Happy Evolution Sunday

[Mallon]

Thanks for giving it a go nonetheless. Yes, it is tiring.

Get used to having your ideas questioned and challenged. That's how science works. It makes no apologies for rejecting claims unsupported by empirical evidence. And if that makes it "intellectual hubris," then so be it. But if you're going to try to validate your interpretation of the Bible with science, then you have to play by science's rules.

 

[Deamiter]

Oh, I know quite a few very intelligent people that hold a YEC position. They just don't generally hold it based on evidence but on their assumptions about how certain passages of the Bible must be interpreted.

It's interesting that in the two-hundred years since Darwin, creationists have been continually claiming that evolution and an understanding of old-age is in decline, yet meanwhile scientists worldwide were working hard to form conclusions and predictive models based on their findings.

Isn't it interesting that even now, after hundreds of years of scientific advance, the YEC "model" is still based solely on speculation?

I guess if you want to discount relatively complete models of deposition and erosion for a position based solely on pretty easily countered criticism of the scientific models nobody will stop you. I personally won't be holding my breath waiting for any advances in this YEC model though. I mean, it would be very pleasantly suprising if they actually came up with something that could not be explained by a basic review of textbooks, but it seems they put much more time, energy and money into evangelizing their incomplete model than actually trying to build a complete and accurate description of the past 6000 years.

 

[novacaine]

Get used to having your ideas questioned and challenged. That's how science works. It makes no apologies for rejecting claims unsupported by empirical evidence. And if that makes it "intellectual hubris," then so be it. But if you're going to try to validate your interpretation of the Bible with science, then you have to play by science's rules.

No thanks! I'll play by God's rules.

 

[Melethiel]

No thanks! I'll play by God's rules.

Which are?

 

[grimbly]

No thanks! I'll play by God's rules.

God says to lie and deceive??? Boy that's some pretty strange god you created for yourself.

 

[busterdog]

Get used to having your ideas questioned and challenged. That's how science works. It makes no apologies for rejecting claims unsupported by empirical evidence. And if that makes it "intellectual hubris," then so be it. But if you're going to try to validate your interpretation of the Bible with science, then you have to play by science's rules.

Well, the plain meaning of the Bible is empirical evidence. What I have gotten used to is the idea that there really isn't much dialogue because that premise is just not accepted here for the most part. What I have gotten used to is the idea that this premise evokes such a rush toward complete dismissal that the literal word only becomes more and more relevant, since this is exactly the problem that has existed since the fall. Certainly there is a salvation that can overcome that error as successfully as it overcomes even my errors. But, the Word is exalted above even the name of God. I can't imagine how a half-right Word would deserve to be exalted. That same Word says to be at peace even without victory in debate. I am getting used to that.

 

[Melethiel]

Well, the plain meaning of the Bible is empirical evidence. What I have gotten used to is the idea that there really isn't much dialogue because that premise is just not accepted here for the most part. What I have gotten used to is the idea that this premise evokes such a rush toward complete dismissal that the literal word only becomes more and more relevant, since this is exactly the problem that has existed since the fall. Certainly there is a salvation that can overcome that error as successfully as it overcomes even my errors. But, the Word is exalted above even the name of God. I can't imagine how a half-right Word would deserve to be exalted. That same Word says to be at peace even without victory in debate. I am getting used to that.

But the Word is Christ, not the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

And because your interpretation of the word turns out to be wrong, doesn't mean God's word is only half right, or your mistakes could somehow mean the word itself is less deserving of exaultation.

The problem is you identify your literal interpretation as empirical evidence, assuming God intended it as empirical data in the first place.

 

[Mallon]

Well, the plain meaning of the Bible is empirical evidence.

Evidence for what? That it's true? You can't say, "The plain reading of the Bible is true because the plain reading of the Bible says so." That's just dishonest, circular logic. God doesn't require that we be dishonest or circular to believe Him.

I can't imagine how a half-right Word would deserve to be exalted.

That's because you equate "rightness" with "literalness." If you can get past that post-Enlightenment paradigm, there's really no issue.

 

[gluadys]

Well, the plain meaning of the Bible is empirical evidence.

First you are begging the question of what is "the plain meaning".

Second, it does not fit any definition of empirical evidence I ever heard of i.e. evidence from observation and/or experiment; evidence relying on the senses.

 

[laptoppop]

But the Word is Christ, not the Bible.

Actually, just because John identifies Christ as the Logos in John 1 does not mean that David meant Christ every time he referred to God's Word in the Psalms. Yes, there is meaning there, but I would not take it as an interpretative principle, and I certainly don't think we should avoid referring to the Bible as the word of God. I tend to call them the Scriptures in my posts to avoid the cognitive dissonance, but if the verbage is good enough for David, its good enough for me.

 

[laptoppop]

I have seen various folks objecting to "plain meaning" interpretation. I find value in the Pardes system of exegesis. Scriptures have multiple wonderful deep levels of meanings, simultaneously.

Plain meaning -- Peshat

As the Talmud says "A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning."

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/pardes.htm

 

[Melethiel]

Actually, just because John identifies Christ as the Logos in John 1 does not mean that David meant Christ every time he referred to God's Word in the Psalms. Yes, there is meaning there, but I would not take it as an interpretative principle, and I certainly don't think we should avoid referring to the Bible as the word of God. I tend to call them the Scriptures in my posts to avoid the cognitive dissonance, but if the verbage is good enough for David, its good enough for me.

Point taken. Many of the Psalms, however, ARE Messianic prophecies. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the quotes that busterdog pulled are references to the Word that is Christ, not to the Scriptures. (For example, the quote from the Psalms "you have exalted above all things your Name and your Word" is pretty obviously a Messianic reference, to me). As such, I don't see how they are relevant to this discussion.

