Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[BobRyan]

You realize you're not too popular with those who practice science, don't you?

Many of the scientist I know - love my views - because they share them.

But I am not very popular with T.E's and Atheists - most of whom are not scientists at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You realize you're not too popular with those who practice science, don't you?

Au contraire! His popularity is growing on me, moment by moment, AV!

Many of the scientist I know - love my views - because they share them.

But I am not very popular with T.E's and Atheists - most of whom are not scientists at all.

Well, Bob. You're right again, I see. I'm a philosopher, not a biological or physical scientist. So ... I'm very, very, very sure that not only will we disagree about the nature of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as about the practical nature of science itself, we will disagree, too, about the very nature of the written word of the Bible itself. In fact, it probably isn't too much to say that you and I will adhere to different modes of interpretation of the Bible, and we will inevitably inhabit very different conceptual worlds. But, hey, that's ok. God never meant to make clones.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[BobRyan]

I'm very, very, very sure that not only will we disagree about the nature of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as about the practical nature of science itself, we will disagree, too, about the very nature of the written word of the Bible itself.

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

Yep, it's the Bible. The question remains, however. Is it really ONLY the Bible that is the difference between me and you? I'd suggest that it isn't.

So, what is the infallible mode of biblical interpretation to which I should be adhering? Do you have any infallible extra-biblical books by which I should discern the exact method of biblical interpretation? I ask, because ... well ... the Bible doesn't tell us how to interpret itself, at least not very much of it.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm very, very, very sure that not only will we disagree about the nature of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as about the practical nature of science itself, we will disagree, too, about the very nature of the written word of the Bible itself.

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

Yep, it's the Bible. The question remains, however. Is it really ONLY the Bible that is the difference between me and you? I'd suggest that it isn't.

So, what is the infallible mode of biblical interpretation to which I should be adhering? .

well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points
that "imagination" game does not go very far.

======================================

As you may recall - the "details" being much avoided so far --

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The T.E. main points start with the idea that the Bible is too hard to read - or it is "up for grabs no matter how clearly it is worded".

The Bible must be attacked in that way "as the start" because there is no 'science' for the virgin birth or the 7 day creation week as if what God does 'Can be reproduced by man in the lab' -- as we all know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"



well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points
that "imagination" game does not go very far.

in Christ,

Bob

By your response, I take it that you don't have any infallible, extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation, or any other sources, to offer to me. Ok, then... how about instead fallible, but respectable extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation. Do you have any of those to offer? Or do you just interpret the Bible by sheer act of will (and hope that what you're thinking comes from the coaching of the Holy Spirit)?

2PhiloVoid

 

[mmksparbud]

?????----if you don't believe that the bible is the word of God, that it explains itself pretty well and it is obvious when it is telling a parable, a story, allegory or just exactly what God said and did, then why on earth would you believe an extra biblical account? I'm sorry--but that, to me makes no sense---did I miss something? There are interpretations of words---but interpretations for the whole bible makes no sense.

 

[ken777]

By your response, I take it that you don't have any infallible, extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation, or any other sources, to offer to me. Ok, then... how about instead fallible, but respectable extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation. Do you have any of those to offer? Or do you just interpret the Bible by sheer act of will (and hope that what you're thinking comes from the coaching of the Holy Spirit)?

Biblical Christians rely on the internal evidence of the Bible as to its infallibility, such as that given by
Jesus (Matthew 5:18, Luke 24:44, Mark 7:13, John 10:35)
Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Peter (2 Peter 1:21-22, 2 Peter 3:15)

Biblical Infallibility

 

[BobRyan]

The T.E. main points start with the idea that the Bible is too hard to read - or it is "up for grabs no matter how clearly it is worded".

The Bible must be attacked in that way "as the start" because there is no 'science' for the virgin birth or the 7 day creation week as if what God does 'Can be reproduced by man in the lab' -- as we all know.

well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points that "imagination" game does not go very far.

======================================

As you may recall - the "details" being much avoided so far --

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

By your response, I take it that you don't have any infallible, extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation, or any other sources, to offer to me. Ok, then... how about instead fallible, but respectable extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation.

