Fight for the faith!

[shernren]

Oh brother, it's late and I really don't know what you believe and frankly, I'm not all that worried about it. You seem completly indifferent to the signifigance of the historicity of Scripture and why this influences YEC theology. I think it is little more then party spirit since bashing YECs would seem to be quite popular around here.

Sorry brother, but it was 8 in the morning here when I posted that so I wouldn't be able to identify but no, I'm not completely indifferent to the significance of the historicity of Scripture. One of the things I do at church (in real life ) is teach Bible Knowledge in church, where students study the Gospel of Luke (which I teach) in Fourth Form and the Acts of the Apostles in Fifth Form. And I always love to stress to my students the place of the Gospels in the Christianity we have today: how the Gospels are "fresh" with the marks of then-contemporary culture, Luke's wonderful introduction of how he set out to (and achieved his goal of) writing "an orderly account" "that you have certainty concerning the things you were taught". I know what it means to find historicity within the Bible ... but when I come here I find people who miss the forest for the trees and tell me that redemptive history is meaningful first and foremost because it is history, and that any myth or fiction within the Bible is instinctically a contamination and an insult to the Bible.

Historicity is important but it isn't everything, and when I come here I have to emphasize the latter more than the former. It's like my position as a student: getting hit by a car is going to be far worse than failing my mid-terms. Of course I talk far more about my mid-terms than about road safety with my friends, and I have to put a lot more work into studying than I have to when looking left and right before crossing the road. But from a practical viewpoint I really should consider getting across the road safely more important than ace-ing my exams. I think historicity and meaning have the same relation in the Christian framework: historicity is the "flashier" problem, the one that gets more resources dedicated to it, the one which gets the limelight and the headlines, while most of the quiet and unappreciated (probably assumed without consideration, for most Christians) work goes into understanding what Christianity really means. And I wouldn't mind admitting that historicity may still be a big stumbling block to many. But meaning is still the more important component of redemptive history.

What I don't get, though, is how your views on naturalism match your views on historicity. I recall you saying somewhere before that it is nonsensical to assign naturalistic theories to the origins of mankind, that none of the Church Fathers would have believed it. (I can't find the quote, though I've searched, so if I've misquoted you and misrepresented your beliefs I apologize deeply.) And yet you insist that the real heart of the gospel and the message of the Bible is its historicity, its objective nature of being as events which actually happened in the past. But like Romeo and Juliet, naturalism and historicity are natural bedfellows artificially separated by the origins debate. They belong together, and therefore I feel that YECism is inconsistent in appearing to reject the one while embracing the other.

Why? Because the primary criterion of historicity is that it has to be objective. History must be something which everyone acknowledges has happened whether or not they have any vested interest in it. For example, one of the chief arguments for the historicity of Christ's resurrection is the fact that the contemporary authorities who had interests in disproving it couldn't - the Pharisees would have loved to produce Jesus' body, but they never did. History cannot be denied. Given the modernist conception of absolutist truth, it is not hard to see how Christians would indeed love to cast Christianity in this sort of objective matter and not have to wrestle any more. One doesn't need divine intervention to believe that, say, the Holocaust happened, and if the real importance of Christianity is its historicity then Christianity and the faith become simply another historical certainty worthy of textbook citation.

But what's interesting is that this is exactly the same model of verification naturalism employs. After all, what does the exclusion of supernatural causes mean? It means that we restrict explanations to those which can be agreed on regardless of subjective belief: something verified naturalistically is something verified objectively. Furthermore, historicity requires naturalism. Why? Because the investigation of history is a naturalistic endeavour: since history is objective, it is to be objectively verified, and this is certainly true if only naturalistic processes have occurred to the physical evidence left by a historical event.

I think the problem should be apparent: mix the naturalistic objectivity of historicity with the prevalent YEC God-of-the-Gaps framework, and we get a worldview in which since history is naturalistic it cannot be supernaturalistic and since it is not supernaturalistic God cannot be behind it. Thus take historicity as the primary criterion of faith, introduce God-of-the-Gaps, destroy redemptive history. This is exactly what atheism does, and it does so by introducing, not excising, historicism as a the primary criterion of faith.

But beyond that, one has to ask: if objective criteria really are at the foundation of the Christian faith, why is it that not everybody is a Christian? One possibility of course is that even the smartest non-Christian is somehow stupider (remember, for an objective truth, this has to be an intellectual stupidity) than even the stupidest Christian. Furthermore, what brought us to Christ? If Christianity really is about historicity, then I don't need God to believe it any more than I need God to believe that WWII really happened. Clearly the meaning of Christianity must be more than just bare historical event. To assert otherwise is to let naturalism into the heart of Christianity, something I thought you disagreed with.

 

[theFijian]

Some miracles are harder to accept then others and the sun stopping in the sky could be interpruted as prolonged light.

And what's so hard to accept about it?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Some miracles are harder to accept then others and the sun stopping in the sky could be interpruted as prolonged light.

Joshua is quite clear. Assuming that that is a historical passage, which it certainly appears to be, I believe that the Sun and Moon appeared to stop moving in the sky.

I can make a few guesses, but I don't know how God accomplished this.

I do however know that despite what the God-inspired words say, and despite what believers believed them to mean, the Sun's motion did not stop, because the Sun's motion has nothing to do with it's appearance of motion across the sky.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry brother, but it was 8 in the morning here when I posted that so I wouldn't be able to identify but no, I'm not completely indifferent to the significance of the historicity of Scripture. One of the things I do at church (in real life ) is teach Bible Knowledge in church, where students study the Gospel of Luke (which I teach) in Fourth Form and the Acts of the Apostles in Fifth Form. And I always love to stress to my students the place of the Gospels in the Christianity we have today: how the Gospels are "fresh" with the marks of then-contemporary culture, Luke's wonderful introduction of how he set out to (and achieved his goal of) writing "an orderly account" "that you have certainty concerning the things you were taught". I know what it means to find historicity within the Bible ... but when I come here I find people who miss the forest for the trees and tell me that redemptive history is meaningful first and foremost because it is history, and that any myth or fiction within the Bible is instinctically a contamination and an insult to the Bible.

Did you ever consider Luke to be an historian, Sir William Ramsey came to consider him an historian of the highest degree. He considered Thucydides to be the premier historian of antiquity and holds Luke to that standard. Originally, he was convinced by the 'higher criticisms' of Germany that Luke was written in the 2nd century. Over time and after years of field research and exploration concluded that Luke and Acts was written were clearly written in the first century. Placing Luke and Acts in the first century and establishing Luke as a close companion of Paul might not seem like an earth shaking revelation. However, the credibility of New Testament writings as historically accurate is vital to New Testament theology and it enjoys validity that no myth ever has.

"In the present work the reasons on which the supposition of a “Travel Document” was rounded are much strengthened; and we must now put the question in a more precise form. What is the relation between the “Travel Document” and the completed text of Acts? To this the answer must be that the “Travel Document” was Luke’s own written notes (supplemented by memory, and the education of further experience and reading and research). His diary, where he was an eyewitness, and his notes of conversation with Paul, and doubtless others also, were worked into the book of Acts suitably to the carefully arranged plan on which it is constructed."

http://hisstepsministries.0catch.com/books/saint paul/saint_paul_chapter_17.htm

Being a Christian is clearly based on the reliablity of the historicity of the Gospel as well as the promise for the future. It seems inconsistant with any New Testament theology I have ever encountered for the historicity of the testimony contained therein to be of no consequence. The revelation of the New Testament is the culmination of redemptive history past, present and future. The events surronding Christ's death burial and ressurection were predicted in unprecedented detail hundreds of years before His birth. My point being, our faith is founded on God's work in human history, some spectacular miracles and some more personal experiences. The Bible is not mythology, in fact, it bears the makes of lucid, factual and detailed historical writings comparable to any other from antiquity.

