left to hunt for the text that is supposed to support his
interpretation.
Why baseless? Because so far, there are too many assertions without
support. P. 16, he says, "The text Deut., ch. 26, bears clear signs
of a later revision." I want to know what these clear signs are. He
gives none. He adds, "So it is hard to say when such historical
summaries arose and came into use." Where are the earlier versions
that would confirm that later revisions occurred? No evidence (so
far, anyway) is offered. We must take von Rad at his word.
>
>Now I'll be the first to admit that this is pretty heavy going. If
>you're willing to accept all of this as an interesting hypothesis, I
>think you'll enjoy going forward. But if you haven't been exposed to the
>idea of multiple authors with differing intentions collating multiple
>sources into the Hexateuch then I can see how this would be a bit much to
>swallow all at once. I'm happy to take a step backwards and explore the
>issue (to the best of my ability).
>
>And there are far too many exclamation points for my taste. Oh well.
>
>Over to you....
well, to sum up so far....as a source book for understanding Genesis
or even the history of the Hexateuch, von Rad's book, so far, fails
miserably. Be prepared to come to his book with a trusting,
unquestioning mind, and if lack of evidence propped up by long
theological words is sufficient to convince, then this is the book for
you.
Should we go on, or enough said already?
John Wilkins
Well, von Rad, being discussed in another thread, does. And I know a
number of higher critics who think of themselves as good Christians. So
given the role of the Holy Spirit as a motivator of religious tradition
in Christianity, one might make the claim on their behalf.
>
> > That said, it seems to me that the higher critics of whom I have any
> > personal information that they have been honest, careful and serious
> > people who take their religious duty to be to discuss the truth. As the
> > higher critical hypotheses have survived over a century of testing and
> > rebuttal, I think that honest intellectual people must take it to be
> > seriously established.
>
> In view of the fact that their probity was questioned at the time,
> surely it is not unreasonable if people do have doubts today, tho?
> Particularly when we can see that some of the work done at the time
> was more than questionable? I've made no systematic study -- a morose
> topic -- but there is a paper (Holst, "Lucian and the Germans") in
> some festschrift which tells us that the consensus of German scholars
> on Lucian (Lucian=rubbish, and probably Jewish) up to 1945 was derived
> entirely from a single influential article, which in turn was verbally
> identical with passages in an article written by Houston Stewart
> Chamberlain in an anti-semitic propaganda sheet a few months before.
Don't make the Genetic Fallacy here - there may be ideas of relevance
that come out of the most despicable schools of nineteenth century
thought.
>
> This is the curse of the humanities. It lacks a proper mechanism to
> ensure that, on topics of controversy -- religion or politics -- that
> scholars do not mainly reflect the spirit of the age, rather than the
> data.
True, although as a humanist I tend to think we can offer more than an
elaborate reflection of the prejudices of the age.
>
> Incidentally are we sure that the 'higher critical hypotheses' have
> survived? -- weren't the ideas of the Tubingen school pretty
> conclusively demolished by the arrival of archaeology in Palestine
> from 1900 on? (I suspect that I am missing your point, tho)
Probably a matter of definition. I consider modern critical scholarship
to be a descendant of the higher criticism of the late 19thC. Perhaps
I'm treating it the way I would ordinarily treat a scientific theory
(like, say, Darwin's and Wallaces) as it changes over time to be a
lineal descendant.
>
> As far as I can tell, 19th century scholarship of that period *in
> general* has not fared well. French sources routinely refer to it as
> "l'hyperscepticisme". For instance the Vienna edition of the works of
> Tertullian was edited by Emil Kroymann, who made real contributions to
> the study of the text. But in general modern scholars consider his
> edition unreliable, as he made changes to the text which are today
> considered too arbitrary. Over the last century scholars have tended
> to reject the methods of that period and to move much closer to the
> transmitted text. It was not long ago that I read one of Richard
> Burgess's works on the Chronography of Eusebius, in which he stated as
> undisputed fact that source criticism -- the darling of the higher
> critics -- was now largely discredited as a useful tool, being found,
> again, simply too subjective. Whether or not he is right, he is
> certainly an excellent text critic, working in the field today, and
> making remarks about his friends and colleagues.
>
> Just my thoughts, all probably rubbish, but mine own.
The basis of higher criticism was that texts have a history of their own
(i.e., they do not fall out of heaven), and that by applying reasonable
internal and external historical criteria we can come to a better
understanding of them. As our ideas of how to do history (it is no
longer wie es eigentlich gewesen war) have changed, so too must higher
criticism, but we have now more physical evidence in the form of older
mss, and archaeological evidence, say of the phoenician nature of early
Palenstinain religion, that changes how we see the texts compared to how
we did in the early period.
However, it seems to me that if you read the technical literature on the
OT, particularly the Pentateuch and chronicles (small "c") that higher
criticism is alive and well, except in conservative circles. When I did
theology, in an evangelical Anglican college (Ridley college in
Melbourne, under Leon Morris) that's what we learned, back in the 70s.
Garamond Lethe
Nice catch? I'm not seeing "32:47" in my edition on pg. 52 or the pages
immediately surrounding it, so I'm guessing a typo. Could you send over
the context? (I spent a large portion of my undergrad career studying
misprints -- thus the interest.)
> Why baseless? Because so far, there are too many assertions without
> support. P. 16, he says, "The text Deut., ch. 26, bears clear signs of
> a later revision." I want to know what these clear signs are. He gives
> none. He adds, "So it is hard to say when such historical summaries
> arose and came into use." Where are the earlier versions that would
> confirm that later revisions occurred? No evidence (so far, anyway) is
> offered. We must take von Rad at his word.
>
>
>>Now I'll be the first to admit that this is pretty heavy going. If
>>you're willing to accept all of this as an interesting hypothesis, I
>>think you'll enjoy going forward. But if you haven't been exposed to
>>the idea of multiple authors with differing intentions collating
>>multiple sources into the Hexateuch then I can see how this would be a
>>bit much to swallow all at once. I'm happy to take a step backwards and
>>explore the issue (to the best of my ability).
>>
>>And there are far too many exclamation points for my taste. Oh well.
>>
>>Over to you....
>
> well, to sum up so far....as a source book for understanding Genesis or
> even the history of the Hexateuch, von Rad's book, so far, fails
> miserably. Be prepared to come to his book with a trusting,
> unquestioning mind, and if lack of evidence propped up by long
> theological words is sufficient to convince, then this is the book for
> you.
>
> Should we go on, or enough said already?
<grin>
I think this is going to be fun....
I disagree with you characterizations of myopic, sloppy, and baseless,
but that primarily because I'm a bit more sympathetic to what vR was
trying to accomplish. Yes, I do think he was expecting his audience to
take his word for quite a bit of what he wrote, and that's the bane of
writing for a popular audience. You might have the same reaction to
"Consciousness Explained" or "The Selfish Gene" or "The Elegant
Universe", depending on your level of interest in the topic. This
certainly wouldn't have passed muster as his dissertation, and it sounds
like you're interested in that kind of writing. I think we'd be better
served by finding a more "exhaustive scientific commentary".
John or Roger -- any suggestions? Zoe, is there a particularly good
theological seminary that you know of? The class syllabuses should be
online, and that might be a good place to start.
I'm going to head over to Princeton and see what they have. I'm still
curious about the Hittite treaties and will keep this book on the
nightstand.
Best,
Garamond
John Wilkins
I have no idea, I'm afraid. There are lots of critical commentaries, but
nearly all of them are written from the perspective of those who think
that Genesi is an inspired scripture and not those who do a technical
commentary in neutral terms.
>
> I'm going to head over to Princeton and see what they have. I'm still
> curious about the Hittite treaties and will keep this book on the
> nightstand.
>
> Best,
>
> Garamond
>
>
> >>
> >>Garamond
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship [2] The example used
> >>is the Manna story, with vR placing Ex 16:4-5,13b-15 and 27-30 in the
> >>cultic tradition ("must be understood quite objectively and is filled
> >>with historical difficulties"), the Priestly document at Ex 2-3, 6-13a,
> >>and 16-26 ("The event is apparently described concretely, yet in such a
> >>way that no reader is detained by the external details .... A miracle,
> >>limited in space and time, becomes something universal, almost
> >>timelessly valid.") Finally, this is contrasted with the retelling in
> >>Deut 8.3: "[T]he Deuteronomist gave up the old meaning altogether. He
> >>speaks only indirectly of actual eating ... and substitutes for it
> >>feeding on God's word." (pg 18)
Garamond Lethe
After lots of googling, the best resource I've located is an annotated
bibliography hosted at Denver Seminary.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/annotated-old-testament-
bibliography-2007#commentaries
aka
Amazon has reviews and (occasionally) excerpts, of course. Zoe, since I
picked vR, I'll let you pick the next one.
Here are a few extra details. I've added the title where it differs from
the annot bib. [The annotations are nice, but not all the info lines up
with what's at the library of congress. Verrrry annoying.]
Author Pages LOC
Brueggemann, Walter. 384 BS1235.3 .B78 1982
Cassuto, Umberto ? BS1235.3 .C3
A commentary on the book of Genesis
Hamilton, Victor P. 522 BS1235.3 .H32 1990
Kidner, Derek 224 BS1235.3 .K47 1967b
Mathews, K. A. ? BS1235.3 .M37 1995
Ross, Allen P. 774 ?
Sarna, Nahum M. (Not sure which one of the following is indicated)
Genesis : world of myths and patriarchs
256 BS1235.2 .F47 1996
Genesis = Be-reshit : the traditional Hebrew text with new JPS
translation / commentary by Nahum M. Sarna
414 BS1235.3 .S325 1989
Understanding Genesis
267 BS1235.3 .S33
Waltke, Bruce K 656 BS1235.3 .W34 2001
Wenham, G.J.
Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1: Genesis 1-15
352 BS491.2 .W67 1982
Westermann, Claus.
Genesis 1-11 : a continental commentary / Claus Westermann ;
translated by John J. Scullion
636 BS1235.3 .W43213 1994
The only other one of interest I found is:
Genesis 1-4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary
C. John Collins, 318 pgs,
This would be the most focused on the creation story, of course.
Your preference?
Garamond
John Wilkins
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:55:33 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
...
I looked at this on Google Books. It looks interesting.
> Kidner, Derek 224 BS1235.3 .K47 1967b
> Mathews, K. A. ? BS1235.3 .M37 1995
> Ross, Allen P. 774 ?
> Sarna, Nahum M. (Not sure which one of the following is indicated)
> Genesis : world of myths and patriarchs
> 256 BS1235.2 .F47 1996
> Genesis = Be-reshit : the traditional Hebrew text with new JPS
> translation / commentary by Nahum M. Sarna
> 414 BS1235.3 .S325 1989
> Understanding Genesis
> 267 BS1235.3 .S33
> Waltke, Bruce K 656 BS1235.3 .W34 2001
> Wenham, G.J.
> Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1: Genesis 1-15
> 352 BS491.2 .W67 1982
This will be from an evangelical slant, I bet.
> Westermann, Claus.
> Genesis 1-11 : a continental commentary / Claus Westermann ;
> translated by John J. Scullion
> 636 BS1235.3 .W43213 1994
A classic, I gather.
>
> The only other one of interest I found is:
>
> Genesis 1-4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary
> C. John Collins, 318 pgs,
>
> This would be the most focused on the creation story, of course.
>
> Your preference?
>
>
...
Roger Pearse
If so, I hope we all possess enough detachment to laugh.
> And I know a number of higher critics who think of themselves as good Christians.
<chortle>
> So given the role of the Holy Spirit as a motivator of religious tradition
> in Christianity, one might make the claim on their behalf.
Not with a straight face, tho. But pardon me, this is just not an
argument that I can believe that you believe -- I certainly do not --,
and there are relatively few ways to say that without giving offence.
The whole argument is plainly merely a piece of dishonest playing with
words intended purely to confuse people appealing to the scriptures.
(If you controvert that, of course, you force me to accuse you also of
dishonesty; and I will do so if you make me!).
> > > That said, it seems to me that the higher critics of whom I have any
> > > personal information that they have been honest, careful and serious
> > > people who take their religious duty to be to discuss the truth. As the
> > > higher critical hypotheses have survived over a century of testing and
> > > rebuttal, I think that honest intellectual people must take it to be
> > > seriously established.
>
> > In view of the fact that their probity was questioned at the time,
> > surely it is not unreasonable if people do have doubts today, tho?
> > Particularly when we can see that some of the work done at the time
> > was more than questionable? I've made no systematic study -- a morose
> > topic -- but there is a paper (Holst, "Lucian and the Germans") in
> > some festschrift which tells us that the consensus of German scholars
> > on Lucian (Lucian=rubbish, and probably Jewish) up to 1945 was derived
> > entirely from a single influential article, which in turn was verbally
> > identical with passages in an article written by Houston Stewart
> > Chamberlain in an anti-semitic propaganda sheet a few months before.
>
> Don't make the Genetic Fallacy here - there may be ideas of relevance
> that come out of the most despicable schools of nineteenth century
> thought.
I don't know what the 'Genetic fallacy' might be, but if the argument
is that if the Higher Critics were indeed the most despised and
worthless of men, endlessly involved in vice and deceit, yet their
arguments might still have validity, of course this is so. Hitler had
much of interest to say, on the same lines, it could be argued. It's
not an argument that I would be proud to make in defence of someone,
however. It doesn't seem to address my comments, tho.
> > This is the curse of the humanities. It lacks a proper mechanism to
> > ensure that, on topics of controversy -- religion or politics -- that
> > scholars do not mainly reflect the spirit of the age, rather than the
> > data.
>
> True, although as a humanist I tend to think we can offer more than an
> elaborate reflection of the prejudices of the age.
I hope so too. As a cynical man, tho, I fear the evidence is against
us.
> > Incidentally are we sure that the 'higher critical hypotheses' have
> > survived? -- weren't the ideas of the Tubingen school pretty
> > conclusively demolished by the arrival of archaeology in Palestine
> > from 1900 on? (I suspect that I am missing your point, tho)
>
> Probably a matter of definition. I consider modern critical scholarship
> to be a descendant of the higher criticism of the late 19thC. Perhaps
> I'm treating it the way I would ordinarily treat a scientific theory
> (like, say, Darwin's and Wallaces) as it changes over time to be a
> lineal descendant.
My impression that the Higher Criticism involved taking positions from
which scholarship has retreated, rather than progressed through. As
you say, perhaps a matter of definition.
> > As far as I can tell, 19th century scholarship of that period *in
> > general* has not fared well. French sources routinely refer to it as
> > "l'hyperscepticisme". For instance the Vienna edition of the works of
> > Tertullian was edited by Emil Kroymann, who made real contributions to
> > the study of the text. But in general modern scholars consider his
> > edition unreliable, as he made changes to the text which are today
> > considered too arbitrary. Over the last century scholars have tended
> > to reject the methods of that period and to move much closer to the
> > transmitted text. It was not long ago that I read one of Richard
> > Burgess's works on the Chronography of Eusebius, in which he stated as
> > undisputed fact that source criticism -- the darling of the higher
> > critics -- was now largely discredited as a useful tool, being found,
> > again, simply too subjective. Whether or not he is right, he is
> > certainly an excellent text critic, working in the field today, and
> > making remarks about his friends and colleagues.
>
> > Just my thoughts, all probably rubbish, but mine own.
>
> The basis of higher criticism was that texts have a history of their own
> (i.e., they do not fall out of heaven), and that by applying reasonable
> internal and external historical criteria we can come to a better
> understanding of them.
Ah, this is not the basis of *higher* criticism, tho; isn't this a
description of all historical criticism, higher or lower, and evident
before and after the period in question? All texts have histories.
Some kind of structured common sense as a way to analyse them --
following the innovations of Lachmann, for instance, dealing with
eliminatio codicum, etc -- is not really the reason that the Higher
Criticism attracted so much flak and ended up with such a doubtful
reputation.
> However, it seems to me that if you read the technical literature on the
> OT...
Sorry, but here I would be out of field and so cannot comment. If OT
scholarship is still reliant on these methods, tho, it would certainly
explain some terrible drivel that I recall reading in the Cambridge
Ancient History about the Burning Bush; ignoring the only data on the
subject and inventing explanations that are purely imaginary and even
contradicted by what data exists.
Roger Pearse
Guess. I feel no need to address this rhetorical bunch of strawmen.
> >>We know nothing of them other than their writings. Finally, miracles? Are
> >>you seriously proposing that there is real evidence of the working of
> >>miracles by anyone associated with writing or otherwise influencing the
> >>bible?
>
> > Just a moment. If I understand you correctly you are asserting the
> > following propositions, all together:
>
> > 1. The Higher Critics are divinely inspired
> > 2. God never allows people to work miracles.
>
> No, I'm asserting neither of these. In fact I don't think there is any
> such thing as divine inspiration...
I think that this means that you're addressing a different post to
mine, tho.
> I'm saying that if there were such a thing we would have no way to know
> that the Higher Critics were not so inspired, or that the writers of the
> bible were.
Perhaps you would like to offer some evidence for this claim?
> Further, I don't see any justification for the criteria you choose.
I'm sure. But in view of your evident intention to invent
difficulties and confuse what is plain, rather than to clarify things
-- you will excuse me if I decline the gambit.
If you want to argue that divine inspiration is impossible, do so.
Sniping at others while inventing strawmen in which you yourself do
not believe -- that the Higher Critics were divinely inspired -- is
merely likely to get you called names. You will deserve those names,
incidentally.
John Wilkins
Really? I thought the Christian tradition withheld judgement of other
believers. Perhaps doctrine has changed in the past 30 years.
>
> > And I know a number of higher critics who think of themselves as good
> > Christians.
>
> <chortle>
You reject this out of hand? It seems to me that is prejudice, in the
etymological sense.
>
> > So given the role of the Holy Spirit as a motivator of religious tradition
> > in Christianity, one might make the claim on their behalf.
>
> Not with a straight face, tho. But pardon me, this is just not an
> argument that I can believe that you believe -- I certainly do not --,
> and there are relatively few ways to say that without giving offence.
> The whole argument is plainly merely a piece of dishonest playing with
> words intended purely to confuse people appealing to the scriptures.
> (If you controvert that, of course, you force me to accuse you also of
> dishonesty; and I will do so if you make me!).
I certainly do not believe this, because I am irreligious. But *you* do,
or ought to. So I ask again - is there any theological reason why a
commentator might not claim that their work is part of the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, other than that you happen to disagree with their
interpretation? If not, then why do you think you should have priority?
Because it is traditional dogma? Dogma has changed many times over the
history of the Christian church, and continues to, so tradition is at
best a partial guide to orthodoxy, and in fact likely to be as fallible
as any other.
If I were Christian, I would be forced to consider even handedly whether
the work of higher critics was in fact part of the work of the Holy
Spirit in the faith community. It puzzles me why you do not think that.
Well you are the one claiming that they are bad Christians (or imply
they are not Christians at all), not me. I am suggesting that if
interpretation of the Scriptures is guided by the Holy Spirit (your
religion's claim, I believe) then they are as much likely to be part of
that as older schools of thought.
The genetic fallacy is that an idea's or conclusion's worth is derived
fromt he moral standing of those who put it forward. It is, in this
case, also an ad hominem argument. You offer guilt by association - some
higher critics have been racists so higher criticism is wrong. That's
logical bullpuckey, as the Rev. Richard Whatley, who reintroduced logic
to the Englishs peaking world in 1826, would have thought a terrible
argument.
>
> > > This is the curse of the humanities. It lacks a proper mechanism to
> > > ensure that, on topics of controversy -- religion or politics -- that
> > > scholars do not mainly reflect the spirit of the age, rather than the
> > > data.
> >
> > True, although as a humanist I tend to think we can offer more than an
> > elaborate reflection of the prejudices of the age.
>
> I hope so too. As a cynical man, tho, I fear the evidence is against
> us.
I do not think that. I know many humanists who do manage to see past the
prejudices of their age. I don't always agree with them, but I respect
them.
>
> > > Incidentally are we sure that the 'higher critical hypotheses' have
> > > survived? -- weren't the ideas of the Tubingen school pretty
> > > conclusively demolished by the arrival of archaeology in Palestine
> > > from 1900 on? (I suspect that I am missing your point, tho)
> >
> > Probably a matter of definition. I consider modern critical scholarship
> > to be a descendant of the higher criticism of the late 19thC. Perhaps
> > I'm treating it the way I would ordinarily treat a scientific theory
> > (like, say, Darwin's and Wallaces) as it changes over time to be a
> > lineal descendant.
>
> My impression that the Higher Criticism involved taking positions from
> which scholarship has retreated, rather than progressed through. As
> you say, perhaps a matter of definition.
Your impression is, I believe, quite wrong. At least, wrong as of 1979
when I last did Old Testament studies. In particular the documentary
hypothesis for the Pentateuch is very well established.
Higher criticism is, as I was taught at Ridley college, the use of
internal evidence and external evidence to assess what the documents
would have meant when they were written or redacted. As I read the
Pentateuch, it fairly screams multiple authors.
>
> > However, it seems to me that if you read the technical literature on the
> > OT...
>
> Sorry, but here I would be out of field and so cannot comment. If OT
> scholarship is still reliant on these methods, tho, it would certainly
> explain some terrible drivel that I recall reading in the Cambridge
> Ancient History about the Burning Bush; ignoring the only data on the
> subject and inventing explanations that are purely imaginary and even
> contradicted by what data exists.
What is said in Ancient History is a quite different matter. Scholars
are very insular, and cannot be expected to understand technical matters
outside their domain. So what an ancient historian may have said in no
way reflects on what OT scholars may have thought.
But I have a double degree in history and philosophy, and I know that
the method of historical interpretation of documents today relies very
much on completely similar methods to those of higher criticism. What a
text says must be put in its context, and not taken at face value or
depend on a tradition of interpretation. This began with the debunking
of the Donation of Constantine by Lorenzo Valla in the 16th century, for
heaven's sake. It is so well established amongst historians that to
doubt it is to doubt that we can ever know anything about history, so I
think you are so blinded by your theology that you can't even consider
that higher critical studies (*modern* HC) might be a method of
enlightenment.
To be quite honest, I think you are being hypocritical.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
John Harshman
Could you at least address the first, serious question, i.e. "why"?
>>>>We know nothing of them other than their writings. Finally, miracles? Are
>>>>you seriously proposing that there is real evidence of the working of
>>>>miracles by anyone associated with writing or otherwise influencing the
>>>>bible?
>>
>>>Just a moment. If I understand you correctly you are asserting the
>>>following propositions, all together:
>>
>>>1. The Higher Critics are divinely inspired
>>>2. God never allows people to work miracles.
>>
>>No, I'm asserting neither of these. In fact I don't think there is any
>>such thing as divine inspiration...
>
> I think that this means that you're addressing a different post to
> mine, tho.
I don't understand this.
>>I'm saying that if there were such a thing we would have no way to know
>>that the Higher Critics were not so inspired, or that the writers of the
>>bible were.
>
> Perhaps you would like to offer some evidence for this claim?
I have to turn that around. Can you offer any valid criteria for
assessing divine inspiration?
>>Further, I don't see any justification for the criteria you choose.
>
> I'm sure. But in view of your evident intention to invent
> difficulties and confuse what is plain, rather than to clarify things
> -- you will excuse me if I decline the gambit.
>
> If you want to argue that divine inspiration is impossible, do so.
> Sniping at others while inventing strawmen in which you yourself do
> not believe -- that the Higher Critics were divinely inspired -- is
> merely likely to get you called names. You will deserve those names,
> incidentally.
I have never claimed that the Higher Critics were divinely inspired. I
merely say that you have no criteria for denying that they were. However
since you refuse to engage on this point, there seems no opportunity for
futher discussion.
Roger Pearse
wrote:
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Perhaps you would like to offer some evidence for this claim?
>
> I have to turn that around. Can you offer any valid criteria for
> assessing divine inspiration?
This more or less summarises the problem that I have with your post,
I'm afraid. It's purely negative. This won't do.
Roger Pearse
>
> > > So given the role of the Holy Spirit as a motivator of religious tradition
> > > in Christianity, one might make the claim on their behalf.
>
> > Not with a straight face, tho. But pardon me, this is just not an
> > argument that I can believe that you believe -- I certainly do not --,
> > and there are relatively few ways to say that without giving offence.
> > The whole argument is plainly merely a piece of dishonest playing with
> > words intended purely to confuse people appealing to the scriptures.
> > (If you controvert that, of course, you force me to accuse you also of
> > dishonesty; and I will do so if you make me!).
>
> I certainly do not believe this, because I am irreligious.
Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
acceptable form of debate, morally?
> Higher criticism is...(snip reiteration)
I'm sorry that you chose to ignore what I wrote, but of course I see
no reason to repeat it again! You did this several times, almost
verbatim. Why did you do this? Such tactics involve name-calling
pretty soon.
> This began with the debunking of the Donation of Constantine by Lorenzo Valla in the 16th century, for
> heaven's sake.
We're discussing the Higher Criticism, a movement of the 19th
century. Your appeal to Valla is curious to me, not least because,
well, I've *read* Valla, you know. The point about Valla is that he
uses critical methods. This has, as I have said above, no special
relevance to the Higher Criticism. I'm getting the impression that
perhaps you're repeating someone else here?
> ... I think you are so blinded by your theology that you can't even consider
> that higher critical studies (*modern* HC) might be a method of
> enlightenment.
Isn't this an ad hominem -- "you only say that because you're a dirty
atheist/Christian/Nazi/Jew (etc)"? Is it the same as that genetic
fallacy you were banging on about earlier? Seriously, address my
arguments, not my religion. Only atheists are refuted by the mere
fact of their religious belief, and that only because of their
inability to express any rational position for themselves, or anything
but carping and jeering about others.
John Harshman
Why not? You have made some claims and I'm asking you to justify them.
You claim that you have criteria to detect divine inspiration.
I'm asking two things:
How they can be applied to the bible, where we have none of the
information necessary.
How you can justify the validity of those criteria.
Is it rude of me to ask either of these questions? I don't see it.
John Wilkins
It's a "by your lights" argument. The technical term for it is "tu
quoque". As to it being moral or not, the only morality in formal
argument is consistency. You argue from your premises - I cannot
challenge these except to say that they are not mine. But they are
yours, and it seems that certain conclusions should follow from them
that you do not accept. I am merely trying to find out why.
You snipped my argument, by the way, without responding. Here it is
again:
> > But *you* do, or ought to. So I ask again - is there any theological
> > reason why a commentator might not claim that their work is part of the
> > inspiration of the Holy Spirit, other than that you happen to disagree
> > with their interpretation? If not, then why do you think you should have
> > priority? Because it is traditional dogma? Dogma has changed many times
> > over the history of the Christian church, and continues to, so tradition
> > is at best a partial guide to orthodoxy, and in fact likely to be as
> > fallible as any other.
> >
> > If I were Christian, I would be forced to consider even handedly whether
> > the work of higher critics was in fact part of the work of the Holy
> > Spirit in the faith community. It puzzles me why you do not think that.
>
Again, it was not reiteration, but elaboration, and you chose to ignore
*it*. I get the impression that you do not "see" problems with what you
write when others point it out to you.
>
> I'm sorry that you chose to ignore what I wrote, but of course I see
> no reason to repeat it again! You did this several times, almost
> verbatim. Why did you do this? Such tactics involve name-calling
> pretty soon.
What you wrote was to pull up a few problems you have found with some
higher criticics. But in no way did you establish (indeed, you
explicitly stated that it was out of your field) that higher criticism
itself was not widely accepted.
>
> > This began with the debunking of the Donation of Constantine by Lorenzo
> > Valla in the 16th century, for heaven's sake.
>
> We're discussing the Higher Criticism, a movement of the 19th
> century. Your appeal to Valla is curious to me, not least because,
> well, I've *read* Valla, you know. The point about Valla is that he
> uses critical methods. This has, as I have said above, no special
> relevance to the Higher Criticism. I'm getting the impression that
> perhaps you're repeating someone else here?
No, I studied historiography for several years as an undergrad, and they
stuck. What I am saying is that you are confused. Your attack on higher
criticsm so far has been
1. They were racists
2. They do not interpret the Bible the way tradition or you do
3. Everything Wilkins says is irrelevant because he's not a Christian.
I exaggerate slightly for dramatic effect.
I appealed to Valla because that *is* higher criticism. The difference
is that it took a long while to apply it generally to the Bible,
although I gather it started in the 17th century.
>
> > ... I think you are so blinded by your theology that you can't even consider
> > that higher critical studies (*modern* HC) might be a method of
> > enlightenment.
>
> Isn't this an ad hominem -- "you only say that because you're a dirty
> atheist/Christian/Nazi/Jew (etc)"? Is it the same as that genetic
> fallacy you were banging on about earlier? Seriously, address my
> arguments, not my religion. Only atheists are refuted by the mere
> fact of their religious belief, and that only because of their
> inability to express any rational position for themselves, or anything
> but carping and jeering about others.
Saying "your view is forcing you to think X because of your commitment
to Y" is hardly calling somone a dirty Jew or Nazi. As it happens, I
have a certain respect for catholic Christianity born of my largely
positive experience of it. But I am rapidly losing any respect for you.
You appear to know the patristic literature very well. I do not think
you know the principles of your own faith as well. So I think we should
end this conversation before I call you a Pharisee.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
Friar Broccoli
> Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
> whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
> acceptable form of debate, morally?