To address busterdog's post more completely, I doubt that there are many TEs who hold to a "half-right Word". We simply don't equate "right" with "literal".

 

[gluadys]

I have seen various folks objecting to "plain meaning" interpretation. I find value in the Pardes system of exegesis. Scriptures have multiple wonderful deep levels of meanings, simultaneously.

Plain meaning -- Peshat

As the Talmud says "A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning."

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/pardes.htm

From the link:

Note that within the peshat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical.​

Clearly, this style of interpretation does not necessarily identify "plain meaning" with "literal meaning". That's a plus.

But if the "plain meaning" can be figurative, symbolic or allegorical as well as literal, there will often be disagreement on what level of meaning is the "plain meaning". So this really gets us nowhere in such a case.

For example: are the creative days of Genesis 1 to be understood as ordinary days of time, or as a way to embed the Sabbath in creation? Are the works associated with the days to be understood as a chronological sequence of activity or as a thematic ordering (as in the framework interpretation)?

Both POV can lay claim to being the "plain meaning" of the creative days.

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting. You chose not to quote the part of the article which addresses this very issue:

Note that within the peshat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical. The following generic guidelines can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its peshat:

1. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
2. When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.
3. When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...

note - changed quote to peshat from p'[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]
because of the forums online fixing

 

[gluadys]

Interesting. You chose not to quote the part of the article which addresses this very issue:

note - changed quote to peshat from p'[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]
because of the forums online fixing

Those are minimal guidelines. While they make sense as far as they go, they are obviously inadequate to cover every case. In particular, they do not address the case I raised.

Nor do they cover the instances where scripture describes the earth as immobile or the heavens as a solid dome-like covering. These are inanimate objects, not described as living or active or in a way that is out of character, unless we take modern scientific information into account and re-interpret the scripture accordingly.

 

[Assyrian]

Those are minimal guidelines. While they make sense as far as they go, they are obviously inadequate to cover every case. In particular, they do not address the case I raised.

And they focus on allegories that involve inanimate objects. Surely similar principles work for allegories that involve plants or animals?

When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

If an inanimate object used to describe a living being tells us we are dealing with an allegory, what about an animal used to describe a spiritual being, say a snake?

When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.

What when supernatural powers are attributed to plants and animals? A tree that can give eternal life, a snake that is the source of all the evil in the universe.

When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...

Isn't it out of character for snakes to speak?

How about the claim that reason there weren't any plants on the earth was because there wasn't a man to do the gardening? In reality plants grow quite happily where there are no people around and it even contradicts the first chapter of Genesis which tells that plants did grow before there were people.

Isn't it out of character to have days and nights before there is a sun in the sky? Or to have day and night before the first evening and morning?

Even more out of place is God arranging for a lonely Adam to meet all the animals he created, with view to long term relationship, must have GSOH.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I don't understand why churches are "celebrating" evolution Sunday. Evolution has nothing to do with scripture and the church, so why are churches bothering to promote this? Our time in church would be better spent disciplining and spreading the gospel.

 

[busterdog]

But the Word is Christ, not the Bible.

Probably one would define a fundamentalist as one who retreats to a position of scriptural literalism to fend off attacks by so-called science and academics generally.

There was a time when the idea was repellent. Actually, if anything, online debate convinces me that the Word was designed to accomodate just exactly that type of sanctuary.

There are many reasons why I think your idea about the Word is very troublesome. One reason is the circularity of reasoning that dominates debates in online discussions. Another reason is that academics is like jihad. You either submit or lose your head -- that is, you are no longer recognized as having a basis in science for your position.

There are lots of different kinds of Christians and room in the body for all types. That doesn't mean that all behaviors and beliefs are correct, just that God had to make a big tent if he wanted to save anyone at all I think. My place in that tent is to respond to you and to say that you have taken a very considerable lifeline between man and salvation and trivialized it.

I am not always sure why I bother to try to say it, other than the overwhelming truth is that the Bible is the only measure of what is ultimately true. That Jesus is the BIble is also true, albeit in a somewhat mystical way that is not incapable of abuse and misuse by man. SO I feel that I have to say it. As harsh as it may sound, if you are YEC and believe in inerrancy, no one should be surprised at anything here except perhaps the tenacity of those who insist upon repeating such things.

Apart from a few translational problems and similar matters that do not change the essential meaning, what we have in the Bible is the only essential truth that there is. It is exalted above the very Name of God. For what purpose? For us. Because we are confused and need a baseline and foundation that is just not otherwise available.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Why should that be so? If we were so smart that we could simply figure things out by observing the world with microscopes and telescopes I rather think that wisdom would start elsewhere. I would indeed counsel great care before saying things about the fallibility of the essence of the text of the BIble, which has a few issues with translational and copyist problems.

The more I am here the more clear it is that inerrancy of the Word needs to be defended and that a worldview grounded first in science is a house on the sand.

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

 

[Melethiel]

It is exalted above the very Name of God.

This is poor interpretation, IMO. The passage from Psalms you are referring to..."you have exalted above all things your Name and your Word"...is one that I would consider one of the Messianic references in the Psalms. This is further corrolated by other passages in Scripture which refer to Christ being exalted above all things.

hat Jesus is the BIble is also true, albeit in a somewhat mystical way that is not incapable of abuse and misuse by man.

Jesus is the Bible? First I've heard this idea.

The more I am here the more clear it is that inerrancy of the Word needs to be defended and that a worldview grounded first in science is a house on the sand.

I would say the same about a worldview grounded first in the literalness of Scripture, and not in Christ.

what we have in the Bible is the only essential truth that there is.

Christ is the Truth.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am part of a tradition that puts great importance onto Scripture, and onto the preaching of the Word and distribution of the Sacrament. However, what I see from YEC is a poor choice of focus.