P
Philis
Guest
I put the link there because you can click the "look inside" link and read the page where I quoted from. There are other good things said around it as well.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I put the link there because you can click the "look inside" link and read the page where I quoted from. There are other good things said around it as well.Thanks but I'm not interested in buying the book.
What does understanding the context of the creation account have to do with evolution?I believe the creation account can be taken as literal science. Darwin's ideas aren't universally accepted as his ideas contain flaws that have been pointed out by many scientists.
1 John 1:5 states that " ... God is light ..." so he could have very well provided the light himself before creating the sun and moon to light the Earth
We know Elijah knew the source of rain was from the clouds. 1 kings 18:44 & 45.Thought I did a pretty good job in thoroughly refuting all those ostensible proof texts. I'm surprised you cited them again.
You know it's interesting, solid dome advocates often cite the windows of heaven as not being clouds but holes in the sky to force align them with ancient cosmologies. Yet scripture uses very similar metaphors for clouds. Here hebrew parallelism interchanges doors and clouds.
Psa. 78:23 Yet He had commanded the clouds above, And opened the doors of heaven,
I'm shocked solid domers really think the ancients didn't think clouds were the source of rain. I mean, it's a pretty obvious visual inference don't you think?
We know Elijah knew the source of rain was from the clouds. 1 kings 18:44 & 45.
Elijah even seem to know the sea had something to do with clouds. vs 43
Patience to create something beautiful and utterly amazing;Well, that would be a significant difference between the God that we each serve. Patience for what? Patience to allow stars to form and solidify?
Man-centric gospel, where in scripture do you get these things? God does things for one reason and one reason alone, his own Glory!God created this realm so that man could have life.
Who said anything about waiting, one can be patient and active in creation, in fact the idea that God is not being active in drawing his people back unto himself is unscriptural.His patience, as Peter explained, is that He waits now to allow man to come to his senses and understand and acknowledge who He is. He did not wait patiently for all the bodies of the universe to form.
I'll point you back to Psalm 8 quoted above.He created all of that near instantly, perfectly formed and operating, so that man has a place to live.
Is God the God of YEC only? Is he not the God of TEs also? Yes, of TEs also, since God is one. He will justify the YEC by faith and the TE through faith.I can certainly understand how you might not find that any difference of significance in understanding God, but I'm not in agreement.
If the Lord doesn't return a thousands years from now and people of the future look back on us they may get the impression we all were a butch of idiots who believe in (Neo) Darwinism. I'm sure in the future they will get a good laugh of how much faith people put in natural selection.yeah, I get the impression some TEs think the ancient were just complete idiots. As Seely argues, 'the sky is blue, therefore they thought there was an ocean up there. After all, rain comes from the sky.' This is supposedly scholarship. Yet, looking back as far as I can when I was a child, I can't remember believing rain coming from anything other than a cloud.
I believe the creation account can be taken as literal science.
I believe in this case it means Ancient Near East. Sometimes it can mean Anything aNd Everything or A Necessary Evil .I've been reading this and a few other threads in the Origins section, and I keep seeing the abreviation ANE. What does that stand for? At first I thought it was just "any" misspelled, but it's appearing too often to be a typo.
I believe the creation account can certainly be taken literally, but not as science.
What's interesting is, the Resurrection account also can't be taken as science.
What gluadys really means it's it can't be taken as history because it doesn't line up with her naturalistic beliefs about history.
What's interesting is, the Resurrection account also can't be taken as science.
Right. The Resurrection account cannot be taken as science. However, it can be taken as history.
It is an example of the fact that history need not be scientific to be true.
What do you mean by "naturalistic" in "naturalistic beliefs about history"?
If you mean "excludes divine action" I do not have naturalistic beliefs about history. Any history. Including the history of China or India, Brazil or the USA.
Good pointThere's lots of things we, as Christians, believe on the basis of faith because God says it's true in His Word, even though they can't be taken as science. His own existence, for example. The existence of angels and demons, the ability of God's prophets to foretell the future and perform miracles in His name, etc.
