Science is great, but... How about we discuss some scripture?!

[crawfish]

What you are saying then is that there is no supernatural, only the natural which we haven't discovered yet. Therefore you are a metaphysical naturalist and you definitely need to reread the Nicene creed

I hate being labeled. It makes implications about my beliefs that are absolutely untrue. What I believe adheres to the Nicene Creed (although my own feeling is that the creed is not itself inspired text).

To be honest, I don't see a practical difference in what you and I think. It takes nothing away from God's omniscience or omnipotence, nothing away from His status as creator, and nothing away from His nature.

I'm gonna give up here. I ended up going way off track from what I'd originally intended - that something we regard as supernatural today may not be beyond the realm of nature. I'm just gonna leave it at that.

 

[crawfish]

Ah, shades of Arthur C Clarke's third law - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But I don't think God is simply more advanced than us, however vastly more advanced. The one who created the universe, and in whom all things hold together (whatever that mean), is fundamentally different to all the creatures of universe he created. He has this amazing ability to communicate to the tiny creatures he has made, somehow, in his image. But in other ways he is completely, other.

I've got no problems with that. I don't regard God as simply being more "advanced", with that meaning that we could one day rise to His level. He is definitely "other", in every sense of the word.

 

[Vehcklox]

Creationism is true, evolution is also true. The man did not originate from the ape, but apes reincarnate as men whose souls evolve, insinuated by the Jewish book of the Zohar.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Creationism is true, evolution is also true. The man did not originate from the ape, but apes reincarnate as men whose souls evolve, insinuated by the Jewish book of the Zohar.

Interesting. Reincarnate? Where is that found in the Bible?

 

[KTatis]

Interesting. Reincarnate? Where is that found in the Bible?

Lol Good one.

 

[Assyrian]

I've got no problems with that. I don't regard God as simply being more "advanced", with that meaning that we could one day rise to His level. He is definitely "other", in every sense of the word.

Cool

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting. Reincarnate? Where is that found in the Bible?

Matt 17:10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" 11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things.12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.

 

[KTatis]

Matt 17:10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" 11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things.12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.

I must admit, that is interesting.

 

[KTatis]

Like the topic says discuss scripture.

Psalms 1:1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Here's mine where's the rest of ya?

 

[Assyrian]

I must admit, that is interesting.

But you only get reincarnation if you stick to the literal surface text.

 

[theFijian]

To be honest, I don't see a practical difference in what you and I think.

There's a big difference I'm afraid. I believe that God is undefinable (ie. cannot be studied) through science since he is supernatural and cannot be studied by a methodology which deals purely in the natural. You believe that God is knowable (ie can be studied) through a methodology which deals purely in the natural because what is regarded as the 'supernatural' is just the natural which science hasn't uncovered yet.

It takes nothing away from God's omniscience or omnipotence, nothing away from His status as creator, and nothing away from His nature.

It takes a lot away, in your view he is no longer transcendent over creation, he is merely immanent in creation.

 

[Deamiter]

There's a big difference I'm afraid. I believe that God is undefinable (ie. cannot be studied) through science since he is supernatural and cannot be studied by a methodology which deals purely in the natural. You believe that God is knowable (ie can be studied) through a methodology which deals purely in the natural because what is regarded as the 'supernatural' is just the natural which science hasn't uncovered yet.

It takes a lot away, in your view he is no longer transcendent over creation, he is merely immanent in creation.

I don't know, I'm no expert in crawfordianism but my impression is that in his view, God is not only transcendent over creation but also imminant IN creation. As an outside observer, it seems more like you are using your assumptions about God to denounce small details that crawford mentions which is always very dangerous. Another example of this type of poor application of one's theology onto another is the creationist assertion that we don't believe the Bible. If the creationist interpretation of scripture is right, we DON'T believe what the Bible says, but then again, if the mythological interpretation is right, then the creationist doesn't believe what the Bible says.

Similarly, I agree with crawford that much of God's nature can indeed be investigated. Just because God is supernatural doesn't mean that he hasn't affected nature, and we know God is everywhere and actively sustains the universe (whatever that actually means). Through studying what God has created, what rules he chooses to uphold in the universe and how he interacts directly through suspension of those rules we can directly study the nature of God. We'll never KNOW God, but we'll certainly know more ABOUT him.

 

[Vehcklox]

The Kabbalist Jewish book of the Zohar (spirit of the doctrine) is not in the bible. The bible is a censored and limited collection of books approved by the council of Nicea (body of the doctrine). The body of the doctrine is full of esoteric meanings (as he said concerning Elijah you cannot always take the context literally) which are revealed in the spirit of the doctrine, like layers of a cake or rungs of a tree stump. Constantine and his council were only truely concerned about maintaining the empire, thus why Christianity was even adopted by Rome to begin with as Rome was falling apart at the seams, just as it almost did again later because of the Huns. Notice how they resolved the invasions by the Huns, the pope himself went out to have a meeting with Attilla. Attilla the Hun, not unlike Ghengis Khan, for all of their brutality still were extremely religious and would no doubt respect the pleading of a priest. Just as it was in the pagan days, for Rome religion was a wellspring for political clout to do things, not unlike the crusades or Nazi Germany.
Imagine Hitler, instead of burning all the books, deciding just to censor certain parts of the bible, and calling the resulting book the 'official' document of the faith from then on? Such is modern Christiandom without Kabbalah, alchemy, or Gnosis. The only difference I see between Hitler and Constantine, was that Hitler's lever was the burning of the Reichstag, and Constantine's was some dream he had telling him to conquer. From this comparison, one might even see Hitler's reason to be more justified!!

