demarcation line

[Calminian]

I would have thought miracles were still causation, only in this case God caused them. But causation has operated in the universe since God created it.

And you would be correct. The issue is consistency, not causality. Supernatural causes are not consistent repeatable testable events. They are vastly unnormative and thus scientifically unpredictable. Norm Geisler said it best.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.

Thus miracles cannot be understood scientifically in the same way. Therefore we need to give consideration to this in those areas where the Bible mentions them, especially in the area of creation. 17 times were are told God stretch out the heavens. That seems to me an amazing supernatural event that would likely be very confusing to naturalists.

As I've said, I have no problem with those concluding Genesis was not meant to be historical from the text (and its historical and literary context). But science argument hold little weight with me.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The difference between creative supernatural events and providence or normal secondary causes is a red herring.

Science NEVERS looks for primary causes. It never looks for a prime mover, it always looks for secondary physical causes.

It Jesus turns water into wine in front of a scientist prepared for the event, he detects the change of water into wine. What he can not detect with his instruments is the primary causer. He can not see Jesus as the final cause of the miracle. but all the rest is accessible to science.

You can have all the miracles you want in creation. Healed by laying on of hands, fine the cancer was there and now is gone. science is silent on primary causes, it makes an observation and tries to go up the chain of causation as far as it can. Does it say that the laying on of hands didn't do it? no, it says either we can tell or it is irrelevance to the investigation.


Yes, God could have created everything last thursday with memories and apparent age all consistently pointing to something that had evolved to it's present condition. Or He could have done it 6kya or 100Kya or whenever you desire.

but all the physics operates right through this boundary, it is not there to the tools of physics for God apparently created it consistently and completely with reference to a big bang and organic evolution to explain the life forms we see today.

but since science is silent on final (and for that matter teleological ends as well) movers it will always stop before attributing it all to God. Theology alone enables that step, were it otherwise natural revelation would be enough to save people rather than only enough to condemn them and special revelation would have been unnecessary.

 

[Calminian]

How do you build this Bible first epistemology?
The Bible is not a dictionary, even the Hebrew and Greek words are embedded in a linguistic culture that is not part of the Scriptures.
the Bible is not an atlas, where is Jerusalem? that is a question addressed to geographic and partly to history, the Bible does not have the GPS coordinates of the temple mount in it.

Exegesis is based on the authors' writings and their historical and literal context.

How do you even know which books are in the Bible? that is a question of historical theology. The very table of contents, the canon is not part of special revelation but of general.

This does not go against exegesis.

That is just the beginning of the problems posed by:
linguistics
culture
geography
history

This is all included in the exegetical process of attempting to learn the author's intent.

where in the Scriptures does it talk about the difference between perceptions and memories, a crucial element in epistemology? How about issues like phenomenal vs internal representation, where do find these things tackled in Scripture?

It sounds like you are denying inerrancy. I don't really mind this as I want others to see just how far one has to go to include science in his hermeneutic.

The big point is that both books of God have to be read in concert, the book of words and the book of works, there is a dependence of each on the other. there is a parallel between the hermeneutics of reading Scripture and the scientific methodology used to understand Creation.

Sorry this is flawed as science is limited to understanding natural processes. I think it does a good job at this. The problem is forcing naturalistic interpretations on passages based on a naturalistic methodology. This is a circular approach.

i've never told anyone to abandon their reading of Genesis, most of the time i find myself saying "please read the text carefully, that is not what it says, you are misinterpreting because of your prior commitments to a system".

Then don't take my comments as direct at you.

Does science inform our knowledge of Gen 1, of course, but the text is determitive and authoritative and that is why YECism is so very wrong.. it misses all the important theology of Gen 1 and sacrifices it to a scientific and historical reading based on the mistaken notions of 19thC scientism.

The statement above is contradictory. Either science informs us about how to interpret Genesis, or Genesis informs us about the usefulness of science. You can't have it both ways.

If you believe YECism is wrong based solely on exegetical concerns, I have no problem with you. But your comments contradict this and imply an eisegetical approach.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

he statement above is contradictory. Either science informs us about how to interpret Genesis, or Genesis informs us about the usefulness of science. You can't have it both ways.



absolutely not.