"Again" pretending that the Bible sooooo hard to read that one needs another Bible-2 to tell them what the Bible says - is nonsense. And then no matter how simple Bible-2 the information adverse could claim they need a Bible-3 to explain Bible-2 to explain the Bible.

how many 2nd, 3rd, ... nth Bibles would it take for you to believe in the virgin birth? the bodily resurrection of Christ? the 7 day creation week? not taking God's name in vain??

Which why I give you this example of just such a case of easy-to-read Bible examples. Sooooo easy -- even the professors at all world class universities "can see" it.


In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made
=============================================

In your response - you never take the details in the text and argue that it was too difficult for you to read -- not even when I give you such simple examples. (All the while claiming you need "another Bible" to interpret the Bible for you).

You are clearly gaming the subject - please be serious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[ken777]

well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points that "imagination" game does not go very far.

======================================

As you may recall - the "details" being much avoided so far --

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’




"Again" pretending that the Bible sooooo hard to read that one needs another Bible to tell them what the Bible says - is nonsense.

Which why I give you this example of just such a case of easy-to-read Bible examples. Sooooo easy -- even the professors at all world class universities "can see" it.


In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made
========================================================================

In your response - you never take the text and argue that it was too difficult for you to read -- not even when I give you such simple examples. (All the while claiming you need "another Bible" to interpret the Bible for you).

Please be serious.

in Christ,

Bob

Do you agree that in the first two chapters of Genesis the word for 'day' is used in three different ways?

 

[mmksparbud]

19. The yom problem
The word yom

"The Hebrew word for day is yom and this word appears in Scriptures over 1400 times. And without exception this word, when written in the singular sense, means day. And that's it. Never anything else. Eons are indicated with the plural form: days, as in the days of such and such. The most popular counter argument is that the meaning of our word is fiercely restricted to 'day' for about a thousand times in the sequential Scriptures, but in the secluded chapter of Genesis 1 means something completely different! But honestly, if in Genesis 1 our word should have meant 'long time' it would have said 'long time'. There are words available in Hebrew that mean just that. None of which occur in Genesis 1.

The word as used in Genesis 1 means day and day alone. There's no way around it, and every serious theory to make (systematic, not theological) sense out of Genesis 1 should first and foremost address the yom-problem."
http://www.abarim-publications.com/YomProblem.html#.V_pssoWcEqQ

That's just one Jewish site---there were several others and they said the same thing--

The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: "And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob." God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: "And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." These are the most typical uses of the word "day" with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, "From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord." A number may also be used with "day" to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: "It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire." It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word "day," it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception.
http://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"



well we could "imagine" that the Bible is too hard to read in Ex 20:11 and Genesis 1:-2:3 -- but as James Barr points
that "imagination" game does not go very far.

======================================

As you may recall - the "details" being much avoided so far --

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

in Christ,

Bob

Hi Bob,

A couple of questions: are you aware that James Barr did not advocate the concept of Innerrancy of the Bible? Are you aware that he was also a firm critic of Christian Fundamentalism?

And if you are going to quote a scholar, please do the correct and honest thing and cite your work. In the case of your James Barr citation, I'll do your work for you:

http://www.icr.org/article/literal-week-creation/

And I agree with Barr, as I do with Conrad Hyers, among others--that the basic meaning of Genesis 1 refers to 7 days. However, this doesn't mean that Barr ACTUALLY believed that the creation account took place--in the real past--in a 7 day period. You do realize this, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The T.E. main points start with the idea that the Bible is too hard to read - or it is "up for grabs no matter how clearly it is worded".

The Bible must be attacked in that way "as the start" because there is no 'science' for the virgin birth or the 7 day creation week as if what God does 'Can be reproduced by man in the lab' -- as we all know.

The fact that the Virgin Birth is a historical statement and is not subject to "science" has really nothing to do with how I handle and interpret Scripture, Bob. So, please ... don't put words into my mouth and thus misrepresent my position. I don't appreciate that. Nor do I appreciate the aspersions and insinuations you make by which you deprecate the authenticity of my Christian faith.