Historicity is important but it isn't everything, and when I come here I have to emphasize the latter more than the former. It's like my position as a student: getting hit by a car is going to be far worse than failing my mid-terms. Of course I talk far more about my mid-terms than about road safety with my friends, and I have to put a lot more work into studying than I have to when looking left and right before crossing the road. But from a practical viewpoint I really should consider getting across the road safely more important than ace-ing my exams. I think historicity and meaning have the same relation in the Christian framework: historicity is the "flashier" problem, the one that gets more resources dedicated to it, the one which gets the limelight and the headlines, while most of the quiet and unappreciated (probably assumed without consideration, for most Christians) work goes into understanding what Christianity really means. And I wouldn't mind admitting that historicity may still be a big stumbling block to many. But meaning is still the more important component of redemptive history.

I really don't see the line of demarkation here. If you failed you test because you told your Professor you were hit by a car, I dare say he would give you a chance to make it up. If, however, he found out that you were just telling a story to get out of the test you would not only fail but could be expelled for academic fraud. Jesus upon ascending to heaven promised us a Comforter, the Holy Spirit to wash, renew and regenerate us as believers. The events described in Luke are not more factoids and curiosities from Helenistic cultures. The same power that propelled the Church forward in the first century is available to us at the dawn of the 21st. We could apply one thing from scientific methodology pretty easy. If a scientist claims somekind of a process works and publishes his process the first thing other scientists will do is repeat it. We have something simular in the New Testament, we have a process by which a person becomes a new creature in Chirst.

What I don't get, though, is how your views on naturalism match your views on historicity. I recall you saying somewhere before that it is nonsensical to assign naturalistic theories to the origins of mankind, that none of the Church Fathers would have believed it. (I can't find the quote, though I've searched, so if I've misquoted you and misrepresented your beliefs I apologize deeply.) And yet you insist that the real heart of the gospel and the message of the Bible is its historicity, its objective nature of being as events which actually happened in the past. But like Romeo and Juliet, naturalism and historicity are natural bedfellows artificially separated by the origins debate. They belong together, and therefore I feel that YECism is inconsistent in appearing to reject the one while embracing the other.

Young Earth Creationism came pretty late in my journey through the Bible as history. Naturalism wants to accept only naturalistic explanations and we are simply not left with that option in the Scriptures. God acting in time and space is not the same thing as two people falling in love and dying tragic deaths. I find it no more incredible to believe that God created the world in 6 days then I do believing God became man. In fact the incarnation is the more incredible miracle and is stongly associated with the original creation in Isaiah, John and elsewhere. I didn't just accept YEC because it was so strongly supported in the Scriptures, I found the single common ancestor model to be an elaborate mythology based on naturalistic assumptions. This is about more then theology even though I would give preferance to Christian theology over secular science. It's about history hidden in the deep recesses of antiquity and primordial obscurity and the most accurate way of determining historicity from such remote times.

Why? Because the primary criterion of historicity is that it has to be objective. History must be something which everyone acknowledges has happened whether or not they have any vested interest in it. For example, one of the chief arguments for the historicity of Christ's resurrection is the fact that the contemporary authorities who had interests in disproving it couldn't - the Pharisees would have loved to produce Jesus' body, but they never did. History cannot be denied. Given the modernist conception of absolutist truth, it is not hard to see how Christians would indeed love to cast Christianity in this sort of objective matter and not have to wrestle any more. One doesn't need divine intervention to believe that, say, the Holocaust happened, and if the real importance of Christianity is its historicity then Christianity and the faith become simply another historical certainty worthy of textbook citation.

The empty tomb is just one of the many facts surronding Jesus Christ, there are others. The consequences for believers for there testimony were sever and persecution was common for centuries. The simple fact is that the Apostles and early Christians had no good reason to perpetrate a fraud. One way of determining whether or not something actually occured is the rules of evidence in courts of law. Here is an example of how one of the founders of the Harvard School of Law and author of the rules of evidence used in every court in the US for half a century viewed the New Testament:

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount of this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they can be subjected is, their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and concretion, and so to convince him, that he would of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this degree of evidence, it is unreasonable to require more. A juror would violate his oath, if he should refuse to acquit or condemn a person charged with an offense, where this measure of proof was adduced.

http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

But what's interesting is that this is exactly the same model of verification naturalism employs. After all, what does the exclusion of supernatural causes mean? It means that we restrict explanations to those which can be agreed on regardless of subjective belief: something verified naturalistically is something verified objectively. Furthermore, historicity requires naturalism. Why? Because the investigation of history is a naturalistic endeavour: since history is objective, it is to be objectively verified, and this is certainly true if only naturalistic processes have occurred to the physical evidence left by a historical event.

Nothing is exclusivly objective when it comes to human reasoning, we also have predilections that have their influence on our conclusions. The sciences and well as New Testament theology inform our intellect and we strive for a balance between object evidence and believablity on a personal level. When the fulcum is finally achieved then we come to a confidence that can be called faith. It is a balance between things that can be objectivly confirmed and personally persuasive.

I think the problem should be apparent: mix the naturalistic objectivity of historicity with the prevalent YEC God-of-the-Gaps framework, and we get a worldview in which since history is naturalistic it cannot be supernaturalistic and since it is not supernaturalistic God cannot be behind it. Thus take historicity as the primary criterion of faith, introduce God-of-the-Gaps, destroy redemptive history. This is exactly what atheism does, and it does so by introducing, not excising, historicism as a the primary criterion of faith.

But beyond that, one has to ask: if objective criteria really are at the foundation of the Christian faith, why is it that not everybody is a Christian? One possibility of course is that even the smartest non-Christian is somehow stupider (remember, for an objective truth, this has to be an intellectual stupidity) than even the stupidest Christian. Furthermore, what brought us to Christ? If Christianity really is about historicity, then I don't need God to believe it any more than I need God to believe that WWII really happened. Clearly the meaning of Christianity must be more than just bare historical event. To assert otherwise is to let naturalism into the heart of Christianity, something I thought you disagreed with.

I'm sorry but I'm out of time and they are running me out of here. I'll get back to this if I get the chance later. At any rate, an interesting post with far fewer barbs and brambles then the previous ones. I'll try to get some expositive posts up as soon as possible. Since you are studying Luke/Acts I think that might be an interesting place to take the discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Did you ever consider Luke to be an historian, Sir William Ramsey came to consider him an historian of the highest degree. He considered Thucydides to be the premier historian of antiquity and holds Luke to that standard. Originally, he was convinced by the 'higher criticisms' of Germany that Luke was written in the 2nd century. Over time and after years of field research and exploration concluded that Luke and Acts was written were clearly written in the first century. Placing Luke and Acts in the first century and establishing Luke as a close companion of Paul might not seem like an earth shaking revelation. However, the credibility of New Testament writings as historically accurate is vital to New Testament theology and it enjoys validity that no myth ever has.