1. Gen 1 states that light was created before the sun
2. we know that the sun is the source for the light that arrives on the earth.
3. therefore we need to look closer at these verses.
4. people have, answers: Jesus is the light, the light was just everywhere, the light is a metaphor, the order of the days is not historical but literal.
5. if it is literary, what is the major forms?
6. Gen 1 is a set of 2 triads, the creation of the kingdoms and their subsequent population and the assigning of a king over each.
7. how does this compare to major metaphors in existance during the time Gen 1 written?
8. Gen 1 is the prologue to the treaty of the Great KIng
9. this forms the framework for the presention of the covenants.
10. what were the provisions of the Adamic covenant?
11. was the Sabbath part of it?
12. the 7 day week is a cultural invention of the ancient Babylonians, it doesn't exist anywhere else.
13. therefore the provision of the Adamic covenant does not include the Sabbath even though it is a crucial part of Gen 1.
14. so the Sabbath is not a creation mandate
15. this explains why it only occurs in Gen 1 and not again until Exodus 6



the relationship between science and Scripture is like the hermeneutical circle, it is a spiral, a constant feedback from what we learn about the world and how this effects what interpretation we make of Scripture.

it is back and forward, a positive feedback. a virtuous not vicious circle, or a spiral approaching the truth in the center.

linguistics and cultural studies especially effect exegesis in this way. that is why we require our pastors to have both BA/BS and seminary degrees to preach. they are to learn the best of the world's knowledge and combine it with the best of Scriptural studies. Everything we learn about God's world enters into preaching and exegesis. It is not solely a question of reading the text in isolation.

 

[Calminian]

It Jesus turns water into wine in front of a scientist prepared for the event, he detects the change of water into wine. What he can not detect with his instruments is the primary causer. He can not see Jesus as the final cause of the miracle. but all the rest is accessible to science.

I think you are confused here. When you say "accessible to science," I think you mean accessible to scientific investigation. No one disputes this. Of course anything existing in the present can be examined. The question is, can the bypassing of natural processes it may have underwent be determined scientifically? If a scientist looks at the fermentation levels in wine, he can determine its age since he knows how long those process generally take. But if those processes were skipped over supernaturally his conclusion in the area of time will be wrong. Now if there is corroborative testimony confirming the wine was made miraculously, this would be a rational basis for the scientists to conclude it was, but he would cease to be using scientific methodology at that moment.

But, here's the kicker. He can then go back to the wine with his new presupposition and look for anomalies that don't match the fermentation rate.

Now he's using science in a rational way, as do YEC scientists. This is why I consider their approach epistemologically superior. They are like lawyers, considering all the evidence, not limiting themselves to one methodology.

 

[Calminian]

absolutely not.

1. Gen 1 states that light was created before the sun
2. we know that the sun is the source for the light that arrives on the earth.
3. therefore we need to look closer at these verses.

Your syllogism is already falling apart. Why do we need to look closer? The text says explicitly light came before light bearers. Problem solved. Both light and light bearers were said to be created individually. Why would I want to fight this? The original light may have emanated from God himself. It may have been an angel such as in the glory cloud the Israelites followed or the angels that appeared to the shepherds. This is not to hard for God and common in other parts of the Bible. The fact that light is also used as a metaphor, has no bearing.

4. people have, answers: Jesus is the light, the light was just everywhere, the light is a metaphor, the order of the days is not historical but literal.

Do you believe the transfiguration was also metaphorical?

Matt. 17:2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

the relationship between science and Scripture is like the hermeneutical circle, it is a spiral, a constant feedback from what we learn about the world and how this effects what interpretation we make of Scripture.

Trust me, it's a hermeneutical nightmare. You confusing observation of creation with naturalistic methodologies of interpretations. Two totally different things.

 

[Jase]

The Bible is a collection of corroborative testimonial evidence. It is not just one book therefore it is not circular to cite it. Having said that, do you not believe it is inerrant? I can see this objection from an atheist, but I thought we were all in agreement that Bible is accurate.

The originals, maybe, but English translations most certainly are not inerrant.

And why should I accept your biblical collection, as oppose to Catholics who have 7 more books than protestants?

