I read it literally now

[Calminian]

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".....

Actually Phillis this the part you are really confused about. Just because someone doesn't apply a particular culture to a text doesn't me they are guilty of concordism. In fact, you are the one that's actually doing what you are accusing him of. You are forcing a particular culture onto a writer without justification. In fact, when it comes to Genesis 1, you are ignoring the writer's own definition of raqia and inserting one form ANE culture.

When reeding a text, if it defines its own terms, you don't then scrap those and look to apply cultural meanings to replace them with. That's the opposite of exegesis, especially when we don't know all there is to know about ancient cultures. All you're doing is forcing flat earth and solid dome cosmologies onto scripture, trying to read it into every passage you can.

 

[Philis]

Actually Phillis this the part you are really confused about. Just because someone doesn't apply a particular culture to a text doesn't me they are guilty of concordism. In fact, you are the one that's actually doing what you are accusing him of. You are forcing a particular culture onto a writer without justification.

The justification is that it is the culture of the writer. It's how the immediate audience would have understood it. Do you think their literal interpretation would have been closer to what was said in the OP or would it be more like your literal interpretation?

In fact, when it comes to Genesis 1, you are ignoring the writer's own definition of raqia and inserting one form ANE culture.

While I currently disagree I admit it is possible I am doing that. I'm still reading up on it and I am willing to learn more. Please note, the writer is from the ANE culture, so using that definition seems to be reasonable. But I'm still considering the other points you brought up earlier so I'll still have to get back to you on that one.

 

[Calminian]

You mean like archeology and paleontology? Well, those sciences are the only objective means we have of knowing prerecorded history.

Oh really? So the Bible has no value in that area whatsoever? Multiple witnesses. Corroborating witnesses. And do you not agree with me that scripture is inspired?

But you are misdefining methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism. Neither excludes divine action. The only implication is that God chose to act in nature in the past as God does today.

Methodological uniformitarianism excludes special non-uniform acts of God, such as miracles.

God upholds the natural laws. That's why science can work in some instances. But God as acts in special ways that are supernatural. Those are not testable predictable events. They cannot be predicted in the future nor discerned in the past through science.

Well, you will have to enlighten me more on this. I often get the impression from creationists that apart from occasional supernatural events, they view the creation as devoid of divine presence.

Sounds like you made some assumptions.

Science is not automatically a rejection of God; it only becomes so when people choose a philosophy that ejects God from nature. ....

Wow. So your advocating pantheism? Sorry I'm a theist. I view God as separate from His creation.

 

[Calminian]

The justification is that it is the culture of the writer.

Not if the writer is telling you something that contradicts his culture! Just because someone lives in a particular cultural times doesn't mean he agrees with all of it. Do you agree with everything in your culture?

Please note, the writer is from the ANE culture, so using that definition seems to be reasonable.....

Actually how do you know this? If the writer of Genesis 1 was an early believer, or even Adam himself, how could you possibly link him to a culture that came thousands of years later?

Genesis is a compilation of many different writings. There is internal evidence to support this. Moses compiled it even redacted it, but didn't experience those particular narratives. Nor did he write about his own death. That was probably joshua that completed the very end recording of his death. Or perhaps his scribe under the guidance of someone.

 

[Philis]

Actually how do you know this?

I don't know, I'm looking at scholars and historians who do know. They are the ones who've worked through the material in much more detail than I have, and these are some of the conclusions that many of them have come to.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually how do you know this? If the writer of Genesis 1 was an early believer, or even Adam himself, how could you possibly link him to a culture that came thousands of years later?

Although interestingly the earliest reference to people in the bible writing or having books is in Exodus 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book..." Yes I know Gen 5:1 talks about the book of the generations of Adam, but that is what we have in our bibles now, there is no mention of anybody in Genesis writing this book or having a copy of it or any other book. That starts in Exodus and reference to books and writing are found throughout the rest of the bible. The Israelites may only have started writing around the time of the Exodus, but they took to it with a gusto that makes the lack of references to people having books or writing before Exodus even more significant.

Before writing, records were kept by marking off a tally but the earliest reference to the word for keeping a tally saphar goes back to the time of Abraham, Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

 

[Philis]

Although interestingly the earliest reference to people in the bible writing or having books is in Exodus 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book..." Yes I know Gen 5:1 talks about the book of the generations of Adam, but that is what we have in our bibles now, there is no mention of anybody in Genesis writing this book or having a copy of it or any other book. That starts in Exodus and reference to books and writing are found throughout the rest of the bible. The Israelites may only have started writing around the time of the Exodus, but they took to it with a gusto that makes the lack of references to people having books or writing before Exodus even more significant.