 

[busterdog]

But you only get reincarnation if you stick to the literal surface text.

Not so fast.

Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

 

[Assyrian]

It is perfectly in line with the surface text to say John went out 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' because he was Elijah reincarnated. There is nothing in the surface text of Luke 1:17 that explains your 'confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation' for Matt 17:12.

As Nicodemus found, Jesus was in the business of getting people to look beyond the surface text.

 

[crawfish]

I don't know, I'm no expert in crawfordianism but my impression is that in his view, God is not only transcendent over creation but also imminant IN creation. As an outside observer, it seems more like you are using your assumptions about God to denounce small details that crawford mentions which is always very dangerous. Another example of this type of poor application of one's theology onto another is the creationist assertion that we don't believe the Bible. If the creationist interpretation of scripture is right, we DON'T believe what the Bible says, but then again, if the mythological interpretation is right, then the creationist doesn't believe what the Bible says.

Similarly, I agree with crawford that much of God's nature can indeed be investigated. Just because God is supernatural doesn't mean that he hasn't affected nature, and we know God is everywhere and actively sustains the universe (whatever that actually means). Through studying what God has created, what rules he chooses to uphold in the universe and how he interacts directly through suspension of those rules we can directly study the nature of God. We'll never KNOW God, but we'll certainly know more ABOUT him.

You know, I have no idea if you're talking about me or some other Crawford.

But I thank you for your post, all the same.

 

[busterdog]

It is perfectly in line with the surface text to say John went out 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' because he was Elijah reincarnated. There is nothing in the surface text of Luke 1:17 that explains your 'confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation' for Matt 17:12.

As Nicodemus found, Jesus was in the business of getting people to look beyond the surface text.

The words "perfectly" and "nothing" don't fit. I see the argument, and I am not afraid of admitting a problem with the surface text. At a minimum, I have a decent argument.

As for "reservations," I think the surface text in places is analogous to the "This is my body" text, where there is little in the immediate portion of the text to give you interpreteive guidance. That has at times bothered me. In fact, I would prefer a more clearly written passage that doesn't require cross-reference, but I have solved the problem with the Mt. reference and I will wait for another time for God to tell my why his syntactical construction is better than mine. Between the synoptic witnesses, this is easy to resolve. I am not sure why that is such a problem or why this verse in isolation is useful to argue against a literal use of scripture elsewhere.

While I am at it, let's go back to the OP. Jesus told commanded the sea to be calm literally and it happened. Therefore, can't I say that everything else in scripture is presumptively literal, including everything in the OP? Obviously you are not going to accept that logic, so why is this literalness of the Elijah verse so persuasive?

Do YECs have areas where the surface text is a little dim regarding interpretive keys? Yes. We have a few ideas on some of them, but we don't have our arms all the way around some of the basis for interpretting things like "This is my body."

You may also wish to look very specifically at the language of Jesus. He says,

Mat 11:13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Mat 11:14
And if ye will receive [it], this is Elias, which was for to come.
Mat 11:15
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Quite frankly, Jesus apparently has anticipated certain critical methods and rejected them, while placing the onus upon us to seek clarity by having a spirit that can receive the real meaning. As far as interpretive guidelines in the text, this should stand out as not only very clear, but alarming for those who make an inappropriate use of this verse. Again, I am not holier than anyone here, nor am I smarter, nor would being smarter be of any real significance. But, there is a lesson in this text for those who have ears to hear it.

 

[Assyrian]

The literalness of the Elijah verse isn't at all persuasive to me. But I am quite happy with the bible and Jesus himself communicating on a level beyond the literal surface text. I just don't understand how you manage to deal with passages like this when you think it is so wrong to chuck the surface text.

Mat 11:14
And if ye will receive [it], this is Elias, which was for to come.
Mat 11:15
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Can you receive what Jesus says? Do you have ears to hear? John was Elijah who was to come. No, Jesus is not speaking literally, but neither was he reading the promised return of Elijah literally either. He is telling us the prophecy was about John.

But insist we have to maintain the surface text and John really was Elijah - reincarnated.

 

[busterdog]

But insist we have to maintain the surface text and John really was Elijah - reincarnated.

Both passages have two different types of internal direction toward a "spiritual" interpretation. That I use two witnesses rather than one, is consistent with the biblical model for the use of two witnesses. I don't see the problem. I would have written Mt. differently as I said, but we are not lacking the cues for interpretation that we need in the text. I think the methods are pretty clear and consistent on this particular verse.

The fact that we are digging to clarify the point gives some discomfort. For example, why is "a prophet like unto moses" or a "coming in the spirit and power of elias" not like "Adam" as a mere "figure". There is a superficial appeal in lumping them together for purposes of hermeneutics. However, if you use this method, the Abraham is also literary device that never drew breath, which reveals that the superficial appeal cannot suffice. The text tells you. Elias is revealed as a type in Luke 1. Moses is a explicitly part of a simile.
I don't like piecing this together by inference. I would prefer a neat and direct thesis. However, sometimes the most obvious arguments are the most difficult to explain. I just don't see that the text contemplates the need for disputing whether the OP is correct. We are the ones that make it hard.

 

[Deamiter]

Isn't this a case of you developing a complex symbolic meaning simply because you reject the implication of the surface text? Do you claim that there is some indisputable rule that shows the surface text to be inaccurate in this case or are you simply reinterpreting the passage because you 'know' the surface text which suggests resurrection must not be accurate?

More to the point (though I'd appreciate answers to the above question) how is your decision to interpret this passage apart from it's surface or literal meaning different from a TE interpretation of early Genesis as not historical as the surface text might suggest?