"In the present work the reasons on which the supposition of a “Travel Document” was rounded are much strengthened; and we must now put the question in a more precise form. What is the relation between the “Travel Document” and the completed text of Acts? To this the answer must be that the “Travel Document” was Luke’s own written notes (supplemented by memory, and the education of further experience and reading and research). His diary, where he was an eyewitness, and his notes of conversation with Paul, and doubtless others also, were worked into the book of Acts suitably to the carefully arranged plan on which it is constructed."

http://hisstepsministries.0catch.com...chapter_17.htm

That was what I was saying and I agree wholeheartedly. (Whoops, have I lost the "party spirit of bashing YECs"? )

If you failed you test because you told your Professor you were hit by a car, I dare say he would give you a chance to make it up.

Wow, you're really focussed on the issue ... But I meant that if I get hit by a car, I will have medical bills to pay, a hospital stay to reckon with, possibly broken limbs, and maybe even death. Failing a mid-year paper is far less serious than that. And yet I put a lot more work into my studies than into crossing the road.

In the same way, historicity (like the mid-year paper) may seem to be the flashier and more disturbing problem for Christianity, especially what with the recent publications of doubt like the Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas (which I haven't personally read, both, so don't ask me to comment too much). I agree that historicity is important for the Gospel. But what is far more important is the meaning of the Gospel, and even more than whether or not it happened - what it means and how it is relevant in today's society. And when I teach on Luke I love to emphasise the former. But when it comes to discussing the Gospel with people who insist that historicity is everything and (I presume) that the centrality of meaning is simply a meaningless postmodern diversion, I have to emphasise the former.

Being a Christian is clearly based on the reliablity of the historicity of the Gospel as well as the promise for the future. It seems inconsistant with any New Testament theology I have ever encountered for the historicity of the testimony contained therein to be of no consequence. The revelation of the New Testament is the culmination of redemptive history past, present and future. The events surronding Christ's death burial and ressurection were predicted in unprecedented detail hundreds of years before His birth. My point being, our faith is founded on God's work in human history, some spectacular miracles and some more personal experiences.

Amen! But I don't see how you are justified to jump to:

The Bible is not mythology, in fact, it bears the makes of lucid, factual and detailed historical writings comparable to any other from antiquity.

We can say this of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts and with some qualification (since there has obviously been selective and deliberate focus on theology in the arrangement of events) of the Gospel of John and the Jewish History books. But does the book of, say, Revelations strike you as "factual and detailed"? I'm sure even you would not deny that that book is soaked through with allegory and symbolism.

So the Bible cannot be said to be monolithically historical. The claim of historicity must be addressed each on its own for each passage; even considering the Bible as an organic whole, it is quite obvious that myths dovetail with history well, as we see in the Gospels where historical events are interspersed with Jesus' "mythical" parables, both contributing to His teachings.

Naturalism wants to accept only naturalistic explanations and we are simply not left with that option in the Scriptures. ... I didn't just accept YEC because it was so strongly supported in the Scriptures, I found the single common ancestor model to be an elaborate mythology based on naturalistic assumptions.

I would say that your consistent refusal to accept naturalistic assumptions as being sufficient stem from God-of-the-gaps theology, but that is not my primary concern here. What I wonder is how you reconcile what you just said with:

It's about history hidden in the deep recesses of antiquity and primordial obscurity and the most accurate way of determining historicity from such remote times.

(emphasis added) IOW, YECism is a more accurate history than single common ancestry, right? My question is that if you have such disdain for naturalism, why would historicity be an important criterion in your acceptance of a theory, since naturalism is a key concept of historicity?

Let me construct a value-neutral event instead of dealing with the Resurrection (as I would do if I were feeling more controversial). Let's say that I claim that Albert Einstein developed his theories of relativity, and the US subsequently developed the nuclear bomb from there, only because aliens (the ET kind, not the illegal immigrants ) helped them. Without the technical assistance of those advanced beings, I say, the US would never have developed the nuke and Japan would be ruling the Pacific region today. Now, there are two possible scenarios of proof.

Firstly, let's say I have extremely solid evidence that aliens inserted biochemical chips into Albert Einstein's brain and speeded his neural processes up - I can actually show you one of the chips and how it works. I could show that Little Boy and Fat Man generated far more energy than can be explained by simple hypercritical fission and then show that it would be consistent with the kind of elements generated in the reactors of space engines (look, I have one of the aliens' ships too). I could show that the President at several dinners ordered the cooks to prepare samples of zinc laced with certain toxic (to humans) organic compounds and argue that this showed that he regularly dined with them and consulted them over dinner. If I could exhibit all of this to the public, and preserve my historical evidence for posterity, I would have a solid historical description of the event.

But what if my entire proof consisted of "Oh, the alien who gave Einstein the idea spoke to me last night and told me so." I'd be laughed at and ridiculed, and eventually thrown into a sanatorium.

I want you to notice that supernatural proof can never suffice to prove historicity. Remember that history is objective and that it must be admitted to be true by people of all persuasions and perspectives, much like science. If a Hindu, a Christian, and a Buddhist can agree that something happened, we can tentatively say that the event probably was historical (given that they are sufficiently informed concerning the evidence that the event happened). In fact, it is this objectiveness which relates naturalism to historicity.

To use your quote, the most accurate way of determining historicity from ancient times is always a naturalistic way. Why would you reject naturalism in origins if you have to use it to prove your view of origins? Do you see a contradiction?

Nothing is exclusivly objective when it comes to human reasoning, we also have predilections that have their influence on our conclusions. The sciences and well as New Testament theology inform our intellect and we strive for a balance between object evidence and believablity on a personal level. When the fulcum is finally achieved then we come to a confidence that can be called faith. It is a balance between things that can be objectivly confirmed and personally persuasive.

I don't think it takes faith to believe that Jesus was a real person, and I don't think it takes much faith to believe that Jesus really died and rose again. What does take faith is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Even in crass mass evangelism the speaker never asks, "If anyone here believes that Jesus was a real person who actually died ... " but, "If anyone here believes that Jesus died and rose again to save you from your sins ... " what sets Christians apart is not merely an intellectual acceptance of the historicity of the pivotal events of Christianity (as important as it is) but a conformance to the God-given, orthodox understanding of the relevance of those events. Jesus is not my Saviour just because He really died and rose again, He is my Saviour because I have access to His mighty salvation work here and now.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was what I was saying and I agree wholeheartedly. (Whoops, have I lost the "party spirit of bashing YECs"? )

I was thinking about this last night and I put together an outline of the opening chapters of Acts. It's not as important that we believe that the principle persons in the New Testament were factual but gave us an acurate picture of the events described:

Pentecost

"After his death Jesus showed the Apostles a lot of convinceing evidence that he was alive. For 40 days he appeared to them and told them about the kingdom of heaven" (Acts 1:3)​

The coming of the Holy Spirit was the key event in the Acts of the Apostles and a sort of down payment of future glory (Eph. 1:13,14). Peter asks about the resoration of Israel but Jesus makes it clear that this was beyond him. Jesus ascends to heaven and this along with the baptism of the Holy Spirit are key events (Acts 1:3, Eph. 1:18-23). It seems odd that someone would not take the historicity of these events as both miraculous and vitally important.

