Evolution

[dlamberth]

But I don't think those "iron age mythologists" thought of it as "God is lightning."

Not the ones from the middle-east. But the indigenous cultures through out the world sure did.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Today the world is in the midst of creating a new Creation story created by the discoveries of science.

If you're referring to pan[en]theism, I have to disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not the ones from the middle-east. But the indigenous cultures through out the world sure did.

So?

They ended up not even knowing God, didn't they?

As Paul put it:

Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

 

[dlamberth]

If you're referring to pan[en]theism, I have to disagree.

Science doesn't speak on how or where to see the Divine expression in life. That's up to the inner eye of each of us.

.

 

[dlamberth]

They ended up not even knowing God, didn't they?

The indigenous cultures are very much aware of and live the Divine presence of God.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't speak on how or where to see the Divine expression in life.

That's because it can't.

Science is myopic.

 

[dlamberth]

That's because it can't.

Science is myopic.

Than why did you bring up Panentheism in post# 203 when you did?
That's confusing to me.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Than why did you bring up Panentheism in post# 203 when you did?
That's confusing to me.

I brought it up to say I don't agree with it.

And I'm asking you if, by NEW SCIENCE, do you mean PANENTHEISM?

 

[dlamberth]

I brought it up to say I don't agree with it.

And I'm asking you if, by NEW SCIENCE, do you mean PANENTHEISM?

I don't believe I said anything about "new science". I brought up the "new Creation" story created by the discoveries of science. I agree with you when you said that science can't speak to the Divine presence in life. Which is why it is unable to speak of Panentheism.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe I said anything about "new science". I brought up the "new Creation" story created by the discoveries of science. I agree with you when you said that science can't speak to the Divine presence in life. Which is why it is unable to speak of Panentheism.

Okay ... my mistake.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's a quick rule of thumb:

If your objection to scientific findings is based on the fact that these do not line up neatly with a literalist reading of iron age mythology .

1. The assumption that the Bible is nothing more then "iron age mythology" works best on non-Christian website discussion boards. A careful reading of Daniel 2, 7 and 8... and a history book ... puts that assumption into question.

2. The fact that the text is written as historical account, historic narrative is beyond dispute even for the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - as far as I know. They do not agree with the account give - but they do not deny that this is in fact the "kind of literature that it is".

Just stating the obvious for many of the posters on this board - but some times that is useful.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But I don't think those "iron age mythologists" thought of it as "God is lightning."

They simply documented God's control over, and manipulation of, lightning.

Just because God sends a lightning bolt someone's way doesn't mean every single lightning strike is God sending it.

True - one can throw a stick - but that does not mean that every stick was thrown by a man.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it "scientific" to argue that a world class painting shows that the creator of it - has no intelligence or that the painting does not reveal the attribute of intelligence about the one doing the painting??

On the contrary - the measure of intelligence, and even looking for signs of it - are all fields of scientific study.

That's a really interesting question - what does it mean for something to be intelligent or designed? One might say that the world class painting is NOT intelligent or designed, because the world class painter is NOT intelligent or designed,

The idea that Rembrant and Michael Angelo were not intelligent would come as a surprise to most scientists. Nor would they assume that they were produced by the action of water on rocks plus some gas. Nor would they claim that about one of the paintings from these masters.

because humans are NOT intelligent or designed.

Again - I think all scientists would question the first assertion in your statement even if every last one of them did not know to question the second one.

Scientific knowledge, artistic techniques, social organizations, etc. all evolve. .

the book on the shelf does not "evolve more pages" or "error correction" or "new versions of itself" -- for that to happen - intelligent design must be applied to the material in the book and to the book itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dlamberth]

1. The assumption that the Bible is nothing more then "iron age mythology" works best on non-Christian website discussion boards.

We are talking about the Genesis 6 day Creation Story. Not the whole Bible. To be clear though, this is a non-Christian sub-forum. With that understanding, the assumption that the Genesis creation myth is of a very ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers, ("iron age mythology") does in fact work very well for many of us here. It's the only way I'm able to understand it.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding the idea that the Bible can be dismissed by some as nothing more than "Iron age mythology"

We are talking about the Genesis 6 day Creation Story. Not the whole Bible.

1. I think the non-Christians that are the focus of this next quote - were talking about "Genesis 1-11".

from post 146

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

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; . . . 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.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

2. The Iron Age covers 1300 B.C to 700 A.D. So then while we could argue that Moses was writing around 1450 B.C. it is "Close enough" and that range easily covers the entire Bible.

And I think most of the people on Christians websites such as this one would agree to that general timeline for the Bible - few of them are as interested in dismissing the Bible as mythology - as would be an atheist.

Still that quote above shows that the Bible writing in terms of the "kind of literature that it is" is not at all ambiguous.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[smaneck]

Science is myopic.

It is not myopic, it is simply limited to a specific task, namely the investigation of the phenomenal world. God is not a phenomena and therefore cannot be studied by science. Science tell us the 'how' of creation, religion tell us the 'why.' There is no reason religion and science can't get along just fine if each keeps to its own task.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it "scientific" to argue that a world class painting shows that the creator of it - has no intelligence or that the painting does not reveal the attribute of intelligence about the one doing the painting??

On the contrary - the measure of intelligence, and even looking for signs of it - are all fields of scientific study.

In that post there is no "science is myopic" statement from me.

So where did this come from?

BobRyan said: ↑
Science is myopic.

It is not myopic, it is simply limited to a specific task, namely the investigation of the phenomenal world. God is not a phenomena and therefore cannot be studied by science. Science tell us the 'how' of creation, religion tell us the 'why.' There is no reason religion and science can't get along just fine if each keeps to its own task.

 

[smaneck]

1. The assumption that the Bible is nothing more then "iron age mythology" works best on non-Christian website discussion boards. A careful reading of Daniel 2, 7 and 8... and a history book ... puts that assumption into question.

She didn't say that the Bible was "nothing more than "iron age mythology." She said if your problem with science is that doesn't mesh with a literalistic reading of the "iron age mythology" then you aren't going to take seriously. Clearly that is a reference to Creation stories, not the Bible as a whole.

2. The fact that the text is written as historical account, historic narrative is beyond dispute even for the atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - as far as I know. They do not agree with the account give - but they do not deny that this is in fact the "kind of literature that it is".

Biblical scholars would say that the Bible contains historical narrative. That is not descriptive of the Bible as a whole. Personally those aren't the parts which I would regard as revelational. I think the revelational parts of the Tanakh begin with the words "Thus speaketh the Lord."

 

[smaneck]

In that post there is no "science is myopic" statement from me.

So where did this come from?

I think AV said that. I don't know how your name ended up in the post.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not myopic, it is simply limited to a specific task, namely the investigation of the phenomenal world.

When science can build a machine that can do this:[VERSE=2 Kings 6:17,KJV]And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.[/VERSE]... then I'll reconsider.

God is not a phenomena and therefore cannot be studied by science.

God is invisible to science.

Science tell us the 'how' of creation, religion tell us the 'why.'

When it comes to the creation week, the Bible tells us Who did it, how He did it, why He did it, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

There is no reason religion and science can't get along just fine if each keeps to its own task.

What I think of "religion" aside, and where I think "religion" comes from aside ... I agree.