But you are using science to form your views of history (that is prerecorded history), and science must assume methodological naturalism and methodological uniformitarianism (the exclusion of divine action).
You may not realize it, but your philosophical views are in conflict on this issue.
Good point as well.
IMO, there is a confusion or perhaps a conflation of the terms science and logic in many of these types of discussion. Science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. While miracles are not scientific, there is nothing illogical about them.
This is where I think many christians go astray. They go beyond interpreting scripture theo-logically (thinking logically about God) and move interpreting scripture theo-scientifically (thinking scientifically about God). This places the God of miracles and author of the natural laws in a very illogical box. They don't realize it, but their actually trading logic for science, which defeats their whole purpose.
Problem is, this is not the easiest concept to grasp. Most scientists themselves don't completely understand it.
But what about b) natural?
As I see it, God is just as active here as in c). We can classify all God's activity into two categories:
natural--what God is always doing most of the time.
supernatural--what God does occasionally for special purposes and in special modes of action.
It is specifically relevant to what you said. Look at what you said. You said that to "interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology". The quote that I posted directly contradicts that and says that we must interpret it from ANE context, and to do otherwise would be to confuse symbol with reality. That is exactly what is going on here. You are using a concordist interpretation and confusing the original meaning with your current cosmology. Doing that is the same as "confusing symbol with reality".I read that and think, yea ok, so what? I'm very familiar with the literary style of the narrative and it was written to be an oral lesson. The Levites had to teach this to people who were largely illiterate. The language is pretty conversational and there is very little in the way of linguistic challenges, doctrinally it argues nothing God as creator is a given. What's the admonition here, confusing idea with idiom? Nonsense, there is nothing relevant in this excerpt.The mystery of divine creativity is, of course, ultimately unknowable. The Genesis narrative does not seek to make intelligible what is beyond human ken. To draw upon human language to explain that which is outside any model of human experience is inevitably to confront the inescapable limitations of any attempt to give verbal expression to this subject. For this reason alone, the narrative in its external form must reflect the time and place of its composition. Thus it directs us to take account of the characteristic modes of literary expression current in ancient Israel. It forces us to realize that a literalistic approach to the text must inevitably confuse idiom with idea, symbol with reality. The result would be to obscure the enduring meaning of that text.If you interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology.
I'm starting to think that you don't spend a lot of time listening to other people and considering what they say. I said "I am using Christian/Jewish scholars as sources who have no stake in the evolution debate". In other posts I've pointed out that many of the sources from Christian theology predate Darwin. Your response: "It's atheists who are putting their philosophy into theology." Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that because it seems so irrational to me.Used by atheists who are adept at taking their philosophy and putting it in theological terminology. It's been called so many things over the last hundred and fifty years but it all falls under the general category of Liberal Theology for me. Darwinism is nothing but a transcendent principle of God being absent, there is nothing else to it. The overt hostility to a primary doctrinal concept as fundamental as Creationism can only be derived from an atheistic materialist world view.Used by who exactly? The sources I keep giving are Christian/Jewish sources that have no stake in the creation/evolution debate. They are scholars of the bible. You also have sources that may contradict what I refer to, and that is fine, it's part of the discussion of theology. It has nothing to do with trying to smugle in Darwinian philosophy. You keep going back to that meme of yours and I just don't see why.
What do you mean I have no theology?Sure, Christians defend this Darwinian view of the origins of life back to the Big Bang but they do so at the expense of their own convictions. There was nothing in that quote that remotely challenges any of my doctrinal or theological premises. What is more you have a lot of nerve to sound off about my theology when the theistic evolutionists on here, yourself included, for all intents and purposes have none.
I do, when it comes to the creation account I read it in the same literal fashion it would have been read over 2,000 years ago. That gives me a lot of insight into the meaning and gives me a great theology regarding God, people, our fallen state, our need for salvation, etc. It makes a great intro into the history of the Isrealites by setting up key theological points.You can criticize my theology when you actually have one of your own you would like to compare it to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?