As it happens I am trying to develop a series of arguments
concerning Genesis/scripture, with the intent of making
evolution palatable to Christians, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ac1714347626dc69
Since I don't have the slightest idea how "real" Christians
harmonize Genesis with evolution, I was wondering if you would
consider it ethical to criticise my arguments and perhaps
suggest a book or two (suitable for someone who has difficult
processing complex ideas, especially when they are clothed with
multi-syllable words in long sentences [without pictures]).
Concerning my personal ethics on making arguments on issues I
don't believe, I try to limit my morality to consequences:
- Is hurt a reasonable consequence of my actions?
- I am leading someone toward truth or away from it?
I am never a high volume poster and right now I feel like crap,
so my response to any offerings you may choose to make will be
slow, but such offerings would be much appreciated.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Tiny Bulcher
<snip>
>>> ... I think you are so blinded by your theology that you can't even
>>> consider that higher critical studies (*modern* HC) might be a
>>> method of enlightenment.
>>
>> Isn't this an ad hominem -- "you only say that because you're a dirty
>> atheist/Christian/Nazi/Jew (etc)"? Is it the same as that genetic
>> fallacy you were banging on about earlier? Seriously, address my
>> arguments, not my religion.
>> Only atheists are refuted by the mere
>> fact of their religious belief, and that only because of their
>> inability to express any rational position for themselves, or
>> anything but carping and jeering about others.
Isn't that an ad hominem?
> Saying "your view is forcing you to think X because of your commitment
> to Y" is hardly calling somone a dirty Jew or Nazi. As it happens, I
> have a certain respect for catholic Christianity born of my largely
> positive experience of it. But I am rapidly losing any respect for
> you. You appear to know the patristic literature very well. I do not
> think you know the principles of your own faith as well. So I think
> we should end this conversation before I call you a Pharisee.
Wise move. Roger's stonewalling technique is finely crafted to drive his
opponent mad, at which point he will <chuckle> and say, 'See, I told you
atheists always resort to abuse'.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:40:30 -0500, Zoe wrote:
snip>
>> Why sloppy? von Rad uses "et cetera" in areas where I would have liked
>> for him to have finished the thought. And at one point, he quotes a
>> text that is not there. On p. 52, he refers to Genesis 32:47, but
>> chapter 32 does not have 47 verses. Well, that might be a typo or
>> proofreading failure in translation from German to English, but I am now
>> left to hunt for the text that is supposed to support his
>> interpretation.
>
>Nice catch? I'm not seeing "32:47" in my edition on pg. 52 or the pages
>immediately surrounding it, so I'm guessing a typo. Could you send over
>the context? (I spent a large portion of my undergrad career studying
>misprints -- thus the interest.)
unfortunately, I've returned the book already, so can't go back to
that page. I have jotted comments on material up to page 88, but then
figured that if you wanted to continue a discussion, that I would just
work with whatever quotes and comments you might make.
Did you find any text quotation at all on page 52? Somehow I tend to
see it in my mind's eye as being on a left-side page, in a paragraph
near the top....but that could be totally wrong by now.
snip>
>
><grin>
>
>I think this is going to be fun....
>
>I disagree with you characterizations of myopic, sloppy, and baseless,
>but that primarily because I'm a bit more sympathetic to what vR was
>trying to accomplish.
what do you think he was trying to accomplish? I hope he didn't have
an agenda. I know I got the impression that he was trying to
harmonize the prevailing views in science with scripture. He lived
from 1901-1971, and I'm sure he had to deal with the rising role of
evolutionary theory in the field of science. He may have felt a need
to reconcile the dichotomy. He does refer a number of times to
science, which referrals seem to confirm my impression:
"The following commentary, like every other, results from a very
definite phase of our scientific knowledge with all its limits and
privileges." p. 11
"The fear of acknowledging a sublime spirituality (Geistigkeit)
'already' in the early royal period is, in our opinion, misplaced
scientific method." p. 11
"...evolution of creation," p. 51
"From the standpoint of modern science..." p. 67
> Yes, I do think he was expecting his audience to
>take his word for quite a bit of what he wrote, and that's the bane of
>writing for a popular audience. You might have the same reaction to
>"Consciousness Explained" or "The Selfish Gene" or "The Elegant
>Universe", depending on your level of interest in the topic.
I haven't read the first two, but from what I've read in The Elegant
Universe, I don't get the same vibe as I do with Genesis: a
Commentary. Brian Greene states facts as facts, theories as theories,
and ideas as ideas. String theory is not made out to be proven, but
is presented with enough information that it appeals to reason. Not
so with von Rad.
> This
>certainly wouldn't have passed muster as his dissertation, and it sounds
>like you're interested in that kind of writing. I think we'd be better
>served by finding a more "exhaustive scientific commentary".
>
>John or Roger -- any suggestions? Zoe, is there a particularly good
>theological seminary that you know of? The class syllabuses should be
>online, and that might be a good place to start.
actually, I have no acquaintance with seminaries or higher criticism
so I'm going to leave that up to you.
My suggestion would be to start reading Genesis, using a
Hebrew/English translation. The Interlinear Bible (Hebrew Greek
English), would be nice since that's what I have on hand. We could go
verse by verse, and as questions arise, various commentaries on the
verse could be consulted to see what others have to say, but
hopefully, we would never check our own minds at their doors.
snip>
Garamond Lethe
> On 01 Dec 2007 03:59:12 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:40:30 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>> Why sloppy? von Rad uses "et cetera" in areas where I would have
>>> liked for him to have finished the thought. And at one point, he
>>> quotes a text that is not there. On p. 52, he refers to Genesis
>>> 32:47, but chapter 32 does not have 47 verses. Well, that might be a
>>> typo or proofreading failure in translation from German to English,
>>> but I am now left to hunt for the text that is supposed to support his
>>> interpretation.
>>
>>Nice catch? I'm not seeing "32:47" in my edition on pg. 52 or the pages
>>immediately surrounding it, so I'm guessing a typo. Could you send over
>>the context? (I spent a large portion of my undergrad career studying
>>misprints -- thus the interest.)
>
> unfortunately, I've returned the book already, so can't go back to that
> page. I have jotted comments on material up to page 88, but then
> figured that if you wanted to continue a discussion, that I would just
> work with whatever quotes and comments you might make.
>
> Did you find any text quotation at all on page 52? Somehow I tend to
> see it in my mind's eye as being on a left-side page, in a paragraph
> near the top....but that could be totally wrong by now.
My copy is at home -- I'll bring it into the lab tomorrow.
>
> snip>
>>
>><grin>
>>
>>I think this is going to be fun....
>>
>>I disagree with you characterizations of myopic, sloppy, and baseless,
>>but that primarily because I'm a bit more sympathetic to what vR was
>>trying to accomplish.
>
> what do you think he was trying to accomplish?
I think he was trying to compact a lifetime of Biblical criticism into a
very dense, more-or-less accessible book. If someone wanted to know what
the "higher criticism" view in the 1950s was on Genesis, this would be
the appropriate book to consult.
> I hope he didn't have an
> agenda.
I'm sure he had an agenda to show the truth as he understood it to a
particular audience, as well as his publisher's agenda to keep the book
to a manageable size.
> I know I got the impression that he was trying to harmonize the
> prevailing views in science with scripture. He lived from 1901-1971,
> and I'm sure he had to deal with the rising role of evolutionary theory
> in the field of science. He may have felt a need to reconcile the
> dichotomy. He does refer a number of times to science, which referrals
> seem to confirm my impression:
>
> "The following commentary, like every other, results from a very
> definite phase of our scientific knowledge with all its limits and
> privileges." p. 11
>
> "The fear of acknowledging a sublime spirituality (Geistigkeit)
> 'already' in the early royal period is, in our opinion, misplaced
> scientific method." p. 11
>
> "...evolution of creation," p. 51
>
> "From the standpoint of modern science..." p. 67
There was also a quote early on in Chapter 2 along the lines of "there is
nothing of paleological interest in the creation story." (I'll find the
exact quote this evening.) I had the impression that he wasn't so much
interested in harmonizing Genesis with science as making use of science
to understand Genesis. If you're willing to (tentatively, always
tentatively) accept a few hundred years of Biblical archeology and
textual analysis, then instead of asking whether or not the first verses
of Genesis are literally true, you can instead turn to what I find to be
much more interesting questions: Where did these texts originate? Why
were they important to the people who kept them alive? How were they
changed once they were written down, and why?
John brought up the question of whether looking at texts in this light
prevents them from being simultaneously considered as divinely inspired.
The tradition I was raised in has no difficulty with this -- neither the
Bible nor its interpretation need remain fixed; God can use different
texts and different interpretations of text to get across the necessary
message.
>
>> Yes, I do think he was expecting his audience to
>>take his word for quite a bit of what he wrote, and that's the bane of
>>writing for a popular audience. You might have the same reaction to
>>"Consciousness Explained" or "The Selfish Gene" or "The Elegant
>>Universe", depending on your level of interest in the topic.
>
> I haven't read the first two, but from what I've read in The Elegant
> Universe, I don't get the same vibe as I do with Genesis: a Commentary.
> Brian Greene states facts as facts, theories as theories, and ideas as
> ideas. String theory is not made out to be proven, but is presented
> with enough information that it appeals to reason. Not so with von Rad.
That's a fair point.
>
>> This
>>certainly wouldn't have passed muster as his dissertation, and it sounds
>>like you're interested in that kind of writing. I think we'd be better
>>served by finding a more "exhaustive scientific commentary".
>>
>>John or Roger -- any suggestions? Zoe, is there a particularly good
>>theological seminary that you know of? The class syllabuses should be
>>online, and that might be a good place to start.
>
> actually, I have no acquaintance with seminaries or higher criticism so
> I'm going to leave that up to you.
>
> My suggestion would be to start reading Genesis, using a Hebrew/English
> translation. The Interlinear Bible (Hebrew Greek English), would be nice
> since that's what I have on hand. We could go verse by verse, and as
> questions arise, various commentaries on the verse could be consulted to
> see what others have to say, but hopefully, we would never check our own
> minds at their doors.
I'd really enjoy that. However, I'd like to start with the textual
discussion I outlined about.
I'll hit the library again this afternoon. Does your Interlinear Bible
have an introduction that covers any of this?
Best,
Garamond
>
> snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:12:18 -0500, Zoe wrote:
snip>
>>>
>>>I disagree with you characterizations of myopic, sloppy, and baseless,
>>>but that primarily because I'm a bit more sympathetic to what vR was
>>>trying to accomplish.
>>
>> what do you think he was trying to accomplish?
>
>I think he was trying to compact a lifetime of Biblical criticism into a
>very dense, more-or-less accessible book. If someone wanted to know what
>the "higher criticism" view in the 1950s was on Genesis, this would be
>the appropriate book to consult.
I sensed in his writing an awareness on his part that current
scientific philosophy was inconsistent with a literal Old Testament
history, and he was trying to harmonize the two. To do so, he had to
relegate one or the other to the status of myth. And a literal Old
Testament history took the hit.
>
>> I hope he didn't have an
>> agenda.
>
>I'm sure he had an agenda to show the truth as he understood it to a
>particular audience, as well as his publisher's agenda to keep the book
>to a manageable size.
was the truth, as he understood it, governed by an agenda to harmonize
science and scripture? I felt this to be the case.
>> I know I got the impression that he was trying to harmonize the
>> prevailing views in science with scripture. He lived from 1901-1971,
>> and I'm sure he had to deal with the rising role of evolutionary theory
>> in the field of science. He may have felt a need to reconcile the
>> dichotomy. He does refer a number of times to science, which referrals
>> seem to confirm my impression:
>>
>> "The following commentary, like every other, results from a very
>> definite phase of our scientific knowledge with all its limits and
>> privileges." p. 11
>>
>> "The fear of acknowledging a sublime spirituality (Geistigkeit)
>> 'already' in the early royal period is, in our opinion, misplaced
>> scientific method." p. 11
>>
>> "...evolution of creation," p. 51
>>
>> "From the standpoint of modern science..." p. 67
>
>There was also a quote early on in Chapter 2 along the lines of "there is
>nothing of paleological interest in the creation story." (I'll find the
>exact quote this evening.)
I remember that quote. There certainly is no suggestion of a
prehistoric, primitive history in the creation story, no hint of
geologic eras or of fossils of ancient origin. Evolutionary theory
would find no foothold in the terse account of Genesis 1 and 2.
> I had the impression that he wasn't so much
>interested in harmonizing Genesis with science as making use of science
>to understand Genesis.
you may be right. Personally, I don't think you need science in order
to understand scripture. Archeology and philology might be helpful
for a broader understanding of the times, but it won't help any
further understanding of the meaning of a statement such as "God
made." The meaning of the word "made" and/or understanding the
structure of the made object does not change the fact that the object
was claimed to be made. "Made" and "evolve" do not mean the same
thing.
> If you're willing to (tentatively, always
>tentatively) accept a few hundred years of Biblical archeology and
>textual analysis, then instead of asking whether or not the first verses
>of Genesis are literally true, you can instead turn to what I find to be
>much more interesting questions: Where did these texts originate?
would it make a difference where they originated?
> Why
>were they important to the people who kept them alive?
is there a way to know the motives of the people who kept their
history alive?
> How were they
>changed once they were written down, and why?
and this is where von Rad failed. He did not show how they were
changed, nor why. Are there studies out there that can do this?
Garamond, I am willing to listen to the various approaches to textual
analysis, and I am interested to learn about the finds in Biblical
archeology, but how does the origination of texts or their background,
change a statement such as "God made" into "God did not make"?
Especially if there is a strong scaffolding of statements over a long
period of time that support the "God made"?
>
>John brought up the question of whether looking at texts in this light
>prevents them from being simultaneously considered as divinely inspired.
>The tradition I was raised in has no difficulty with this -- neither the
>Bible nor its interpretation need remain fixed; God can use different
>texts and different interpretations of text to get across the necessary
>message.
agree. As long as the different interpretations do not change the
necessary message itself.
snip>
>>>John or Roger -- any suggestions? Zoe, is there a particularly good
>>>theological seminary that you know of? The class syllabuses should be
>>>online, and that might be a good place to start.
>>
>> actually, I have no acquaintance with seminaries or higher criticism so
>> I'm going to leave that up to you.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to start reading Genesis, using a Hebrew/English
>> translation. The Interlinear Bible (Hebrew Greek English), would be nice
>> since that's what I have on hand. We could go verse by verse, and as
>> questions arise, various commentaries on the verse could be consulted to
>> see what others have to say, but hopefully, we would never check our own
>> minds at their doors.
>
>I'd really enjoy that. However, I'd like to start with the textual
>discussion I outlined about.
>
>I'll hit the library again this afternoon. Does your Interlinear Bible
>have an introduction that covers any of this?
the preface is devoted to introducing the Hebrew and Greek texts
(Masoretic text was used for the Old Testament here) and the English
translation, special difficulties in the translation, difficulties in
the Old and New Testament, and notes on the use of the Strong's
numbering system. There is a Hebrew alphabet and a Greek alphabet,
with pronunciations. No opinions are expressed. You're on your own
once you figure out how things are laid out. Well, not necessarily on
your own, if you believe in God.
Garamond Lethe
> On 02 Dec 2007 20:24:20 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:12:18 -0500, Zoe wrote:
<snip>
>>I'm sure he had an agenda to show the truth as he understood it to a
>>particular audience, as well as his publisher's agenda to keep the book
>>to a manageable size.
>
> was the truth, as he understood it, governed by an agenda to harmonize
> science and scripture? I felt this to be the case.
That may be the case, but if so, it's a tradition that goes back to
Augustine (and probably earlier). From Encyclopedia Britanica
<q>
Biblical scholars point out that the Bible is inerrant with respect to
religious truth, not in matters that are of no significance to salvation.
Augustine, considered by many the greatest Christian theologian, wrote in
the early 5th century in his De Genesi ad litteram (Literal Commentary on
Genesis):
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the
form and shape of heaven, according to Sacred Scripture. Many
scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the
sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such
subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude. And what
is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given
to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine
whether heaven is like a sphere and Earth is enclosed by it and
suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven is
like a disk and the Earth is above it and hovering to one side.
Augustine adds later in the same chapter: “In the matter of the shape of
heaven, the sacred writers did not wish to teach men facts that could be
of no avail for their salvation.” Augustine is saying that the book of
Genesis is not an elementary book of astronomy. It is a book about
religion, and it is not the purpose of its religious authors to settle
questions about the shape of the universe that are of no relevance
whatsoever to how to seek salvation.
In the same vein, John Paul II said in 1981:
The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific
treatise but in order to state the correct relationships of man
with God and with the universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to
declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach
this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in
use at the time of the writer.Any other teaching about the origin
and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the
Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but
how one goes to heaven.
</q>
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-247558/evolution#846775.hook
Van Till also quotes from this in his "Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine
of Creation's Functional Integrity"
<q>
In his work, De Genesi ad Litteram, or The Literal Meaning of Genesis,
St. Augustine provides an extensive commentary on the first three
chapters of Genesis. His goal is to demonstrate a one-to-one
correspondence between the text of these chapters and what actually took
place in the creative work of God; in fact, this is precisely how he
defines the term 'literal' in this endeavor. (note 2) However, even
though his reading is bound by the controlling assumption that Genesis
1-3 is 'a faithful record of what happened,' Augustine is insistent that
the literal meaning thereby derived may never stand in contradiction to
one's competently derived knowledge about 'the earth, the heavens, and
the other elements of this world,' knowledge that one rightfully 'holds
to as being certain from reason and experience' (1.19.39). In a tone of
voice that leaves no doubt concerning his attitude, Augustine soundly
reprimands those Christians who defend interpretations of Scripture that
any scientifically knowledgeable nonChristian would recognize as
nonsense. 'Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring
untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in
one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those
who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books' (1.19.39).
</q>
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199804/0345.html
<snip>
>>There was also a quote early on in Chapter 2 along the lines of "there
>>is nothing of paleological interest in the creation story." (I'll find
>>the exact quote this evening.)
>
> I remember that quote. There certainly is no suggestion of a
> prehistoric, primitive history in the creation story, no hint of
> geologic eras or of fossils of ancient origin. Evolutionary theory
> would find no foothold in the terse account of Genesis 1 and 2.
I agree.
>
>> I had the impression that he wasn't so much
>>interested in harmonizing Genesis with science as making use of science
>>to understand Genesis.
>
> you may be right. Personally, I don't think you need science in order
> to understand scripture. Archeology and philology might be helpful for
> a broader understanding of the times, but it won't help any further
> understanding of the meaning of a statement such as "God made." The
> meaning of the word "made" and/or understanding the structure of the
> made object does not change the fact that the object was claimed to be
> made. "Made" and "evolve" do not mean the same thing.
>
>> If you're willing to (tentatively, always
>>tentatively) accept a few hundred years of Biblical archeology and
>>textual analysis, then instead of asking whether or not the first verses
>>of Genesis are literally true, you can instead turn to what I find to be
>>much more interesting questions: Where did these texts originate?
>
> would it make a difference where they originated?
A very good question -- let me put off answering it for a moment.
>
>> Why
>>were they important to the people who kept them alive?
>
> is there a way to know the motives of the people who kept their history
> alive?
Not with certainty in all cases, of course, but in the case of Genesis I
think we can pretty confidently exclude several motivations.
>
>> How were they
>>changed once they were written down, and why?
>
> and this is where von Rad failed. He did not show how they were
> changed, nor why. Are there studies out there that can do this?
Yes, but I'm just learning how to locate them.
>
> Garamond, I am willing to listen to the various approaches to textual
> analysis, and I am interested to learn about the finds in Biblical
> archeology, but how does the origination of texts or their background,
> change a statement such as "God made" into "God did not make"?
> Especially if there is a strong scaffolding of statements over a long
> period of time that support the "God made"?
Another very good question that I will answer in a moment.
Ok, you've asked two good questions above:
> would it make a difference where they originated?
and
> how does the origination of texts or their background,
> change a statement
So let's turn to Shakespeare, just for a moment. _Richard III_ is a
"history play", with a protagonist who is deformed and delightfully
evil. There is a lot of Truth in Shakespeare, and a literal reading
might have some appeal. But if we go beyond that, we can see:
<q>
This lurid king, hunchbacked, clad in blood-spattered black velvet,
forever gnawing his nether lip or grasping for his dagger, has an
enduring place in English mythology. He owes something to the facts
about the historical Richard III. He owes far more to rumor and to the
political bias, credulity, and especially the literary talent of Tudor
writers....
Early in the reign of Henry VIII, St. Thomas More started a history of
Richard III, a gem of ironic narration that established the popular image
of the king (the crooked sholders, the withered arm, the gnawed lip)....
The chronicler Edward Hall ... [used this for] the climax of his _Union
of the Two Noble and Illustre Houses of Lancaster and York_. Raphael
Holinshed, in his _Chronicles of England_, stole from Hall, and out of
them Shakespeare created his Richard III....
As myth, the Tudor Richard is indestructible, nor should one try to
destroy him. This demonic jester and archetypal wicked uncle is far too
satisfying a creation, and the works of More and Shakespeare are far too
vigorous, for us to with them otherwise. As history, however, the Tudor
Richard is unacceptable.
</q>
Peter Saccio, _Shakespeare's English Kings_, pp 158-9
I find this to be an example of very good, very practical literary
criticism. Because we can go beyond Shakespeare's text, we learn that
Shakespeare did not originate the caricature -- it would have told us a
great deal about him if he had. We also learn that, as many readings as
there are for RIII, a strict, literal, historical reading cannot be
supported. There are acres and acres of Truth in Shakespeare -- just not
in the historical accuracy. Shakespeare was aiming for something much
more important (and it looks like he nailed it).
In the same way [as I finally arrive at my point], I think it can be
shown that the authors of Genesis, while being truthful about important
things, simply were not interested in a strict, literal, historical
narrative. They had bigger truths to get across. However, just reading
the words as written does not necessarily allow us to see what these
truths are, just as reading Shakespeare as written gives no clue to what
is historical and what is theatrical.
An evening at the theater won't we ruined by not knowing this
information, and the majority of Christians will live out their lives not
caring how many authors contributed to Genesis. However, I think knowing
more leads to a better, more enjoyable/fulfilling understanding.
And after that overlong response, I'll finally let you get a word in.
Garamond
John Wilkins
Nevertheless, Augustine goes to great lengths to try to reconcile
Genesis with the leading theories of spontaneous generation of his day,
via Aristotelian philosophy. He points out that plants might have
spontaneously been generated by a secondary cause implanted in the soil.
"Where, then, were they [plants, when they were created]? Were they in
the earth in the "reasons" or causes from which they would spring, as
all things already exist in their seeds before they evolve
[develop--JSW] in one form or another and grow into their proper kinds
in the course of time? ... it appears [from Scripture--JSW] ... that the
seeds sprang from the crops and trees, and that the crops and trees
themselves came forth not from seeds but from the earth." [De Genesi Ad
Litteram, (The literal meaning of Genesis) c. 390 AD, Book V, chapt 4
(Augustine 1982: 151f) >
> <snip>
...
Garamond Lethe
John Hammond Taylor's edition?
John Wilkins
Yep:
Augustine, Saint Bishop of Hippo. 1982. The literal meaning of Genesis.
Translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian writers; no. 41-42. New
York, N.Y.: Newman Press.
Garamond Lethe
Location:
'Main 6th floor
Call Number:
BR60 .A54 no. 41-42
Number of Items:
2
Status:
Not Checked Out
I'm on it.
Roger Pearse
> On Dec 1, 6:32 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
> > whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
> > acceptable form of debate, morally?
>
> As it happens I am trying to develop a series of arguments
> concerning Genesis/scripture, with the intent of making
I have nothing special to offer on this. As far as I can tell, the
problem that you are addressing is the tendency of non-Christians in
the US to use 'evolution' as a tool to attack Christianity. This
naturally has the consequence of causing large numbers of people to
throw the baby out with the bathwater.
After all, if I were to try to tell you about some subject of interest
to me, I wouldn't start by jeering "Ha ha! This proves that your
religion is a load of shit"!, would I? Not unless I *wanted* you to
reject everything I said.
The idea that the bible must be read as if it were written to be a
scientific textbook on geology written by a rather dull post-graduate
at some US university in the 1950's -- which tends to be an underlying
assumption in these kinds of debates -- seems ridiculous to me, as it
would to anyone if it were squarely stated and evidenced. We don't
know that only such documents can be inspired, for instance. There
are so many theological issues in all this before any sensible
discussion can take place. Most of these are outside my area of
expertise or interest, tho.
The fathers of the church, following the hellenistic Jews, tended to
take the view that much of the Old Testament was inspired by God, but
that the literal meaning might or might not be relevant. We can see
this in Eusebius of Caesarea, "Chronicle" book 1 (no English
translation exists, sorry) where Eusebius says that the story of Adam
and Eve should be taken as an allegory of the fall of the whole human
race.
Thus I feel that the dichotomy is probably a false one.
I hope that helps you. Just my opinions, of cours.e
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Not with a straight face, tho. But pardon me, this is just not an
> > > > argument that I can believe that you believe -- I certainly do not --,
> > > > and there are relatively few ways to say that without giving offence.
>
>
> > Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
> > whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
> > acceptable form of debate, morally?
>
> You snipped my argument, by the way, without responding. Here it is
> again:
> > > Higher criticism is...(snip reiteration)
>
> Again, it was not reiteration, but elaboration, and you chose to ignore
> *it*. I get the impression that you do not "see" problems with what you
> write when others point it out to you.
>
> > I'm sorry that you chose to ignore what I wrote, but of course I see
> > no reason to repeat it again! You did this several times, almost
> > verbatim. Why did you do this? Such tactics involve name-calling
> > pretty soon.
>
> What you wrote was to pull up a few problems ...
> What I am saying is that you are confused. ...
> I exaggerate slightly for dramatic effect.
> I appealed to Valla because that *is* higher criticism. ...
>
> > > ... I think you are so blinded by your theology that you can't even consider
> > > that higher critical studies (*modern* HC) might be a method of
> > > enlightenment.
>
> > Isn't this an ad hominem -- "you only say that because you're a dirty
> > atheist/Christian/Nazi/Jew (etc)"? Is it the same as that genetic
> > fallacy you were banging on about earlier? Seriously, address my
> > arguments, not my religion. Only atheists are refuted by the mere
> > fact of their religious belief, and that only because of their
> > inability to express any rational position for themselves, or anything
> > but carping and jeering about others.
>
> ... I am rapidly losing any respect for you....I do not think
> you know the principles of your own faith as well. So I think we should
> end this conversation before I call you a Pharisee.
To summarise your position:
1. Make objections to someone else's position which you yourself do
not believe.
2. Respond to queries with reiteration mixed with religious abuse.
3. Respond to further comments with personal remarks and insults.
I don't see that any of this needs any response from me.
Zoe
wrote:
sure, time taken up with unprofitable scientific disputes could be
better spent on what is spiritually beneficial. But what if certain
"scientific" subjects serve to deflect interest in things spiritually
beneficial? Would it matter then?
>
>Augustine adds later in the same chapter: “In the matter of the shape of
>heaven, the sacred writers did not wish to teach men facts that could be
>of no avail for their salvation.” Augustine is saying that the book of
>Genesis is not an elementary book of astronomy. It is a book about
>religion, and it is not the purpose of its religious authors to settle
>questions about the shape of the universe that are of no relevance
>whatsoever to how to seek salvation.
I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the
universe is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer
considered a reality or a necessity?
>
>In the same vein, John Paul II said in 1981:
> The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
> its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific
> treatise but in order to state the correct relationships of man
> with God and with the universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to
> declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach
> this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in
> use at the time of the writer.Any other teaching about the origin
> and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the
> Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but
> how one goes to heaven.
></q>
if a philosophy on how the heavens were made is of a nature to blind
one on how one goes to heaven, then should not such a philosophy be
challenged?
Augustine lived from 354 to 430 A.D. To think that his defense of the
science of his day means a defense of evolutionary "science" of today
is to misapply his comments. I'm betting that if Augustine lived
today, he would not be giving such carte blanche to science if he knew
it would lead many to deny the existence of God....an unfortunate
consequence that I have personally observed.
snip>
ahh, I get your drift. You view the scriptures in the same light as
you view Shakespearean literature. I don't. Shakespeare's writings
are clearly fictitious with some truth in it. The scriptures, on the
other hand, I view as the history of literal peoples who still exist
today -- two lines that find their roots in Biblical history: The
Arabs, descendants of Ishmael, and the Israelites, descendants of
Isaac. A Shakespearan play is found in theaters where people go for
entertainment. The scriptures are not played in theaters where
spectators go to be entertained. The two writings ought not to be
compared, I think.
Also, you said, "...the authors of Genesis, while being truthful about
important things....They had bigger truths to get across." What, in
your opinion, are the important things? What are the bigger truths to
get across? I would really appreciate a definitive answer to this, if
you have one.
Zoe
wrote:
would you like us to use Augustine's commentary as the next read? I
can get a copy.
Jim Lovejoy
news:3t39l3pnff9uh8837...@4ax.com:
>snip<
> Augustine lived from 354 to 430 A.D. To think that his defense of the
> science of his day means a defense of evolutionary "science" of today
> is to misapply his comments. I'm betting that if Augustine lived
> today, he would not be giving such carte blanche to science if he knew
> it would lead many to deny the existence of God....an unfortunate
> consequence that I have personally observed.
