The Six Days Are Inconsequential

[shernren]

Your right back into the mire, notice none of the particulars were even addressed. In the brief period of a couple of sentences you descended into the mock satire that has marred this discussion irreparably. Like the philosophy of Tillich TE is nothing more then dialectical humanism in pseudo-theological clothing.

One ridiculously overconfident statement of condemnation:

Do you expect me to believe that the historical narratives of the Old Testament are not foundational to New Testament theology? You have got to be putting me on!

deserves another.

... I think you view Scripture as simply a meticulous almanac of Jewish history.

How much do we learn about the theology of modernists when we assume it's not? TEs are ambiguise about the historicity of Scripture, particularly when it comes to the central feature of miracles in redemptive history.

Keep dodging, it's good exercise. You've never defined "redemptive history", you've never shown how it's integral to theology (other than your own, which of course distinguishes you as a True Christian (TM) set apart from us poor misguided heretics), and you've never even shown that it's a Biblical concept. It's something drawn from outside Scripture and then forced onto it, not something derived from Scripture.

I'll be away for a few days at Hillsong. In the meantime, this sums up what I want to say:

The theological significance of an event is not in its historicity, but in its divinely authorized meaning, with the exception of the Resurrection for unique reasons.

And to prod you in the direction of considering that question, here's a question about a classic verse:

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.
(Judges 1:19 NIV)

Tell me: what does this verse tell you about God and His power?

 

[mark kennedy]

One ridiculously overconfident statement of condemnation:

"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. (Proverbs 1:22,23)

Keep dodging, it's good exercise. You've never defined "redemptive history", you've never shown how it's integral to theology (other than your own, which of course distinguishes you as a True Christian (TM) set apart from us poor misguided heretics), and you've never even shown that it's a Biblical concept. It's something drawn from outside Scripture and then forced onto it, not something derived from Scripture.

What distinguishes a true Christian from a fraud is faith that He that makes the promise is faithful (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). Your utter silence on the subject of miracles and the attributes of God speaks volumes for what you don't believe. You remind me of the character from Oliver Twist, the Artful Dodger. In the desperate hope that you can avoid redemptive history and the reality of miracles you scoff at the Bible as history.

God’s “choices” shaped the history of Israel; His “choice” led to their redemption from Egypt (Deut. 7:7-8), sent Moses and Aaron to work miracles in Egypt (Ps. 105:26-27), and gave them the Levites “to bless in the name of the Lord” (Deut. 21:5). He “chose” their inheritance (Ps. 47:4), including Jerusalem, where He dwelt among them (Deut. 12:5; 2 Chron. 6:5, 21). But “they have chosen their own ways, and … I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them …” (Isa. 66:3- 4). The covenant called men to respond to God’s election: “… I have set before you life and death … : therefore choose life …” (Deut. 30:19; cf. Josh. 24:22).(Vines)

I'll be away for a few days at Hillsong. In the meantime, this sums up what I want to say:

The theological significance of an event is not in its historicity, but in its divinely authorized meaning, with the exception of the Resurrection for unique reasons.

And to prod you in the direction of considering that question, here's a question about a classic verse:

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.
(Judges 1:19 NIV)

Tell me: what does this verse tell you about God and His power?

That it is directly connected to faith in God, if you worship and serve the creature rather then the Creator he will not deliver.

"And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." (Judges 2:2,3)

Now it's my turn, since you choose to dodge the previous questions what of these miracles?


Creation of the world Ge 1
The great flood Ge 7; 8
The confusion of languages Ge 11:1-9
The fire on Abraham's sacrifice Ge 15:17
The conception of Isaac Ge 17:17; 18:12; 21:2
The destruction of Sodom Ge 19
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt Ge 19:26
The closing of the wombs of Abimelech's household Ge 20:17, 18
The opening of Hagar's eyes Ge 21:19
The conception of Jacob and Esau Ge 25:21
The opening of Rachel's womb Ge 30:22