Before writing, records were kept by marking off a tally but the earliest reference to the word for keeping a tally saphar goes back to the time of Abraham, Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

I'm sorry but can't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you reword this for me?

 

[gluadys]

Oh really? So the Bible has no value in that area whatsoever?

The Bible has been a big help to archeologists in the Middle East.

Multiple witnesses. Corroborating witnesses.

Witnesses provide testimony, not empirical evidence. Relying on witnesses comes down to a matter of trusting them. But when their testimony is corroborated by empirical evidence (such as an archaeologist might find exploring a biblical site) then even an unbeliever who doesn't trust the witnesses may be convinced their testimony is valid.

btw, I am not putting down the importance of testimony. After all, the whole of the Christian faith is based on the testimony of the apostles, for which there is virtually no shred of supporting empirical evidence.

And do you not agree with me that scripture is inspired?

Of course. Your point?

Methodological uniformitarianism excludes special non-uniform acts of God, such as miracles.

That's better. Of course it excludes miracles. By definition, miracles are non-uniform events which are not duplicated in a predictable way. So, obviously they are off limits for scientific study.


Now there are people who extend the idea of methodological uniformitarianism into a philosophy. Their claim (based on a sort of idolatry of science) is that since miracles lie outside of the realm of scientific understanding, they also lie outside the realm of reality; that is, no miracles ever happen at all.

One might say they mistake the horizon of science for the limits of the possible. In any case, that assertion that is clearly incompatible with Christian faith.

God upholds the natural laws. That's why science can work in some instances. But God as acts in special ways that are supernatural. Those are not testable predictable events. They cannot be predicted in the future nor discerned in the past through science.

Agreed. But does that mean the creation, in so far as it operates in ways scientists can describe, operates outside of the realm of God's activity and care? That the natural world in its natural course of events and processes does not reveal its divine Maker and Sustainer?

Sounds like you made some assumptions.

Wow. So your advocating pantheism? Sorry I'm a theist.

Now you are making assumptions. No I am not advocating pantheism. Creation is creation, not a divinity in itself. I am also a theist.

I view God as separate from His creation.

But do you also view God as absent from his creation? Do you see God as (figuratively) settling back in his easy chair after creation week to watch what creation will do on its own?

I know you believe he is not always absent, that from time to time he decides to stir the pot as it were with a miracle.

But what is God doing between one miracle and the next?

In 1 Kings 5 we have the miracle of Naaman's healing.
In 1 King's 6 we have the miracle of the floating ax head.

Presumably, between these events, we have many natural processes and events like rain falling, crops growing, seasons changing, young eagles learning to fly.

Is God absent from all of this? is he merely a spectator of these things?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm sorry but can't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you reword this for me?

Creationists sometimes claim the documents that make up Genesis were written by people at the time, Adam wrote 'the book of the generations of Adam', Noah wrote 'the generations of Noah'. But that means writing goes back to the very dawn of the human race, which is not what we see from the archaeological evidence, however Creationists want to date it, the human race was around a long time before they started writing.

But that is what we see in Genesis and Exodus, there is no suggestion in the book of Genesis of anybody mentioned in Genesis being able to write or having any books. It isn't until we get to the book of Exodus that we see people actively writing their records down in books or scrolls.

 

[Calminian]

But do you also view God as absent from his creation?

Yes, He can be. If He's separate from creation He's not bound to it. He can step into it, He can step away from it. You believe the same thing I hope.

 

[Calminian]

I'm sorry but can't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you reword this for me?

You see, Moses didn't live until 2000 years after the creation account. But when we look at the book of Genesis we see some interesting things. Such as this:

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

This gives us good evidence that Genesis is a compilation of books that Moses came into possession of. In fact, it seems a reasonable inference there were multiple writers that contributed since it covers multiple generations. Thus, it's not correct to assume the original writer of Genesis 1 was of the same culture that even Moses was. Nor is it correct to assume that Moses agreed with every view held in his culture. He rebelled against Egypt and didn't embrace their culture. And do you really think that everyone in Moses' time agreed on cosmology? Something tells me people may have had differing theories back then.