Unless you deny inerrancy, I can't see the logic behind your objection. I can see you differing on interpretation but even your interpretations should precede science. Do you disagree?

The KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. are not inerrant.

 

[Deamiter]

Many TEs (such as myself) find a Biblical "inerrancy" rather unbiblical to begin with. The Bible is perfect in its intended task -- to bring us to a relationship with God. But it was also written by men who, while inspired by God, were not controlled by God while they wrote. God did not dictate the Bible.

Note also that the only verse to discuss the inspiration of the Bible directly (The Bible is "God-breathed") is only refering to the Old Testement -- it's certainly not refering to itself as scripture!

Finally, in 1Cor 7:12 Paul makes a clear distinction between what was taught by God and what he is teaching based on his own reasoning.

 

[artybloke]

The originals, maybe, but English translations most certainly are not inerrant.

And why should I accept your biblical collection, as oppose to Catholics who have 7 more books than protestants?


The KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. are not inerrant.

Neither are the original documents.

 

[Assyrian]

And you would be correct. The issue is consistency, not causality. Supernatural causes are not consistent repeatable testable events. They are vastly unnormative and thus scientifically unpredictable. Norm Geisler said it best.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.

Thus miracles cannot be understood scientifically in the same way. Therefore we need to give consideration to this in those areas where the Bible mentions them, especially in the area of creation. 17 times were are told God stretch out the heavens. That seems to me an amazing supernatural event that would likely be very confusing to naturalists.

As I've said, I have no problem with those concluding Genesis was not meant to be historical from the text (and its historical and literary context). But science argument hold little weight with me.

Job 9:6 Who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations, and its pillars totter.
7 Who commands the sun, and it rises not; and He seals up the stars.
8 Who alone has stretched out the heavens, and walks on the sea as on firm ground.

I can imagine naturalists being very confused by God commanding the sun not to rise, when the sun isn't actually the one who moves What sort of supernatural event shakes the earth from its foundations and makes its pillars totter? Foundations? Pillars? Sure it is talking about God's works, but it is not describing them in any literal scientific way, and any interpretation of this that sees it as a literal description of the earth's geology or the motion of the solar system can be tested scientifically, and fails.

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.

God not only stretched out the heavens, he spread out the earth too. I am afraid this sound like it is talking about a flat earth covered by a dome shaped tent of sky (Psalm 104:2 Isaiah 40:22). Isaiah could see the land of Israel stretching from horizon to horizon. Every night the firmament of stars rose and spread over them like a tent. God is saying, look Isaiah, tell Israel that I created all that. He did.

 

[Deamiter]

Job 9:6 Who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations, and its pillars totter.
7 Who commands the sun, and it rises not; and He seals up the stars.
8 Who alone has stretched out the heavens, and walks on the sea as on firm ground.

I can imagine naturalists being very confused by God commanding the sun not to rise, when the sun isn't actually the one who moves What sort of supernatural event shakes the earth from its foundations and makes its pillars totter? Foundations? Pillars? Sure it is talking about God's works, but it is not describing them in any literal scientific way, and any interpretation of this that sees it as a literal description of the earth's geology or the motion of the solar system can be tested scientifically, and fails.

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.

God not only stretched out the heavens, he spread out the earth too. I am afraid this sound like it is talking about a flat earth covered by a dome shaped tent of sky (Psalm 104:2 Isaiah 40:22). Isaiah could see the land of Israel stretching from horizon to horizon. Every night the firmament of stars rose and spread over them like a tent. God is saying, look Isaiah, tell Israel that I created all that. He did.

I especially love that Job quote. This is an account of God speaking directly, and there certainly is NOTHING in the text to suggest that it is not literal...

So why would God lie to us?

It's a nonsensical question because it assumes that speaking (or letting Genesis be written) metaphorically -- without a footnote explicitly saying so -- is lying. God does not lie, but he's also not bound by our post-renaissance idea that historical accuracy is somehow better than conveyed truth.

 

[shernren]

The issue is causality. Causality is not necessarily scientific. An event which is not scientifically explicable can nevertheless have serious causal consequences. The Pharisees wanted to deny the miracle of the blind man being healed, but they could not deny the causal consequences of the miracle (that a man born blind could now see).