>
How much of it is science leading many to deny the existence of god, and
how much of it is religious leaders claiming that you can't both 'believe
in' evolution and be a Christian.
I think a lot of the responsibility for disbelief in God lies at the feet
of those who say that it's either evolution or Christianity, and people
take an honest look at evolution, and realize it's true, and make the
mistake of believing the anti-evolution religious leader.
Garamond Lethe
I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis
began long before evolution came on the scene, and that such non-literal
interpretations have been very much in the mainstream. Can science
deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things? Certainly, but so can
anything else. I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
after all.
>>
>>Augustine adds later in the same chapter: “In the matter of the shape
of
>>heaven, the sacred writers did not wish to teach men facts that could be
>>of no avail for their salvation.” Augustine is saying that the book of
>>Genesis is not an elementary book of astronomy. It is a book about
>>religion, and it is not the purpose of its religious authors to settle
>>questions about the shape of the universe that are of no relevance
>>whatsoever to how to seek salvation.
>
> I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the universe
> is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer considered a reality
> or a necessity?
Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this they're
simply speaking as individuals.
Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate the
religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners of the
religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.) So if I
belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that required all
numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the scientific existence of
the square root of 2.
Catholicism and most Protestant faiths don't have a problem with this
anymore, as they've stopped making naturalistic claims. My impression --
and it is only my impression -- is that God is the author of both the
Bible and the universe, and when there is an apparent contradiction, our
*interpretation* of one or the other must be at fault. We've gotten very
good at interpreting the universe, and this should be used to inform our
interpretation of the Bible.
>
>
>>In the same vein, John Paul II said in 1981:
>> The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
its
>> make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise
but in
>> order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with
the
>> universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the
world was
>> created by God, and in order to teach
>> this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in
>> use at the time of the writer.Any other teaching about the origin
and
>> make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible,
which
>> does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes
to
>> heaven.
>></q>
>
> if a philosophy on how the heavens were made is of a nature to blind one
> on how one goes to heaven, then should not such a philosophy be
> challenged?
I'm not aware of such a philosophy that *will* blind someone. Any
philosophy -- including all Christian ones -- *can* blind someone.
Well, the science is much better, and the literal interpretation hasn't
changed.
> I'm betting that if Augustine lived today, he
> would not be giving such carte blanche to science if he knew it would
> lead many to deny the existence of God....an unfortunate consequence
> that I have personally observed.
I don't doubt that you've seen many deny the existence of God, and that
they used science to do so. This [based on my dim, superficial
understanding of the work] was *precisely* Augustine's concern.
Christians who were using a literal interpretation were misrepresenting
God, and this particular misrepresentation is a very easy god to deny.
This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing what
God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of scripture.
And now before the might Wilkins cluestick descends on my noggin, I think
I'll get the book from the library and see if I'm right....
>
> snip>
>
<sniP.
>>An evening at the theater won't we ruined by not knowing this
>>information, and the majority of Christians will live out their lives
>>not caring how many authors contributed to Genesis. However, I think
>>knowing more leads to a better, more enjoyable/fulfilling understanding.
>>
>>And after that overlong response, I'll finally let you get a word in.
>
> ahh, I get your drift. You view the scriptures in the same light as you
> view Shakespearean literature. I don't. Shakespeare's writings are
> clearly fictitious with some truth in it. The scriptures, on the other
> hand, I view as the history of literal peoples who still exist today --
> two lines that find their roots in Biblical history: The Arabs,
> descendants of Ishmael, and the Israelites, descendants of Isaac. A
> Shakespearan play is found in theaters where people go for
> entertainment. The scriptures are not played in theaters where
> spectators go to be entertained. The two writings ought not to be
> compared, I think.
It looks like my intent didn't come across at all -- my apologies.
First, there's enough truth in Shakespeare to have occupied thousands of
scholars for several generations, and we're nowhere close to exhausting
what's there. I don't have a cite handy, but aside from the Bible, it's
probably the most intensively-studied body of work in the Western world.
So, if the Bible is to be compared to anything, I think Shakespeare is a
reasonable choice.
My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a fraction
of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead to a reading
that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a literal reading
of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would be an extraordinary
claim that would have to be backed up with not only evidence as to why
this reading was better, but why the historical, extra-textual evidence
should be ignored. A similar claim that certain passages in the Bible
should be read literally should require the same evidence.
You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true that
our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented objectively
based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent development. If
you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for "history", which brings us
to:
> Also, you said, "...the authors of Genesis, while being truthful about
> important things....They had bigger truths to get across." What, in
> your opinion, are the important things? What are the bigger truths to
> get across? I would really appreciate a definitive answer to this, if
> you have one.
Again, based on my dim, superficial understanding (I can hear that
Wilkins cluestick whistling overhead) the record preserved by the
Israelites had much more to do with keeping them together as a community
and imparting moral teachings. It wasn't at all important whether or not
God *actually* parted the Red Sea, or Moses spent *exactly* forty years
wandering around Siani. The point was that Israel's God was stronger
than the gods of Egypt, but that if the Israelites screwed up again, God
would get angry. [This is grossly, grossly oversimplified, but I think
you get my point.]
It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of the
passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly capable of
withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was forgiven. *This* is
the important truth that needed to be preserved, and to the extent that
other details -- however truthful -- got in the way, they were removed.
Likewise, if any detail could be added to reinforce this larger truth --
even if that detail wasn't literally true -- then I expect the authors
would have accepted it.
This approach to the text is independent of divine inspiration. I can
imagine a God powerful enough to create a text that not only is precisely
correct over a literal reading but supports the other important readings
as well. However, I think such a text could only be appreciated by
angels. It's entirely plausible to me that divine inspiration would not
support a literal reading, just as it would not (necessarily) support a
numerological reading or a Marxist reading. (We don't get to limit God's
choice of prose styles.)
The same is even more true for the Creation account. I'm not aware of
any evidence at all that can be brought forward to justify a literal
reading. (Such a reading can be a preference, of course, and you may
have sufficient personal reasons to choose that. Let me remind you that
all I wanted to accomplish in this conversation was to show you that a
non-literal reading was plausible.)
The Israelite's God is different in significant ways from the gods of
surrounding nations, and the point of the creation account is to
highlight these differences. von Rad repeatedly pointed out how
theologically dense the first few verses of Genesis are. None of this
theology has to do with the mechanical creation of the universe. Rather,
it's a description of God and His relationship with mankind.
And maybe that's the best way to summarize all of this. The first few
verses of Genesis do not describe the creation of the world. They
partially describe an indescribable God in a literate, memorable way.
So, those are my impressions, and some or all of them could be wrong.
Real Life has delayed a trip to the library, but I'm going to try
(again!) to get there this afternoon.
Garamond
Garamond Lethe
> On 03 Dec 2007 13:41:32 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:41:11 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> John Hammond Taylor's edition?
>>>
>>> Yep:
>>>
>>> Augustine, Saint Bishop of Hippo. 1982. The literal meaning of
>>> Genesis. Translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian writers; no.
>>> 41-42. New York, N.Y.: Newman Press.
>>
>>Location:
>> 'Main 6th floor
>> Call Number:
>> BR60 .A54 no. 41-42
>> Number of Items:
>> 2
>> Status:
>> Not Checked Out
>>
>>I'm on it.
>
> would you like us to use Augustine's commentary as the next read? I can
> get a copy.
I've picked it up from the library along with these two:
_Understanding Genesis_, Nahum M. Sarna, Schocken Paperback edition. (BS
1235.3 .S33 1970)
93 footnotes in the first chapter alone.
_Rethinking Genesis_, Duane Garrett, Baker Book House. (BS 1235.5 .G32
1991)
72 footnotes in the first chapter alone.
To give you a flavor of each, here are the section headings from chapter
1 of [Sarna]:
Not science; The purpose of the narrative; Enuma Elish; The meaning of
myth; The function of Enuma Elish; The function of the Genesis narrative;
The biblical Creation account is non-political and non-cultic; The
Creation account is non-mythological; Mythology, magic and God's freedom;
"Let there be!"; "Male and female He created them"; Man the pinnacle of
Creation; The nature of God; The Sabbath; The cosmic battle; The Garden
of Eden; Cain and Abel.
And here is the table of contents from [Garrett]:
Part 1: The Higher Criticism of Genesis
1. The Documentary Hypothesis
2. Form-Criticism and Tradition-Criticism
3. Mosaic Authorship and Historical Reliability
Part 2: The Structure and Sources of Genesis
4. The "Toledoth" and Narrative Sources of Genesis
5. The Structure of Genesis
6. The Ancestor Epics
7. The Negotiation Tales
8. The Gospel of Abraham
9. The Migration Epic of Joseph
Part 3: The Authorship and Composition of Genesis
10. Genesis 1 and the Primeval History
11. Tradents of the Sources and the Israelite Priesthood
12. Memories of a Wandering People
Appendix A: The Question of Inspiration
Appendix B: Critique of Three Recent Hypotheses of Pentateuchal Origins
The former is in the Jewish tradition and is a straightforward exegesis
written for a popular audience. The latter is in the Evangelical
tradition and makes a formal academic argument against the Documentary (4
authors/editors of the Pentateuch. Glancing through them, I find each to
be far more approachable than von Rad.
Garamond
John Wilkins
> And now before the might Wilkins cluestick descends on my noggin, I think
> I'll get the book from the library and see if I'm right....
Right about now you are some distance ahead of anything I have ever
studied on Genesis. I don't think a cluestick will go from me to you.
Friar Broccoli
> On 2 Dec, 01:32, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 6:32 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
>>> whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
>>> acceptable form of debate, morally?
>
>> As it happens I am trying to develop a series of arguments
>> concerning Genesis/scripture, with the intent of making
>> evolution palatable to Christians, here:...
> I have nothing special to offer on this.
Well thanks for getting back to me anyway, and sorry for taking
so long to acknowledge. I just noticed this message a few
minutes ago.
> As far as I can tell, the problem that you are addressing is
> the tendency of non-Christians in the US to use 'evolution' as
> a tool to attack Christianity. This naturally has the
> consequence of causing large numbers of people to throw the
> baby out with the bathwater.
>
> After all, if I were to try to tell you about some subject of
> interest to me, I wouldn't start by jeering "Ha ha! This
> proves that your religion is a load of shit"!, would I? Not
> unless I *wanted* you to reject everything I said.
From my experience it is the other way around. Fundamentalist
Christians reject evolution because it conflicts with their
faith, thereby setting themselves up for attacks by the swarms
of rabid atheists we have in this group.
Mind you those attacks certainly don't help since they usually
include telling the fundamentalist that s/he is a complete
idiot; not an ideal method for encouraging a cooperative search
for truth.
> The idea that the bible must be read as if it were written to be a
> scientific textbook on geology written by a rather dull post-graduate
> at some US university in the 1950's -- which tends to be an underlying
> assumption in these kinds of debates -- seems ridiculous to me, as it
> would to anyone if it were squarely stated and evidenced. We don't
> know that only such documents can be inspired, for instance. There
> are so many theological issues in all this before any sensible
> discussion can take place. Most of these are outside my area of
> expertise or interest, tho.
>
> The fathers of the church, following the hellenistic Jews, tended to
> take the view that much of the Old Testament was inspired by God, but
> that the literal meaning might or might not be relevant. We can see
> this in Eusebius of Caesarea, "Chronicle" book 1 (no English
> translation exists, sorry) where Eusebius says that the story of Adam
> and Eve should be taken as an allegory of the fall of the whole human
> race.
>
> Thus I feel that the dichotomy is probably a false one.
>
> I hope that helps you. Just my opinions, of cours.e
Indirectly it did yes. It appears that christians who already
accept evolution just don`t worry about the details of Genesis.
I guess I'll just have to try out my arguments on a few test
subjects and see how it goes.
Thanks;
Garamond Lethe
works. It might help you decide which to focus on if you're not able to
borrow them all cheaply. (I assume you either have a good university
library nearby or are doing interlibrary loan.)
I did skim over a few other books and was hoping to find an author that
represented the literalist tradition, but nothing turned up. I'm also
not seeing any citations to scholars supporting literalism. This may be
selection bias -- books that tend to make it into university libraries
tend to cite other books that make it into university libraries, and for
whatever reason literalism may have been out of favor in academia for a
while. To balance things out, please don't hesitate to make suggestions,
or ask your pastor (or equivalent) for ideas.
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:21:39 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> _Understanding Genesis_, Nahum M. Sarna, Schocken Paperback edition.
> (BS 1235.3 .S33 1970)
I'm finding I agree with most of what's here -- and it's written well.
<q>
Unfortunately, the response of the fundamentalists to the challenge of
scientism served only to exacerbate the situation. They mistakenly
regarded all critical biblical studies as a challenge to faith. There
remained no room for the play of individual conscience; the validity of
genuine intellectual doubt was refused recognition. By insisting
dogmatically upon interpretations and doctrines that flagrantly
contradicted the facts, the fundamentalist did not realize the self-
exposure of an obvious insecurity that was more a reflection upon his own
religious position than a judgment upon biblical scholarship. For it
declared, in effect, that spiritual relevance can be maintained only at
thee expense of the intellect and the stifling of conscience. (pgs xxi-
xxii)
</q>
<q>
It should be obvious that by the nature of things, none of these stories
can possibly be the product of human memory, nor in any modern sense of
the word scientific accounts of the origin and nature of the physical
world.
Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual
endowments, did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the
critical use of empirical data. He had not, as yet, discovered the
principles and methods of disciplined inquiry, critical observation or
analytical experimentation. Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and
his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and
poetic.[] Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to
reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern
science. Any correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously
established between the two must surely be nothing more than mere
coincidence. Even more serious than the inherent fundamental
misconception of the psychology of biblical man is the unwholesome effect
upon the understanding of the Bible itself. For the net result is self-
defeating. The literalistic approach serves to direct attention to those
aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its
composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful
and enduring, thus distorting the biblical message and destroying its
relevancy.
Whether the Hebrew Genesis account was meant to be science or not, it was
certainly meant to convey statements of faith. As will be shown, it is
part of the biblical polemic against paganism and an introduction to the
religious ideas characteristic of the whole of biblical literature. It
tells us something about the nature of the one God who is the Creator and
supreme sovereign of the world and whose will is absolute. It asserts
that God is outside the realm of nature, which is wholly subservient to
Him. He has no myth; that is, there are no stories about any events in
His life. Magic plays no part in the worship of Him. The story also
tells us something of the nature of man, a God-like creature, uniquely
endowed with dignity, honor, and infinite worth, into whose hands God has
entrusted mastery over His creation. Finally, this narrative tells us
something about the biblical concept of reality. It proclaims the
essential goodness of life and assumes a universal moral order governing
human society. (pg 2-3)
</q>
I think that the last paragraph in particular addresses some of your
questions far better than I could.
> _Rethinking Genesis_, Duane Garrett, Baker Book House. (BS 1235.5 .G32
> 1991)
It may just be that the author is a little too eager to paint the
hypothesis he wants to refute (the Documentary hypothesis: 4 authors/
editors of the first five books of the OT), but a couple of his initial
points ended up looking like straw men. I'm completely unfamiliar with
Hebraic textual criticism, but I have done some litcrit in my time and
there are a couple of points where I suspect he's, well,
overenthusiastic. More detail later if you decide to pick this one up
(or are curious), but I'm not nearly as impressed as I am with the other
one.
And finally, from chapter 19 of Augustine:
<q>
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit
of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the
predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the
seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an
embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an
ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of
the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great
loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture
are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian
mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him
maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to
believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think
their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have
learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their
wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false
opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish
and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they
think support their position, although <i>they understand neither what
they say nor the things about which they make assertion.</i> (pgs 42-43)
[emphasis in original]
</q>
Again, much better than I could have put it.
Garamond
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 30-Nov-2007, Roger Pearse <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>Who's to say the higher critics weren't inspired too?
> >
> > > Well, anyone who asks for some evidence. Traditionally claims of
> > > divine inspiration are tested by demanding evidence of general
> > > respect, holiness of life and the working of miracles. Few of the 19th
> > > century higher critics would manage the first, fewer the second, never
> > > mind the third.
> >
> > If you want to call that evidence, sure. But why should any of those
> > criteria be relevant to divine inspiration?
>
> They seem like good first demands to me.
>
> > God can inspire anyone he likes. Are you restricting him to inspiring
> > saints,
> > and if so why do you place such limitations on his power?
>
> I'm not sure on what basis you make these assertions, but I suspect
> that they are not orthodox, and so perhaps you are claiming revelation
> yourself. May I see your proof of holiness of life please? And a
> small miracle? <smile>
>
> Seriously, I'm sure that L. Ron Hubbard would use similar arguments.
> Are we really fans of 'divine fire in dirty vessels' arguments? In
> general does it not smack of clerical self-serving: "do as I say, not
> as I do -- and anyone for a trip down the brothel"?
>
> Sorry, but I think we may reasonably expect some evidence of divine
> inspiration other than someone of immoral life standing up and
> demanding respect, money, etc, simply because he says so. I don't
> suppose that you disagree with this, so we are probably talking past
> each other here.
>
> > Further, what evidence do we have about the personal lives of any of the
> > biblical writers
> > that would suggest, even under your criteria, that they were divinely
> > inspired?
>
> After 2000 years, I think we can take it that they were.
So at what point in time does the Book of Mormon become divinely inspired?
Or the Koran? The Divine Comedy?
Skitter the Cat
<snip>
Roger Pearse
Perhaps you would care to answer the question yourself, taking
whatever holy book you consider to be inspired? If the answer is "I
don't" then I refer you to what I asked earlier about the integrity of
making arguments in which the arguers themselves do not believe.
Friar Broccoli
>
> > On Dec 1, 6:32 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
> > > whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
> > > acceptable form of debate, morally?
>
> > As it happens I am trying to develop a series of arguments
> > concerning Genesis/scripture, with the intent of making
> > evolution palatable to Christians, here:...
>
> I have nothing special to offer on this. As far as I can tell, the
> problem that you are addressing is the tendency of non-Christians in
> the US to use 'evolution' as a tool to attack Christianity.
My previous response was a bit too quick.
I believe the issue that is probably of most importance to
me, is the effect of evolution on perceptions of the nature
of the soul. I'm sure you must have an opinion on that.
Could you critique my reply on that issue please.
Once again the link to my original post is:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ac1714347626dc69
Thanks
John Harshman
I don't find anyone doing that so far. All we're doing here is drawing
conclusions from premises. You don't have to believe the premises are
true in order to consider their implications.
Now, the reason people are asking silly questions right here is simple:
nobody knows what you mean by "after 2000 years, I think we can take it
that they were". You might want to explain.
And you might also want to explain two more things:
1. What makes you think your expressed criteria for believing in divine
inspiration are valid.
2. How you can apply those criteria to the bible.
Zoe
wrote:
just to clarify, by "science" here, I am referring only to
evolutionary theory, and more specifically, macroevolutionary theory.
Not science in general.
> I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
>definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
>after all.
my position is that a scientific study of nature that promotes a God
uninvolved with His creation versus a God involved and caring
intimately about His creation, can have widely differing effects. It
matters what the study promotes.
>
>>>
>>>Augustine adds later in the same chapter: ?In the matter of the shape
>of
>>>heaven, the sacred writers did not wish to teach men facts that could be
>>>of no avail for their salvation.? Augustine is saying that the book of
>>>Genesis is not an elementary book of astronomy. It is a book about
>>>religion, and it is not the purpose of its religious authors to settle
>>>questions about the shape of the universe that are of no relevance
>>>whatsoever to how to seek salvation.
>>
>> I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the universe
>> is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer considered a reality
>> or a necessity?
>
>Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this they're
>simply speaking as individuals.
I didn't say "science arrives at a point." I said, "what if WE
(individuals) get to a point.
>Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
>naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
>individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate the
>religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners of the
>religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.) So if I
>belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that required all
>numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the scientific existence of
>the square root of 2.
are you comparing math to the theory of an unknown first common
ancestor, evolving randomly and willy-nilly? I don't think they are
in the same category, you know.
>
>Catholicism and most Protestant faiths don't have a problem with this
>anymore, as they've stopped making naturalistic claims. My impression --
>and it is only my impression -- is that God is the author of both the
>Bible and the universe, and when there is an apparent contradiction, our
>*interpretation* of one or the other must be at fault. We've gotten very
>good at interpreting the universe, and this should be used to inform our
>interpretation of the Bible.
my conviction (and it is only my own), is that we have before us a
series of human writers who have described their encounters with the
God of the universe. The Bible is about God, not authored by God. It
gives accounts, from the human perspective, as well as at times it
records what God Himself says.
What makes the Bible inspired, in my opinion, is the fact that these
writers, in their encounters with God, were so affected, so moved, so
inspired by their contact, that they faithfully recorded their
encounters, or verbalized their experiences which later got recorded
by others. These were not simple-minded men who made up stories to
outdo other nations. They knew what they experienced, understood what
had been revealed to them in their encounters with God, and chose to
express their experiences in various ways -- through historical
recall, through poetry, and through prophecy when so instructed.
I have learned to value these accounts as windows of insight into the
God of the universe, to the point that I consider the collection of
these writings as precious, holy, instructional, and inspired through
man's encounters with God. And the fact that this God did take the
time to reveal Himself to humans, makes the scriptures sacred to me.
Shakespeare, on the other hand, makes no claims comparable to those
made by the writers of the Bible.
>>
>>
>>>In the same vein, John Paul II said in 1981:
>>> The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
>its
>>> make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise
>but in
>>> order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with
>the
>>> universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the
>world was
>>> created by God, and in order to teach
>>> this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in
>>> use at the time of the writer.Any other teaching about the origin
>and
>>> make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible,
>which
>>> does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes
>to
>>> heaven.
>>></q>
>>
>> if a philosophy on how the heavens were made is of a nature to blind one
>> on how one goes to heaven, then should not such a philosophy be
>> challenged?
>
>I'm not aware of such a philosophy that *will* blind someone. Any
>philosophy -- including all Christian ones -- *can* blind someone.
actually, I didn't ask if you were aware of such a philosophy. I
asked, IF a philosophy of how the heavens were made is of a nature
that it could blind one on how to go to heaven, should such a
philosophy be challenged? Yes or no.
I guess you have already indirectly said, yes, it should be
challenged, but you are adding that you are not aware of any such
philosophy, right? Let me make bold to proceed on that guess.
Okay, if a philosophy claims that there are no miracles beyond what
men know nature can do today, and if a philosophy claims that we exist
through a series of accidents, and if it claims that everything we are
is a result of accident and not design, where does that leave a God
Who comes to earth as a man and says, "If you have seen me you have
seen the Father," Who is reported to have said, "I created you"? What
do you do with a God Who claims that He has accomplished the "miracle"
of overcoming death and nature, but who, it is now claimed by some,
cannot and does not perform those kinds of miracles?
Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected
to see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
salavation is no longer even considered to be real?
again, can we please not refer to science in general? I am always
referring here to that science falsely so called, evolutionary
"science." We cannot apply comments from the fifth century as if we
know what Augustine would have said if faced with a theory that denied
that God had little if anything to do with the existence of the
universe as we know it today.
>
>> I'm betting that if Augustine lived today, he
>> would not be giving such carte blanche to science if he knew it would
>> lead many to deny the existence of God....an unfortunate consequence
>> that I have personally observed.
>
>I don't doubt that you've seen many deny the existence of God, and that
>they used science to do so. This [based on my dim, superficial
>understanding of the work] was *precisely* Augustine's concern.
>
>Christians who were using a literal interpretation were misrepresenting
>God, and this particular misrepresentation is a very easy god to deny.
is it possible at all that there are Christians today who can also
misrepresent God by stripping away His power to create, by turning His
miraculous activity into myth and legend; who make God out to be one
who sits back and watches life experimentally struggle through death
and suffering in order to evolve into what we are today?
>This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing what
>God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of scripture.
maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?
Do you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?
That He claimed to be God incarnate?
Your answer will certainly clear up our positions so we don't waste
time talking past each other.
snip>
>
>>>An evening at the theater won't we ruined by not knowing this
>>>information, and the majority of Christians will live out their lives
>>>not caring how many authors contributed to Genesis. However, I think
>>>knowing more leads to a better, more enjoyable/fulfilling understanding.
>>>
>>>And after that overlong response, I'll finally let you get a word in.
>>
>> ahh, I get your drift. You view the scriptures in the same light as you
>> view Shakespearean literature. I don't. Shakespeare's writings are
>> clearly fictitious with some truth in it. The scriptures, on the other
>> hand, I view as the history of literal peoples who still exist today --
>> two lines that find their roots in Biblical history: The Arabs,
>> descendants of Ishmael, and the Israelites, descendants of Isaac. A
>> Shakespearan play is found in theaters where people go for
>> entertainment. The scriptures are not played in theaters where
>> spectators go to be entertained. The two writings ought not to be
>> compared, I think.
>
>It looks like my intent didn't come across at all -- my apologies.
>First, there's enough truth in Shakespeare to have occupied thousands of
>scholars for several generations, and we're nowhere close to exhausting
>what's there. I don't have a cite handy, but aside from the Bible, it's
>probably the most intensively-studied body of work in the Western world.
>So, if the Bible is to be compared to anything, I think Shakespeare is a
>reasonable choice.
I felt your comparison was being made between the source of the
writings, not between depth of study. I accept the correction.
How does comparison of intensity of study between two different genres
of writing make them equivalent in reliability?
>My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
>neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a fraction
>of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead to a reading
>that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a literal reading
>of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would be an extraordinary
>claim that would have to be backed up with not only evidence as to why
>this reading was better, but why the historical, extra-textual evidence
>should be ignored. A similar claim that certain passages in the Bible
>should be read literally should require the same evidence.
which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and
New Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as
literal.
>
>You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
>still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true that
>our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented objectively
>based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent development. If
>you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for "history", which brings us
>to:
wait, wait, wait, not yet....don't bring us to anything more yet.
Finish that thought. If scripture portrays a history of a literal
people, what are our present ideas of what constitutes history that
would rule out Biblical history as being literal?
>
>
>> Also, you said, "...the authors of Genesis, while being truthful about
>> important things....They had bigger truths to get across." What, in
>> your opinion, are the important things? What are the bigger truths to
>> get across? I would really appreciate a definitive answer to this, if
>> you have one.
>
>Again, based on my dim, superficial understanding (I can hear that
>Wilkins cluestick whistling overhead) the record preserved by the
>Israelites had much more to do with keeping them together as a community
>and imparting moral teachings. It wasn't at all important whether or not
>God *actually* parted the Red Sea, or Moses spent *exactly* forty years
>wandering around Siani. The point was that Israel's God was stronger
>than the gods of Egypt, but that if the Israelites screwed up again, God
>would get angry. [This is grossly, grossly oversimplified, but I think
>you get my point.]
I'm struggling towards your point, believe me.
>
>It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
>episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of the
>passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly capable of
>withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was forgiven. *This* is
>the important truth that needed to be preserved, and to the extent that
>other details -- however truthful -- got in the way, they were removed.
>Likewise, if any detail could be added to reinforce this larger truth --
>even if that detail wasn't literally true -- then I expect the authors
>would have accepted it.
I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to
the imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people. Why would
anybody want to worship a God whose attributes are made up out of
whole cloth by some group of people wanting to outdo their neighbors?
I wouldn't. Would you? I worship God because He is real, does real
and powerful things beyond my ken; not because some group of people
have made up these attributes.
When someone says, out of the fullness of their experience with a
living God, "God made." And someone else comes along and says, "Your
god did not make." Who do you go with? The interpreter of nature, or
the revelation of God?
>This approach to the text is independent of divine inspiration. I can
>imagine a God powerful enough to create a text that not only is precisely
>correct over a literal reading but supports the other important readings
>as well. However, I think such a text could only be appreciated by
>angels. It's entirely plausible to me that divine inspiration would not
>support a literal reading, just as it would not (necessarily) support a
>numerological reading or a Marxist reading. (We don't get to limit God's
>choice of prose styles.)
well, as I've said earlier, I don't think the prose of the Bible is
God's choice of prose styles. He says, "My thoughts are higher than
your thoughts, and My ways than your ways." If it were verbatim
dictation from God, then, you are right, only the angels (if even)
could understand.
>
>The same is even more true for the Creation account. I'm not aware of
>any evidence at all that can be brought forward to justify a literal
>reading. (Such a reading can be a preference, of course, and you may
>have sufficient personal reasons to choose that. Let me remind you that
>all I wanted to accomplish in this conversation was to show you that a
>non-literal reading was plausible.)
oh, if that is all you wanted to accomplish in this conversation,
Garamond, you have quite accomplished your goal, and we can move on to
other topics. Indeed I have already determined long before this, that
for many, a non-literal reading is plausible. All you have to do is
decide that a literal reading does not have to be literal, and then
marshal your points as to why it can be non-literal.
I respect your freedom to take that course, if you so choose, but I
also exercise mine to view the opposite.
>The Israelite's God is different in significant ways from the gods of
>surrounding nations, and the point of the creation account is to
>highlight these differences.
if the differences aren't real (meaning mythical, made up by a people
who wanted their god to be different from the surrounding gods), then
what is that to us? It's a waste of our time to worship a figment of
some group of people's imaginations. But if the differences are real,
literal differences, then that calls for worship.