The bottom line is, the text is the key to understanding the writers views fist and foremost. You've rejected the straightforward reading of the text and attempted to force fit it into ancient pagan science. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.

 

[Calminian]

I don't know, I'm looking at scholars and historians who do know. They are the ones who've worked through the material in much more detail than I have, and these are some of the conclusions that many of them have come to.

I suppose these are the same guys that reject the Resurrection and reject the inspiration of the Bible as well. Plus they justify your tendency to reinterpret the Bible so you can hold to naturalistic scientific theories as well.

What I'm trying to get you to do is think for yourself. I'm showing very simple easy explicit clues from the actual text to help you understand what the writers actually believed and how they understood the words they were using.

I'm also trying to help you understand the limitations of science, and the assumptions that are necessary to conduct science.

 

[Keachian]

I suppose these are the same guys that reject the Resurrection and reject the inspiration of the Bible as well. Plus they justify your tendency to reinterpret the Bible so you can hold to naturalistic scientific theories as well.

No, this is not the Jesus seminar, also Philis has no view on "naturalistic scientific theories" one way or the other.

I find your use of the word naturalistic here confusing, I remember having a long drawn out conversation about God being in control of all naturalistic processes, have you since discarded this view?

 

[Calminian]

No, this is not the Jesus seminar, also Philis has no view on "naturalistic scientific theories" one way or the other.

Uh, yeah.

 

[miamited]

Hi Philis,

Just checking in to see how things are going with you. I hope that you feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss issues more deeply.

Remember, God made all this for you! That's why God is good. Very, very good! We love God because He first loved us. The greatest example of the love of God is that He created all that we need and then created us to enjoy all of that. It is the wisdom of man that has thrown the monkey wrench into God's purpose.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Yes, He can be. If He's separate from creation He's not bound to it. He can step into it, He can step away from it. You believe the same thing I hope.

I don't think it is so much that God is bound to creation as that creation is bound to God.

Paul tells the Athenians: "In him we live and move and have our being." He writes to the Colossians of Christ "In him all things hold together."

Can creation be without being "in him"?


If God stepped away from creation, what happens to creation?


I see the presence of God as necessary to sustaining the creation as a cosmos---a harmonious, orderly, interactive and dynamic process.

Consider a parallel. Can the church exist, even a moment, without Christ? Did Christ found a Church and let it go on its way without him?

In the very next sentence in Colossians, Paul speaks of how the church is connected as a body to Christ as head. And this in the middle of a passage which speaks of Christ as the creator and redeemer of all things in heaven and earth.

I think that is why Paul uses the phrase "in him". Yes, God made creation separate from himself, but he also made it so intimately connected with himself that it is only in him that it can exist.

The power which keeps creation in existence is the power of God's love.
Without the constant sustaining power of God's love, creation crumbles back into the nothingness from which God drew it in the first place.

Is God bound to creation? In a manner of speaking, yes. But not in a way that diminishes his freedom and sovereignty. For what binds God and creation is the bond of God's steadfast love for creation.

Have you ever read Dante? (The Divine Comedy)

I love the last canto of his Paradiso.

As he is rapt in the beatific vision of the Trinity, well beyond the power of words to describe, he says:

"Here my powers rest from their high fantasy,
but already I could feel my being turned--
instinct and intellect balanced equally

as in a wheel whose motion nothing jars--
by the Love that moves the Sun and other stars."


(as translated by John Ciardi)

To me, that is a view of God and nature that is deeply Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

In Genesis 1 - 2:3 God makes all life on earth, forms the earth so that it functions, makes the Sun and the moon as the "Two great lights" of Day 4.

The "He made the stars also" identifies Him as their maker but does not make them one of the TWO lights made on Day 4.

In Ex 20:11 it is summarized this way "In SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of Water".

Paul speaks of 3 heavens.

In Genesis 1 - the birds fly in the midst of the first heaven.

yes it is literal - but let the Bible interpret itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[samaus12345]

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Keachian]

Paul speaks of 3 heavens.

I don't think Paul means literally 3 heavens, if you look at the the significance of the Number Three throughout scripture it is largely connected with God's dwelling place, with his temple. Therefore when Paul talks about being caught up into the third heaven he's talking about being brought into the very presence of God.

 

[Philis]

I suppose these are the same guys that reject the Resurrection and reject the inspiration of the Bible as well.

Augustine, Kant, Origen, CS Lewis and more are all people who reject the resurrection and the inspiration of the bible? Who did you think my sources were exactly?