Manifestation:

a) Tongues of fire- Each person heard in his own dialect (1:5-12)
b) Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32.

"Then whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 2:21)​

Peter may be refering to the Day of the Lord future or possibly the day the Lord was crucified, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or more likely, all of the above:

"Around noon darkness came over the entire land and lasted until 3 in the afternoon. The sun had stopped shining. The curtain in the timple was split in two." (Luke 23:44,45)

Prophecy fullfilled:

a) The Son of David would not decay (Acts 2:26-31)
b) The bodily ascension into heaven (Acts 2:34,35)
c) The suffering and the promise of the Gospel (Acts 2:12-24)

What puzzles me is how the historicity of the events described are of secondary signifigance. That may well be something that I will never quite get a handle on.

Wow, you're really focussed on the issue ... But I meant that if I get hit by a car, I will have medical bills to pay, a hospital stay to reckon with, possibly broken limbs, and maybe even death. Failing a mid-year paper is far less serious than that. And yet I put a lot more work into my studies than into crossing the road.

My point was that the factual events involved are of paramount importance and should not be given a secondary status.

In the same way, historicity (like the mid-year paper) may seem to be the flashier and more disturbing problem for Christianity, especially what with the recent publications of doubt like the Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas (which I haven't personally read, both, so don't ask me to comment too much)...[/I]and how it is relevant in today's society. And when I teach on Luke I love to emphasise the former. But when it comes to discussing the Gospel with people who insist that historicity is everything and (I presume) that the centrality of meaning is simply a meaningless postmodern diversion, I have to emphasise the former.

I've read some exerpts from the Gospel of Judas and it is classical gnosticism. The Da Vinci Code is obviously just a story and it has no real bearing on the historicity of Scripture. I see no seperation of the message of the Gospel and the historicity of the events described in the immediate context of the promise. It is also important to realize that Christ is mention in connection to the creation in John 1 and Isaiah 53. YEC is not a random reaction to modern scientific speculations, it is in fact, strongly associated with the original creation in emphatic terms.

Amen! But I don't see how you are justified to jump to:

It is common for TEs to refer to the Bible as mythology, this is absolutly not in keeping with the clear testimony of Scripture. That is why I made that particular jump, it bears repeating.

We can say this of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts and with some qualification (since there has obviously been selective and deliberate focus on theology in the arrangement of events) of the Gospel of John and the Jewish History books. But does the book of, say, Revelations strike you as "factual and detailed"? I'm sure even you would not deny that that book is soaked through with allegory and symbolism.

The allegory and symbolism does not cloud the series of events described, it illustrates them. The seals, trumpets and vials of wrath are predictive prophecy of future events. That is not unlike the predictive prophecy described by all of the OT writers who predicted the death, burial, ressurection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Actual events are being described but the level of devastation is hard to imagine. Aside from the Revelations is probably easier to understand then Romans or Hebrews.

So the Bible cannot be said to be monolithically historical. The claim of historicity must be addressed each on its own for each passage; even considering the Bible as an organic whole, it is quite obvious that myths dovetail with history well, as we see in the Gospels where historical events are interspersed with Jesus' "mythical" parables, both contributing to His teachings.

The parables are hardly mythical, they are analogies from the world the hearers lived in. Weddings, fields of wheat, finances, lost sheep, fishing nets, building on rock rather then sand where all common in that time. Generally, if there is a figure of speach being used it is prefaced by 'like' or 'as' and followed by an interprutation. You have none of that when speaking of Adam and Eve as our common anceostors or the Deluge as an actual event.

I would say that your consistent refusal to accept naturalistic assumptions as being sufficient stem from God-of-the-gaps theology, but that is not my primary concern here. What I wonder is how you reconcile what you just said with:

It's about history hidden in the deep recesses of antiquity and primordial obscurity and the most accurate way of determining historicity from such remote times.

Natualistic explanations are not the whole of phenomenom in the natural world. God acting in time and space should not be so readily dismissed particularly when faced with the problems confronting the single common ancestor model. Evolutionists have led me to their supposed proofs and they don't contain little gaps. They have impossible transformations based on naturalistic assumptions rather then genetic mechanisms as they are directly observed and demonstrated in real science. The Mendelian laws of inheritance are sufficent to explain the diversity of life on this planet from the originally created kinds. This endless regress into the far unlit primordial past is tantamount to chasing the wind. Endless speculations about how it might have occured without even considering divine intervention is prejudiced opinion masquarading as proven fact.

(emphasis added) IOW, YECism is a more accurate history than single common ancestry, right? My question is that if you have such disdain for naturalism, why would historicity be an important criterion in your acceptance of a theory, since naturalism is a key concept of historicity?

Naturalism has nothing to do with historicity, it does however have great signifigance when dealing with the natural sciences. Biology for instance is a discipline that explores how living systems function, reproduce and change over time. That is the 'natural science' of evolution but the 'natural history' is based on projections from limited observations and demonstrations strung out over impossible periods of time. Time is substituted for actual evidence and it greatly distorts our understand of how things really work in the natural world.

Let me construct a value-neutral event instead of dealing with the Resurrection (as I would do if I were feeling more controversial). Let's say that I claim that Albert Einstein developed his theories of relativity, and the US subsequently developed the nuclear bomb from there, only because aliens (the ET kind, not the illegal immigrants ) helped them. Without the technical assistance of those advanced beings, I say, the US would never have developed the nuke and Japan would be ruling the Pacific region today. Now, there are two possible scenarios of proof.

Perhaps our common ancector with the apes was the subject of ET experiments or our primodial single cell ancestors were seeded by an alien race. You are not the first to resort to wild speculations but they fall flat when looking and the acutual evidence.

Firstly, let's say I have extremely solid evidence that aliens inserted biochemical chips into Albert Einstein's brain and speeded his neural processes up - I can actually show you one of the chips and how it works. I could show that Little Boy and Fat Man generated far more energy than can be explained by simple hypercritical fission and then show that it would be consistent with the kind of elements generated in the reactors of space engines (look, I have one of the aliens' ships too). I could show that the President at several dinners ordered the cooks to prepare samples of zinc laced with certain toxic (to humans) organic compounds and argue that this showed that he regularly dined with them and consulted them over dinner. If I could exhibit all of this to the public, and preserve my historical evidence for posterity, I would have a solid historical description of the event.

The simplier and historically factual explanation was the the Jews led the Nazi nuclear program in Germany and fled to the United States. There was only one nuclear scientist left in Berlin but Einstein approached the President and explained the capablities of the program he had been involved in. Japan could have been defeated, and pretty much was without the nuclear bombs being dropped. Japan never had much of a chance of sustaining a protracted military campaign against the United States. The US had cut of their oil because of the invasion of Manchuria which was stangling them economically. Japan reacted, and believe it or not they were after Indonisian oil, not Hawaii or the South Pacific where they ran wild for a couple of years.

That is the difference between history and mythology, history is an explanation while mythology is vainity and chasing after wind.

But what if my entire proof consisted of "Oh, the alien who gave Einstein the idea spoke to me last night and told me so." I'd be laughed at and ridiculed, and eventually thrown into a sanatorium.