Moses - The flaming bush Ex 3:2
The transformation of Moses' rod into a serpent Ex 4:3, 4, 30; 7:10, 12
Moses' leprosy Ex 4:6, 7, 30
The plagues in Egypt Nu 16:46-50
The pillar of cloud and fire Ex 13:21, 22; 14:19, 20 Daily for 40 years, day and night
Passage through the Red Sea Ex 14:22
The destruction of Pharaoh and his army Ex 14:23-30
Sweetening the waters of Marah Ex 15:25
Manna Ex 16:4-31... daily for almost 40 years
Quails Ex 16:13
The defeat of Amalek Ex 17:9-13
The transfiguration of the face of Moses Ex 34:29-35
Water from the rock Ex 17:5, 7
Thundering and lightning on Mount Sinai Ex 19:16-20; 24:10, 15-17; De 4:33
Miriam's leprosy Nu 12:10-15
Judgment by fire Nu 11:1-3
The destruction of Korah Nu 16:31-35; De 11:6, 7
The plague Nu 16:46-50
Aaron's rod buds Nu 17:1-9
Water from the rock in Kadesh Nu 20:8-11
The scourge of serpents Nu 21:6-9
The destruction of Nadab and Abihu Le 10:1, 2
Balaam's donkey speaks Nu 22:23-30
The preservation of Moses De 34:7
The Jordan River divided Jos 3:14-17; 4:16-18
The fall of Jericho Jos 6:20
The Midianites destroyed Jud 7:16-22
Hailstones on the confederated kings Jos 10:11
The sun and the moon stand still Jos 10:12-14
Dew on Gideon's fleece Jud 6:37-40
Samson's strength 16:3, Jud 14:6; 29, 30
Samson supplied with water Jud 15:19
The falling of the god Dagon 1Sa 5:1-4
Even nursing cows return the ark of the covenant (walking away from their calves) 1Sa 6:7-14
The plague of hemorrhoids on the Philistines 1Sa 5:9-12; 6:1-18
The destruction of the people of Beth-shemesh 1Sa 6:19, 20
Thunder 1Sa 12:16-18
The death of Uzzah 2Sa 6:1-8
The plague in Israel 1Ch 21:14-26

Fire on the sacrifices . . .
Of Aaron Le 9:24
Of Gideon Jud 6:21
Of Manoah Jud 13:19, 20
Of Solomon 2Ch 7:1
Of Elijah 1Ki 18:38
Jeroboam's hand withered 1Ki 13:3-6
The appearance of blood 2Ki 3:20-22
The panic of the Syrians 2Ki 7:6, 7

Elijah . . .
Is fed by ravens 1Ki 17:6
Is fed by an angel 1Ki 19:1-8
Increases the widow's meal and oil 1Ki 17:9-16; Lu 4:26
Raises the widow's son 1Ki 17:17-24
Rain in answer to Elijah's prayer 1Ki 18:41-45
Brings fire down upon Ahaziah's army 2Ki 1:10-12
Divides the Jordan River 2Ki 2:8
Is transported to the heavens 2Ki 2:11

Elisha . . .
Divides the Jordan River 2Ki 2:14
Sweetens the waters of Jericho 2Ki 2:19-22
Increases a widow's supply of oil 2Ki 4:1-7
Raises the Shunammite woman's child 2Ki 4:18-37
Renders the poisoned stew harmless 2Ki 4:38-41
Feeds one-hundred men 2Ki 4:42-44
Cures Naaman 2Ki 5:1-19
Strikes down Gehazi with leprosy 2Ki 5:26, 27
Causes the ax to float 2Ki 6:6
Reveals the counsel of the king of Syria 2Ki 6:12
Causes the eyes of his servant to be opened 2Ki 6:17
Strikes the army of the king of Syria with blindness 2Ki 6:18
The dead man was restored to life 2Ki 13:21
The destruction of Sennacherib's army 2Ki 19:35; Isa 37:36
Return of the shadow on the sun dial 2Ki 20:9-11
Hezekiah's cure Isa 38:21