The creationist canard that "origins happened in the past therefore we cannot know for certain what happened through scientific investigation" basically denies causality. If there is no way to detect what set of past events could possibly have caused the set of present observations through study, then there is really no way for any scientific method to know if anything has happened in the past, miracle or not. You can't have it both ways. If in the final analysis science cannot prove that evolution happened, it de facto is prevented from proving that supernatural creation happened and any talk of "scientific creationism" is nonsense.

It's an issue that has been bugging me for months ever since I did the Scientific Myth of Creationism thread. How on earth can science say anything about a miracle? On the one hand, creationists are quite convinced that creation and the global flood are miracles. On the other hand they are quite busy poking all manner of scientific arcana up the planet's backside trying to prove that it happened and that evolution didn't. And all along they say that science can't expect to verify a miracle - so what on earth are they doing if not using science to verify a miracle?

I think working with the concept of causality is a good way of explaining the actual thought processes going on in this creationist approach. (So I'm doing you all a favour, really). But I'm sleepy now. And anyways:

I'm simply arguing for a Bible first epistemology amongst Bible believers. If one comes to the text first and concludes exegetically that there is no intention by the author to convey a miraculous creation, or young earth or literal geneologies, etc. then I have no quarrel. The only thing I'm objecting to is those telling me I have to abandon my reading of Genesis due to scientific concerns. Would you at least agree with me that?

Again, my answer is four months old.

One of scientific creationism's loudest claims is that it takes Scripture "at face value". Whatever that means. As we shall see shortly, all this means is that all the work of interpreting has actually happened, but been swept under the carpet - scientism's footprints are exceedingly light in a culture where it rules. But the reason this increases its appeal greatly is that such an arrangement seems to put the power back into the hands of the reader to interpret Scripture. Creationism isn't just Scripture at face value, it's Scripture at my face value, and if I disagree with another interpretation I can simply say that they are interpreting and adding layers where I am not! I believe this kind of subjective, individualized relativist license in interpreting Scripture is the main source of creationism's appeal.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23469087&postcount=45

 

[shernren]

I especially love that Job quote. This is an account of God speaking directly, and there certainly is NOTHING in the text to suggest that it is not literal...

Quibble. Job is describing God, and therefore although the passage does speak directly of God, it is not spoken directly by God. It is interesting to note also that in the passage it is quite clear that Job has considered God to be his accuser, instead of Satan as it actually is, so there is room for claiming that this verse is in error about nature as it is in error about God. But Job 38 does just as well for this purpose.

 

[Assyrian]

Well quibbled

You seem to have put a bit of though into the area. Can I throw another Job quote your direction, it has puzzled me for some time. (A bit off topic but it shouldn't be a big detour.)

What do you make of Paul quoting Eliphaz the Termite in 1Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness".

from:

Job 5:13 He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end.

Eliphaz is even less inspired than Job blaming God. I know Paul quote Pagan poets like Epimenides, but with the Job quote he gives it the authoritative scripture treatment 'For it is written...'

 

[laptoppop]

Regarding causality and miracles - while science would never predict a miracle, and may in fact lead to the improper conclusion that the miracle did not occur, a miracle may indeed leave evidence which can be detected and examined.

In particular, the scientific method because of its anti-supernatural presupposition, will never postulate a miracle or a supernatural action.

Regarding Paul quoting the book of Job - I think Paul, through the Holy Spirit, understood that this part of the book was not reporting false understandings, but that it was reporting truth. Easy for me to write - hard to play out as an example for us.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Eliphaz is even less inspired than Job blaming God. I know Paul quote Pagan poets like Epimenides, but with the Job quote he gives it the authoritative scripture treatment 'For it is written...

this quote in Titus is a personal favorite
Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

partly for the reason you make, partly because it is a self referential statement and has no truth value-undecidable. and as such is a perfect place to send people who contend that everything in the Scriptures is true. however i find that most of them haven't read _Godel Escher and Bach_ and miss the point.

thanks for bringing it up here.

 

[shernren]

Well quibbled

You seem to have put a bit of though into the area. Can I throw another Job quote your direction, it has puzzled me for some time. (A bit off topic but it shouldn't be a big detour.)

What do you make of Paul quoting Eliphaz the Termite in 1Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness".

from:

Job 5:13 He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end.