You could go on Coast to Coast and would be taken seriously. I have been into UFOs since I was in my early teens and believe me, I have heard all the abduction stories. They are classic mysticism put in modernist terms and I have developed an avid interest in mysticism of various kinds. These people are not thrown into sanatoriums but they are not taken seriously by academia at large either. Where I get indignant is when the Bible as history is relegated to the level of UFOs and classified as psuedo-science and psuedo-history. There is a big difference between the Bible and UFOs, internal, external and bibliographical testing as applied to any historical document; legal, historical or otherwise.

I want you to notice that supernatural proof can never suffice to prove historicity. Remember that history is objective and that it must be admitted to be true by people of all persuasions and perspectives, much like science...In fact, it is this objectiveness which relates naturalism to historicity.

Defing what constitutes the historicity of an event is something that critics of the Bible never do and for good reason. If you apply the same burdon of proof to the Bible you would any writing from antiquity secularists would have to admit God's activity in human history. They will never surrender their naturalistic assumptions that all explanations must be exclusivly naturalistic since they believe that is all their is to reality. They are completly and totally wrong and dismissing redemptive history as ancient mythology does not make the truth of redemptive history disappear. The evidence is there for whosoever will and will continue to presuade until the return of Christ when faith will give way to sight. As the Scriptures testify We behold through a glass darkly but then we shall see Him as He is.

To use your quote, the most accurate way of determining historicity from ancient times is always a naturalistic way. Why would you reject naturalism in origins if you have to use it to prove your view of origins? Do you see a contradiction?

No I see no contradiction unless I accept that I am limited to naturalistic explanations. That is the crux of the issue and there is no naturalistic explanation for the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the miracles of Christ and the Apostles or the restoration of Israel as a nation, religion or people other then the direct intervention of God. That defies naturalistic explanations and for good reason, God is beyond the created universe and the everyting in the universe is subject to His will.

"If anyone here believes that Jesus was a real person who actually died ... " but, "If anyone here believes that Jesus died and rose again to save you from your sins ...Jesus is not my Saviour just because He really died and rose again, He is my Saviour because I have access to His mighty salvation work here and now.

All very true but bear in mind, if Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins (See ICor. 15). I agree that there is a difference between easy believism (intellectual assent) and the transforming power of saving faith. A friend of mine was a zealous Pentecostal who was excited about miracles being performed in his church (honestly there were a lot of exciting things going on). I asked him when he started wondering why I didn't get excited. I told him that he didn't really understand what miracles were important and which ones didn't make a whole lot of differance. Incredulous he asked, 'like what'? I said 'Do you believe that Jesus died for you sins, was raised for your justification and that power is available to you by faith'. He says...well yeah...I said. "THATS A MIRACLE CHRIS!" He just stood there dumbfounded and later I showed him what I was talking about from the Scriptures. Just in case you are interested this was my primary proof text:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

And what's so hard to accept about it?

It has just occured to me that the sun did not need to stop in the sky for the light to have been prolonged. It's not that it is too hard to accept just that it's not nessacarily all that important that it did.

 

[mark kennedy]

Joshua is quite clear. Assuming that that is a historical passage, which it certainly appears to be, I believe that the Sun and Moon appeared to stop moving in the sky.

I can make a few guesses, but I don't know how God accomplished this.

I do however know that despite what the God-inspired words say, and despite what believers believed them to mean, the Sun's motion did not stop, because the Sun's motion has nothing to do with it's appearance of motion across the sky.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar but I sometimes wonder if the original text couldn't mean that that light was prolonged. Technically, God would have had to stop the earth rather then the sun and that seems as unlikely as it would have been unnessacary.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

What puzzles me is how the historicity of the events described are of secondary signifigance. That may well be something that I will never quite get a handle on.

I think that instead of "secondary importance" you are reading what I say as "historicity has no importance". In my introductions to the last few posts I have stressed this over, and over, and over again: something that is of secondary importance may not be of no importance.

I attach a lot of importance to the historicity of Luke when I teach at church. Wasn't I explicit about it? Did I in any way whatsoever imply that I thought Luke was mythical, that I thought he didn't have reliable witnesses, that it was a 2nd-century fabrication? I have always maintained that the resurrection has mythical significance, to be sure, but have I ever said that it was not historical?

In my example about the car and the mid-year exams, what I was pointing out was that saying something is of secondary importance does not mean it has no importance. I believe historicity is of secondary importance. That does not mean that I don't believe it isn't important, I believe it is extremely important, but meaning and significance are even more important. In Luke where historicity and meaning complement each other, I have no problem telling you that I believe the whole book is history from start to finish and I drum it into my students' heads that the book follows a logical order, it reads like history, you can see people's characters and what they did and why they did it and what the consequences were.

But where I think historicity clashes with meaning, I think that historicity has to yield. You don't think that applies to YECism? Well fine with me, but from what I see and the arguments I have presented I think it does. When we have organizations who will trumpet across the sky that Genesis 1 "really happened" and yet be too timid to even show a hint of an official position on the Sabbath (other than it was founded on a day which "actually happened") I see Genesis being leached of its meaning for the sake of preserving its historicity.

And my protest against historicity is very specific to these circumstances, where I think historicity and meaning may clash and where I think YECism is on the wrong side of the fence. If I do not perceive a conflict between historicity and meaning I do not find the need to promote one or the other separately. I'm all for things like finding those lost cities mentioned in the Bible which we don't have archeological records for and such. And while I haven't had the time to follow the evidence against the Gospel of Judas I take my time to acquaint myself with DVC and its counterarguments.

(Can I be honest? I hope I don't overly offend you with what I am about to say.)

I don't think you are interested in what I believe at all, you are content with painting me as an atheist in Christian garb intent on mythologizing the Bible and throwing it into the bin. And I feel (with the fullest hope that I am wrong) that you are simply out to clobber people. Because they seem to disagree with you over details, you project your mental enmity towards atheistic evolutionists upon them and then attack them with all the fury of someone defending the historicity of the Gospels, when the person hasn't even doubted it for a second.

When I describe the importance I attach to Luke as an orderly description of actual witnessed events, you lecture me about how Sir William Ramsay believed Luke a fine historian and ask me if I agree.
When I explicitly agree with what you are saying on that, you go on to construct a historical outline of Pentecost, implying that I need to be educated on it and thus that I either am ignorant of the events of that day or wilfully do not believe that they happened.
When all I am saying is that issues of secondary importance are still issues of importance which need resources to be dealt with, you treat my example as some convoluted parable about myths and history and tell me that only really occurring events can have significance.
When I try to construct a value-neutral example of what I mean, respecting that you may be offended if I try to make an example of such a pivotal event as the Resurrection, you berate me for believing in common ancestry and suggesting panspermia elsewhere on the forum even though those have nothing to do with my example.
When I try to compare naturalistic and supernaturalistic examples of historical proof, you jump to the conclusion that I am comparing the Bible to UFO stories, or certainly reply as if I am, despite the fact that I made no such insinuations whatsoever.
And when I try to point out that supernatural proofs never generate objective history you cast me in the same light as "critics of the Bible" and insinuate that I would never admit God's activity in human history.

I desperately, wholeheartedly want to believe that this is all an error on my part, that I am being crass and overbearing in my communication, that I am using words too large and sophisticated for my ideas and that I am being an idiot with high-sounding language. I would love to think that you say these things because I have not been clear enough in expressing myself and that I am far below your powerful level of English comprehension. I want to think that this is something I can fix by using shorter words, going straighter to the point, keeping it simple.