The deliverance . . .
Of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego Da 3:23-27
Of Daniel Da 6:22
The sea was calmed when Jonah was thrown into it Jon 1:15
Jonah in the belly of the great fish Jon 1:17; 2:10
Jonah's gourd Jon 4:6, 7

(Nave's Topical Bible, Miracles)

Do you believe in miracles? Before you start to convolute the semantics, this is the definition:

"A miracle is an extraordinary act performed, or event brought to pass by God, not through the established laws of nature, nor mere providential control, but by direct action without the use of efficient means." (Abstract of Systematic Theology by James Bryce)

 

[mark kennedy]

Is that the conclusion you had before you read this thread? The view of TEs you trot out at every opportunity? Surely saying "I am left with only one conclusion" is a bit of an overstatement when you started with only one conclusion?

Fine, let's not jump to any conclusions here. See the above list and tell me where the myth interpretation stops and redemptive history starts.

I remember you trying to support that before. Nevermind this is about the six days not Adam.

Why would I nevermind, just tell everyone plainly where you stand on the issue of miracles. The six day creation taken figuratively would not raise an eyebrow of even the staunchest fundamentalists. That is of course if it's not based on an a priori rejection of miracles period.

 

[theFijian]

Fine, let's not jump to any conclusions here. See the above list and tell me where the myth interpretation stops and redemptive history starts.

Mark I think you know full well that TEs are a diverse bunch and that there are some who view redemptive history just as you do and some who do not. So I am not sure why you are trying to tar us all with the same brush.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark I think you know full well that TEs are a diverse bunch and that there are some who view redemptive history just as you do and some who do not. So I am not sure why you are trying to tar us all with the same brush.

Here's the thing, if I am dealing with a Christian who has some reservations about taking Genesis 1 literally then there is no issue, go in peace I have no problem with you. If on the other hand we are talking about an a priori rejection of miracles then it's a formal rejection of the Christian faith.

Maybe you have some problems with the sun being stopped, or an axe head that floats, no big deal. It's when the Bible as history is categorically rejected that I have to ask very intrusive questions of TEs. I'm not trying to be rude or pry into their personal convictions, I just want some straight answers.

The six days of creation may well be inconsequential, the role of miracles in redemptive history is not.

 

[chaoschristian]

I categorically reject this thing you call 'the Bible as history' as well as miracles as literal indicative fact as I hold that scriptures are necessarily phenomenological in nature, and as such do not serve as a boundary for faith or understanding.

 

[mark kennedy]

I categorically reject this thing you call 'the Bible as history' as well as miracles as literal indicative fact as I hold that scriptures are necessarily phenomenological in nature, and as such do not serve as a boundary for faith or understanding.

Does that include the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ?

 

[chaoschristian]

Does that include the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ?

I reject a literal indicative factual understanding of all of those within a framework of redemptive history.

This all comes down to how we view the scriptures.

I view scriptures as necessarily phenomenological, you view scriptures as necessarily historical in nature.

The conflict, therefore, is to be expected.

 

[mark kennedy]

I reject a literal indicative factual understanding of all of those within a framework of redemptive history.

This all comes down to how we view the scriptures.

I view scriptures as necessarily phenomenological, you view scriptures as necessarily historical in nature.

The conflict, therefore, is to be expected.

There is no difference between a phenomenon and an event. You have just denied essential doctrine and every major premise of the Christian faith. Try the Liberal Theology forum, that is where this kind of a post belongs.

 

[chaoschristian]

There is no difference between a phenomenon and an event. You have just denied essential doctrine and every major premise of the Christian faith. Try the Liberal Theology forum, that is where this kind of a post belongs.

I'm sorry that you don't comprehend the manner in which I am employing the term 'phenomenology' in this case.

Note that I do not reject the tenets of the Nicene Creed. I reject your understanding of those tenets.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sorry that you don't comprehend the manner in which I am employing the term 'phenomenology' in this case.

Note that I do not reject the tenets of the Nicene Creed. I reject your understanding of those tenets.

You have just said you reject the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ. You qualified that by saying phenomenology as opposed to history which is semantical gibberish. You do deny the Nicene Creed if you reject these events as historical, period!