Eliphaz is even less inspired than Job blaming God. I know Paul quote Pagan poets like Epimenides, but with the Job quote he gives it the authoritative scripture treatment 'For it is written...'

It's not too much of a detour really, considering that the 1Cor ideas about folly and Christlike wisdom are often used by YECs in a "Science thinks it is wise, therefore it is foolish" manner, which proper exegesis could probably dispose of.

On the surface level it could be that Paul is simply taking the words as they are, and adjusting it to suit his meaning. I think this is a reasonable explanation, especially since he backs it up with a quote from Psalms which has pretty straightforward context, unlike the Job quote.

But one can of course look deeper if one wishes. The character of Eliphaz in Job is really the character of the traditionalist (the fundamentalist? ), the one who is appealing to wisdom from on old. He finishes his first speech by saying "We have examined this, and it is true. So hear it and apply it to yourself." (Job 5:27 NIV), and that seems to be his main authority throughout. "The gray-haired and the aged are on our side, men even older than your father." (Job 15:10 NIV) However, he does appeal to direct "divine" authority too, just once: "A word was secretly brought to me, my ears caught a whisper of it. Amid disquieting dreams in the night, when deep sleep falls on men, fear and trembling seized me and made all my bones shake. A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end."
(Job 4:12-15 NIV)

But note the outcome of his wisdom and revelations: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?" (Job 4:17 NIV) This is highly ironic to the reader, who is aware of the activities of the divine court (Job 1, 2) where God Himself has upheld Job as the prime example of righteousness. Similarly, Eliphaz would deny Job access to the divine court: "Call if you will, but who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn?" (Job 5:1 NIV) when in fact it is precisely because God recognized Job in the divine court that this sequence of events happened. The irony is that Job is probably far more aware of what is happening in the heavens than Eliphaz, who tries to use theology to bludgeon Job into submission. And of course, the final irony is that Eliphaz's "wisdom" is frowned on by God at the end of Job.

Looking back from there, 5:13's "He catches the wise in their craftiness" is extremely ironic. The statement itself is an example of wisdom which is ultimately "caught in their craftiness": the statement has been done in in exactly the manner it predicted. (Self-referential statements in the Bible are few and far between!) And Paul's quoting it may be seen as ironic itself. I'm sure Paul was very familiar with Job and its nuances as a rabbinic scholar. If one takes into account the context of the Job quote, it may well be that Paul was poking a little bit of fun at man's established wisdom. And note what wisdom is being poked at here: not scientific wisdom, but religious wisdom. All the more reason to shy away from throwing 1Cor at evolutionists ... beware the boomerang which can double back and hit you in the behind.

 

[shernren]

In particular, the scientific method because of its anti-supernatural presupposition, will never postulate a miracle or a supernatural action.

But science can very well verify a miracle, even if it does not know the mechanism by which it occurred. Science has verified black-box results all the time. I can analyze the kinematics of a falling apple and conclude that s = ut + .5at^2, whether or not the apple is falling because of gravity, God, or little green goblins pulling it towards the ground.

Imagine a nosy scientist sticking around after all the guests had dispersed from that Cana wedding feast. He gets his instruments, swabs the side of the large ceremonial jars, and subjects his specimens to some chromatographic analysis. Voila! The spectrum looks precisely like 25 (BC) vintage Babylonian wine's.

At this point, has science confirmed that the miracle "Jesus turned water into wine" occurred? No.
But it has confirmed that "Half an hour ago, these ceremonial jars were full of what appears to be 25BC vintage Babylonian wine."
If "Jesus turned water into wine" is the most probable explanation for the above observation by a large margin, then science has indirectly confirmed that "Jesus turned water into wine".

That's all fine and well. But what science sees of origins today is a little as if that nosy scientist had found nothing but water and typical guests'-dirty-hands-being-washed-here residues. What science can verify science can also falsify. And if YECs want to try to use science to verify the flood, they have to take the very real possibility that science may end up falsifying the flood on the chin, instead of then handwaving it as "science always has to be tentative about the past, anyways."

 

[Assyrian]

Eliphaz...

Really, umm, wise words there shernren
But seriously. I'd rep you if CF would let me.