And if it had been up to post #64 I would have still thought so. But you are very consistent in the way you treat me. And I think it should be quite clear to you and to everyone who is following our posts that as long as you succeed in proving me wrong, you don't give a whit what you prove wrong.

And we cannot progress until you can show me that I have gravely slandered you in what I have said and that I am completely wrong in my assessment of you. Until then (as on the other thread) I think my posting here will only give you more anger and thus less edification.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

When we have organizations who will trumpet across the sky that Genesis 1 "really happened" and yet be too timid to even show a hint of an official position on the Sabbath (other than it was founded on a day which "actually happened") I see Genesis being leached of its meaning for the sake of preserving its historicity.


This is a really BIG point.
Think of all the postings you've read on the creation-evolution-design debate, when was the last time anyone used the terms:
voluntaristic or contingence
with respect to how God interacts with His universe?
I wouldn't be surprised if many people here don't even realize the importance of what these terms are trying to capture. But rather than discussing these big issues, we get a constant diet of "yom" means 24 hour day, the order of the days is in scientific and historical order, or my favorite there is evidence for a 6K year old universe.
It is a question of majoring in minors, of missing the really important points of the text because our culture is primarily interested in the mechanism, in the how of events.
When i see a YEC discuss the voluntary and contingent nature of the universe, then i'll know at least that person sees the big picture.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think that instead of "secondary importance" you are reading what I say as "historicity has no importance". In my introductions to the last few posts I have stressed this over, and over, and over again: something that is of secondary importance may not be of no importance.

I attach a lot of importance to the historicity of Luke when I teach at church. Wasn't I explicit about it? Did I in any way whatsoever imply that I thought Luke was mythical, that I thought he didn't have reliable witnesses, that it was a 2nd-century fabrication? I have always maintained that the resurrection has mythical significance, to be sure, but have I ever said that it was not historical?

I was emphsizing the importance of historicity because its central to the promise of the Gospel. There is a great deal of confusion where YEC comes from and the theology is sound. Conflicts with modern science are not of any real consequence because the differences when identified are speculative questions of distant histories science could not possibly observe or demonstrate. The fact is that the term 'mythical' is ambiquise at best and implies that it is a fancifull tale. Creationism is in perfect harmony with Scripture and science when special creation is even an option.

In my example about the car and the mid-year exams, what I was pointing out was that saying something is of secondary importance does not mean it has no importance. I believe historicity is of secondary importance. That does not mean that I don't believe it isn't important, I believe it is extremely important, but meaning and significance are even more important. In Luke where historicity and meaning complement each other, I have no problem telling you that I believe the whole book is history from start to finish and I drum it into my students' heads that the book follows a logical order, it reads like history, you can see people's characters and what they did and why they did it and what the consequences were.

It does not just read like history, it is among the great historical writings of aniquity. History and meaning are not in conflict in Luke or Acts, where they conflict in modern times is the supernatural element. God acting in time and space is anathama to modern secularists which is why I emphasis the historicity when I am sure I am in the company of Christians. I would never have brought the converstation to the Gospel in the Creation/Evolution forum and I never have.

But where I think historicity clashes with meaning, I think that historicity has to yield. You don't think that applies to YECism? Well fine with me, but from what I see and the arguments I have presented I think it does. When we have organizations who will trumpet across the sky that Genesis 1 "really happened" and yet be too timid to even show a hint of an official position on the Sabbath (other than it was founded on a day which "actually happened") I see Genesis being leached of its meaning for the sake of preserving its historicity.

Ok, you lost me, I have no idea what an official position of the Sabbath Day (I assume you mean the inaugeral one) would consist of. Genesis one is not an isolated text, John 1 and Isaiah 53 follow a very simular vein. Christ is presented in the Gospel as the Creator incarnate, the creation is never described as gradualistic but as spontaneously emerging from nothing (bara-Created out of nothing). That is the basis for YEC, that and the Scriptures as first and final authority.

And my protest against historicity is very specific to these circumstances, where I think historicity and meaning may clash and where I think YECism is on the wrong side of the fence. If I do not perceive a conflict between historicity and meaning I do not find the need to promote one or the other separately. I'm all for things like finding those lost cities mentioned in the Bible which we don't have archeological records for and such. And while I haven't had the time to follow the evidence against the Gospel of Judas I take my time to acquaint myself with DVC and its counterarguments.

Archeology is fine when sifting through relics at a dig but there is a far more lucid and reliable way of knowing history. Indepth explanations from those who experienced things first hand and those who took the time to carefully memorialize the events. The Gospel of Judas is nothing more the Gnosticism and it denies every major tenant of Christian theism. I don't need exaustive research to conclude this about this so called Gospel. If there was the slightest hint of the Gospel at all by now it most likely would have been ignored by the mainstream media.

(Can I be honest? I hope I don't overly offend you with what I am about to say.)

Be as honest as you like, I appreciate it when people put their cards on the table.

I don't think you are interested in what I believe at all, you are content with painting me as an atheist in Christian garb intent on mythologizing the Bible and throwing it into the bin. And I feel (with the fullest hope that I am wrong) that you are simply out to clobber people. Because they seem to disagree with you over details, you project your mental enmity towards atheistic evolutionists upon them and then attack them with all the fury of someone defending the historicity of the Gospels, when the person hasn't even doubted it for a second.

When discussing the issue of origins, particularly human origins, I focus on the scientific research they prize. At times I will mention the historicity of the New Testament but it's really more of a side issue then anything else. The reason I push the point of historicity is because the Scriptures have been so watered down in Christian seminaries no one knows whats factual and why its important. The 'faith' defended in Christian apologetics is our common faith that is under attack both from without and within. You seem a little stand offish when I emphasis the historicity of Scripture and begin to talk in generalities. I don't know if you think I'm excited by these posts or not but rest assured this follows a very set course for me. The Scriptures have been my central focus since accepting Christ and neither denominational distinctions or secular critics have persuaded me against this.

When I describe the importance I attach to Luke as an orderly description of actual witnessed events, you lecture me about how Sir William Ramsay believed Luke a fine historian and ask me if I agree.

That is not what I did, I thought since you were studying Luke's writings it might interest you that a famous scholar considered Luke an historian of the highest order. It's a fasciating book I linked you to and it's disappointing that you didn't get anything out of it.

When I explicitly agree with what you are saying on that, you go on to construct a historical outline of Pentecost, implying that I need to be educated on it and thus that I either am ignorant of the events of that day or wilfully do not believe that they happened.
When all I am saying is that issues of secondary importance are still issues of importance which need resources to be dealt with, you treat my example as some convoluted parable about myths and history and tell me that only really occurring events can have significance.

I didn't really follow you example except that you were emphasising priority. The fact is that a literal Genesis is based on a literal Luke and the New Testament at large. In the past you have expressed a lack of understanding of where YEC is coming from. What I was trying to show you is that it comes from the New Testament and I have told you repeatedly that I have only taken an interest in Genesis as history in the last few years.

When I try to construct a value-neutral example of what I mean, respecting that you may be offended if I try to make an example of such a pivotal event as the Resurrection, you berate me for believing in common ancestry and suggesting panspermia elsewhere on the forum even though those have nothing to do with my example.