Like I said, this has no place in the Christians only sections. In truth a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness or even a Gnostic would be closer to a Christian then someone who rejects miracles categorically, particularly those miracles.

 

[chaoschristian]

You have just said you reject the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ.

I said no such thing. Either quote me accurately and deal with what I said, or concede that the subject is beyond your ability.

You qualified that by saying phenomenology as opposed to history which is semantical gibberish.

It's interesting that you revert to such baseness rather than deal with the reality of the complexity involved.

You do deny the Nicene Creed if you reject these events as historical, period!

The Creed is silent on a number of interesting issues.

Like I said, this has no place in the Christians only sections. In truth a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness or even a Gnostic would be closer to a Christian then someone who rejects miracles categorically, particularly those miracles.

Since you've been on staff you know very well that the above is a cat's whiskers away from directly accusing me of not being Christian. I will ask you not to do that again.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't know what went on at Babel. Were the people scattered because their language was divided? Or was their language divided because they were scattered? Or a bit of both? And I don't know if Jonah is literal or not. The creation in Gen 1 is an awful lot of miracle and an awful lot of providence describe in poetic form. The flood was real, local and probably providential.

As for the rest I have no problem with these describing real events. How they happened is another matter. Some are clear miraculous interventions. Others like the quail are probably natural and providential. Given that the bible describes a strong east wind bringing the plague of locusts, I think we can say at least some of the plagues were natural and providential.

 

[gluadys]

Fine, let's not jump to any conclusions here. See the above list and tell me where the myth interpretation stops and redemptive history starts.

Interesting question with some interesting assumptions behind it. I doubt it is possible to divide scripture neatly along the lines suggested.

I would see myth and redemptive history as being largely the same thing. Redemptive history is history mythologized to reveal the action of God in history. Or, if you like, history is recounted mythically to reveal its redemptive nature.

 

[Scotishfury09]

How much of this do you think really happened?

“The Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7)
“The Lord plagued Pharaoh” (Gen. 12:17)
“The battle of Siddam” (Gen 14:8)
“Melchizedek King of Salem” (14:18)
The angel of the Lord near Shur (16:7)
“God destroyed the cites of the plain (19:29)
Abraham was 100 yrs old when Isaac was born (21:5)
The covenant with Abimelech in Arabia (Gen 21:21)
The test at Mt Moriah (22:12)

How much of this do you think actually happened and as a bonus question, how many of these people are simply beautifully written fictional metaphors?

Lets take a look in Numbers 1:

These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel's army were counted according to their families. The total number was 603,550. The families of the tribe of Levi, however, were not counted along with the others.

Ok, so we have 600 thousand men that are above the age of 20 and are able to fight. This means this number doesn't include the Levites, young men, old men, and all women. So we could roughly assume that the entire population of Israel is over 2 million. Correct me if you think I'm wrong. Now, look at what it says in Deuteronomy 7.

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you... The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.

Ok, so now we know that the Israelites number the FEWEST of all 7 tribes. Meaning that the entire population of that region had to be at least over 14 million people, making it the 5th most populated state in the U.S. and and twice as big as Israel is today. Pretty astounding, I'd say.



To answer your question, I'd say that more than likely these numbers are no where near accurate and that it isn't necessary beautiful, but definitely fictional metaphors.

 

[Atlantians]

I said no such thing. Either quote me accurately and deal with what I said, or concede that the subject is beyond your ability.

You said:

I categorically reject this thing you call 'the Bible as history' as well as miracles as literal indicative fact as I hold that scriptures are necessarily phenomenological in nature, and as such do not serve as a boundary for faith or understanding.

I reject a literal indicative factual understanding of all of those within a framework of redemptive history.

This all comes down to how we view the scriptures.

I view scriptures as necessarily phenomenological, you view scriptures as necessarily historical in nature.

The conflict, therefore, is to be expected.

Thus if you reject miracles, you reject the miracle of the virgin birth, you reject the miracle of the ascensions, you reject the miracle of the resurrection.

It's interesting that you revert to such baseness rather than deal with the reality of the complexity involved.