> von Rad repeatedly pointed out how
>theologically dense the first few verses of Genesis are. None of this
>theology has to do with the mechanical creation of the universe. Rather,
>it's a description of God and His relationship with mankind.
in Genesis 1, what exactly is this description that von Rad gathered
about God and His relationship with mankind?
>
>And maybe that's the best way to summarize all of this. The first few
>verses of Genesis do not describe the creation of the world. They
>partially describe an indescribable God in a literate, memorable way.
if the described qualities of Creator are not literal, then we are
merely worshiping a god of the imagination of a group of people.
What good is that?
snip>
Skitter...@yahoo.com
Was that an inelegant dodge? In any case, I'll provide an answer.
Q: At what point in time does a holy book (or any other work) become
inspired?
A: At the point of its creation. Or at the point when an inspired person or
persons add something to a work. That seems in keeping with the concept of
"inspired". Please note, that does not necessarily mean that results in the
whole work being inspired, however, except in a loose sense. I personally
have no way of acturately discerning divine inspiration. Do you? Again
what is special about 2000 years as a marker? Or any other timeframe?
The length of time something survives can reflect many qualities. Divine
inspiration is not a required component of longevity.
It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity while
evading a direct question.
And BTW re the specific books I used as examples, I think perhaps portions
of all three may be inspired-I am not familiar with any of them to make a
blanket judgment except with regard to the Book of Mormon. I have concluded
that its author, Mr Smith was a con-man and fraud. Since the BoM was a
work, the creation of which he was the principal author (or speaker to a
transcriber) that enriched and empowered him directly, I am suspicious that
any of it is inspired. It seems most likely another of his cons.
Now, back to my original question.
Skitter the Cat
Zoe
wrote:
>I've copied in a few lengthy quotes to give you the flavor of these
>works. It might help you decide which to focus on if you're not able to
>borrow them all cheaply. (I assume you either have a good university
>library nearby or are doing interlibrary loan.)
I got von Rad through interlibrary loan. I've ordered John Taylor's
St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis, whether we discuss it
or not. It should get here in the next couple of days.
Garamond. these quotes are, so far, all opinion. I actually think
that von Rad made a better attempt to justify a non-literal
interpretation. And you know what I think of him. This introduction,
so far, has stated no research, no evidence, just a person's opinion
of fundamentalists. Such opinions are a dime a dozen.
once again, statements like this from Augustine are misapplied to the
modern "science" of evolutionary theory. Back then, what was known
was a general knowledge about "the earth, the heavens, and the other
elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and
even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses
of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth...."
You are right when you say that evolutionary theory did not exist when
he was alive. If it did, I'm betting that he would have had
something entirely different to say had he been faced with the present
contention that nature arrived here on its own; that it does not
reflect God's creative power.
snip>
Garamond Lethe
> On 05 Dec 2007 04:55:33 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>><q>
>>...
>>Whether the Hebrew Genesis account was meant to be science or not, it
>>was certainly meant to convey statements of faith. As will be shown, it
>>is part of the biblical polemic against paganism and an introduction to
>>the religious ideas characteristic of the whole of biblical literature.
>>It tells us something about the nature of the one God who is the Creator
>>and supreme sovereign of the world and whose will is absolute. It
>>asserts that God is outside the realm of nature, which is wholly
>>subservient to Him. He has no myth; that is, there are no stories about
>>any events in His life. Magic plays no part in the worship of Him. The
>>story also tells us something of the nature of man, a God-like creature,
>>uniquely endowed with dignity, honor, and infinite worth, into whose
>>hands God has entrusted mastery over His creation. Finally, this
>>narrative tells us something about the biblical concept of reality. It
>>proclaims the essential goodness of life and assumes a universal moral
>>order governing human society. (pg 2-3)
>></q>
>>
>>I think that the last paragraph in particular addresses some of your
>>questions far better than I could.
>
> Garamond. these quotes are, so far, all opinion. I actually think that
> von Rad made a better attempt to justify a non-literal interpretation.
> And you know what I think of him. This introduction, so far, has stated
> no research, no evidence, just a person's opinion of fundamentalists.
> Such opinions are a dime a dozen.
This is the introduction -- note "As will be shown". If I get a moment
later this evening, I'll transcribe a particular argument with references.
<snip>
> once again, statements like this from Augustine are misapplied to the
> modern "science" of evolutionary theory. Back then, what was known was
> a general knowledge about "the earth, the heavens, and the other
> elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even
> their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the
> sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds
> of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth...."
Let's pare this down then:
<q>
If [non-Christians] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they
themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinion about
our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
concerning the resurrection of the dead...
</q>
Evolution is intimately concerned with "animals, shrubs, stones, and so
forth". If you as a Christian make a claim about evolution that is
"mistaken" and then back that up only with Biblical references, Augustine
wonders why your audience should believe you about more important things.
I don't see any support for a reading that limits the passage to the
science known in Augustine's day. Of course, if you don't agree with
evolution, there's no trouble at all with you addressing it
philosophically, scientifically, morally, etc. But basing your theology
on naturalistic claims means that if the claim is invalidated, other
people will not take the rest of your theology seriously.
>
> You are right when you say that evolutionary theory did not exist when
> he was alive. If it did, I'm betting that he would have had something
> entirely different to say had he been faced with the present contention
> that nature arrived here on its own;
"That nature arrived here on its own" is not part of the theory of
evolution or any other scientific theory I'm aware of.
> that it does not reflect God's
> creative power.
Why doesn't evolution reflect God's creative power?
This is a really important point, so let me expand on it.
Especially in mathematics and computer science, there's a special meaning
for the word "elegance". If someone comes up with a proof or algorithm
that is unexpectedly simple, or embarrassingly fast, or opens up an
entirely new set of problems than can be solved, the highest compliment
that can be paid is calling the work "elegant". If I do this twice a
year, I'm doing really well.
I'm guessing you have an idea of God as Creator that individually
fashioned everything that existed. I find such a God to be... well,
let's just say that this particular God didn't find a very elegant
solution, and even an omnipotent God outside of time must have gotten a
little bored by the time he was finished with all of the plankton, and
all that bacteria must have been a really hard slog.
On the other hand, I could admire a God who works through evolution.
It's not only elegant, it's beautifully elegant. But it gets even better
-- evolution is simply a consequence of the chemical laws that were in
place, and those are simply a consequence of physics. Instead of having
to invent a planet's worth of critters, God simply had to get the physics
right. *That* is an elegant solution, and required far more creative
power than the by-hand approach.
Garamond
>
> snip>
Garamond Lethe
I don't know what macroevolutionary theory is. Is this what you mean?
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
>> I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
>>definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
>>after all.
>
> my position is that a scientific study of nature that promotes a God
> uninvolved with His creation versus a God involved and caring intimately
> about His creation, can have widely differing effects. It matters what
> the study promotes.
Science in general, and evolution in particular, has nothing to say about
God's continuing involvement in creation. As to what science promotes, I
think we've done pretty well with "go where the evidence leads".
What does the study of electricity promote?
>>
>>
>>>>Augustine adds later in the same chapter: ?In the matter of the shape
>>of
>>>>heaven, the sacred writers did not wish to teach men facts that could
>>>>be of no avail for their salvation.? Augustine is saying that the book
>>>>of Genesis is not an elementary book of astronomy. It is a book about
>>>>religion, and it is not the purpose of its religious authors to settle
>>>>questions about the shape of the universe that are of no relevance
>>>>whatsoever to how to seek salvation.
>>>
>>> I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the
>>> universe is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer
>>> considered a reality or a necessity?
>>
>>Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this they're
>>simply speaking as individuals.
>
> I didn't say "science arrives at a point." I said, "what if WE
> (individuals) get to a point.
Ok, scientists (and others) using methodological naturalism cannot arrive
at that point. It's a theological question, not a scientific one.
>
>>Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
>>naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
>>individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate the
>>religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners of the
>>religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.) So if I
>>belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that required all
>>numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the scientific existence
>>of the square root of 2.
>
> are you comparing math to the theory of an unknown first common
> ancestor, evolving randomly and willy-nilly? I don't think they are in
> the same category, you know.
I was hoping for a civil exchange, and I think I've treated the ideas of
yours that I disagree with fairly and respectfully. If you need to
engage in caricature, then please do it elsewhere.
No, I was not comparing evolution to religion in the above paragraph. My
point was to show that theology should not make naturalistic claims, and
what happened to the Pythagoreans when they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
That's all good.
> Shakespeare, on the other hand, makes no claims comparable to those made
> by the writers of the Bible.
Certainly.
*Every* philosophy should be challenged. That's how we weed out the bad
ones.
>
> Okay, if a philosophy claims that there are no miracles beyond what men
> know nature can do today, and if a philosophy claims that we exist
> through a series of accidents, and if it claims that everything we are
> is a result of accident and not design, where does that leave a God Who
> comes to earth as a man and says, "If you have seen me you have seen the
> Father," Who is reported to have said, "I created you"? What do you do
> with a God Who claims that He has accomplished the "miracle" of
> overcoming death and nature, but who, it is now claimed by some, cannot
> and does not perform those kinds of miracles?
I think you would enjoy taking a few philosophy classes.
So yes, let's challenge the above philosophy. It's doubtful [which is a
polite way of saying "It ain't gonna happen"] that "there are no
miracles" can be supported, so that part of it fails [can't prove a
negative outside of mathematics, and this is a semi-naturalistic claim].
Further "everything we are is a result of accident and not design" fails,
as there is no empirical way of determining the presence of design (and
accident is not necessarily the opposite of design, but let's leave that
be for now).
So that philosophy is looking pretty tattered right off the bat. If it's
your honest representation of what evolution implies, then I can
understand why you find evolution off-putting.
I don't believe this. After hanging out here for many months, I can't
think of anyone in this group who believes this.
The reason is simple. It's an obviously flawed philosophy.
>
> Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected to
> see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
> salavation is no longer even considered to be real?
As at least two links in the chain failed above, we do not reach this
point.
Address in the other post.
>>
>>> I'm betting that if Augustine lived today, he would not be giving such
>>> carte blanche to science if he knew it would lead many to deny the
>>> existence of God....an unfortunate consequence that I have personally
>>> observed.
>>
>>I don't doubt that you've seen many deny the existence of God, and that
>>they used science to do so. This [based on my dim, superficial
>>understanding of the work] was *precisely* Augustine's concern.
>>
>>Christians who were using a literal interpretation were misrepresenting
>>God, and this particular misrepresentation is a very easy god to deny.
>
> is it possible at all that there are Christians today who can also
> misrepresent God by stripping away His power to create, by turning His
> miraculous activity into myth and legend; who make God out to be one who
> sits back and watches life experimentally struggle through death and
> suffering in order to evolve into what we are today?
With the possible -- possible! -- exception of the Unitarian/Universalist
tradition, I can't think of a single mainstream denomination that accepts
evolution that would support this view. Sure, a Christian could believe
this view, but since they would be contradicting their denomination's
doctrine and the Bible, why would they?
I don't think you've conceived that there exists a large body of
Christians who take great comfort from a personal, caring, loving God.
Not only do they fail to find evolution threatening, they see it adding
to the glory of God.
So let me ask you: what aspect of evolution contradicts the existence of
a personal, caring, loving God?
>
>>This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing
>>what God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of
>>scripture.
>
> maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?
Likely.
> Do
> you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?
No, but the fact that you're asking indicates to me that you've
completely missed the intent of the authors of the gospels.
> That He
> claimed to be God incarnate?
This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
interpolation.
Reliability?
>
>>My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
>>neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a
>>fraction of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead to
>>a reading that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a
>>literal reading of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would be
>>an extraordinary claim that would have to be backed up with not only
>>evidence as to why this reading was better, but why the historical,
>>extra-textual evidence should be ignored. A similar claim that certain
>>passages in the Bible should be read literally should require the same
>>evidence.
>
> which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
> there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and New
> Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as literal.
Yes, I was referring to Genesis 1 and 2. What other references suggest
they should be read as literal?
>>
>>You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
>>still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true that
>>our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented objectively
>>based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent development. If
>>you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for "history", which brings
>>us to:
>
> wait, wait, wait, not yet....don't bring us to anything more yet. Finish
> that thought. If scripture portrays a history of a literal people, what
> are our present ideas of what constitutes history that would rule out
> Biblical history as being literal?
Our idea of history -- objective, neutral, and thus perhaps amenable to a
literal reading -- begins with Herodotus and Thucydides. Before this,
the records that were passed down -- while playing a vital role in the
community -- were simply not intended to be a literal record of what had
gone before.
Now, that's easily said, and it's quite reasonable for you to ask for
more than my say-so. But this is a far larger question than the
interpretation of a few passages of Genesis. What you're proposing is a
comparative study of literature for the entire region, certainly up to
300BCE or so. We'll be touching on a bit of it, though.
For example, here's a decent article. No footnotes, but by the end he's
getting into details:
"Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance"
Conrad Hyers
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
Now a question for you: Biblical literalism is a very modern
phenomenon. Augustine didn't interpret the Bible that way, Medieval
scholars didn't, the higher critics didn't, etc. What support can you
bring for choosing this interpretation?
>>> Also, you said, "...the authors of Genesis, while being truthful about
>>> important things....They had bigger truths to get across." What, in
>>> your opinion, are the important things? What are the bigger truths to
>>> get across? I would really appreciate a definitive answer to this, if
>>> you have one.
>>
>>Again, based on my dim, superficial understanding (I can hear that
>>Wilkins cluestick whistling overhead) the record preserved by the
>>Israelites had much more to do with keeping them together as a community
>>and imparting moral teachings. It wasn't at all important whether or
>>not God *actually* parted the Red Sea, or Moses spent *exactly* forty
>>years wandering around Siani. The point was that Israel's God was
>>stronger than the gods of Egypt, but that if the Israelites screwed up
>>again, God would get angry. [This is grossly, grossly oversimplified,
>>but I think you get my point.]
>
> I'm struggling towards your point, believe me.
The link above should help with other examples.
>>
>>It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
>>episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of the
>>passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly capable of
>>withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was forgiven. *This*
>>is the important truth that needed to be preserved, and to the extent
>>that other details -- however truthful -- got in the way, they were
>>removed. Likewise, if any detail could be added to reinforce this larger
>>truth -- even if that detail wasn't literally true -- then I expect the
>>authors would have accepted it.
>
> I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
> whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to the
> imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people.
Choosing the God you prefer to worship is sailing pretty close to
idolatry.
> Why would anybody
> want to worship a God whose attributes are made up out of whole cloth by
> some group of people wanting to outdo their neighbors? I wouldn't.
> Would you?
Sorry, I missed the bit about the whole cloth. Nothing in this critical
approach prevents divine inspiration, only a literal reading.
> I worship God because He is real, does real and powerful
> things beyond my ken; not because some group of people have made up
> these attributes.
>
> When someone says, out of the fullness of their experience with a living
> God, "God made." And someone else comes along and says, "Your god did
> not make."
Who said "Your god did not make"?
My goal is for a non-literal reading to be plausible for *you*. Sorry, I
wasn't specific.
>
> I respect your freedom to take that course, if you so choose, but I also
> exercise mine to view the opposite.
Certainly.
>
>>The Israelite's God is different in significant ways from the gods of
>>surrounding nations, and the point of the creation account is to
>>highlight these differences.
>
> if the differences aren't real (meaning mythical, made up by a people
> who wanted their god to be different from the surrounding gods), then
> what is that to us? It's a waste of our time to worship a figment of
> some group of people's imaginations. But if the differences are real,
> literal differences, then that calls for worship.
Real differences need not be literal, and I had not been discounting
divine inspiration.
>
>> von Rad repeatedly pointed out how
>>theologically dense the first few verses of Genesis are. None of this
>>theology has to do with the mechanical creation of the universe.
>>Rather, it's a description of God and His relationship with mankind.
>
> in Genesis 1, what exactly is this description that von Rad gathered
> about God and His relationship with mankind?
The book is still at home, I'll try to bring it in tomorrow.
>>
>>And maybe that's the best way to summarize all of this. The first few
>>verses of Genesis do not describe the creation of the world. They
>>partially describe an indescribable God in a literate, memorable way.
>
> if the described qualities of Creator are not literal, then we are
> merely worshiping a god of the imagination of a group of people.
The other authors I've cited answer this far better than I can.
Roger Pearse
See above.
> In any case, I'll provide an answer.
>
> Q: At what point in time does a holy book (or any other work) become
> inspired?
> A: At the point of its creation. Or at the point when an inspired person or
> persons add something to a work. That seems in keeping with the concept of
> "inspired". Please note, that does not necessarily mean that results in the
> whole work being inspired, however, except in a loose sense. I personally
> have no way of acturately discerning divine inspiration. Do you?
That was rather my point.
> Again what is special about 2000 years as a marker? Or any other timeframe?
You've lost all the context on this, I'm afraid.
> It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity while
> evading a direct question.
It is very telling that you ignore the whole discussion in order to
jump on a one-line reply and then start making accusations based on
the fact that I didn't write an essay of footnotes. That suggests
you're a dishonest little shit.
Roger Pearse
wrote:
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > On 5 Dec, 05:12, Skitter_the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Perhaps you would care to answer the question yourself, taking
> > whatever holy book you consider to be inspired? If the answer is "I
> > don't" then I refer you to what I asked earlier about the integrity of
> > making arguments in which the arguers themselves do not believe.
>
> I don't find anyone doing that so far. All we're doing here is drawing
> conclusions from premises. You don't have to believe the premises are
> true in order to consider their implications.
I can't agree, since John Wilkins was doing just this. As for the
rest, I'm afraid that I don't see any practical difference between
this and making arguments dishonestly.
(demands snipped)
Right back at you.
Roger Pearse
> On Dec 3, 8:41 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 2 Dec, 01:32, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 1, 6:32 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you realise that there follows from this various queries about
> > > > whether making arguments which *you* do not believe yourself is an
> > > > acceptable form of debate, morally?
>
> > > As it happens I am trying to develop a series of arguments
> > > concerning Genesis/scripture, with the intent of making
> > > evolution palatable to Christians, here:...
>
> > I have nothing special to offer on this. As far as I can tell, the
> > problem that you are addressing is the tendency of non-Christians in
> > the US to use 'evolution' as a tool to attack Christianity.
>
> My previous response was a bit too quick.
> I believe the issue that is probably of most importance to
> me, is the effect of evolution on perceptions of the nature
> of the soul. I'm sure you must have an opinion on that.
> Could you critique my reply on that issue please.
Sorry, but I'm busy. However I think that you've probably got hold of
a fallacy. 'Post hoc/propter hoc'. The argument (crudely) is that if
men evolved, men
cannot have souls or be more than animals. This is the same argument
as the one which says that if taking LSD gives religious impressions
then all religious impressions must be spurious.
John Harshman
> On 5 Dec, 15:43, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Roger Pearse wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Dec, 05:12, Skitter_the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Perhaps you would care to answer the question yourself, taking
>>>whatever holy book you consider to be inspired? If the answer is "I
>>>don't" then I refer you to what I asked earlier about the integrity of
>>>making arguments in which the arguers themselves do not believe.
>>
>>I don't find anyone doing that so far. All we're doing here is drawing
>>conclusions from premises. You don't have to believe the premises are
>>true in order to consider their implications.
>
> I can't agree, since John Wilkins was doing just this. As for the
> rest, I'm afraid that I don't see any practical difference between
> this and making arguments dishonestly.
>
> (demands snipped)
>
> Right back at you.
Might I say that a tendency to believe the worst of strangers on slight
acquaintance is not attractive, and also seems unchristian? And if you
don't want to discuss the questions at hand, what are you doing here?
Garamond Lethe
> On 01 Dec 2007 03:59:12 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Nice catch? I'm not seeing "32:47" in my edition on pg. 52 or the pages
>>immediately surrounding it, so I'm guessing a typo. Could you send over
>>the context? (I spent a large portion of my undergrad career studying
>>misprints -- thus the interest.)
>
> unfortunately, I've returned the book already, so can't go back to that
> page. I have jotted comments on material up to page 88, but then
> figured that if you wanted to continue a discussion, that I would just
> work with whatever quotes and comments you might make.
>
> Did you find any text quotation at all on page 52? Somehow I tend to
> see it in my mind's eye as being on a left-side page, in a paragraph
> near the top....but that could be totally wrong by now.
>
In my edition, the biblical citations are:
pg. 51
II Kings 23.34, 24.17
Ps. 19.2, Job 37.18
Isa. 42.5, Ps 136.6.
pg. 52
7, 16f., 21, 25 [of Genesis]
Gen 7.11
Ps. 24.2, 136.6, Ex. 20.4
Ps. 104.7-9, Jer 5.22
Job 7.12
Prayer of Manasseh 3
Ps. 89.10, Job 26.12
pg. 53
Gen. 2.19f.
Must've been an earlier edition. Still, I'm impressed that you noticed.
Garamond
<snip>
Garamond Lethe
> On 04 Dec 2007 19:44:16 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>> von Rad repeatedly pointed out how
>>theologically dense the first few verses of Genesis are. None of this
>>theology has to do with the mechanical creation of the universe.
>>Rather, it's a description of God and His relationship with mankind.
>
> in Genesis 1, what exactly is this description that von Rad gathered
> about God and His relationship with mankind?
By way of introduction:
<q>
There can be no doubt, however, that the sentences of ch. 1 are primarily
declarations of faith. This chapter, therefore, is not concerned at all
with things that interest the paleontologist only and that we could
ignore, as though living with another world view; rather, it concerns
declarations of faith that concern the existence of men here and now.
When the ancient Near Easterner spoke of the creating and ordering of the
cosmos by a god, and when he celebrated these two things in great yearly
cult festivals, these were for him things of burning importance. If the
expositor, therefore, wants to do justice to the chapter, he must search
out this topical religious content everywhere (not only in v. 27!).
</q>(pg. 46)
For an example about God:
<q>
The first [unrelinquishable theologumena] is that God, in the freedom of
his will, creatively established for "heaven and earth," i.e. for
absolutely everything, a beginning of its subsequent existence. The
second is expressed in v. 2, for unless one speaks of chaos, creation
cannot be sufficiently considered at all. To express divine creation,
the Hebrew language already had a verb, which, as the Phoenician shows,
could designate the artistic creation. But the Old Testament usage
rejects even this comparison. The verb was retained exclusively to
designate the divine creative activity. This effective theological
constraint which extends even into the language is significant (cf.
"salah", "to forgive", alluding only to divine forgiving). It means a
creative activity, which on principle is without analogy. It is correct
to say that the verb bara', "create", contains the idea both of complete
effortlessness and creatio ex nihilo, since it is never connected with
any statement of the material. The hidden pathos of the statement is
that God is the Lord of the world. But not only in the sense that he
subjected a pre-existing chaos to his ordering will! It is amazing to
see how sharply little Israel demarcated herself from an apparently
overpowering environment of cosmological and theogonic myths. Here the
subject is not a primeval mystery of procreation from which the divinity
arose, nor of a "creative" struggle of mythically personified powers from
which the cosmos arose, but rather the one who is neither warrior nor
procreator, who alone is worthy of the predicate, Creator.
</q>(pgs 46-7)
For an example about God's relationship with mankind: He spends an
entire page tracing the usage of Selem ("image") and their prepositions,
ranging across five other books of the bible and including an external
cite. He concludes:
<q>
The interpretations, therefore, are to be rejected which proceed from an
anthropology strange to the Old Testament and one-sidedly limit God's
image to man's spiritual nature, relating it to man's "dignity", his
"personality" or "ability for moral decision," etc. The marvel of man's
bodily appearance is not at all to be excepted from the realm of God's
image. This was the original notion, and we have no reason to suppose
that it completely gave way, in P's theological reflection, to a
spiritualizing and intellectualizing tendency. Therefore, one will do
will to split the physical from the spiritual as little as possible: the
whole man is created in God's image.
</q>
(pg 56)
I find this a very powerful example of a better reading gained using
higher criticism. Read literally, "image" is simply ambiguous, and
interpretation can be taken no further. Once an understanding of the
original language is brought in (along with where the term was used, the
original intent of the author so far as it can be determined, comparison
and contrast to other traditions) we have a much better idea of not only
what the correct interpretation might be, but how certain we can be that
we are indeed correct.
<snip>
Garamond
Skitter...@yahoo.com
Please be a bt more specific, please. Your point is, what?
>
> > In any case, I'll provide an answer.
> >
> > Q: At what point in time does a holy book (or any other work) become
> > inspired?
> > A: At the point of its creation. Or at the point when an inspired
> > person or
> > persons add something to a work. That seems in keeping with the concept
> > of
> > "inspired". Please note, that does not necessarily mean that results in
> > the
> > whole work being inspired, however, except in a loose sense. I
> > personally
> > have no way of acturately discerning divine inspiration. Do you?
>
> That was rather my point.
You were quite successful in obscuring it. Then, again I ask: what meaning
was implied to the reference of a specific timeframe of 2000 years?
>
> > Again what is special about 2000 years as a marker? Or any other
> > timeframe?
>
> You've lost all the context on this, I'm afraid.
You don't have to be afraid-only explain what you mean.
No, the context is roughly, speaking that you implied that the because the
Bible has continued to exist for approximately 2000 years, it's very
continued existence is somehow evidence that it is inspired by God. I have
asked why you think this is a reasonable positions, why such a thing should
be considered evidence pointing to your conclusion. You have, as of yet,
not provided a clear answer. Do you agree, partially agree/disagree, or
disagree with my assessment of the context?
>
> > It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity while
> > evading a direct question.
>
> It is very telling that you ignore the whole discussion in order to
> jump on a one-line reply and then start making accusations based on
> the fact that I didn't write an essay of footnotes. That suggests
> you're a dishonest little shit.
Ah, I see. My attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding you
evasion so as to not unfairly conclude that you are intentionally being
evasive was misplaced, apparently.
In what way have I not placed things in context, or been dishonest? Or are
you simply making things up in an attempt to obscure the fact that you have,
as of yet, failed to indicate why you time discerning inspiration to a
timeframe?
Shall we forgo personal attacks in order to concentrate on honest discourse?
I would prefer it.
>
> All the best,
Do you really mean that, or are you just being sarcastic. It seems a bit
out of place after accusing me (without warrant) of dishonesty.
Skitter the Cat
> Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> On 6-Dec-2007, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity while
> > > evading a direct question.
>
> > It is very telling that you ignore the whole discussion in order to
> > jump on a one-line reply and then start making accusations based on
> > the fact that I didn't write an essay of footnotes. That suggests
> > you're a dishonest little shit.
>
<chuckle>
> Shall we forgo personal attacks in order to concentrate on honest discourse?
> I would prefer it.
The measure you give is the measure you get.
Zoe
wrote:
zoe wrote:
snip>
>>>> sure, time taken up with unprofitable scientific disputes could be
>>>> better spent on what is spiritually beneficial. But what if certain
>>>> "scientific" subjects serve to deflect interest in things spiritually
>>>> beneficial? Would it matter then?
>>>
>>>I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis
>>>began long before evolution came on the scene, and that such non-literal
>>>interpretations have been very much in the mainstream. Can science
>>>deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things? Certainly, but so
>>>can anything else.
>>
>> just to clarify, by "science" here, I am referring only to evolutionary
>> theory, and more specifically, macroevolutionary theory. Not science in
>> general.
>
>I don't know what macroevolutionary theory is. Is this what you mean?
>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
do you know what macroevolutionary theory is now, after reading that
link?
My understanding of what evolutionists mean by macroevolution is that
when sufficient changes occur that take a population from one species
into an entirely new genus, i.e., dinosaur to bird, ape to human, then
macroevolution has occurred.
In the link you have provided, I'm a little confused. It says that
"Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and
macroevolution," but also says that "macroevolution refers to things
.....occurring over tens of millions of years..." If every little
change in alleles is considered to be speciation (microevolution) and
if these speciation events are the dividing line between micro and
macro, then macro should be observable in less time than tens of
millions of years. I bet I am misunderstanding something here.
Just a note: There is a misprint in the article where it says, "When
the principle tenants of the Modern Synthesis were being worked out in
the 1940's...."
I'm sure Laurence Moran would not appreciate that typo and would want
"principle tenants" replaced by "principal tenets."
>>> I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
>>>definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
>>>after all.
>>
>> my position is that a scientific study of nature that promotes a God
>> uninvolved with His creation versus a God involved and caring intimately
>> about His creation, can have widely differing effects. It matters what
>> the study promotes.
>
>Science in general, and evolution in particular, has nothing to say about
>God's continuing involvement in creation. As to what science promotes, I
>think we've done pretty well with "go where the evidence leads".
>
>What does the study of electricity promote?
once again, I am not talking about science in general. Can we stay
with evolution in particular. I mean, this is the hot topic in this
newsgroup, not science in general. There is no dispute with regard to
electricity or gravity or any of the real sciences.
snip>
>>>> I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the universe
>>>> is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer considered a reality
>>>> or a necessity?
>>>Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this they're
>>>simply speaking as individuals.
>>>Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
>>>naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
>>>individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate the
>>>religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners of the
>>>religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.) So if I
>>>belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that required all
>>>numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the scientific existence
>>>of the square root of 2.
