FSHWILDFIRE said:
I could sit here and debate this for very long and we will get no where. The very reason is..that the post-modern mood has touched Christianity and many have accepted as such. And as Ravi Zacharias put it Debating with post-modernist is debating with a thousand different Philosophies and ideas and this not only confuses the objectivist but the post-modernist also.
My daughter has introduced me to post-modernist philosophy. I find it a refreshing change from postivism, which I have never liked. But we both agree that its strength is in deconstructing the assumptions of older philosophical movements. It does not lend itself to building a new synthesis.
Medieval theology also had literal interpretations as well even when it came to Genesis.
I didn't say otherwise. I said they considered literal interpretations trivial and shallow and valued non-literal interpretations more.
Which is where our debate is centred. If we cannot know what is literal and what is not we have denied truth its job. Truth by definition is exclusive.
It is not that we cannot know. But that it takes work to learn which is which. Also, literal and non-literal interpretations are not mutually exclusive either. The medieval scholastics were right in noting that many scriptural texts have both literal and non-literal meanings. They were even right in noting that often the non-literal meaning is where the real message of scripture is.
Where they went wrong is in under-valuing the literal meaning. Where modern creationists go wrong is in over-valuing the literal meaning. To assume that either the literal or non-literal meaning is the basic default meaning to be preferred before the other is the interpretive error. God speaks to us in many ways.
Leaving the Bible open to interpretations is very dangeorus and if you read 2Peter 3:16, Peter makes note of that.
All texts are interpreted texts. No one reads any text without interpreting it in light of their own knowledge and beliefs. And Peter is not talking about interpretation of scripture by readers. He is talking about interpretaion of prophecy by prophets. What he is saying is that prophets do not make up their messages privately, but are led to prophecy by the Holy Spirit.
The word methodology in theology clearly implies that there are improper directions that can be taken when interpreting the Bible, for by the greek definition it means "a way or a path of transit". Objective methodology is what we must seek. Subjective methodology leaves us with a Bible that is read as mythology and without understanding.
Yes, and good methodology can help us avoid improper directions. But don't confuse method with outcome. Objective methodology can lead to the objective conclusion that a scriptural story is a myth. However, if one takes the time to learn, one can read mythology objectively and with understanding, just as any other text.
God created lanaguge for a purpose. He uses this for revelational communication. The Bible exists because humans need to know spirtual truths that they cannot obtain.
And using mythology is a good way to communicate to people steeped in mythological concepts. Myth is an excellent vehicle for spiritual truths because it is not tied to the limited objective knowledge of particular generations. Tying spiritual truths to scientific concepts could mean that the spiritual truths will be swiftly lost as scientific concepts become outdated.
Instead of superimposing a meaning on the Biblical text we must seek Author's intended meaning. And usually an Author wants to make his/her statement clear. Saying that we can pretty much interpret everything as not literal steals the author of his job in many cases. The author gives meaning and the reader discovers it.
Absolutely, we must seek the intended meaning, not super-impose our own. But you are making the assumption that every author of the bible intended his (or her?) writing to be literal. With so much poetry, symbolism, oracular prophecy, etc. in the bible, it seems clear that many authors did not choose to write in literal terms. Indeed mystics tell us that no literal language can convey truth about God. So perhaps they had to couch what God revealed in non-literal language because literal language was not capable of saying what needed to be said.
You are also assuming that non-literal language is not clear. That is also a false assumption. Non-literal language can be just as clear as literal fact. And when an author deliberately chooses non-literal language, it is certainly not robbing him of his job to study it as such. Yes, the author gives the meaning, and the task of the interpreter is to discover it.
How must we expect people to come to Christ if we cannot agree on interpretation.
If an agreed interpretation was necessary to bring people to Christ, even the apostles would not have made converts. Christians have been divided on interpretations even before the scriptures were written. For three to four centuries they were even divided on what was scripture and what was not. (Still are when it comes to the OT.) You will not find any time in Christian history when there was not debate--and sometimes war--over interpretations of scripture and doctrine.
Yet in every generation, people have also come to Christ. Though perhaps many more would have without the divisions.
It seems Christians are the confused. Evolutionists see the clear contradiction between genesis and science, because they know that genesis is what it is, and TE is just an anasthetic.
Please don't confuse evolutionists with atheists. Atheists are often as literal-minded about Genesis as fundamentalists are. Do you know I have had atheists tell me I am not Christian because I do not accept their naive intepretations of scripture? Now I expect that from a certain type of Christian who adheres to a rigidly-literal interpretation of scripture. But I found it very ironic that people who reject Christianity would have the same opinion.
Sometimes, evangelists are able to win people over by asking them what they believe about God. And then explain, "The god you describe is not the God I believe in either." Because people do often hold some strange ideas about God and if they reject God on the basis of false ideas about God, then the appropriate thing to do is to show them that it is their ideas which are false, not God.
The same applies here. The Christianity those atheists reject is not the Christianity I accept. In fact, I consider it a distortion of Christianity, not at all true to the teachings of Jesus. So it doesn't phase me that they see a clear contradiction between science and genesis. All that tells me is that they don't understand genesis.
On a side note I just thought this would be interesting as a personal experience. As you probably know I am an evolutionary biology major with concentration in paleobiology. ... It is as if there are over 20 paths of evolution- that are in contradiction. The character coding is just wild.
Strange, you are the science student while I have no formal background in science at all. Yet you are surprised by this while I am not. Maybe its just because you are young and I am not.
Much of the scientific work in evolutionary biology for years to come will be investigating and confirming which of those 20 + paths is the correct one.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that the most confusion will be in the narrowest ranges of difference i.e. within species and genera. No matter how the various species of guppies are eventually arranged, they will still all be in the same order and probably the same family as their current classification.
However I was not skeptical of evolution yet in any way. This is science and science continues and progresses. However as I continued in my research I came upon the Cambrain explosion. As one who is concentrating in Paleobiology, this hit me hard. It is very interesting the different techniques, sometimes employed to understand the Cambrian explosion. Now I am in no way denying evolution, and I will continue doing research in this field. I would like to go on to Graduate school and do work on the Cambrian explosion in relation to evolutionary developmental biology. However, if there is one thing people should know it is that evolution is a fact to a certain degree.
Evolution is fact, full stop. It is the history of evolution where all the controversy lies in science. We know that species evolve and have evolved. But working out the details of each lineage has just begun. And I envy you. Paleobiology is on the cutting edge of this investigation. So is evolutionary development. All the best in your future studies.