You are over complicating simple issues to make yourself intelligent and point to your own intelligence as to necessitate victory against those who disagree with your view.

This is shown in your arogant responses to his points without actually making a point of your own.

You are resportint to a logica fallacy of attacking the person while ignoring their argument.

The Creed is silent on a number of interesting issues.

Not on the ones addressed here.

 

[Assyrian]

You are over complicating simple issues to make yourself intelligent and point to your own intelligence as to necessitate victory against those who disagree with your view.

This is shown in your arogant responses to his points without actually making a point of your own.

You are resportint to a logica fallacy of attacking the person while ignoring their argument.

Come on Atlantians, Mark had just said gonebowling had rejected the virgin birth and resurrection and described his reply as semantical gibberish. Who is making the ad hom argument here. If mark's response to gb's view of the complexity of the argumement was by dismissing it as semantical gibberish, why is gb the one ignoring the argument?

We would be better off all round finding out what gonebowling actually meant by phenomenological.

 

[chaoschristian]

We would be better off all round finding out what gonebowling actually meant by phenomenological.

Anyone up for reading Alfred Schutz and Stephan Strasser?

For those who would inquire as to my orthodoxy, let me note that the Nicene Creed is silent on the scriptures, the nature of scriptures, the means by which to interpret scriptures, and through that is silent on the nature of the events regarding its tenets visavis historicity (assuming that history in this sense is literal indicative fact.)

The Creed begins with 'We believe in.' We believe in . . . we have faith that . . . because we don't have historical or emperical evidence of such beyond our own response to faith in being called into this believe.

We believe because we respond, not because we know.

I find it fascinating that rejecting a particular understanding of a thing is being interpreted as a wholesale rejection of the thing itself.

 

[Atlantians]

Come on Atlantians, Mark had just said gonebowling had rejected the virgin birth and resurrection and described his reply as semantical gibberish.

By implication he had rejected the virgin birth and resurrection, and his reply was semantical gibberish... where is the disconnect?

Who is making the ad hom argument here. If mark's response to gb's view of the complexity of the argumement was by dismissing it as semantical gibberish, why is gb the one ignoring the argument?

GB never made an argument but asserted his view.
His view implied a rejection of the virgin birth and resurrection, and he disguised the blatancy of this with semantics.

Instead of defending himself, explaining, and re-phrasing what he said, he simply said "I am right, And you are too stupid to understand why!"

We would be better off all round finding out what gonebowling actually meant by phenomenological.

Bassically he said: "I don't reject these things, I just don't thik they happened."


Phenomenology is, simply put (this is a HARD word to define simply), reletivism.
IE: All is based on perception, not fact.

So he believes, according to his use of the word, he takes the Bible as an oppinion and not reality, a view and not a fact.

Beliefs, not History.

Now if I did not explain that right, please explain it.

I find it fascinating that rejecting a particular understanding of a thing is being interpreted as a wholesale rejection of the thing itself.

How can you have any other understanding of the Ressurection? He was alive or he wasn't.
And according to Paul, if He wasn't, then our faith is useless.

 

[gluadys]

Phenomenology is, simply put (this is a HARD word to define simply), reletivism.
IE: All is based on perception, not fact.


Now if I did not explain that right, please explain it.

No, phenomenology is not relativism. It makes the point that all our experience is based on our senses, and that reality may be somewhat different than what is presented to our senses.

As our creationist friends never tire of telling us "sunrise" in our day is a phenomenological term. It describes what our senses tell us is happening on the eastern horizon each morning.

Yet we know from study of the solar system that the sun is not rising; it is we on our bit of the earth's surface that are being turned toward the sun by the earth's axial rotation. But our senses don't perceive the turning of the earth. Even knowing intellectually that the earth is turning doesn't give us a phenomenological sensation of the earth turning. Our senses interpret the turning of the earth as the rising of the sun.

So to say that something is "phenomenological" does not mean the speaker thinks it did not happen, but that the description of the event may not get into the actual reality of the event and only describes what appears as phenomena to the senses.