>>
>> are you comparing math to the theory of an unknown first common
>> ancestor, evolving randomly and willy-nilly? I don't think they are in
>> the same category, you know.
>
>I was hoping for a civil exchange, and I think I've treated the ideas of
>yours that I disagree with fairly and respectfully. If you need to
>engage in caricature, then please do it elsewhere.
forgive me if my question came across as disrespectful or uncivil. It
was a genuine question, not an attempt at caricaturization.
>
>No, I was not comparing evolution to religion in the above paragraph.
neither was I comparing evolution to religion. I was comparing
evolution to scientific evidence that invalidates a religious stance.
And I asked you if that was what you were comparing.
my question again: are you comparing the "scientific existence of the
square root of 2" to the theory of an unknown first common ancestor,
evolving randomly and accidentally? (I'll remove "willy-nilly" in
case that term offends.)
Your point seems to be that if a religion is based only on rational
numbers, and science demonstrates the existence of an irrational
number, then that would undermine a religious belief that only
rational numbers exist. Right? Likewise, you seemed to be saying
that if my position is that the creation story is literal, and if
scientific evidence (the theory of evolution) demonstrates that the
creation story could not be literal, then that invalidates....well,
it's up to me whether I consider it validated or not, right?
If I have again misunderstood what you said, just put a dunce cap on
my head, and not a "rude" cap, okay?
> My
>point was to show that theology should not make naturalistic claims, and
>what happened to the Pythagoreans when they did.
I don't know why theology cannot make naturalistic claims. My
theology sees the world as a natural product of intelligence, and I
don't use Bible texts to come to that conclusion.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
snip>
I don't know what threads you have been reading, but I am constantly
told by many posters that evolution is purposeless, random, a result
of chance (accidental) and that there is no evidence of design in
nature. Any attempt of mine to point out what I consider to be
evidence for design in nature is met with strong denials that any such
design can be detected, let alone exist.
So, tell me then, do you think that these posters, by your evaluation
above, are holding to an obviously flawed philosophy?
>
>>
>> Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected to
>> see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
>> salavation is no longer even considered to be real?
>
>As at least two links in the chain failed above, we do not reach this
>point.
okay, would you kindly replace those two failed links with what you
think evolutionary theory is really saying -- or should be saying?
snip>
>>>> I'm betting that if Augustine lived today, he would not be giving such
>>>> carte blanche to science if he knew it would lead many to deny the
>>>> existence of God....an unfortunate consequence that I have personally
>>>> observed.
>>>
>>>I don't doubt that you've seen many deny the existence of God, and that
>>>they used science to do so. This [based on my dim, superficial
>>>understanding of the work] was *precisely* Augustine's concern.
>>>
>>>Christians who were using a literal interpretation were misrepresenting
>>>God, and this particular misrepresentation is a very easy god to deny.
>>
>> is it possible at all that there are Christians today who can also
>> misrepresent God by stripping away His power to create, by turning His
>> miraculous activity into myth and legend; who make God out to be one who
>> sits back and watches life experimentally struggle through death and
>> suffering in order to evolve into what we are today?
>
>With the possible -- possible! -- exception of the Unitarian/Universalist
>tradition, I can't think of a single mainstream denomination that accepts
>evolution that would support this view. Sure, a Christian could believe
>this view, but since they would be contradicting their denomination's
>doctrine and the Bible, why would they?
>
>I don't think you've conceived that there exists a large body of
>Christians who take great comfort from a personal, caring, loving God.
>Not only do they fail to find evolution threatening, they see it adding
>to the glory of God.
it is encouraging to know that there are Christians who are able to
take great comfort in a personal, caring, loving God, even as they
accept the idea that God played no part in their creation, other than
to maybe get a blob or protoplasm going and watching it struggle
through life and death and suffering and survival until its
descendants managed to emerge as human beings. I wouldn't want them
to lose such a connection with God by considering the dichotomy. It
might be best that they don't think about it at all.
>
>So let me ask you: what aspect of evolution contradicts the existence of
>a personal, caring, loving God?
the aspect of suffering and death as a necessary path to the survival
of a species.
The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown
purposeless direction.
The aspect of a god, IF one exists, being so far removed from being
discovered that it is impossible to find him.
The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
future and without hope.
A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children
through this process, if they could choose a method of creating their
children. How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know
the thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to
give you a future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me,
and you will find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I
will be found by you."
>
>>
>>>This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing
>>>what God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of
>>>scripture.
>>
>> maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?
>
>Likely.
>
>> Do
>> you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?
>
>No, but the fact that you're asking indicates to me that you've
>completely missed the intent of the authors of the gospels.
what was the intent, please? And why do you limit God to only what
you think nature can do?
>
>> That He
>> claimed to be God incarnate?
>
>This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
>interpolation.
what do you mean by "interpolation"?
snip>
>>>My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
>>>neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a
>>>fraction of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead to
>>>a reading that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a
>>>literal reading of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would be
>>>an extraordinary claim that would have to be backed up with not only
>>>evidence as to why this reading was better, but why the historical,
>>>extra-textual evidence should be ignored. A similar claim that certain
>>>passages in the Bible should be read literally should require the same
>>>evidence.
>>
>> which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
>> there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and New
>> Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as literal.
>
>Yes, I was referring to Genesis 1 and 2. What other references suggest
>they should be read as literal?
well, I'm beginning to think it won't help to give you other
references because if I were to quote Jesus, for instance, you might
simply say that He meant something else because to take Him literally
would go against what you already believe....or if I were to quote
Isaiah, you might say that he didn't mean what he said, either, but
was merely stating some cultic beliefs of a group of people.
See, if you are settled in your mind that wherever scripture speaks of
realities that don't reverberate with what scientists claim, then
those realities must yield to what scientists claim to have discovered
in their vast and infinite knowledge. So my presenting other
references will do no good. Not if that is your state of mind.
>
>>>
>>>You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
>>>still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true that
>>>our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented objectively
>>>based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent development. If
>>>you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for "history", which brings
>>>us to:
>>
>> wait, wait, wait, not yet....don't bring us to anything more yet. Finish
>> that thought. If scripture portrays a history of a literal people, what
>> are our present ideas of what constitutes history that would rule out
>> Biblical history as being literal?
>
>Our idea of history -- objective, neutral, and thus perhaps amenable to a
>literal reading -- begins with Herodotus and Thucydides. Before this,
>the records that were passed down -- while playing a vital role in the
>community -- were simply not intended to be a literal record of what had
>gone before.
>
>Now, that's easily said, and it's quite reasonable for you to ask for
>more than my say-so. But this is a far larger question than the
>interpretation of a few passages of Genesis. What you're proposing is a
>comparative study of literature for the entire region, certainly up to
>300BCE or so. We'll be touching on a bit of it, though.
>
do you think that any writings older than the 5th century BC
automatically fall under a rule that says it was not intended to be a
literal record? On what basis this position?
>For example, here's a decent article. No footnotes, but by the end he's
>getting into details:
>
>"Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance"
>Conrad Hyers
>
>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
this is polemics, nothing else. And worse, at one point, Hyers
writes: "Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1
would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to
read it."
How has he managed to read through the eyes of the people who wrote
Genesis, I wonder. He calls upon the perspective of surrounding
nations, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and decides, without
supporting evidence, that these were the "eyes of the people who wrote
Genesis." Some historian of the future might as well look back at the
nations of today and decide that they can read the New York Times
through the eyes of the people of Iran or Iraq. Doesn't compute.
>
>Now a question for you: Biblical literalism is a very modern
>phenomenon. Augustine didn't interpret the Bible that way, Medieval
>scholars didn't, the higher critics didn't, etc. What support can you
>bring for choosing this interpretation?
I don't know what you mean by Biblical literalism if your claim is
that it is a modern phenomenon. Because, to my knowledge, accepting
the Bible accounts as history when it reads as history, poetry when it
reads like poetry, and prophecy when it reads as predictions, is not a
modern method. Just because you can find critics through the ages that
have attempted to promote a non-literal approach does not mean that
Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. It is as old as the Bible
itself.
snip>
>
>>>
>>>It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
>>>episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of the
>>>passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly capable of
>>>withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was forgiven. *This*
>>>is the important truth that needed to be preserved, and to the extent
>>>that other details -- however truthful -- got in the way, they were
>>>removed. Likewise, if any detail could be added to reinforce this larger
>>>truth -- even if that detail wasn't literally true -- then I expect the
>>>authors would have accepted it.
>>
>> I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
>> whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to the
>> imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people.
>
>Choosing the God you prefer to worship is sailing pretty close to
>idolatry.
we are allowed the freedom to prefer whom we worship. Hopefully, whom
we prefer would be the real God and not some false god of our
imagination. I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god
of the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would
do everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure
death in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live
worshipping that kind of god.
Fortunately, this is not the kind of God that rules the universe.
Garamond, I can live only by my own convictions and ability to reason,
not by anybody else's say-so. God says, "Come now, let us reason
together," so I think I'm on sound ground when I try to reason out my
foundations, from which a leap of faith can then be taken. If I find
that I personally cannot worship a god who is considered to be harsh,
vindictive, uncaring, then why would you hold that against me and
insist that I must worship the kind of god you or anyone else chooses
to put forth, otherwise I'm sailing pretty close to idolatry?
>
>> Why would anybody
>> want to worship a God whose attributes are made up out of whole cloth by
>> some group of people wanting to outdo their neighbors? I wouldn't.
>> Would you?
>
>Sorry, I missed the bit about the whole cloth. Nothing in this critical
>approach prevents divine inspiration, only a literal reading.
if you do not take the Biblical descriptions of God at face value,
then you are left with nothing to go on other than a wishful, warm,
fuzzy feeling that some kind of god must be out there, being a certain
way, whatever way it is that you deem fits your wish for what he must
be like. And such a god would be a figment of your imagination
because you have nothing to go on if you dispense with the Biblical
description of YWH.
>
>> I worship God because He is real, does real and powerful
>> things beyond my ken; not because some group of people have made up
>> these attributes.
>>
>> When someone says, out of the fullness of their experience with a living
>> God, "God made." And someone else comes along and says, "Your god did
>> not make."
>
>Who said "Your god did not make"?
evolutionists do. Do you read these threads?
are you trying to convert me?
>
>>
>> I respect your freedom to take that course, if you so choose, but I also
>> exercise mine to view the opposite.
>
>Certainly.
>
>>
>>>The Israelite's God is different in significant ways from the gods of
>>>surrounding nations, and the point of the creation account is to
>>>highlight these differences.
>>
>> if the differences aren't real (meaning mythical, made up by a people
>> who wanted their god to be different from the surrounding gods), then
>> what is that to us? It's a waste of our time to worship a figment of
>> some group of people's imaginations. But if the differences are real,
>> literal differences, then that calls for worship.
>
>Real differences need not be literal, and I had not been discounting
>divine inspiration.
I don't know where you get your picture of God if the Biblical picture
is discounted as being not literal. What's real about your God, then,
and where do you get this information about His reality?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by downplaying "read literally." von Rad
seems to be quite literal here, marrying the physical aspect of
humanity to the spiritual aspect.
> Once an understanding of the
>original language is brought in (along with where the term was used, the
>original intent of the author so far as it can be determined, comparison
>and contrast to other traditions) we have a much better idea of not only
>what the correct interpretation might be, but how certain we can be that
>we are indeed correct.
it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
retains its integrity...
Zoe
wrote:
and that is why I have refrained from using Biblical references when
pursuing my study of recognizing mental activity wherever it might be
found.
>
>I don't see any support for a reading that limits the passage to the
>science known in Augustine's day. Of course, if you don't agree with
>evolution, there's no trouble at all with you addressing it
>philosophically, scientifically, morally, etc. But basing your theology
>on naturalistic claims means that if the claim is invalidated, other
>people will not take the rest of your theology seriously.
I'm still waiting for invalidation of my claim that mental activity
can be recognized wherever it might be found.
>
>>
>> You are right when you say that evolutionary theory did not exist when
>> he was alive. If it did, I'm betting that he would have had something
>> entirely different to say had he been faced with the present contention
>> that nature arrived here on its own;
>
>"That nature arrived here on its own" is not part of the theory of
>evolution or any other scientific theory I'm aware of.
maybe you might want to ask the majority of posters in this newsgroup
how they think that nature arrived here.
>
>> that it does not reflect God's
>> creative power.
>
>Why doesn't evolution reflect God's creative power?
creative power is evident, for instance, in a completed computer
program that then runs by itself. There is no creative power in
throwing some zeroes and ones into a computer system, without plan or
programming (the evolutionary method), and sitting back to see what is
produced. If there is a god who creates in the evolutionary fashion,
then, to me, this is not the kind of god that calls forth my
admiration and worship. I'd be rather irritated at him, to put it
mildly, for subjecting life forms to that kind of hit-or-miss struggle
for survival.
>
>This is a really important point, so let me expand on it.
>
>Especially in mathematics and computer science, there's a special meaning
>for the word "elegance". If someone comes up with a proof or algorithm
>that is unexpectedly simple, or embarrassingly fast, or opens up an
>entirely new set of problems than can be solved, the highest compliment
>that can be paid is calling the work "elegant". If I do this twice a
>year, I'm doing really well.
>
>I'm guessing you have an idea of God as Creator that individually
>fashioned everything that existed.
I don't know how God did it, other than that He is ingenious enough to
put programs together that can continue to run on their own, without
further need of tweaking or intervention. The computer programmer who
creates a realistic video game does not have to re-enter your computer
and repeatedly create the characters. He sets it all up at the
beginning and programs it so well that it continues to run without
further intervention.
> I find such a God to be... well,
>let's just say that this particular God didn't find a very elegant
>solution, and even an omnipotent God outside of time must have gotten a
>little bored by the time he was finished with all of the plankton, and
>all that bacteria must have been a really hard slog.
that is a very simplistic approach to God's creative power. Why would
some supreme intelligence sit down and fashion every single bacterium,
one at a time, from day one, right up to the present day? Talk about
caricaturization.
Instead, God created a genetic system, programmed it to run in a wide
variety of ways, and set it up in an ideal environment that would
allow each life form to reproduce its own characteristics in a great
variety of ways...each after its own kind. How blazingly brilliant!!
>
>On the other hand, I could admire a God who works through evolution.
>It's not only elegant, it's beautifully elegant. But it gets even better
>-- evolution is simply a consequence of the chemical laws that were in
>place, and those are simply a consequence of physics. Instead of having
>to invent a planet's worth of critters, God simply had to get the physics
>right. *That* is an elegant solution, and required far more creative
>power than the by-hand approach.
okay, I respect your right to see it that way. Personally, I think my
perspective is of a more compassionate, more intelligent, more
far-seeing.....well, more elegant way.
John Wilkins
> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
> is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
> retains its integrity...
But Elohim is a plural of "powers", and it suggests, as in Psalm 82,
that there are in fact a plurality of powers before monotheism was
developed much later. There are remnants of henotheism all through the
old testament.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
> > original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
> > is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
> > singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
> > retains its integrity...
>
> But Elohim is a plural of "powers", and it suggests, as in Psalm 82,
> that there are in fact a plurality of powers before monotheism was
> developed much later. There are remnants of henotheism all through the
> old testament.
And the so named New Testament. St. Paul and his Powers etc., Satan
becomes and independent deity and so on.
Zoe
wrote:
yes. And you and I are also gods....just not the One True God.
Zoe
wrote:
>Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
>> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
>> is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
>> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
>> retains its integrity...
>
>But Elohim is a plural of "powers", and it suggests, as in Psalm 82,
>that there are in fact a plurality of powers before monotheism was
>developed much later. There are remnants of henotheism all through the
>old testament.
monotheism refers to the belief that there is only one true God. In
scripture, all other gods are acknowledged as existing (henotheism),
but are recognized only as false gods. If false, then they are not
true gods. Do not worship them. They will fail you.
For me, this is one of the salient messages of the Bible. Do not make
for yourself false gods that can neither see nor hear, do not worship
your idols of silver and gold; do not worship the sun, moon or stars,
do not worship yourselves -- "you are gods." These are all broken
cisterns...false gods.
It has always been the position of Israel, according to scripture,
that "The Lord our God (plural) is one God." And monotheism has always
been the foundation of their belief system (though they strayed many a
time), not something developed much later.
see: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Elohim/elohim.html
My understanding is that the God of the Bible is a God so powerful
that He is plural while remaining one. For instance, when He speaks,
you don't just hear words, you see His Word in the form of a Person --
"In the beginning was The Word and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Thus
monotheism retains its integrity while being plural: God can be on
His throne and walking among us as a man at the same time. God can
dwell in the heavens while dying on a cross at the same time, because
of this plural ability.
John Wilkins
Hey, if we're gods then we're gods. The fact that one god thinks he's
the only one that matters doesn't change that fact.
Garamond Lethe
> On 06 Dec 2007 06:13:30 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>>>> sure, time taken up with unprofitable scientific disputes could be
>>>>> better spent on what is spiritually beneficial. But what if certain
>>>>> "scientific" subjects serve to deflect interest in things
>>>>> spiritually beneficial? Would it matter then?
>>>>
>>>>I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis
>>>>began long before evolution came on the scene, and that such
>>>>non-literal interpretations have been very much in the mainstream.
>>>>Can science deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things?
>>>>Certainly, but so can anything else.
>>>
>>> just to clarify, by "science" here, I am referring only to
>>> evolutionary theory, and more specifically, macroevolutionary theory.
>>> Not science in general.
>>
>>I don't know what macroevolutionary theory is. Is this what you mean?
>>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
>
> do you know what macroevolutionary theory is now, after reading that
> link?
Yes.
>
> My understanding of what evolutionists mean by macroevolution is that
> when sufficient changes occur that take a population from one species
> into an entirely new genus, i.e., dinosaur to bird, ape to human, then
> macroevolution has occurred.
>
> In the link you have provided, I'm a little confused. It says that
> "Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and
> macroevolution," but also says that "macroevolution refers to things
> .....occurring over tens of millions of years..."
Ok so far.
> If every little
> change in alleles is considered to be speciation (microevolution)
speciation is not microevolution. There are several technical
definitions of speciation, and "reproductive isolation" isn't a very good
one, but it is simple to understand and is good enough for most
purposes.
Allele frequency change in a population over time is a pretty sturdy
definition of evolution. The allele frequencies in your parent's
"population" (aka generation) are different from the allele frequencies
in your generation, so one tiny step of evolution has occurred.
> and if
> these speciation events are the dividing line between micro and macro,
> then macro should be observable in less time than tens of millions of
> years. I bet I am misunderstanding something here.
Reproductive isolation can begin happening in just a handful of
generations. See Dodd, Diane M. B., Reproductive Isolation as a
Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophilia Pseudoobscura.
Evolution, 43(6), 1989, 1308-1311.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00143820/di000301/00p08377/0
>
> Just a note: There is a misprint in the article where it says, "When
> the principle tenants of the Modern Synthesis were being worked out in
> the 1940's...."
>
> I'm sure Laurence Moran would not appreciate that typo and would want
> "principle tenants" replaced by "principal tenets."
Did you drop him a line?
>
>>>> I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
>>>>definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
>>>>after all.
>>>
>>> my position is that a scientific study of nature that promotes a God
>>> uninvolved with His creation versus a God involved and caring
>>> intimately about His creation, can have widely differing effects. It
>>> matters what the study promotes.
>>
>>Science in general, and evolution in particular, has nothing to say
>>about God's continuing involvement in creation. As to what science
>>promotes, I think we've done pretty well with "go where the evidence
>>leads".
>>
>>What does the study of electricity promote?
>
> once again, I am not talking about science in general. Can we stay with
> evolution in particular. I mean, this is the hot topic in this
> newsgroup, not science in general. There is no dispute with regard to
> electricity or gravity or any of the real sciences.
How does evolution differ from "real sciences"? Specifically in terms of
the Dodd paper above, what do you find lacking there that is not lacking
in real science?
There is also the difficulty in how to separate out evolution from the
sciences that it relies on. Evolution intertwines with chemistry,
genetics, cell biology, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology, and (I
would hold) computer science. Are any of these also not real sciences?
(Ok, I'll give you "computer science". The rule of thumb is that if a
discipline needs to put the word "science" in their name, they are. cf.
"Social Science").
But to get back to your original point: every branch of science can be
cast as promoting "a God uninvolved with His creation". Evolution is no
different than electricity and physics in this regard. Similar arguments
were used against translating the Bible into the vernacular -- wouldn't
that promote misunderstand of the scripture? In constitutional law, this
is known as "prior restraint", and it's a very weak position to argue
from.
>
> snip>
>
>>>>> I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the
>>>>> universe is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer
>>>>> considered a reality or a necessity?
>
>>>>Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this
>>>>they're simply speaking as individuals.
>
>>>>Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
>>>>naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
>>>>individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate
>>>>the religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners
>>>>of the religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.)
>>>>So if I belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that
>>>>required all numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the
>>>>scientific existence of the square root of 2.
>>>
>>> are you comparing math to the theory of an unknown first common
>>> ancestor, evolving randomly and willy-nilly? I don't think they are
>>> in the same category, you know.
>>
>>I was hoping for a civil exchange, and I think I've treated the ideas of
>>yours that I disagree with fairly and respectfully. If you need to
>>engage in caricature, then please do it elsewhere.
>
> forgive me if my question came across as disrespectful or uncivil. It
> was a genuine question, not an attempt at caricaturization.
Ok, no problem.
>>
>>No, I was not comparing evolution to religion in the above paragraph.
>
> neither was I comparing evolution to religion. I was comparing
> evolution to scientific evidence that invalidates a religious stance.
> And I asked you if that was what you were comparing.
>
> my question again: are you comparing the "scientific existence of the
> square root of 2" to the theory of an unknown first common ancestor,
> evolving randomly and accidentally? (I'll remove "willy-nilly" in case
> that term offends.)
>
> Your point seems to be that if a religion is based only on rational
> numbers, and science demonstrates the existence of an irrational number,
> then that would undermine a religious belief that only rational numbers
> exist. Right?
Right.
> Likewise, you seemed to be saying that if my position is
> that the creation story is literal, and if scientific evidence (the
> theory of evolution) demonstrates that the creation story could not be
> literal, then that invalidates....well, it's up to me whether I consider
> it validated or not, right?
Right. In both cases, though, it would have to be a very trivial
religion to be completely invalidated. More likely, either one claim or
one interpretation of a claim was faulty; that can be corrected and
everyone can move on. This is how most mainline Christian denominations
have handled evolution.
>
> If I have again misunderstood what you said, just put a dunce cap on my
> head, and not a "rude" cap, okay?
>
>> My
>>point was to show that theology should not make naturalistic claims, and
>>what happened to the Pythagoreans when they did.
>
> I don't know why theology cannot make naturalistic claims.
Theology certainly can make naturalistic claims, but it's just really,
really bad at it.
> My theology
> sees the world as a natural product of intelligence, and I don't use
> Bible texts to come to that conclusion.
That's very curious -- I'll come back to this point.
As you say else where in this post, you "reason".
You look at the surrounding culture of the time. What was the recent
history of Messianism? What were the dominant and fringe beliefs in the
area? Were there other itinerant preacher and what were they saying?
Then you look at how the text came to be produced. Who wrote it? What
were their circumstances? What were they trying to accomplish? How does
this record compare to other similar records of the era?
Then you look at how the text was transmitted. Who did the
translations? Can cladistics be used to see where errors were
introduced? And a very important question that has received a lot of
work recently: what texts *weren't* transmitted and why? Elaine
Pagels's _The Gnostic Gospels_ is very good introduction to this, even
though it's probably getting a bit dated by now.
Finally, once all of that background is firmly in place, you look at the
text itself.
>>
>>I think you would enjoy taking a few philosophy classes.
>>
>>So yes, let's challenge the above philosophy. It's doubtful [which is a
>>polite way of saying "It ain't gonna happen"] that "there are no
>>miracles" can be supported, so that part of it fails [can't prove a
>>negative outside of mathematics, and this is a semi-naturalistic claim].
>>Further "everything we are is a result of accident and not design"
>>fails, as there is no empirical way of determining the presence of
>>design (and accident is not necessarily the opposite of design, but
>>let's leave that be for now).
>>
>>So that philosophy is looking pretty tattered right off the bat. If
>>it's your honest representation of what evolution implies, then I can
>>understand why you find evolution off-putting.
>>
>>I don't believe this. After hanging out here for many months, I can't
>>think of anyone in this group who believes this.
>>
>>The reason is simple. It's an obviously flawed philosophy.
>
> I don't know what threads you have been reading, but I am constantly
> told by many posters that evolution is purposeless, random, a result of
> chance (accidental) and that there is no evidence of design in nature.
They are, strictly speaking, false.
> Any attempt of mine to point out what I consider to be evidence for
> design in nature is met with strong denials that any such design can be
> detected, let alone exist.
And that's why they are false. We can't detect whether or not the
universe is designed. That doesn't mean it's not -- it means we can't
tell.
> So, tell me then, do you think that these posters, by your evaluation
> above, are holding to an obviously flawed philosophy?
Some of them might be wrong, some of them might not be speaking as
precisely as they might in a more formal conversation, and some of them
have made the distinction that you recorded above.
>>
>>
>>> Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected
>>> to see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
>>> salavation is no longer even considered to be real?
>>
>>As at least two links in the chain failed above, we do not reach this
>>point.
>
> okay, would you kindly replace those two failed links with what you
> think evolutionary theory is really saying -- or should be saying?
Evolution says that allele frequencies in populations change over time,
and that were are descended from a common gene pool (which was probably a
single organism).
That's all.
You might think that this cannot coexist with your idea of God. I might
think that a God who would use such a technique is far more plausible
than the one described by a literal reading of Genesis. Evolution is
silent as to which of us is more correct.
<snip>
>>
>>I don't think you've conceived that there exists a large body of
>>Christians who take great comfort from a personal, caring, loving God.
>>Not only do they fail to find evolution threatening, they see it adding
>>to the glory of God.
>
> it is encouraging to know that there are Christians who are able to take
> great comfort in a personal, caring, loving God, even as they accept the
> idea that God played no part in their creation, other than to maybe get
> a blob or protoplasm going and watching it struggle through life and
> death and suffering and survival until its descendants managed to emerge
> as human beings.
How did we get from "evolution exists" to "God played no [subsequent]
part"?
C'mon, Zoe, most Christians who accept evolution believe that God is
personally, lovingly, and carefully directing and intervening in their
life. Why would they not?
Is it "random" that's giving you problems? As used in "Random Mutation +
Natural Selection", it has a technical meaning: to a first
approximation, each allele has an equal chance of being modified. It
does NOT mean that God can't reach in an tweak things whenever he
wishes. We just can't detect when that happens (unless God chooses to be
really, really obvious about it).
> I wouldn't want them to lose such a connection with
> God by considering the dichotomy. It might be best that they don't
> think about it at all.
Arguing for ignorance is rarely a good position to take.
>>
>>So let me ask you: what aspect of evolution contradicts the existence
>>of a personal, caring, loving God?
>
> the aspect of suffering and death as a necessary path to the survival of
> a species.
I probably have a huge misunderstanding here, but suffering and death
exist given either a literal reading of Genesis or the theory of
evolution.
>
> The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
> random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown purposeless
> direction.
As above, science studies evolution as if it were purposeless. This does
not preclude a theological purpose.
>
> The aspect of a god, IF one exists, being so far removed from being
> discovered that it is impossible to find him.
Evolution says nothing about the nearness of God.
>
> The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
> future and without hope.
Evolution says nothing about this, either.
>
> A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children through
> this process, if they could choose a method of creating their children.
As someone recently quoted to me: "God's ways are above man's ways."
> How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know the thoughts
> I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a
> future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me, and you will
> find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I will be found by
> you."
>>
>>
>>>>This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing
>>>>what God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of
>>>>scripture.
>>>
>>> maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?
>>
>>Likely.
>>
>>> Do
>>> you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?
>>
>>No, but the fact that you're asking indicates to me that you've
>>completely missed the intent of the authors of the gospels.
>
> what was the intent, please? And why do you limit God to only what you
> think nature can do?
That's not a limitation on God, that's a limitation of the imagination of
the writers at the time. The miracles attributed to Christ were local
and impermanent. The writers wanted to claim divinity for Jesus and used
the story of the miracles to illustrate the teachings.
>>
>>> That He
>>> claimed to be God incarnate?
>>
>>This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
>>interpolation.
>
> what do you mean by "interpolation"?
The text was inserted later.
>
> snip>
>
>>>>My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
>>>>neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a
>>>>fraction of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead
>>>>to a reading that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a
>>>>literal reading of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would
>>>>be an extraordinary claim that would have to be backed up with not
>>>>only evidence as to why this reading was better, but why the
>>>>historical, extra-textual evidence should be ignored. A similar claim
>>>>that certain passages in the Bible should be read literally should
>>>>require the same evidence.
>>>
>>> which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
>>> there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and
>>> New Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as
>>> literal.
>>
>>Yes, I was referring to Genesis 1 and 2. What other references suggest
>>they should be read as literal?
>
> well, I'm beginning to think it won't help to give you other references
> because if I were to quote Jesus, for instance, you might simply say
> that He meant something else because to take Him literally would go
> against what you already believe....
We'll, I used reason to come to my beliefs. I'm willing to listen to any
correction you have to offer.