Eienstiens brain being inhanced with a chip seemed like a pretty good led in to discuss actual history. The panspermia theory is about as plausable as the brain chip example in my view. When it comes to the Gospel the New Testament is anything but ambiquise, it is emphatic about the historicity of the events described.

When I try to compare naturalistic and supernaturalistic examples of historical proof, you jump to the conclusion that I am comparing the Bible to UFO stories, or certainly reply as if I am, despite the fact that I made no such insinuations whatsoever.

They are both classified as psuedo-science and the Bible is anything but psuedo-science. I have an avid interest in UFOs, ghost stories and mysticism in general. the Bible is nothing like those things but the single common ancestor model is. They are modern mythologies and we are no less prone to mysticism then the ancients were. We just got a lot more sophisticated in how we present it, a mythology is still just an elaborate abstract of the inexplicable. The Bible is on the other hand a revelation of the redemptive history of every believer from Able, to the prophets, to the Apostles, to Luke and you. I make no apologies for emphasising that point.

And when I try to point out that supernatural proofs never generate objective history you cast me in the same light as "critics of the Bible" and insinuate that I would never admit God's activity in human history.

The Bible is objective history and what you call supernatural is buisness as usual for God. Just because we cannot comprehend with our naturalistic reasoning does not make in any less comprehensive as history.

I desperately, wholeheartedly want to believe that this is all an error on my part, that I am being crass and overbearing in my communication, that I am using words too large and sophisticated for my ideas and that I am being an idiot with high-sounding language. I would love to think that you say these things because I have not been clear enough in expressing myself and that I am far below your powerful level of English comprehension. I want to think that this is something I can fix by using shorter words, going straighter to the point, keeping it simple.

The great equalizer has allways been the Scriptures themselves. If you focused on the Gospel message and the signifigance of the historicity I think you would gain a better understanding of YEC at large. If this is getting too tedious for you I can allways go back to standard YEC/TOE issues. I would rather focus on the Scriptures but I don't relish head butt debates on the subject of the Gosple with professing believers.

And if it had been up to post #64 I would have still thought so. But you are very consistent in the way you treat me. And I think it should be quite clear to you and to everyone who is following our posts that as long as you succeed in proving me wrong, you don't give a whit what you prove wrong.

I reject the single common ancestor model based on scientific research by reputable scientists. I embrace Genesis one as historical and literal based on New Testament convictions that far outweigh speculations about old bones and dirt. I do not reject the fellowship of other believers because they have different ideas about Genesis. It is when my theology is treated as if it were an unchristian concept. That will get a definitive reaction from me every single time.

And we cannot progress until you can show me that I have gravely slandered you in what I have said and that I am completely wrong in my assessment of you. Until then (as on the other thread) I think my posting here will only give you more anger and thus less edification.

I don't know what you are reading into my posts but I am far from angry. I was being rather dispassionate to tell you the truth and the days when this sort of thing could get me worked up have long since past.

What I am trying to get through to you is that Christian theism and YEC dovetail together nicely. It is also of great importance that what is passing for conclusive proof for common ancestory is nothing remotely resembling real science. For whatever reason you want to make this some kind of a personal attack. I consider it nothing of the sort, it's just a simple matter of fact. YEC is directly tied to the Gospel and there is ample reason to conclude that from the clear testimony of Scripture.

We can do this as theology or science, it makes no real difference to me. If we go the high road of theology the stakes are higher and the discussion will be more intense. If on the other hand you would rather go back to science I can do that as well. That is entirely up to you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

[takes a deep breath]

Let's start again.

Is objective history ever provable by supernaturalistic methods? Or does it require naturalistic proof?

 

[shernren]

Posted some additional thoughts on the issue here:

History vs. History? or Myth vs. Myth?

 

[brinny]

Why should it make any difference to you that someone can be a Christain and accept evolutionary thoery at the same time? You don't have to agree with them, but why agonize over it?

I'm agonizing cuz I don't'aknow'a what'a 'Christain' is.....*agony-ridden inserted here*

 

[mark kennedy]

[takes a deep breath]

Let's start again.

Is objective history ever provable by supernaturalistic methods? Or does it require naturalistic proof?

I don't know that there is such a thing as 'supernaturalistic' methodology. When judging the historicity of an event we would be looking at a number of different things that would constitute viable proof. Someone who actually witnessed the event is pretty solid proof especially when there is a large number of witnesses. In legalese one other criteria would be to determine the primary first quality document and this would apply to a treatise, deed, covenant, inheritance or what have you. Then there is internal evidence that tests whether the document has sufficient veracity as being both logically consistant and markedly authoritive. Then, usually as presuasive authority, external evidences can be looked at to determine 2nd party perspectives on the historicity of the event.

When you are looking for evidence of an event it makes no difference whether or not it is supernatural. God acting in time and space will leave evidence that is as available as any other event, if not more so. Your trying to affirm a false dichotomy by setting naturalistic methodologies against supernaturalistic methodologies. This fails as a standard for determining the historicity of an event since is assumes God acting in time and space being intirinsically different then a naturally occuring event.

Now as far as supernatural proof for a supernatural event ultimatly all Christians are persuaded by the Holy Spirit. That is by defintion supernatural and every sin cursed son of Adam that comes to repentance, bears the fruits of righteousness and confesses the Jesus Christ is Lord is a mircale. They are in effect a living proof of a supernatural event, the new birth (John 3:3).

Let's stop playing semantics, supernatural methology and methodological naturalism are not even methodologies, they are rethorical devices. The historcity of an event is determined by internal, external and bibliographical testing. Determining the historicity of an event can result in intellectual ascent without ever producing saving faith as described in Scripture so something more is required. In looking at redemptive history the eyes of the understanding have to be opened and God alone can do that. The Scriptures can be read, but only the listener can control what is actually heard and heeded. The world demands directly observed and demonstrated mechanisms for determining a proposed event but God's aseity (utter independance) from the created world defies normative laws of demonstration. The world demands what something that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled and this is wrongly characterized as objective proof. To be truely objective requires a revelation, a supernatural event that does not proceed from the senses but directly from the Spirit of God.

3. In order thoroughly to understand this important truth, it may be proper to consider the whole matter. All the children of men that are not born of God "walk by sight," having no higher principle. By sight, that is, by sense; a part being put for the whole; the sight for all the senses; the rather, because it is more noble and more extensive than any, or all the rest. There are but few objects which we can discern by the three inferior senses of taste, smell, and feeling; and none of these can take any cognizance of its object, unless it be brought into a direct contact with it. Hearing, it is true, has a larger sphere of action, and gives us some knowledge of things that are distant. But how small is that distance, suppose it were fifty or a hundred miles, compared to that between the earth and the sun! And what is even this in comparison of the distance of the sun and moon and the fixed stars! Yet the sight continually takes knowledge of objects even at this amazing distance...

...12. It is where sense can be of no farther use, that faith comes in to our help; it is the grand desideratum; it does what none of the senses can; no, not with all the helps that art hath invented. All our instruments, however improved by the skill and labour of so many succeeding ages, do not enable us to make the least discovery of these unknown regions. They barely serve the occasions for which they were formed in the present visible world.