Thanks,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Alithis]

a Christian is one who is living "Christ like " a description given to people who were doing the same things Christ did ,, healing the sick driving out demons preaching the gospel .. did chrsit ever preach the theory of evolution ? NO . so it is not being chrsit like to partake in that worldly pursuit since we are to be transformed into HIS image not the image of the imaginations of this world inspired by the spirit of this world . those who refuse to drop such folly in devils doctrines , need to repent . Or they wil perish is their sin of rebellion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Biblical Christians rely on the internal evidence of the Bible as to its infallibility, such as that given by
Jesus (Matthew 5:18, Luke 24:44, Mark 7:13, John 10:35)
Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Peter (2 Peter 1:21-22, 2 Peter 3:15)

Biblical Infallibility

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the references, but when I was speaking of 'infallibility' to Bob, I was referring to outside sources regarding the interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Thus, far, Bob hasn't produced ANY sources regarding how we know we should interpret the Bible, whether of sources for interpretation which he considers to be infallible or even fallible. All of this failure to respond to my request suggests that he relies on his own interpretive senses-- alone --by which to determine the meanings of truth in the Bible. Usually, this kind of interpretive position, when one does it all by himself (or herself), leads to the slippery slope of 'solipsism,' because in Bob's case, it doesn't sound like he is accountable to anyone else in the Church other than himself. But, I'm always open to allowing him the opportunity to prove me wrong ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

a Christian is one who is living "Christ like " a description given to people who were doing the same things Christ did ,, healing the sick driving out demons preaching the gospel .. did chrsit ever preach the theory of evolution ? NO . so it is not being chrsit like to partake in that worldly pursuit since we are to be transformed into HIS image not the image of the imaginations of this world inspired by the spirit of this world . those who refuse to drop such folly in devils doctrines , need to repent . Or they wil perish is their sin of rebellion.

Hi Alithis,

Do you think the fact that the universe is billions of years old (as we would count years) is a "devil's doctrine"?

 

[mmksparbud]

I did not ask my question to anyone in particular, but I should have addressed it to

By your response, I take it that you don't have any infallible, extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation, or any other sources, to offer to me. Ok, then... how about instead fallible, but respectable extra-biblical books on biblical interpretation. Do you have any of those to offer? Or do you just interpret the Bible by sheer act of will (and hope that what you're thinking comes from the coaching of the Holy Spirit)?

2PhiloVoid

?????----if you don't believe that the bible is the word of God, that it explains itself pretty well and it is obvious when it is telling a parable, a story, allegory or just exactly what God said and did, then why on earth would you believe an extra biblical account? I'm sorry--but that, to me makes no sense---did I miss something? There are interpretations of words---but interpretations for the whole bible makes no sense.

Thus, far, Bob hasn't produced ANY sources regarding how we know we should interpret the Bible,

I really find this confusing. Why should we look for "how to interpret the bible"? We have scholars who interpret the language, the Hebrew words---that is all that is needed---nobody need to tell anyone how to interpret the whole bible!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did not ask my question to anyone in particular, but I should have addressed it to

I really find this confusing. Why should we look for "how to interpret the bible"? We have scholars who interpret the language, the Hebrew words---that is all that is needed---nobody need to tell anyone how to interpret the whole bible!

Various scholars disagree among themselves, so if you're basis for interpreting the bible is conditioned by a particular scholar, how do know that he/she is correct? And, on a practical level, which scholar's do you actually read and rely on to "get the Bible right"?

2PhiloVoid

 

[mmksparbud]

Various scholars disagree among themselves, so if you're basis for interpreting the bible is conditioned by a particular scholar, how do know that he/she is correct? And, on a practical level, which scholar's do you actually read and rely on to "get the Bible right"?

2PhiloVoid

Why would you choose a particular scholar? And I'm asking why you have to have anyone interpret the whole bible as opposed to just interpreting the Hebrew words themselves? And for that you can search through several different sites for several scholar's opinions on certain words.