> or if I were to quote Isaiah, you
> might say that he didn't mean what he said, either, but was merely
> stating some cultic beliefs of a group of people.
"merely"?
The author who records the most sacred stories and laws of his community
into written form is "merely" stating some cultic beliefs? I say it was
"merely" the highest point of civilization that particular people had
achieved up to that point.
>
> See, if you are settled in your mind that wherever scripture speaks of
> realities that don't reverberate with what scientists claim, then those
> realities must yield to what scientists claim to have discovered in
> their vast and infinite knowledge. So my presenting other references
> will do no good. Not if that is your state of mind.
You've confused "scripture" with "interpretation of scripture". If you
feel your interpretation of scripture is infallible, then perhaps you
should outline why this is so. If it isn't, then if an interpretation is
totally at odds with a couple centuries of scientific data across
multiple disciplines, then I'd say the problem is in your interpretation.
>>
>>
>>>>You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
>>>>still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true
>>>>that our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented
>>>>objectively based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent
>>>>development. If you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for
>>>>"history", which brings us to:
>>>
>>> wait, wait, wait, not yet....don't bring us to anything more yet.
>>> Finish that thought. If scripture portrays a history of a literal
>>> people, what are our present ideas of what constitutes history that
>>> would rule out Biblical history as being literal?
>>
>>Our idea of history -- objective, neutral, and thus perhaps amenable to
>>a literal reading -- begins with Herodotus and Thucydides. Before this,
>>the records that were passed down -- while playing a vital role in the
>>community -- were simply not intended to be a literal record of what had
>>gone before.
>>
>>Now, that's easily said, and it's quite reasonable for you to ask for
>>more than my say-so. But this is a far larger question than the
>>interpretation of a few passages of Genesis. What you're proposing is a
>>comparative study of literature for the entire region, certainly up to
>>300BCE or so. We'll be touching on a bit of it, though.
>>
>>
> do you think that any writings older than the 5th century BC
> automatically fall under a rule that says it was not intended to be a
> literal record? On what basis this position?
The earliest writing of a culture is usually bookkeeping, and this is
obviously literal. To the best of my knowledge, most early legal writing
can be interpreted literally as well (as in the fine for doing x is y
pieces of z).
History, though, is a very late form. Oral tradition can have historical
elements, but these are first an foremost stories (and, I'd argue,
theater). Only when you arrive at situation where a literate member of
the community has enough leisure time to write down what he saw, *and*
other members of the community value this record enough to see that it is
preserved (which means copying by hand) do you have the necessary
conditions for history. The first condition may have lasted for quite
some time before the second.
>
>>For example, here's a decent article. No footnotes, but by the end he's
>>getting into details:
>>
>>"Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance" Conrad Hyers
>>
>>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
>
> this is polemics, nothing else. And worse, at one point, Hyers writes:
> "Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem
> very different from the way most people today would tend to read it."
>
> How has he managed to read through the eyes of the people who wrote
> Genesis, I wonder.
The same way one would go about studying any other late author.
> He calls upon the perspective of surrounding
> nations, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and decides, without
> supporting evidence, that these were the "eyes of the people who wrote
> Genesis."
Perhaps, just perhaps, he knows more about the subject than you do.
For example, what is your interpretation of the word "deep" in Gen. 1:2?
> Some historian of the future might as well look back at the
> nations of today and decide that they can read the New York Times
> through the eyes of the people of Iran or Iraq.
The people of Iran and Iraq pay a great deal of attention to the New York
Times. Many reporters for the paper are native Iraqis and Iranians.
We've influence their culture, they've influence our culture. I'd say
that's a perfectly reasonable area of study.
> Doesn't compute.
>
>
>>Now a question for you: Biblical literalism is a very modern
>>phenomenon. Augustine didn't interpret the Bible that way, Medieval
>>scholars didn't, the higher critics didn't, etc. What support can you
>>bring for choosing this interpretation?
>
> I don't know what you mean by Biblical literalism if your claim is that
> it is a modern phenomenon. Because, to my knowledge, accepting the
> Bible accounts as history when it reads as history, poetry when it reads
> like poetry, and prophecy when it reads as predictions, is not a modern
> method. Just because you can find critics through the ages that have
> attempted to promote a non-literal approach does not mean that Biblical
> literalism is a modern phenomenon. It is as old as the Bible itself.
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for a cite on that.
I'm taking literalism to mean a literal interpretation of the first two
chapters of Genesis. I'm not aware of any of the early Church Fathers
who held that position. My understanding of the Medieval tradition is
that they were interpreted allegorically. As John keeps pointing out:
<q>
The first creationists arose in the 17th century, and included John Ray,
Johannes Buteo, and Bp John Wilkins (no relation). Prior to that
everyone believed that biological species were rather fluid, and could
come into existence or vary.
</q>
If you'd like to make the claim that the first two chapters of Genesis
were interpreted literally before the 17th century, I'd enjoying seeing
citations to that effect.
>
> snip>
>>
>>
>>>>It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
>>>>episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of
>>>>the passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly
>>>>capable of withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was
>>>>forgiven. *This* is the important truth that needed to be preserved,
>>>>and to the extent that other details -- however truthful -- got in the
>>>>way, they were removed. Likewise, if any detail could be added to
>>>>reinforce this larger truth -- even if that detail wasn't literally
>>>>true -- then I expect the authors would have accepted it.
>>>
>>> I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
>>> whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to
>>> the imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people.
>>
>>Choosing the God you prefer to worship is sailing pretty close to
>>idolatry.
>
> we are allowed the freedom to prefer whom we worship.
That's a political right of relatively recent origin.
> Hopefully, whom
> we prefer would be the real God and not some false god of our
> imagination. I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god of
> the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would do
> everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure death
> in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live worshipping
> that kind of god.
So now I'm confused.
>
> Fortunately, this is not the kind of God that rules the universe.
>
> Garamond, I can live only by my own convictions and ability to reason,
> not by anybody else's say-so.
Well said -- you've just placed your own judgment over divinely revealed
scripture, you expect God to measure up to your ideas, and you're not
willing to take anyone else's say-so.
Except when it comes to Genesis, where, based on someone else's say-so,
you abandon your critical judgment and accept a vengeful, sadistic God.
(Science in general and evolution in particular doesn't require you
accept anything on authority, of course. Dodd's fruit fly experiment
could probably be reproduced in your kitchen (if you didn't mind keeping
a few populations of fruit flies there for a year). Or, you can sign up
for a few classes, get trained in how to use the equipment, and start
looking at the same evidence other scientists examine. And if you don't
want to go that far, you can read the published summaries of their
research for free and even drop them a polite question or two.)
> God says, "Come now, let us reason
> together," so I think I'm on sound ground when I try to reason out my
> foundations, from which a leap of faith can then be taken. If I find
> that I personally cannot worship a god who is considered to be harsh,
> vindictive, uncaring, then why would you hold that against me and insist
> that I must worship the kind of god you or anyone else chooses to put
> forth, otherwise I'm sailing pretty close to idolatry?
Let me withdraw that comment for the moment, as I'm don't have a good
handle on what you believe.
>
>
>>> Why would anybody
>>> want to worship a God whose attributes are made up out of whole cloth
>>> by some group of people wanting to outdo their neighbors? I wouldn't.
>>> Would you?
>>
>>Sorry, I missed the bit about the whole cloth. Nothing in this critical
>>approach prevents divine inspiration, only a literal reading.
>
> if you do not take the Biblical descriptions of God at face value, then
> you are left with nothing to go on other than a wishful, warm, fuzzy
> feeling that some kind of god must be out there, being a certain way,
> whatever way it is that you deem fits your wish for what he must be
> like. And such a god would be a figment of your imagination because you
> have nothing to go on if you dispense with the Biblical description of
> YWH.
Fallacy of false dilemma. Those may be the only two choices you can
imagine, but it does not follow that those are the only two choices that
exist.
>>
>>> I worship God because He is real, does real and powerful things beyond
>>> my ken; not because some group of people have made up these
>>> attributes.
>>>
>>> When someone says, out of the fullness of their experience with a
>>> living God, "God made." And someone else comes along and says, "Your
>>> god did not make."
>>
>>Who said "Your god did not make"?
>
> evolutionists do. Do you read these threads?
Honestly, no, I haven't. I googled t.o. for that phrase, and only this
thread comes up. Can you point me to a specific instance?
<snip>
>>My goal is for a non-literal reading to be plausible for *you*. Sorry,
>>I wasn't specific.
>
> are you trying to convert me?
That's well beyond my power. I'll settle for correcting misapprehensions.
<snip>
>>Real differences need not be literal, and I had not been discounting
>>divine inspiration.
>
> I don't know where you get your picture of God if the Biblical picture
> is discounted as being not literal.
I agree -- right now, you don't have a picture of what a compelling non-
literal interpretation would look like. That's what I'm trying to
provide in this discussion.
> What's real about your God, then,
> and where do you get this information about His reality?
We may have that conversation someday, but in this context I think it
could be misinterpreted as trying to convert you. If you don't mind,
I'll stick with mainline Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant thought,
probably emphasizing Protestant since that's what I'm more familiar with.
The answer is unsurprising: study (but not exclusively of the
scriptures), observation (of nature) and fellowship. This is stable
because any two can correct excesses in the third: studying the world
around us can prevent both bad interpretations and prejudices than can
spring up in fellowship, fellowship can temper people who think they have
discovered The Truth, and the scriptures and traditions form the basis of
the community. Demonstrating the reality of God is not nearly as
important as demonstrating the effectiveness of the community.
[Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists, and Jehovah's Witnesses might
disagree with where I've placed the emphasis in the above, as might
Orthodox Jews and some of the African bishoprics. But I think the
general idea is correct.]
>
> snip>
Michael Siemon
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
(in a dialog with Zoe; I'll quote a few bits before getting to the
point I am responding to...)
...
Zoe's "quotation" is bizarre just _because_ it is _so_ completely at odds
with what scripture actually has as "the Word of the Lord". There is just
_nothing_ anywhere in Hebrew or Greek scripture that is anything like
this bit of theological drivel. "Seek and ye shall find" is OK; the rest
of Zoe's crap is not. As Garamond noted, what we _actually_ read as a
statement from God in this matter is (e.g., from Isaiah 55)
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
When little doctrine-mongers like Zoe think they can replace the
actual prophetic words of Scripture with their idiotic attempts to
pander to their own prejudices, any humble and honest student of
Scripture _has_ to protest the distortions. [But most of those who
_advertize_ themselves as such, surely will not do so...]
Zoe wants to "use" Isaiah to "prove" that those who disagree with
her are not in tune with the actual mind/will of God. But of course,
she blithely and stupidly assumes that _she_ is somehow privileged.
Bullshit.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> I'm still waiting for invalidation of my claim that mental activity can
> be recognized wherever it might be found.
You hadn't presented a testable hypothesis. Specifically, your terms
were never nailed down with sufficient rigor to allow for testing.
Because of this, and several other reasons that were pointed out to you
at the time, your claim failed.
Making these kinds of arguments appears deceptively simple, but that's
only because we usually see the polished, finished product. I really
encourage you to take a few introductory philosophy classes -- not only
do I think you'll enjoy it, it'll make you a much more formidable poster
here.
[My introduction to rigorous definitions came in the first day of 8th
grade geometry class. The teacher asked us to define "pencil". Well,
that's easy. For the next hour, though, he kept pulling counterexamples
out of a bag on his desk. Here was a pencil that wasn't yellow, here was
a mechanical pencil, here was a pencil that could be bent into several
different shapes, here was a prop foam pencil that couldn't be used for
writing.... I don't think he showed us a picture of a pencil and asked us
to make that distinction, but you get the idea. Out of all the classes
I've taken -- and as a Ph.D. student that amounts to a largish number --
that class is probably in the top three. It taught me how to think.]
>>
>>
>>> You are right when you say that evolutionary theory did not exist when
>>> he was alive. If it did, I'm betting that he would have had
>>> something entirely different to say had he been faced with the present
>>> contention that nature arrived here on its own;
>>
>>"That nature arrived here on its own" is not part of the theory of
>>evolution or any other scientific theory I'm aware of.
>
> maybe you might want to ask the majority of posters in this newsgroup
> how they think that nature arrived here.
I'm certain that the majority would say that cosmology has nothing to say
(yet) about what existed prior to the big bang, including what might have
caused it. I'm also certain that the majority would say that cosmology
cannot rule out a creator. These are both uncontroversial statements.
>>
>>> that it does not reflect God's
>>> creative power.
>>
>>Why doesn't evolution reflect God's creative power?
>
> creative power is evident, for instance, in a completed computer program
> that then runs by itself. There is no creative power in throwing some
> zeroes and ones into a computer system, without plan or programming (the
> evolutionary method), and sitting back to see what is produced.
Again, I find your characterizations a bit overdone.
Michalewicz and Fogel's _How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics_ covers how
evolutionary algorithms are used to solve a wide variety of really hard
problems (playing chess, the traveling salesman problem, etc). I would
not characterize any of their solutions as "throwing some zeroes and ones
into a computer system, without plan or programming". Again, Augustine
comes to mind: you're making assertions that I know by experience to be
false, and your position is weaker for it.
> If
> there is a god who creates in the evolutionary fashion, then, to me,
> this is not the kind of god that calls forth my admiration and worship.
The following is my understand of what you're stating: You want to
worship a God with certain characteristics, and you can find support for
such a God with an idiosyncratic reading of Genesis. If a different
reading is presented that gives evidence for a God with undesirable
characteristics, the reading is rejected not on its merits, but because
you do not wish to worship such a God.
I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding something here.
> I'd be rather irritated at him, to put it mildly, for subjecting life
> forms to that kind of hit-or-miss struggle for survival.
This is more baffling. Hit-or-miss struggle for survival exists outside
your window, regardless whether or not evolution or creationism is true.
>
>
>>This is a really important point, so let me expand on it.
>>
>>Especially in mathematics and computer science, there's a special
>>meaning for the word "elegance". If someone comes up with a proof or
>>algorithm that is unexpectedly simple, or embarrassingly fast, or opens
>>up an entirely new set of problems than can be solved, the highest
>>compliment that can be paid is calling the work "elegant". If I do this
>>twice a year, I'm doing really well.
>>
>>I'm guessing you have an idea of God as Creator that individually
>>fashioned everything that existed.
>
> I don't know how God did it, other than that He is ingenious enough to
> put programs together that can continue to run on their own, without
> further need of tweaking or intervention. The computer programmer who
> creates a realistic video game does not have to re-enter your computer
> and repeatedly create the characters. He sets it all up at the
> beginning and programs it so well that it continues to run without
> further intervention.
The exceptions that come to mind are, unsurprisingly, the massively
multiplayer online games. Programmers have created worlds and are
constantly going in to adjust and tweak. Is that necessary? Well, maybe
not, but it does make for a better game.
>
>> I find such a God to be... well,
>>let's just say that this particular God didn't find a very elegant
>>solution, and even an omnipotent God outside of time must have gotten a
>>little bored by the time he was finished with all of the plankton, and
>>all that bacteria must have been a really hard slog.
>
> that is a very simplistic approach to God's creative power. Why would
> some supreme intelligence sit down and fashion every single bacterium,
> one at a time, from day one, right up to the present day? Talk about
> caricaturization.
No no no -- I meant the initial population of the world during the first
week. If you assume that the whole ecosystem was created, then you're
going to need large numbers of some very tiny species.
>
> Instead, God created a genetic system, programmed it to run in a wide
> variety of ways, and set it up in an ideal environment that would allow
> each life form to reproduce its own characteristics in a great variety
> of ways...each after its own kind. How blazingly brilliant!!
That's entirely consistent with evolution. The genetic system is able to
change over time, the environment (which is also changing) is more
amenable to some changes than others, and eventually we get Usenet....
Garamond Lethe
> In article <475b65f3$0$26541$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (in a dialog with Zoe; I'll quote a few bits before getting to the point
> I am responding to...)
>> > How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know the
>> > thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to
>> > give you a future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me,
>> > and you will find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I
>> > will be found by you."
>
> Zoe's "quotation" is bizarre just _because_ it is _so_ completely at
> odds with what scripture actually has as "the Word of the Lord". There
> is just _nothing_ anywhere in Hebrew or Greek scripture that is anything
> like this bit of theological drivel.
Google "I know the thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not
of evil".
> "Seek and ye shall find" is OK; the
> rest of Zoe's crap is not. As Garamond noted, what we _actually_ read as
> a statement from God in this matter is (e.g., from Isaiah 55)
>
> "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> nor your ways my ways, says the Lord.
> For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
> thoughts."
Jeremiah 29:11-14 may be of interest, although I confess I'm not sure
which translation Zoe is using (unless it's the Hebrew/English one
mentioned upthread).
If you're not familiar with the source of a quotation, ask.
<snip>
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here, is
> a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
> retains its integrity...
Just so it doesn't get lost in the other thread: Could you give me your
understanding of the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2? (It may show up as
"waters" in your translation. Which reminds me -- can you get me the
ISBN/LOC/bibliographic details for the translation you're using? Thanks.)
Michael Siemon
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:36:44 -0800, Michael Siemon wrote:
>
> > In article <475b65f3$0$26541$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > (in a dialog with Zoe; I'll quote a few bits before getting to the point
> > I am responding to...)
>
>
> >> > How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know the
> >> > thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to
> >> > give you a future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me,
> >> > and you will find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I
> >> > will be found by you."
> >
> > Zoe's "quotation" is bizarre just _because_ it is _so_ completely at
> > odds with what scripture actually has as "the Word of the Lord". There
> > is just _nothing_ anywhere in Hebrew or Greek scripture that is anything
> > like this bit of theological drivel.
>
> Google "I know the thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not
> of evil".
My bad; apologies to Zoe. However, I still feel she is not dealing
with Isaiah's point.
John Wilkins
> If you'd like to make the claim that the first two chapters of Genesis
> were interpreted literally before the 17th century, I'd enjoying seeing
> citations to that effect.
It ought to be noted as well, that even the translators of the King
James Authorised Version did not think that Genesis was literally true.
I think it was Tom S in this group who noted that one of the
translators, the Calvinist George Abbot (1562-1633), Archbishop of
Canterbury. In his _A briefe Description of the whole world_, (1605), he
wrote:
"There be other Countries in Africke, as Agtsimba [?], Libia interior,
Nubia, and others, of whom nothing is famous: but this may be said of
Africke in generall, that it bringeth forth store of all sorts of wild
Beasts, as Elephants, Lyons, Panthers, Tygers, and the like: yea,
according to the Proverbe, Africa semper aliquid apportat novi; Often
times new and strange shapes of Beasts are brought foorth there: the
reason whereof is, that the Countrie being hott and full of
Wildernesses, which haue in them little water, the Beastes of all sortes
are enforced to meete at those few watering places that be, where often
times contrary kinds haue conjunction the one with the other: so that
there ariseth new kinds of species, which taketh part of both."
(Nicolson 2003, 160)
Note that this is almost verbatim from Aristotle:
As a general rule, wild animals are at their wildest in Asia, their
boldest in Europe and most diverse in form in Libya [Africa]; in fact,
there is an old saying. 'Always something fresh in Libya.' It would
appear that in that country animals of diverse species meet, on account
of the rainless climate, at the watering places, and they pair together;
and that such pairs breed if they be nearly of the same size and have
periods of gestation of the same length. For they are tamed down in
their behaviour towards each other by extremity of thirst. [History of
Animals VIII.28 606b16-607a7]
And the proverb about Libya, that Libya is always producing something
new, is said to have originated from animals of different species
[homophule allolois] uniting with one another in that country, for it is
said that because of the want of water all meet at the few places where
springs are to be found, and that even different kinds unite [homogene]
in consequence. [Generation of Animals II.8 74629-746b22]
and Pliny
The noble appearance of the lion is more especially to be seen in that
species which has the neck and shoulders covered with a mane, which is
always acquired at the proper age by those produced from a lion; while,
on the other hand, those that are the offspring of the pard, are always
without this distinction. The female also has no mane. The sexual
passions of these animals are very violent, and render the male quite
furious. This is especially the case in Africa, where, in consequence of
the great scarcity of water, the wild beasts assemble in great numbers
on the banks of a few rivers. This is also the reason why so many
curious varieties of animals are produced there, the males and females
of various species coupling promiscuously with each other. Hence arose
the saying, which was common in Greece even, that "Africa is always
producing something new." [[Natural History VIII 17.42]
Nicolson, Adam. 2003. God's secretaries: the making of the King James
Bible. London: HarperCollins.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:03:46 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
snip>
>>>
>>>"That nature arrived here on its own" is not part of the theory of
>>>evolution or any other scientific theory I'm aware of.
>>
>> maybe you might want to ask the majority of posters in this newsgroup
>> how they think that nature arrived here.
>
>I'm certain that the majority would say that cosmology has nothing to say
>(yet) about what existed prior to the big bang, including what might have
>caused it. I'm also certain that the majority would say that cosmology
>cannot rule out a creator. These are both uncontroversial statements.
where does cosmology come in here? Neither of us are talking about
cosmology, I hope, but of how organisms got to their present point.
You say they started as a blob of protoplasm, if that. I say they
started in full functioning form. You say you don't know how that
first protoplasm formed (abiogenesis) and I say that I don't know how
the fully functioning organism was formed (creation). We are
discussing from our points of origin onwards. And I submit that the
manner of origin makes a big difference in what happens afterwards.
>
>>>
>>>> that it does not reflect God's
>>>> creative power.
>>>
>>>Why doesn't evolution reflect God's creative power?
>>
>> creative power is evident, for instance, in a completed computer program
>> that then runs by itself. There is no creative power in throwing some
>> zeroes and ones into a computer system, without plan or programming (the
>> evolutionary method), and sitting back to see what is produced.
>
>Again, I find your characterizations a bit overdone.
>
>Michalewicz and Fogel's _How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics_ covers how
>evolutionary algorithms are used to solve a wide variety of really hard
>problems (playing chess, the traveling salesman problem, etc). I would
>not characterize any of their solutions as "throwing some zeroes and ones
>into a computer system, without plan or programming". Again, Augustine
>comes to mind: you're making assertions that I know by experience to be
>false, and your position is weaker for it.
where have I characterized evolutionary algorithms as throwing some
zeroes and ones into a computer system? I was comparing evolutionary
theory to the throwing of unplanned zeroes and ones into a computer
system, where the computer system represents your early earth
conditions and the zeroes and ones represent your first protoplasm.
>
>
>> If
>> there is a god who creates in the evolutionary fashion, then, to me,
>> this is not the kind of god that calls forth my admiration and worship.
>
>The following is my understand of what you're stating: You want to
>worship a God with certain characteristics, and you can find support for
>such a God with an idiosyncratic reading of Genesis. If a different
>reading is presented that gives evidence for a God with undesirable
>characteristics, the reading is rejected not on its merits, but because
>you do not wish to worship such a God.
it's not a matter of wanting to worship a god with certain
characteristics. It is a matter of learning about a God with certain
characteristics that awaken admiration and worship in me. I respond
to those characteristics positively. Don't ask me why. Likewise, I
respond to characteristics of uncaring, sadistic, uninvolvement with
revulsion. Don't ask me why. Should I respond differently?
Now, if you choose to paint the latter kind of god through your
interpretation of scripture, don't be surprised if I am revolted at
such a god.
>
>I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding something here.
I'm not sure what exactly you are misunderstanding. I voluntarily
choose to love and worship the God of the Bible because the record of
His love towards earthlings has awakened a response of love within me.
If you convince me that this same God is actually a sadistic, hateful,
uncaring god, I will rebel at the thought of worshiping such a god,
and am ready to fight him with every fibre of my being.
>
>> I'd be rather irritated at him, to put it mildly, for subjecting life
>> forms to that kind of hit-or-miss struggle for survival.
>
>This is more baffling. Hit-or-miss struggle for survival exists outside
>your window, regardless whether or not evolution or creationism is true.
the meaning of why we are here is given clearly in the Bible. If you
accept that sin has messed up a perfect world, you will understand why
there is a present struggle for survival, why there is suffering and
death. If you accept that evolutionism is true, then that struggle is
evidence for a noncaring god...IF one even exists. If creation is
true, then there is a reason why we struggle today, and we can work,
with understanding, within that framework of meaning.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>This is a really important point, so let me expand on it.
>>>
>>>Especially in mathematics and computer science, there's a special
>>>meaning for the word "elegance". If someone comes up with a proof or
>>>algorithm that is unexpectedly simple, or embarrassingly fast, or opens
>>>up an entirely new set of problems than can be solved, the highest
>>>compliment that can be paid is calling the work "elegant". If I do this
>>>twice a year, I'm doing really well.
>>>
>>>I'm guessing you have an idea of God as Creator that individually
>>>fashioned everything that existed.
>>
>> I don't know how God did it, other than that He is ingenious enough to
>> put programs together that can continue to run on their own, without
>> further need of tweaking or intervention. The computer programmer who
>> creates a realistic video game does not have to re-enter your computer
>> and repeatedly create the characters. He sets it all up at the
>> beginning and programs it so well that it continues to run without
>> further intervention.
>
>The exceptions that come to mind are, unsurprisingly, the massively
>multiplayer online games. Programmers have created worlds and are
>constantly going in to adjust and tweak. Is that necessary? Well, maybe
>not, but it does make for a better game.
the analogy falls apart at the point where we are comparing the so-so
intellects of erring human beings to a Mind that clearly does not need
to go back and tweak His creation.
>
>>
>>> I find such a God to be... well,
>>>let's just say that this particular God didn't find a very elegant
>>>solution, and even an omnipotent God outside of time must have gotten a
>>>little bored by the time he was finished with all of the plankton, and
>>>all that bacteria must have been a really hard slog.
>>
>> that is a very simplistic approach to God's creative power. Why would
>> some supreme intelligence sit down and fashion every single bacterium,
>> one at a time, from day one, right up to the present day? Talk about
>> caricaturization.
>
>No no no -- I meant the initial population of the world during the first
>week. If you assume that the whole ecosystem was created, then you're
>going to need large numbers of some very tiny species.
your phrasing was "finished with all of the plankton, and all that
bacteria must have been a really hard slog." Your suggestion appeared
to be that each plankton and each bacterium was created one at a time.
But this kind of creation is not necessary. All you need is a single
original of each species, and they would continue to reproduce...and
vary.
>
>>
>> Instead, God created a genetic system, programmed it to run in a wide
>> variety of ways, and set it up in an ideal environment that would allow
>> each life form to reproduce its own characteristics in a great variety
>> of ways...each after its own kind. How blazingly brilliant!!
>
>That's entirely consistent with evolution. The genetic system is able to
>change over time, the environment (which is also changing) is more
>amenable to some changes than others, and eventually we get Usenet....
the genetic system had to be in place and functioning in order for all
those variations to take place. I see you have started with a fully
functioning genetic system, which is kinda cheating, since it is the
fully functioning genetic system that creationists contend is how life
started on earth.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:13:08 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1i8sylg.18otkynhfo1gcN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
>> > j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
>> >> > original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
>> >> > is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
>> >> > singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
>> >> > retains its integrity...
>> >>
>> >> But Elohim is a plural of "powers", and it suggests, as in Psalm 82,
>> >> that there are in fact a plurality of powers before monotheism was
>> >> developed much later. There are remnants of henotheism all through the
>> >> old testament.
>> >
>> >And the so named New Testament. St. Paul and his Powers etc., Satan
>> >becomes and independent deity and so on.
>>
>> yes. And you and I are also gods....just not the One True God.
>
>Hey, if we're gods then we're gods. The fact that one god thinks he's
>the only one that matters doesn't change that fact.
it does matter if He can claim creating you. The only kind of god it
makes you, then, is a false one.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:35:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:
snip>
>
>>
>> My understanding of what evolutionists mean by macroevolution is that
>> when sufficient changes occur that take a population from one species
>> into an entirely new genus, i.e., dinosaur to bird, ape to human, then
>> macroevolution has occurred.
>>
>> In the link you have provided, I'm a little confused. It says that
>> "Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and
>> macroevolution," but also says that "macroevolution refers to things
>> .....occurring over tens of millions of years..."
>
>Ok so far.
>
>> If every little
>> change in alleles is considered to be speciation (microevolution)
>
>speciation is not microevolution. There are several technical
>definitions of speciation, and "reproductive isolation" isn't a very good
>one, but it is simple to understand and is good enough for most
>purposes.
>
>Allele frequency change in a population over time is a pretty sturdy
>definition of evolution. The allele frequencies in your parent's
>"population" (aka generation) are different from the allele frequencies
>in your generation, so one tiny step of evolution has occurred.
meaning what, that humans are evolving into a new species?
>
>
>> and if
>> these speciation events are the dividing line between micro and macro,
>> then macro should be observable in less time than tens of millions of
>> years. I bet I am misunderstanding something here.
>
>Reproductive isolation can begin happening in just a handful of
>generations. See Dodd, Diane M. B., Reproductive Isolation as a
>Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophilia Pseudoobscura.
>Evolution, 43(6), 1989, 1308-1311.
>http://www.jstor.org/view/00143820/di000301/00p08377/0
this article is not easily accessible, so tell me, what is it about
the fruit fly's changes in morphology that demonstrate evolution in
action? And how does this data support macroevolution?