13. How different is the case, how vast the pre-eminence, of them that "walk by faith!" God, having "opened the eyes of their understanding," pours divine light into their soul; whereby they are enabled to "see Him that is invisible," to see God and the things of God. What their "eye had not seen, nor their ear heard neither had it entered into their heart to conceive," God from time to time reveals to them, by the "unction of the Holy One, which teacheth them of all things." Having "entered into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," by that "new and living way," and being joined unto "the general assembly and church of the first-born, and unto God the Judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant," -- each of these can say, "I live not, but Christ liveth in me;" [Gal. 2:20] I now live that life which "is hid with Christ in God;" "and when Christ, who is my life, shall appear, then I shall likewise appear with him in glory."​

(THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WALKING BY SIGHT,
AND WALKING BY FAITH, John Wesley. London, December 30, 1788. Available online)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

But the more difficult, and yet more rewarding, way, is to carefully disengage the history of evolution from the anti-Christian myths it has produced. Evolution is not the story of nature without God, but nature which God has given the freedom to become organized all on its own. Man's evolving from australopithecus is not a story of how man remains animal behind the technological and cultural trappings, but a story of how God reached down and elevated mere dust into God-knowing creatures made to love Him. By constructing a different worldview, where evolution no longer maps to anti-Christian concepts but instead to universal truths beloved to Christianity, the origins debate can be instantly vaporized and we can, to use the words of Kenneth Miller, "find Darwin's God."

Man evolving from australopithecus is itself a myth, ausutralophithecus was an ape as was the so called Homo habilis. God did indeed raise mankind from the dust of the earth but not through the naturalistic agency of autonomous self determination. God acting in time and space created man fully formed, by divine fiat and that is the clear testimony of the Scriptures from Moses to Christ. The world that walks by sight denies this but offers no directly observed or demonstrated genetic mechanism for human evolution from apes. Both perspective are affirmed by faith rather then sight and are rightfully considered rival religious convictions.

Like I keep trying to tell you, I have looked at this both as theology and science, both affirm the work of God in Creation.

 

[shernren]

Okay, I don't get this:

The world demands what something that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled and this is wrongly characterized as objective proof. To be truely objective requires a revelation, a supernatural event that does not proceed from the senses but directly from the Spirit of God.

Define "objective". Are you using it in its normal sense, or are you using it as an euphemism for "right"? As in, "to be truely right requires a revelation ... " The way I see it, you can be right, without being objectively right, at this point in history, before the incontrovertible revelation of God with the second coming of Jesus.

There is a difference. For example, we all know that gravity approximately obeys an inverse-square-distance attenuation rule: if two objects are double the distance apart, the gravitational force between them is one-fourth of the original force. This is an objectively testable fact. When a scientist does an experiment (if his procedure is correct and his apparatus sensitive enough) he will be able to verify this law. What else this scientist believes is almost irrelevant, whether a Buddhist or a Christian or an atheist he will find the law if he is intellectually honest.

On the other hand, we as Christians know that Jesus Christ died and rose again to save us from our sins. You're right (if this is what you mean by "objective"), we need the revelation of the Holy Spirit to know this. But to me (by the normal definition of "objective") this kind of truth is precisely unobjective or subjective, because one has to assume a certain, revealed viewpoint in order to perceive and agree with it.

In its normal sense, the word "objective" means: [SIZE=-1]undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena. I don't think that's what you mean by it here, right? What you seem to mean is that something which is "objective" is inherently truer than something which is not "objective". I need to make sure I understand you on this before we continue. (Thank God His definitive revelation was a Person, not a book, or we'd spend all day asking for His definitions!)

[/SIZE]

Man evolving from australopithecus is itself a myth, ausutralophithecus was an ape as was the so called Homo habilis. God did indeed raise mankind from the dust of the earth but not through the naturalistic agency of autonomous self determination. God acting in time and space created man fully formed, by divine fiat and that is the clear testimony of the Scriptures from Moses to Christ. The world that walks by sight denies this but offers no directly observed or demonstrated genetic mechanism for human evolution from apes. Both perspective are affirmed by faith rather then sight and are rightfully considered rival religious convictions.

Like I keep trying to tell you, I have looked at this both as theology and science, both affirm the work of God in Creation.

Again, we seem to be missing each other on fundamental definitions. Let me try to put it this way (drawing on the concepts from my article) :

Man evolving from australopithecus is a purported history, meaning that if it is true it is true as a historical fact. When you call it a "myth" I don't think you mean the word the same way I do (as a statement with moral or ethical relevance for today), you mean to say that you reject it as a historically accurate fact. Right?

In your worldview, the purported historical fact that man evolved from australopithecus, if it were true, would map to the "myth" or ethical statement that God was not involved in our creation. Right? According to your worldview, if man had evolved from australopithecus it would have happened naturalistically and therefore would not have involved God's intervention since God always acts supernaturally and only in a way which His revelation can reveal to people instead of something which can be explained naturalistically. According to your worldview, to affirm man's evolution would be to deny that God acted in space and time to cause the existence of man.

I agree that this conclusion would be contrary to the revealed conclusions of the Christian faith.

Therefore there would be two ways to combat this conclusion. Your way, since you are reluctant to abandon your worldview, is to attempt to rebut the purportedly historical fact of evolution itself. My way is to replace your worldview with one where man's evolving from australopithecus, even if it were true, maps not to the absence of God but the presence of God and His pleasure in making creation "fully-gifted" to use Van Till's term.

History only yields theology when a worldview is applied to it. There is no other way to explain how you can look at evolution and see a vast God-lessness while I look at evolution and see the vast creativity of Darwin's God.

 

[brinny]

I'm learning much from this thread.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I'm not a Hebrew scholar but I sometimes wonder if the original text couldn't mean that that light was prolonged.

Joshua 10:12-13

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.​

Technically, God would have had to stop the earth rather then the sun and that seems as unlikely as it would have been unnessacary.

Technically the Earth is 4+ billion years old and our physical bodies evolved from unicellular creatures.

Lacking significant evidence from other places (e.g. China) that the Earth stopped rotating I think it is more likely that God bent light from the Sun and Moon.

 

[LoG]

Lacking significant evidence from other places (e.g. China) that the Earth stopped rotating I think it is more likely that God bent light from the Sun and Moon.

There is significant evidence from other places in the world that there was a long day or night, depending on the location. Many different sites but here is one that condenses the various records. Link


Seems likely that the physical cause was a close encounter between a comet and the Earth. Link
Another clue that correlates with records around the world is the large stones that fell at the same time.

Some other excerpts:

"The Latin poet Ovid amuses the school-boy greatly, in his fanciful narrative of Phaeton's chariot. This heathen author tells us, that a day was once lost, and that the earth was in great danger from the intense heat of an unusual sun. . . . Our notice is somewhat attracted, when we find him mention Phaeton--who was a Canaanitish prince-- and learn that the fable originated with the Phoenicians, the same people whom Joshua fought."

"In the ancient Chinese writings there is a legend of a long day. The Incas of Peru and the Aztecs of Mexico have a like record, and there is a Babylonian and a Persian legend of a day that was miraculously extended. Another section of China contributes an account of the day that was miraculously prolonged, in the reign of Emperor Yeo."

"Herodotus recounts that the priests of Egypt showed him their temple records, and that there he read a strange account of a day that was twice the natural length. Rimmer concludes this section with a lengthy quotation from the Polynesian account of this event."

Edit: Forgot to add this link