>
>>
>> Just a note: There is a misprint in the article where it says, "When
>> the principle tenants of the Modern Synthesis were being worked out in
>> the 1940's...."
>>
>> I'm sure Laurence Moran would not appreciate that typo and would want
>> "principle tenants" replaced by "principal tenets."
>
>Did you drop him a line?
no, and I don't intend to. I'm sure it would be more acceptable
coming from his peers than from my sandbox. Why don't you drop him a
line.
snip>
>
>How does evolution differ from "real sciences"? Specifically in terms of
>the Dodd paper above, what do you find lacking there that is not lacking
>in real science?
I can't answer in terms of the Dodd paper since I have not read it.
But if you are talking about the fruit fly, that experiment is not
convincing to me.
>
>There is also the difficulty in how to separate out evolution from the
>sciences that it relies on. Evolution intertwines with chemistry,
>genetics, cell biology, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology, and (I
>would hold) computer science. Are any of these also not real sciences?
>(Ok, I'll give you "computer science". The rule of thumb is that if a
>discipline needs to put the word "science" in their name, they are. cf.
>"Social Science").
call it computerology, and that would change, I suppose. Except why
would any self-respecting computer scientist want an "ology" attached
to his field of study? He'd be in such company as numerology,
astrology, mythology, wizardology, biology, zoology, geology and
paleontology, not to mention......theology. Chemistry, genetics,
computer science, physics, intelligence -- now we are getting into
real science.
As to separating evolution from the sciences that it relies on, this
is easily done. The thing that "is relied on" cannot be removed. But
the thing that "relies on" can be removed without shaking that which
is relied on.
>
>But to get back to your original point: every branch of science can be
>cast as promoting "a God uninvolved with His creation". Evolution is no
>different than electricity and physics in this regard. Similar arguments
>were used against translating the Bible into the vernacular -- wouldn't
>that promote misunderstand of the scripture? In constitutional law, this
>is known as "prior restraint", and it's a very weak position to argue
>from.
chemistry or physics, electricity or gravity genuinely have nothing to
say for or against God. Evolutionary theory, however, by making a
statement about how things came to exist, also, inadvertently (maybe)
makes a commentary against God's involvement in nature. If things
arrived here on their own, then there is no need for God. We belong
to no one. For only the made can be owned by the maker.
snip>
>>
>> Your point seems to be that if a religion is based only on rational
>> numbers, and science demonstrates the existence of an irrational number,
>> then that would undermine a religious belief that only rational numbers
>> exist. Right?
>
>Right.
>
>> Likewise, you seemed to be saying that if my position is
>> that the creation story is literal, and if scientific evidence (the
>> theory of evolution) demonstrates that the creation story could not be
>> literal, then that invalidates....well, it's up to me whether I consider
>> it validated or not, right?
>
>Right. In both cases, though, it would have to be a very trivial
>religion to be completely invalidated. More likely, either one claim or
>one interpretation of a claim was faulty; that can be corrected and
>everyone can move on. This is how most mainline Christian denominations
>have handled evolution.
however, if evolutionary theory states that everything arose by
itself, where does God fit into this picture? Sounds to me like
evolutionary theory completely invalidates religion.
snip>
>>> My
>>>point was to show that theology should not make naturalistic claims, and
>>>what happened to the Pythagoreans when they did.
>>
>> I don't know why theology cannot make naturalistic claims.
>
>Theology certainly can make naturalistic claims, but it's just really,
>really bad at it.
>
>> My theology
>> sees the world as a natural product of intelligence, and I don't use
>> Bible texts to come to that conclusion.
>
>That's very curious -- I'll come back to this point.
okay.
pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to experience
salvation? Definitely not.
>
>>>
>>>I think you would enjoy taking a few philosophy classes.
>>>
>>>So yes, let's challenge the above philosophy. It's doubtful [which is a
>>>polite way of saying "It ain't gonna happen"] that "there are no
>>>miracles" can be supported, so that part of it fails [can't prove a
>>>negative outside of mathematics, and this is a semi-naturalistic claim].
>>>Further "everything we are is a result of accident and not design"
>>>fails, as there is no empirical way of determining the presence of
>>>design (and accident is not necessarily the opposite of design, but
>>>let's leave that be for now).
>>>
>>>So that philosophy is looking pretty tattered right off the bat. If
>>>it's your honest representation of what evolution implies, then I can
>>>understand why you find evolution off-putting.
>>>
>>>I don't believe this. After hanging out here for many months, I can't
>>>think of anyone in this group who believes this.
>>>
>>>The reason is simple. It's an obviously flawed philosophy.
>>
>> I don't know what threads you have been reading, but I am constantly
>> told by many posters that evolution is purposeless, random, a result of
>> chance (accidental) and that there is no evidence of design in nature.
>
>They are, strictly speaking, false.
so is it your position that evolution is purposeful, nonrandom, and a
result of intent; that there is evidence of design in nature?
>
>> Any attempt of mine to point out what I consider to be evidence for
>> design in nature is met with strong denials that any such design can be
>> detected, let alone exist.
>
>And that's why they are false. We can't detect whether or not the
>universe is designed. That doesn't mean it's not -- it means we can't
>tell.
I don't follow your answer. When you say "that's why they are false,"
it seems that you are responding to my statement that posters deny
that design can be detected. Yet you next say, "...we can't
detect...we can't tell."
What does the "they are false" refer to?
>
>> So, tell me then, do you think that these posters, by your evaluation
>> above, are holding to an obviously flawed philosophy?
>
>Some of them might be wrong, some of them might not be speaking as
>precisely as they might in a more formal conversation, and some of them
>have made the distinction that you recorded above.
what distinction did I record above? I'm getting lost.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected
>>>> to see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
>>>> salavation is no longer even considered to be real?
>>>
>>>As at least two links in the chain failed above, we do not reach this
>>>point.
>>
>> okay, would you kindly replace those two failed links with what you
>> think evolutionary theory is really saying -- or should be saying?
>
>Evolution says that allele frequencies in populations change over time,
that's a fact. Another fact is that there are observed barriers to
the extent of these changes.
>and that were are descended from a common gene pool (which was probably a
>single organism).
that "probably" indicates, not a fact, but a speculation....right?
>
>That's all.
>
>You might think that this cannot coexist with your idea of God. I might
>think that a God who would use such a technique is far more plausible
>than the one described by a literal reading of Genesis. Evolution is
>silent as to which of us is more correct.
evolution might be silent, but evolutionists are as loud as any group
of howler monkeys found in South America. And they say in clarion
tones, "God did not create us; we got here on our own." As a matter
of fact, many claim that there is no god, which claim has a profound
influence on the minds of young students.
>
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>I don't think you've conceived that there exists a large body of
>>>Christians who take great comfort from a personal, caring, loving God.
>>>Not only do they fail to find evolution threatening, they see it adding
>>>to the glory of God.
>>
>> it is encouraging to know that there are Christians who are able to take
>> great comfort in a personal, caring, loving God, even as they accept the
>> idea that God played no part in their creation, other than to maybe get
>> a blob or protoplasm going and watching it struggle through life and
>> death and suffering and survival until its descendants managed to emerge
>> as human beings.
>
>How did we get from "evolution exists" to "God played no [subsequent]
>part"?
read this forum a little longer and you will see how that happens.
>
>C'mon, Zoe, most Christians who accept evolution believe that God is
>personally, lovingly, and carefully directing and intervening in their
>life. Why would they not?
I am willing to hazard a guess that most Christians who say they
accept both evolution and God say so because they are not really aware
of what evolutionary theory is saying.
>
>Is it "random" that's giving you problems? As used in "Random Mutation +
>Natural Selection", it has a technical meaning: to a first
>approximation, each allele has an equal chance of being modified.
if natural selection retains the advantage, then natural selection has
to be random, also, since it depends on the random beneficial mutation
in order to select. If a selection process will not occur unless a
random process occurs, then that selection process is also random. If
selection is random, then evolution is unpredictable, and if
unpredictable, then untestable. If untestable, then unscientific.
> It
>does NOT mean that God can't reach in an tweak things whenever he
>wishes. We just can't detect when that happens (unless God chooses to be
>really, really obvious about it).
well, I hope you know by now my position on the "tweaking" angle. God
created a program for life forms that does not require tweaking. Sin
has messed up the program, but that's another story.
>
>> I wouldn't want them to lose such a connection with
>> God by considering the dichotomy. It might be best that they don't
>> think about it at all.
>
>Arguing for ignorance is rarely a good position to take.
rarely, but in a matter of life and death, it is better to be ignorant
and keep hold of your lifeline, than to become confused by an
awareness of the dichotomy and let go of your lifeline. The mind is
not equipped to hang onto two opposing ideas; it will either hold to
one or the other.
>
>
>>>
>>>So let me ask you: what aspect of evolution contradicts the existence
>>>of a personal, caring, loving God?
>>
>> the aspect of suffering and death as a necessary path to the survival of
>> a species.
>
>I probably have a huge misunderstanding here, but suffering and death
>exist given either a literal reading of Genesis or the theory of
>evolution.
the reason given for suffering and death makes a world of difference
in how we view our condition here on earth. If you view suffering and
death to be a result of sin, then you understand why it now exists,
where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. If you
view it to be the result of a mindless struggle for survival, then you
live without a future or a hope. So just because suffering and death
now exist does not mean that this condition points to only one source
-- evolution.
>
>>
>> The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
>> random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown purposeless
>> direction.
>
>As above, science studies evolution as if it were purposeless. This does
>not preclude a theological purpose.
many students of biology and the other ologies have lost their way
with respect to the theological purpose, just by being exposed to the
authoritarian conclusion that we evolved without purpose or plan.
>
>>
>> The aspect of a god, IF one exists, being so far removed from being
>> discovered that it is impossible to find him.
>
>Evolution says nothing about the nearness of God.
evolution says nothing, period. Evolutionists, on the other hand, use
the philosophy of evolution to say that God is not near....IF God even
exists at all.
>
>>
>> The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
>> future and without hope.
>
>Evolution says nothing about this, either.
evolutionists, using the theory of evolution, say that the only future
open to all organisms is death...deal with it, they say.
>
>>
>> A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children through
>> this process, if they could choose a method of creating their children.
>
>As someone recently quoted to me: "God's ways are above man's ways."
right. And if God's ways, which are higher than man's ways, are
interpreted to be unloving ways, then you would be interpreting the
ways of earthly parents to be more loving than God's way, right? If
you do that, then you would be setting up human parents to be better
than God. What was that about false gods again?
>
>> How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know the thoughts
>> I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a
>> future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me, and you will
>> find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I will be found by
>> you."
>>>
>>>
>>>>>This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing
>>>>>what God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of
>>>>>scripture.
>>>>
>>>> maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?
>>>
>>>Likely.
>>>
>>>> Do
>>>> you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?
>>>
>>>No, but the fact that you're asking indicates to me that you've
>>>completely missed the intent of the authors of the gospels.
>>
>> what was the intent, please? And why do you limit God to only what you
>> think nature can do?
>
>That's not a limitation on God, that's a limitation of the imagination of
>the writers at the time.
hold up. The writers at the time wrote that God was above nature,
that He performed miracles. So you can't say that nature's ability
was a limitation of the writers at the time.
> The miracles attributed to Christ were local
>and impermanent. The writers wanted to claim divinity for Jesus and used
>the story of the miracles to illustrate the teachings.
so you think that divinity can perform miracles after all, it's just
that Jesus was not divine? Okay, what is it about God that leads you
to believe that He can perform miracles? Let's address just that
point then.
>
>>>
>>>> That He
>>>> claimed to be God incarnate?
>>>
>>>This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
>>>interpolation.
>>
>> what do you mean by "interpolation"?
>
>The text was inserted later.
you are beginning to smack of conspiracy theory.
>
>>
>> snip>
>>
>>>>>My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
>>>>>neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a
>>>>>fraction of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead
>>>>>to a reading that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a
>>>>>literal reading of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would
>>>>>be an extraordinary claim that would have to be backed up with not
>>>>>only evidence as to why this reading was better, but why the
>>>>>historical, extra-textual evidence should be ignored. A similar claim
>>>>>that certain passages in the Bible should be read literally should
>>>>>require the same evidence.
>>>>
>>>> which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
>>>> there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and
>>>> New Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as
>>>> literal.
>>>
>>>Yes, I was referring to Genesis 1 and 2. What other references suggest
>>>they should be read as literal?
>>
>> well, I'm beginning to think it won't help to give you other references
>> because if I were to quote Jesus, for instance, you might simply say
>> that He meant something else because to take Him literally would go
>> against what you already believe....
>
>We'll, I used reason to come to my beliefs. I'm willing to listen to any
>correction you have to offer.
I hesitate to proceed on that assurance after reading what you say
next.
>
>> or if I were to quote Isaiah, you
>> might say that he didn't mean what he said, either, but was merely
>> stating some cultic beliefs of a group of people.
>
>"merely"?
>
>The author who records the most sacred stories and laws of his community
>into written form is "merely" stating some cultic beliefs? I say it was
>"merely" the highest point of civilization that particular people had
>achieved up to that point.
and this is the type of answer I expect to get if I were to supply any
further scriptural references.
>
>>
>> See, if you are settled in your mind that wherever scripture speaks of
>> realities that don't reverberate with what scientists claim, then those
>> realities must yield to what scientists claim to have discovered in
>> their vast and infinite knowledge. So my presenting other references
>> will do no good. Not if that is your state of mind.
>
>You've confused "scripture" with "interpretation of scripture". If you
>feel your interpretation of scripture is infallible, then perhaps you
>should outline why this is so. If it isn't, then if an interpretation is
>totally at odds with a couple centuries of scientific data across
>multiple disciplines, then I'd say the problem is in your interpretation.
and here is more of the type of answer I expect to get if I were to
bother to provide scriptural references. You are already in the mode
of saying that interpretation (yours) will trump mine. Why go on.
snip>
you have not answered the question. Not that you have to, but just
know that you have not answered it.
>
>> He calls upon the perspective of surrounding
>> nations, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and decides, without
>> supporting evidence, that these were the "eyes of the people who wrote
>> Genesis."
>
>Perhaps, just perhaps, he knows more about the subject than you do.
now you are pulling rank on my ability to reason. How about you just
provide the information and let me think it through.
>
>For example, what is your interpretation of the word "deep" in Gen. 1:2?
I don't interpret, I just accept it at face value, that God's Spirit
hovered over the physical waters (deep), which waters were later
referred to as being divided.
>
>> Some historian of the future might as well look back at the
>> nations of today and decide that they can read the New York Times
>> through the eyes of the people of Iran or Iraq.
>
>The people of Iran and Iraq pay a great deal of attention to the New York
>Times. Many reporters for the paper are native Iraqis and Iranians.
>We've influence their culture, they've influence our culture. I'd say
>that's a perfectly reasonable area of study.
okay, suppose the Iranian media reacts to an article in the New York
Times that says that Bush (don't get me started on him) thinks that
they are part of the axis of evil, that he thinks "we good; they
evil." And in response to this wonderful approach to diplomacy, their
media responds that Bush is irrelevant. What do you think of some
future historian who reads the New York Times, sees that it clearly
states that Bush thinks Iran is evil, but instead chooses to interpret
that statement through the Iranian media and conclude that what Bush
really was saying when he condemned Iran, was that he was really
calling himself irrelevant.
sounds silly, doesn't it. Yet that's what the interpreters are trying
to do. They are trying to read one community's perspective through the
eyes of another community's perspective.
>
>> Doesn't compute.
>>
>>
>>>Now a question for you: Biblical literalism is a very modern
>>>phenomenon. Augustine didn't interpret the Bible that way, Medieval
>>>scholars didn't, the higher critics didn't, etc. What support can you
>>>bring for choosing this interpretation?
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by Biblical literalism if your claim is that
>> it is a modern phenomenon. Because, to my knowledge, accepting the
>> Bible accounts as history when it reads as history, poetry when it reads
>> like poetry, and prophecy when it reads as predictions, is not a modern
>> method. Just because you can find critics through the ages that have
>> attempted to promote a non-literal approach does not mean that Biblical
>> literalism is a modern phenomenon. It is as old as the Bible itself.
>
>Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for a cite on that.
forget it. It's not important. Not to me, anyway. If you choose to
believe that Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon, that's okay
by me.
>
>I'm taking literalism to mean a literal interpretation of the first two
>chapters of Genesis. I'm not aware of any of the early Church Fathers
>who held that position. My understanding of the Medieval tradition is
>that they were interpreted allegorically. As John keeps pointing out:
the disciples took things literally and stated things literally.
That's good enough for me.
>
><q>
>The first creationists arose in the 17th century, and included John Ray,
>Johannes Buteo, and Bp John Wilkins (no relation). Prior to that
>everyone believed that biological species were rather fluid, and could
>come into existence or vary.
></q>
>
>If you'd like to make the claim that the first two chapters of Genesis
>were interpreted literally before the 17th century, I'd enjoying seeing
>citations to that effect.
it is really not important to know when nonliteral beliefs arose. What
matters is what weight you choose to give to which set of beliefs.
>
>>
>> snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
>>>>>episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of
>>>>>the passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly
>>>>>capable of withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was
>>>>>forgiven. *This* is the important truth that needed to be preserved,
>>>>>and to the extent that other details -- however truthful -- got in the
>>>>>way, they were removed. Likewise, if any detail could be added to
>>>>>reinforce this larger truth -- even if that detail wasn't literally
>>>>>true -- then I expect the authors would have accepted it.
>>>>
>>>> I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
>>>> whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to
>>>> the imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people.
>>>
>>>Choosing the God you prefer to worship is sailing pretty close to
>>>idolatry.
>>
>> we are allowed the freedom to prefer whom we worship.
>
>That's a political right of relatively recent origin.
does not matter to me when it arose. Whether it's allowed or not, no
one can police the mind. We will always be free in our minds to
worship or not worship whom we please.
>
>> Hopefully, whom
>> we prefer would be the real God and not some false god of our
>> imagination. I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god of
>> the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would do
>> everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure death
>> in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live worshipping
>> that kind of god.
>
>So now I'm confused.
why?
>
>>
>> Fortunately, this is not the kind of God that rules the universe.
>>
>> Garamond, I can live only by my own convictions and ability to reason,
>> not by anybody else's say-so.
>
>Well said -- you've just placed your own judgment over divinely revealed
>scripture, you expect God to measure up to your ideas, and you're not
>willing to take anyone else's say-so.
no, I have placed my own judgment over YOUR judgment as to what
scripture means. Please do not invade freedom of thought and insist
that if I don't adhere to your interpretation that I am therefore
placing my own judgment over divinely revealed scripture. You are not
the divine expositor of scripture.
>
>Except when it comes to Genesis, where, based on someone else's say-so,
>you abandon your critical judgment and accept a vengeful, sadistic God.
on whose say-so do you think I have based my understanding of Genesis?
And where did I say that I thought that Genesis promotes a vengeful,
sadistic God? I said that evolutionismology depicts that kind of god.
From my reading of scripture, I do not conclude that God is sadistic
or uncaring, certainly not when Calvary throws a floodlight of grace
and mercy and longsuffering love upon accounts in scripture that might
otherwise have been misunderstood.
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:47:00 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
>> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here, is
>> a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
>> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
>> retains its integrity...
>
>Just so it doesn't get lost in the other thread: Could you give me your
>understanding of the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2? (It may show up as
>"waters" in your translation.
in the Hebrew/English translation, it says, "...and darkness on the
face of the deep" immediately followed by "and the Spirit of God
moving gently on the face of the waters." In light of the two phrases
"on the face of" it seems reasonable to conclude that "deep" and
"waters" are one and the same.
What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
> Which reminds me -- can you get me the
>ISBN/LOC/bibliographic details for the translation you're using? Thanks.)
my quotes have been from memory, from reading past versions when I
decided to memorize those particular texts. Currently, I am reading
the New International Version, which is probably not the translation
you want if you are looking up the quotes I gave.
Garamond Lethe
> On 09 Dec 2007 04:56:02 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:03:46 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>>
>>
> snip>
>
>
>>>>"That nature arrived here on its own" is not part of the theory of
>>>>evolution or any other scientific theory I'm aware of.
>>>
>>> maybe you might want to ask the majority of posters in this newsgroup
>>> how they think that nature arrived here.
>>
>>I'm certain that the majority would say that cosmology has nothing to
>>say (yet) about what existed prior to the big bang, including what might
>>have caused it. I'm also certain that the majority would say that
>>cosmology cannot rule out a creator. These are both uncontroversial
>>statements.
>
> where does cosmology come in here? Neither of us are talking about
> cosmology, I hope, but of how organisms got to their present point.
I had interpreted "nature arrived here" to include all of nature. Yes,
all of the scientists (and most of the non-scientists) on this newsgroup
believe that once life existed, evolution got us from there to here. How
life originally got started is the study of a different disciple.
> You
> say they started as a blob of protoplasm, if that.
I do? Why would I use a non-technical, somewhat loaded word like
"blob"? I will admit to "chemical replicators", though.
> I say they started
> in full functioning form.
Wonderful -- that's an interpretation specific enough to be tested.
There are two lines of thought to pursue here: is that interpretation
the way the authors of the text intended it to be read, and does that
interpretation imply any naturalistic claims that can be tested?
> You say you don't know how that first
> protoplasm formed (abiogenesis) and I say that I don't know how the
> fully functioning organism was formed (creation).
The two are not equivalent. One hundred years ago, the level of
knowledge about chemical abiogenesis was at the level of speculation, if
that. Fifty years ago, we had moved up to laboratory experiments. At
this point, the problem so well understood that I'm collaborating with a
biologist and a couple of students to narrow down the possibilities. In
short, lots of people are working on the problem and our ignorance is
shrinking. It's a solvable problem, and I expect it to be solved in my
lifetime.
When you say you don't know how fully-functional critters were formed, I
take that to mean you really have zero knowledge.
> We are discussing
> from our points of origin onwards. And I submit that the manner of
> origin makes a big difference in what happens afterwards.
>>
>>
>>>>> that it does not reflect God's
>>>>> creative power.
>>>>
>>>>Why doesn't evolution reflect God's creative power?
>>>
>>> creative power is evident, for instance, in a completed computer
>>> program that then runs by itself. There is no creative power in
>>> throwing some zeroes and ones into a computer system, without plan or
>>> programming (the evolutionary method), and sitting back to see what is
>>> produced.
>>
>>Again, I find your characterizations a bit overdone.
>>
>>Michalewicz and Fogel's _How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics_ covers how
>>evolutionary algorithms are used to solve a wide variety of really hard
>>problems (playing chess, the traveling salesman problem, etc). I would
>>not characterize any of their solutions as "throwing some zeroes and
>>ones into a computer system, without plan or programming". Again,
>>Augustine comes to mind: you're making assertions that I know by
>>experience to be false, and your position is weaker for it.
>
> where have I characterized evolutionary algorithms as throwing some
> zeroes and ones into a computer system? I was comparing evolutionary
> theory to the throwing of unplanned zeroes and ones into a computer
> system, where the computer system represents your early earth conditions
> and the zeroes and ones represent your first protoplasm.
I had interpreted that sentence as expounding on "a completed computer
program that then runs by itself", and further interpreted "the
evolutionary method" to be "the evolutionary programming
method" (biological evolution is rarely referred to as a method). I'm
glad that wasn't your intention.
So you're making the claim that there is no creative power in evolution.
I will absolutely agree that it cannot be detected, but that's far
different than proving its absence.
>>
>>
>>> If
>>> there is a god who creates in the evolutionary fashion, then, to me,
>>> this is not the kind of god that calls forth my admiration and
>>> worship.
>>
>>The following is my understand of what you're stating: You want to
>>worship a God with certain characteristics, and you can find support for
>>such a God with an idiosyncratic reading of Genesis. If a different
>>reading is presented that gives evidence for a God with undesirable
>>characteristics, the reading is rejected not on its merits, but because
>>you do not wish to worship such a God.
>
> it's not a matter of wanting to worship a god with certain
> characteristics.
Good to hear.
> It is a matter of learning about a God with certain
> characteristics that awaken admiration and worship in me. I respond to
> those characteristics positively. Don't ask me why. Likewise, I
> respond to characteristics of uncaring, sadistic, uninvolvement with
> revulsion. Don't ask me why. Should I respond differently?
>
> Now, if you choose to paint the latter kind of god through your
> interpretation of scripture, don't be surprised if I am revolted at such
> a god.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding something here.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you are misunderstanding. I voluntarily
> choose to love and worship the God of the Bible because the record of
> His love towards earthlings has awakened a response of love within me.
Job? The Egyptians? "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who
has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
slept with a man." (Num 31:17)
Have you read the OT straight through?
> If you convince me that this same God is actually a sadistic, hateful,
> uncaring god, I will rebel at the thought of worshiping such a god, and
> am ready to fight him with every fibre of my being.
And I don't want that.
Right now, as I understand it, you're apply a literal interpretation to a
book that doesn't exist (specifically, an Old Testament that has a
message that God loves earthlings). The solution is not to apply that
interpretation to the actual book, but to gain a better understanding of
both the book, how the authors understood it, and how people understand
it now.
God, under a literal interpretation in the Old Testament, is a
sonofabitch. If you limit yourself to literalism, that's what you're
stuck with (unless, I guess, you choose not to read those passages).
There are better interpretations out there that are consistent with a
loving God, history, and science (even evolution).
>
>
>>> I'd be rather irritated at him, to put it mildly, for subjecting life
>>> forms to that kind of hit-or-miss struggle for survival.
>>
>>This is more baffling. Hit-or-miss struggle for survival exists outside
>>your window, regardless whether or not evolution or creationism is true.
>
> the meaning of why we are here is given clearly in the Bible. If you
> accept that sin has messed up a perfect world, you will understand why
> there is a present struggle for survival, why there is suffering and
> death. If you accept that evolutionism is true, then that struggle is
> evidence for a noncaring god...IF one even exists.
This is true only under a literal interpretation.
> If creation is true,
> then there is a reason why we struggle today, and we can work, with
> understanding, within that framework of meaning.
<snip>
>>The exceptions that come to mind are, unsurprisingly, the massively
>>multiplayer online games. Programmers have created worlds and are
>>constantly going in to adjust and tweak. Is that necessary? Well,
>>maybe not, but it does make for a better game.
>
> the analogy falls apart at the point where we are comparing the so-so
> intellects of erring human beings to a Mind that clearly does not need
> to go back and tweak His creation.
"Does not need" does not imply "can't" or "won't" or "doesn't".
>>>> I find such a God to be... well,
>>>>let's just say that this particular God didn't find a very elegant
>>>>solution, and even an omnipotent God outside of time must have gotten
>>>>a little bored by the time he was finished with all of the plankton,
>>>>and all that bacteria must have been a really hard slog.
>>>
>>> that is a very simplistic approach to God's creative power. Why would
>>> some supreme intelligence sit down and fashion every single bacterium,
>>> one at a time, from day one, right up to the present day? Talk about
>>> caricaturization.
>>
>>No no no -- I meant the initial population of the world during the first
>>week. If you assume that the whole ecosystem was created, then you're
>>going to need large numbers of some very tiny species.
>
> your phrasing was "finished with all of the plankton, and all that
> bacteria must have been a really hard slog." Your suggestion appeared
> to be that each plankton and each bacterium was created one at a time.
Yes.
> But this kind of creation is not necessary.
Yes!
> All you need is a single
> original of each species, and they would continue to reproduce...and
> vary.
That's evolution!
>>
>>
>>> Instead, God created a genetic system, programmed it to run in a wide
>>> variety of ways, and set it up in an ideal environment that would
>>> allow each life form to reproduce its own characteristics in a great
>>> variety of ways...each after its own kind. How blazingly brilliant!!
>>
>>That's entirely consistent with evolution. The genetic system is able
>>to change over time, the environment (which is also changing) is more
>>amenable to some changes than others, and eventually we get Usenet....
>
> the genetic system had to be in place and functioning in order for all
> those variations to take place.
Yes!
> I see you have started with a fully
> functioning genetic system, which is kinda cheating, since it is the
> fully functioning genetic system that creationists contend is how life
> started on earth.
Oh, I don't think they were fully functional in term of doing everything
that modern cells do, but they were fully functional enough to replicate,
vary, and be subject to selection pressure.
>
> snip>
John Wilkins
So, if we can claim that we created YHWH, he's automatically a false
god? Cool.
John Wilkins
> On 09 Dec 2007 05:21:09 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:47:00 -0500, Zoe wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
> >> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here, is
> >> a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
> >> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
> >> retains its integrity...
> >
> >Just so it doesn't get lost in the other thread: Could you give me your
> >understanding of the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2? (It may show up as
> >"waters" in your translation.
>
> in the Hebrew/English translation, it says, "...and darkness on the
> face of the deep" immediately followed by "and the Spirit of God
> moving gently on the face of the waters." In light of the two phrases
> "on the face of" it seems reasonable to conclude that "deep" and
> "waters" are one and the same.
>
> What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
A passing comment based on faulty old memory: "deep" is a translation of
"tihom", which is etymologically related to "ocean", "chaos" and the
Mesopotamian "Tiamat", or God of Chaos and Disorder. The implication is
that God imposed order on chaos, not that he created ex nihilo, which is
a much later interpretation.
The passage "the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters" suggests
a fluttering of the breath of God (ruach) over the chaotic surface, like
a bird flying over the ocean. As ruach is the motivating principle of
life in Hebrew writings of that period, one gets the idea that God was
using his life force, so to speak, to impose that order.
>
> > Which reminds me -- can you get me the
> >ISBN/LOC/bibliographic details for the translation you're using? Thanks.)
>
> my quotes have been from memory, from reading past versions when I
> decided to memorize those particular texts. Currently, I am reading
> the New International Version, which is probably not the translation
> you want if you are looking up the quotes I gave.
Couple of links:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_genesis.html
and my commentary here:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/05/the_world_according_to_
genesis.php
Garamond Lethe
> On 09 Dec 2007 03:50:11 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:35:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:
<very large snip -- see other post>
> the reason given for suffering and death makes a world of difference in
> how we view our condition here on earth. If you view suffering and
> death to be a result of sin, then you understand why it now exists,
> where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. If you
> view it to be the result of a mindless struggle for survival, then you
> live without a future or a hope. So just because suffering and death now
> exist does not mean that this condition points to only one source --
> evolution.
You're making a distinction between a theologically purposeful and
theologically purposeless world. Evolution doesn't address this. It
cannot.
If you assume God created the earth, God went out of His way to make it
look like evolution is not only correct, but pervasive. God also went
out of His way to provide hope and purpose. The only conflict I'm seeing
is if you have misunderstood evolution, the Bible, or both.
>>
>>
>>> The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
>>> random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown
>>> purposeless direction.
>>
>>As above, science studies evolution as if it were purposeless. This
>>does not preclude a theological purpose.
>
> many students of biology and the other ologies have lost their way with
> respect to the theological purpose, just by being exposed to the
> authoritarian conclusion that we evolved without purpose or plan.
Authoritarian? Not outside the old Soviet Union. The quickest, easiest
way to fortune, fame, and tenure in academia is showing why the current
received wisdom is wrong. It's common enough to be unremarkable. Of
course, you have to have evidence, and scientists enjoy carving up people
who don't have all their ducks in a row.
Zoe, the reason creationists (in particular) lose their faith when they
get to college is that they realize they've been lied to. The foundation
of their faith makes naturalistic claims, and for the first time they're
in an environment where people know more about the world than their
parents and pastor did. The claims are falsified with piles and piles of
evidence, and the natural reaction is to suspect everything else they had
been told.
Yes, it's a problem. Your solution -- as I understand it -- is more
ignorance.
>>
>>
>>> The aspect of a god, IF one exists, being so far removed from being
>>> discovered that it is impossible to find him.
>>
>>Evolution says nothing about the nearness of God.
>
> evolution says nothing, period.
If it doesn't cause too much confusion, I'd like to use "Evolution says"
in place of "Evolution as understood using the modern synthesis and the
several related theories of genetics and population biology hold that".
I'm surprised. That's an argument worthy (only) of backspace.
> Evolutionists, on the other hand, use
> the philosophy of evolution to say that God is not near....IF God even
> exists at all.
Not in my experience. Cite?
>>> The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
>>> future and without hope.
>>
>>Evolution says nothing about this, either.
>
> evolutionists, using the theory of evolution, say that the only future
> open to all organisms is death...deal with it, they say.
Cite?
>>
>>
>>> A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children
>>> through this process, if they could choose a method of creating their
>>> children.
>>
>>As someone recently quoted to me: "God's ways are above man's ways."
>
> right. And if God's ways, which are higher than man's ways, are
> interpreted to be unloving ways, then you would be interpreting the ways
> of earthly parents to be more loving than God's way, right?
Why would I interpret God to be unloving?
> If you do
> that, then you would be setting up human parents to be better than God.
> What was that about false gods again?
Huh?
<snip>
>>That's not a limitation on God, that's a limitation of the imagination
>>of the writers at the time.
>
> hold up. The writers at the time wrote that God was above nature, that
> He performed miracles. So you can't say that nature's ability was a
> limitation of the writers at the time.
I can and did. Look at the miracles themselves. God did not show that
P=NP. God did not provide the periodic table. God didn't even set a
small mountain spinning in the sky over Jerusalem. If you asked someone
living at the time to think of something plausibly miraculous, you'd
probably get a set of ideas not too far from the miracles recorded.
>
>> The miracles attributed to Christ were local
>>and impermanent. The writers wanted to claim divinity for Jesus and
>>used the story of the miracles to illustrate the teachings.
>
> so you think that divinity can perform miracles after all, it's just
> that Jesus was not divine? Okay, what is it about God that leads you to
> believe that He can perform miracles? Let's address just that point
> then.
Does it matter?
If you think my take on the divinity of Jesus affects the argument that
evolution is orthogonal to Biblical interpretation, let me know why and
I'll tell you.
>>
>>
>>>>> That He
>>>>> claimed to be God incarnate?
>>>>
>>>>This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
>>>>interpolation.
>>>
>>> what do you mean by "interpolation"?
>>
>>The text was inserted later.
>
> you are beginning to smack of conspiracy theory.
Ehrman, B. D., _Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible
and Why_, HarperOne (February 6, 2007)
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.html
No conspiracy, just standard textual interpretation.
<snip>
>>You've confused "scripture" with "interpretation of scripture". If you
>>feel your interpretation of scripture is infallible, then perhaps you
>>should outline why this is so. If it isn't, then if an interpretation
>>is totally at odds with a couple centuries of scientific data across
>>multiple disciplines, then I'd say the problem is in your
>>interpretation.
>
> and here is more of the type of answer I expect to get if I were to
> bother to provide scriptural references. You are already in the mode of
> saying that interpretation (yours) will trump mine. Why go on.
To encourage you to justify your beliefs with something more substantial
than your personal interpretation.
To clear up several misconceptions you have about factual naturalistic
matters (and as I said, I'm willing to be corrected as well -- a handful
of cites does wonders).
To show you that there exists Bible-believing Christians who not only
have no problems with evolution, they think it's pretty cool, too.
<snip>
>>>>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
>>>
>>> this is polemics, nothing else. And worse, at one point, Hyers
>>> writes: "Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1
>>> would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to
>>> read it."
>>>
>>> How has he managed to read through the eyes of the people who wrote
>>> Genesis, I wonder.
>>
>>The same way one would go about studying any other late author.
>
> you have not answered the question. Not that you have to, but just know
> that you have not answered it.
I was referring to these paragraphs earlier in the post.
<q>
>You look at the surrounding culture of the time. What was the recent
>history of Messianism? What were the dominant and fringe beliefs in the
>area? Were there other itinerant preacher and what were they saying?
>
>Then you look at how the text came to be produced. Who wrote it? What
>were their circumstances? What were they trying to accomplish? How
does
>this record compare to other similar records of the era?
>
>Then you look at how the text was transmitted. Who did the
>translations? Can cladistics be used to see where errors were
>introduced? And a very important question that has received a lot of
>work recently: what texts *weren't* transmitted and why? Elaine
>Pagels's _The Gnostic Gospels_ is very good introduction to this, even
>though it's probably getting a bit dated by now.
>
>Finally, once all of that background is firmly in place, you look at the
>text itself.
</q>
>>
>>> He calls upon the perspective of surrounding nations, Egypt, Assyria,
>>> Babylon, Persia, and decides, without supporting evidence, that these
>>> were the "eyes of the people who wrote Genesis."
>>
>>Perhaps, just perhaps, he knows more about the subject than you do.
>
> now you are pulling rank on my ability to reason. How about you just
> provide the information and let me think it through.
Here's another one of his essays, then:
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1031
If you have specific question you'd like to ask him, especially for
references, then I suggest we write him.
>>
>>For example, what is your interpretation of the word "deep" in Gen. 1:2?
>
> I don't interpret, I just accept it at face value, that God's Spirit
> hovered over the physical waters (deep), which waters were later
> referred to as being divided.
I'll pick this up in the other post.
<snip>
> sounds silly, doesn't it. Yet that's what the interpreters are trying
> to do. They are trying to read one community's perspective through the
> eyes of another community's perspective.
This is a continuing problem in history -- the only records we have of
some individuals/nations are those written by their enemies. And
interpreters have to take this into account.
<snip>
> forget it. It's not important. Not to me, anyway. If you choose to
> believe that Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon, that's okay by
> me.
Ok.
>>
>>I'm taking literalism to mean a literal interpretation of the first two
>>chapters of Genesis. I'm not aware of any of the early Church Fathers
>>who held that position. My understanding of the Medieval tradition is
>>that they were interpreted allegorically. As John keeps pointing out:
>
> the disciples took things literally and stated things literally. That's
> good enough for me.
I'm totally cool with you believing that. I'm totally cool with you
believing that because that's your personal reading of the Bible. It's
also an interesting hypothesis -- are you aware of any other evidence
that supports it? (Of course, there may be and neither one of us knows
about it.)
<snip>
<grin>
>>
>>Except when it comes to Genesis, where, based on someone else's say-so,
>>you abandon your critical judgment and accept a vengeful, sadistic God.
>
> on whose say-so do you think I have based my understanding of Genesis?
Parents, pastor, other members of your congregation.
> And where did I say that I thought that Genesis promotes a vengeful,
> sadistic God?
I find a literal interpretation supports that. For example, God knew
(having created them) that Adam and Eve would be tempted to eat of the
tree of knowledge, and to insure that they did, he created the snake to
make sure that it occurred to them. God then jump out with the Hebrew
equivalent of "Gotcha" and banishes them.
Now that's a weak interpretation, but (as far as I can tell) it can't be
dislodged using more literalism. This has consequences, notably:
<q>
I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god
of the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would
do everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure
death in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live
worshipping that kind of god.
</q>
So if I agree with you that literalism is to be preferred, and that an
unloving God is not to be worshiped, how am I to detect the error of my
personal literal reading of Genesis?
> I said that evolutionismology depicts that kind of god.
I'll be interested to see if you continue to think the same way after you
have a better grasp on evolution.
Garamond Lethe
> On 09 Dec 2007 03:50:11 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>>Allele frequency change in a population over time is a pretty sturdy
>>definition of evolution. The allele frequencies in your parent's
>>"population" (aka generation) are different from the allele frequencies
>>in your generation, so one tiny step of evolution has occurred.
>
> meaning what, that humans are evolving into a new species?
I'm in over my head here, but here goes....
Speciation (under our less-than-ideal definition) would involve two (or
more) reproductively isolated populations. If you consider one of those
populations to be a distant enough ancestor, then yes, we have evolved to
the point where we would be reproductively isolated from that ancestor,
and thus be considered a different species.
The easier example to think about is geographic isolation, where (given
plenty of time) humans with the same common ancestor would become
reproductively isolated. I forget the poster here, but I've just learned
that the planet is too small and we're too ingenious for geographical
isolation to occur. Given that, humans should remain in the same species
for quite a long time to come.
<snip>
>>http://www.jstor.org/view/00143820/di000301/00p08377/0
>
> this article is not easily accessible, so tell me, what is it about the
> fruit fly's changes in morphology that demonstrate evolution in action?
> And how does this data support macroevolution?
Bother -- sorry 'bout that. I'll email it to you.
<snip>
>>Did you drop him a line?
>
> no, and I don't intend to. I'm sure it would be more acceptable coming
> from his peers than from my sandbox. Why don't you drop him a line.
Ummm... we scientists are right cranky bastards, but I doubt he'd bite
your head off. Or even growl. But I'll drop him a line.
>
> snip>
>>
>>How does evolution differ from "real sciences"? Specifically in terms
>>of the Dodd paper above, what do you find lacking there that is not
>>lacking in real science?
>
> I can't answer in terms of the Dodd paper since I have not read it. But
> if you are talking about the fruit fly, that experiment is not
> convincing to me.
Because....?
>>
>>There is also the difficulty in how to separate out evolution from the
>>sciences that it relies on. Evolution intertwines with chemistry,
>>genetics, cell biology, zoology, botany, geology, paleontology, and (I
>>would hold) computer science. Are any of these also not real sciences?
>>(Ok, I'll give you "computer science". The rule of thumb is that if a
>>discipline needs to put the word "science" in their name, they are. cf.
>>"Social Science").
>
> call it computerology, and that would change, I suppose. Except why
> would any self-respecting computer scientist want an "ology" attached to
> his field of study? He'd be in such company as numerology, astrology,
> mythology, wizardology, biology, zoology, geology and paleontology, not
> to mention......theology. Chemistry, genetics, computer science,
> physics, intelligence -- now we are getting into real science.
;-)
Algorithmics would have been my choice, but trust me, I don't care what
they put on my degree as long as my name is on there too.
>
> As to separating evolution from the sciences that it relies on, this is
> easily done. The thing that "is relied on" cannot be removed. But the
> thing that "relies on" can be removed without shaking that which is
> relied on.
The relationships go in both directions.
>
>
>>But to get back to your original point: every branch of science can be
>>cast as promoting "a God uninvolved with His creation". Evolution is no
>>different than electricity and physics in this regard. Similar
>>arguments were used against translating the Bible into the vernacular
>>-- wouldn't that promote misunderstand of the scripture? In
>>constitutional law, this is known as "prior restraint", and it's a very
>>weak position to argue from.
>
> chemistry or physics, electricity or gravity genuinely have nothing to
> say for or against God. Evolutionary theory, however, by making a
> statement about how things came to exist, also, inadvertently (maybe)
> makes a commentary against God's involvement in nature. If things
> arrived here on their own, then there is no need for God. We belong to
> no one. For only the made can be owned by the maker.
A literal interpretation implies naturalistic claims that are refuted by
geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, genetics, history, and even
evolution. Observing this, I don't conclude that evolution implies the
non-existence of God. I conclude that the literal interpretation isn't
appropriate.
This really is the only point that needs making. There exist other
interpretations that allow for the Bible to be divinely inspired, allow
for a loving God, allow God to be an all-powerful Creator, and allow us
to learn about that creation to the best of our ability. You've not been
exposed to these -- not entirely your fault, as religious education in
America is truly wretched -- but they are out there.
<snip>
>>Right. In both cases, though, it would have to be a very trivial
>>religion to be completely invalidated. More likely, either one claim or
>>one interpretation of a claim was faulty; that can be corrected and
>>everyone can move on. This is how most mainline Christian denominations
>>have handled evolution.
>
> however, if evolutionary theory states that everything arose by itself,
> where does God fit into this picture? Sounds to me like evolutionary
> theory completely invalidates religion.
Nowhere does the theory of evolution or abiogenesis exclude God's
intervention. It simply cannot be studied using methodological
naturalism. It has nothing to say about where God fits in -- that's not
a scientific question.
"God created life" makes no naturalistic claim. "God created all species
of life nearly simultaneously" does make such claims, and those claims
are false.
<snip>
>>Finally, once all of that background is firmly in place, you look at the
>>text itself.
>
> pity the poor man on the street who does not have access to all this
> higher criticism. Must he come to the scholar in order to experience
> salvation? Definitely not.
Must he become a scholar before making public claims about the correct
interpretation of scripture? Probably a good idea.
<snip>
>>> I don't know what threads you have been reading, but I am constantly
>>> told by many posters that evolution is purposeless, random, a result
>>> of chance (accidental) and that there is no evidence of design in
>>> nature.
>>
>>They are, strictly speaking, false.
>
> so is it your position that evolution is purposeful, nonrandom, and a
> result of intent; that there is evidence of design in nature?
No.
>
>
>>> Any attempt of mine to point out what I consider to be evidence for
>>> design in nature is met with strong denials that any such design can
>>> be detected, let alone exist.
>>
>>And that's why they are false. We can't detect whether or not the
>>universe is designed. That doesn't mean it's not -- it means we can't
>>tell.
>
> I don't follow your answer. When you say "that's why they are false,"
> it seems that you are responding to my statement that posters deny that
> design can be detected. Yet you next say, "...we can't detect...we
> can't tell."
>
> What does the "they are false" refer to?
Outside of math, you can't prove a negative. "There is no design in the
universe" is, strictly speaking, false, but was probably intended as
sloppy shorthand for the correct: "As there is no evidence uncovered so
far that is best explained by a designer, that hypothesis fails."
>>
>>> So, tell me then, do you think that these posters, by your evaluation
>>> above, are holding to an obviously flawed philosophy?
>>
>>Some of them might be wrong, some of them might not be speaking as
>>precisely as they might in a more formal conversation, and some of them
>>have made the distinction that you recorded above.
>
> what distinction did I record above? I'm getting lost.
The difference between a hypothesis stating "x does not exist" and no
evidence for the hypothesis stating "x exists".
<snip>
>>Evolution says that allele frequencies in populations change over time,
>
> that's a fact. Another fact is that there are observed barriers to the
> extent of these changes.
Given sufficient time, what are those barriers? (Cites would be helpful.)
>
>>and that were are descended from a common gene pool (which was probably
>>a single organism).
>
> that "probably" indicates, not a fact, but a speculation....right?
"Single organism" is likely (aka probably), but speculative.
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>You might think that this cannot coexist with your idea of God. I might
>>think that a God who would use such a technique is far more plausible
>>than the one described by a literal reading of Genesis. Evolution is
>>silent as to which of us is more correct.
>
> evolution might be silent, but evolutionists are as loud as any group of
> howler monkeys found in South America. And they say in clarion tones,
> "God did not create us; we got here on our own." As a matter of fact,
> many claim that there is no god, which claim has a profound influence on
> the minds of young students.
I don't see any need to discuss individuals.
<snip>
>>C'mon, Zoe, most Christians who accept evolution believe that God is
>>personally, lovingly, and carefully directing and intervening in their
>>life. Why would they not?
>
> I am willing to hazard a guess that most Christians who say they accept
> both evolution and God say so because they are not really aware of what
> evolutionary theory is saying.
>
>
>>Is it "random" that's giving you problems? As used in "Random Mutation
>>+ Natural Selection", it has a technical meaning: to a first
>>approximation, each allele has an equal chance of being modified.
>
> if natural selection retains the advantage, then natural selection has
> to be random, also, since it depends on the random beneficial mutation
> in order to select.
Natural selection is not random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
I'm almost convinced we should suspend this conversation and go over
precisely what evolution is. Let's keep going for the moment.
> If a selection process will not occur unless a
> random process occurs, then that selection process is also random.
The first clause is false.
> If
> selection is random, then evolution is unpredictable, and if
> unpredictable, then untestable. If untestable, then unscientific.
You're making this up, and it shows. Please don't do that. There are a
number of accessible explanations for random mutation, natural selection,
genetic drift, evolution, methodological naturalism -- whatever you'd
care to learn about. But you have to be honest enough to ask for them,
or at least ask if you're working with the correct definition.
>
>> It
>>does NOT mean that God can't reach in an tweak things whenever he
>>wishes. We just can't detect when that happens (unless God chooses to
>>be really, really obvious about it).
>
> well, I hope you know by now my position on the "tweaking" angle. God
> created a program for life forms that does not require tweaking. Sin
> has messed up the program, but that's another story.
I agree that is your interpretation.
>>> I wouldn't want them to lose such a connection with God by considering
>>> the dichotomy. It might be best that they don't think about it at
>>> all.
>>
>>Arguing for ignorance is rarely a good position to take.
>
> rarely, but in a matter of life and death, it is better to be ignorant
> and keep hold of your lifeline, than to become confused by an awareness
> of the dichotomy and let go of your lifeline. The mind is not equipped
> to hang onto two opposing ideas; it will either hold to one or the
> other.
You're underestimating yourself.
At this point, let me stop and answer the rest in a separate post.
Garamond Lethe
> On 09 Dec 2007 05:21:09 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:47:00 -0500, Zoe wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> it is a nice though not necessary bonus to be able to understand the
>>> original language. For instance, the word Elohim, used for God here,
>>> is a plural word. "Let us make..." Yet the same word is also used in
>>> singular fashion elsewhere. Plurality in a single God. Monotheism
>>> retains its integrity...
>>
>>Just so it doesn't get lost in the other thread: Could you give me your
>>understanding of the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2? (It may show up as
>>"waters" in your translation.
>
> in the Hebrew/English translation, it says, "...and darkness on the face
> of the deep" immediately followed by "and the Spirit of God moving
> gently on the face of the waters." In light of the two phrases "on the
> face of" it seems reasonable to conclude that "deep" and "waters" are
> one and the same.
>
> What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
Hey, look what I found!
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/bible.html
I think we're not the first people to have this discussion..... anyway.
Beginning with Sarna[1]:
<q>
The Babylonian creation epic [Enuma Elish [2,3]] tells how, before the
formation of heaven and earth, nothing existed except water. This primal
generative element was identified with Apsu, the male personificaion of
the primeval sweetwater ocean, and with his female associate Tiamat, the
primordial saltwater ocean, represented as a ferocious
monster. . . .After a fierce battle in which [Marduk] defeated the enemy
forces and slew Tiamat, Marduk sliced the carcass of the monster in two
and created of one half the firmament of heaven and of the other the
foundation of the earth. . . .There is other evidence to indicate a
knowledge of the Babylonian myth. We are told that when God began to
create the heaven and the earth, darkness covered the surface of the deep
(1:2). This latter word is the usual English translation of the Hebrew
original Tehom, which is, in fact, the philological equivalent of Tiamat.
</q>
Sarna spends then entire first chapter on the relationship between _Enuma
Elish_ and the two creation narratives in Genesis. The above is only
intended to pique your interest.
Garrett[4] states:
<q>
See [3] for examples of ancient creation myths. Incidental similarities
to Genesis 1 are well known, but they do not make for true formal
parallels, and the differences are far more profound. A useful
discussion of similarities is by [5]. For a thorough and provocative
challenge to the widely held assumption that a dragon/chaos mythin is
behind Gen. 1:2, see [6].
</q>
Finishing up with von Rad[7]:
<q>
"Tohuwabohu" means the formless; the primeval waters over which darkness
was superimposed characterizes the chaos materially as a watery primeval
element, but at the same time gives a dimensional association: tehom
("sea of chaos") is the cosmic abyss[8]. . . .In the last analysis, all
these statements have their terminological origin in the mythologies of
neighboring religions. (Tehom, "primeval flood," is unquestionably
connected with the Babylonian Tiamat, that primeval dragon of chaos; bohu
is probably related to Baau, the nocturnal mother goddess in Phoenician
mythology.) The actual mythical meaning, however, has been long since
lost in our text, as is clearly shown in the arranging of terms from
quite different mythological circles. Therefore, we must reject even the
assumption that the Priestly document necessarily had to fall back on
strage and half mythological ideas to make clear the chaotic primeval
state. The terms used in v. 2 are freed from every mythological context;
in Israel they had long since become cosmological catchwords, which
belonged to the inalienable requisite of Priestly learning.
</q>
Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration. However, I
do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. If the original
translators into English had rendered Tehom as Neptune (and that's an
awful translation for several reasons, but bear with me), then I think
you'd have no trouble in concluding the passage was not to be taken
literally. However, I think the translators tried to capture what was
closer to the poetry of the text -- and I think "deep" is a wonderful
choice -- with the understanding that it would *not* be taken literally.
(I might be totally wrong here -- it would be interesting to track down
when the knowledge that Tehom was part of Babylonian mythology entered
into the Church. If this is a relatively late finding, the KJV
translators may have thought Tehom simply implied "abyss". It shouldn't
be hard to find this out, though.)
Your thoughts?
One more thing: Going to scholar.google.com and searching on <Tiamat
Genesis> brought up 1260 hits. If you see something there that looks
interesting but can't get access to it, let me know.
Garamond
[1] Sarna, Nahum M., _Understanding Genesis_, Schoken, 1970. pgs 4-23.
[2] Heidel, A. _The Babylonian Genesis_, Chicago, 1963.
[3] Speiser, E. A., tr., 1969, Akkadian Myths and Epics, in Pritchard, J.
B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [3rd
ed.]: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 60-72.
[4] Garrett, Duane. _Rethinking Genesis_, Baker House, 1991. pg. 192.
[5] Lambert, W. G. "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis"
Journal of Theological Studies 16: 287-300. 1965.
[6] Tsumura, David Toshio. "The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and
2: A Linguistic Investigation". Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament, Supplement Series 83, 1989.
[7] von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Westminster Press, 1956,
pgs 47-48.
[8] Jacob, Benno. _Das erste Buch der Tora, Genesis_ Berlin, 1934.
John Wilkins
> (I might be totally wrong here -- it would be interesting to track down
> when the knowledge that Tehom was part of Babylonian mythology entered
> into the Church. If this is a relatively late finding, the KJV
> translators may have thought Tehom simply implied "abyss". It shouldn't
> be hard to find this out, though.)
Late - very late. Probably nineteenth century. Also the KJV was
translated on the basis of *modern* (i.e., rabbinic) Hebrew, not ancient
Hebrew (the study of which didn't exist at the time).
Skitter...@yahoo.com
> On 7 Dec, 03:48, Skitter_the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 6-Dec-2007, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity
> > > > while
> > > > evading a direct question.
> >
> > > It is very telling that you ignore the whole discussion in order to
> > > jump on a one-line reply and then start making accusations based on
> > > the fact that I didn't write an essay of footnotes. That suggests
> > > you're a dishonest little shit.
> >
> > Ah, I see. My attempt ... (personal attacks snipped)
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > Shall we forgo personal attacks in order to concentrate on honest
> > discourse?
> > I would prefer it.
>
> The measure you give is the measure you get.
>
Actually, that has not been the case. Below I've restored a relevant
section of the thread, just so there is no contextual ambiguity as to how we
are treating each other.
So, again, what meaning was implied to the reference of a specific timeframe
of 2000 years?
Looking back over the thread, I really can't see that you have provided a
meaningful answer to the above. If you don't actually want to have this
discussion,or don't acutely have an answer,please simply say so. At least
then I won't waste effort in trying to engage you in this discussion.
BTW, If I've missed some sort of meaningful response, please (anybody) point
it out.
Restored section:
--------------------------
> > Was that an inelegant dodge?
>
> See above.
Please be a bt more specific, please. Your point is, what?
>
> > In any case, I'll provide an answer.
> >
> > Q: At what point in time does a holy book (or any other work) become
> > inspired?
> > A: At the point of its creation. Or at the point when an inspired
> > person or
> > persons add something to a work. That seems in keeping with the concept
> > of
> > "inspired". Please note, that does not necessarily mean that results in
> > the
> > whole work being inspired, however, except in a loose sense. I
> > personally
> > have no way of acturately discerning divine inspiration. Do you?
>
> That was rather my point.
You were quite successful in obscuring it. Then, again I ask: what meaning
was implied to the reference of a specific timeframe of 2000 years?
>
> > Again what is special about 2000 years as a marker? Or any other
> > timeframe?
>
> You've lost all the context on this, I'm afraid.
You don't have to be afraid-only explain what you mean.
No, the context is roughly, speaking that you implied that the because the
Bible has continued to exist for approximately 2000 years, it's very
continued existence is somehow evidence that it is inspired by God. I have
asked why you think this is a reasonable positions, why such a thing should
be considered evidence pointing to your conclusion. You have, as of yet,
not provided a clear answer. Do you agree, partially agree/disagree, or
disagree with my assessment of the context?
>
> > It is rather telling that you bring up the subject of integrity while
> > evading a direct question.
>
> It is very telling that you ignore the whole discussion in order to
> jump on a one-line reply and then start making accusations based on
> the fact that I didn't write an essay of footnotes. That suggests
> you're a dishonest little shit.
Ah, I see. My attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding you
evasion so as to not unfairly conclude that you are intentionally being
evasive was misplaced, apparently.
In what way have I not placed things in context, or been dishonest? Or are
you simply making things up in an attempt to obscure the fact that you have,
as of yet, failed to indicate why you time discerning inspiration to a
timeframe?
Shall we forgo personal attacks in order to concentrate on honest discourse?
I would prefer it.
>
> All the best,
Do you really mean that, or are you just being sarcastic. It seems a bit
out of place after accusing me (without warrant) of dishonesty.
Skitter the Cat
> Roger Pearse
Garamond Lethe
Jesus_. He goes into the low-level details of how the New Testament
texts came into being, how they were copied, how (and why) variants in
the text occurred (some accidental, some not) and how scholars go about
detecting that this happened. He's a scholar and has made this his
life's work, and he writes pretty well, too. For example:
<q>
An interesting illustration of the intentional change of a text is found
in one of our finest old manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (so named because
it was found in the Vatican library), made in the fourth century. In the
opening of the book of Hebrews there is a passage in which, according to
most manuscripts, we are told that "Christ bears [Greek: PHERON] all
things by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:3). In Codex Vaticanus,
however, the original scribe produced a slightly different text, with a
verb that sounded similar in Greek; here the text instead reads: "Christ
manifests [Greek: PHANERON] all things by the word of his power." Some
centuries later, a second scribe read this passage in the manuscript and
decided to change the unusual word /manifests/ to the more common
reading /bears/ -- erasing the one word and wring in the other. Then,
again some centuries later, a third scribe read the manuscript and
noticed the alteration his predecessor had made; he, in turn, erased the
word /bears/ and rewrote the word /manifests/. He then added a scribal
note in the margin to indicate what he thought of the earlier, second
scribe. The note says: "Fool and knave! Leave the old reading, don't
change it!"
I have a copy of the page framed and hanging on the wall above my desk as
a constant reminder about scribes and their proclivities to change, and
rechange their texts....
</q>
If you want to start with the heavy-duty version, he co-authored (with
Bruce Metzger, whom even I have heard of) _The Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition)_.