Scientific Contexts and Social Contexts

[shernren]

I have a few questions about modern church beliefs for which I find no Biblical support...

1. Why is it that Paul told women to be quiet in church, but in many modern evangelical churches women are particularly active? In fact Paul says that women should ask about Scripture privately to their husbands, which would mean that in modern terms even Bible study classes are off-limits for women. I am aware that Paul recognizes sisters as his fellow workers but given his beliefs I would understand that they probably served in roles other than leading, preaching or teaching in churches from Paul's views.

2. Why did Paul tell women to cover their hair in church, when it is almost never implemented in modern evangelical churches?

3. Why do modern evangelical churches take the laying of hands lightly? Everybody is prayed for with the laying of hands. In the Scriptures this gesture was used exclusively in ordination and in baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit, as I recall.

There is a reason for posting this in Origins Theology. Most answers to these questions will hinge around how the social context of Paul's day was different from the social context of today, and thus his commands need to be obeyed in different form, but staying true to the core of the message. Well, why is it that we can do this to Paul but not to Moses? After all, the scientific context of Moses' day was different from the scientific context of today, and thus God communicated the core truth of creation in a different form to Moses than He would have to us today.

 

[Critias]

...

 

[Critias]

I have a few questions about modern church beliefs for which I find no Biblical support...

1. Why is it that Paul told women to be quiet in church, but in many modern evangelical churches women are particularly active? In fact Paul says that women should ask about Scripture privately to their husbands, which would mean that in modern terms even Bible study classes are off-limits for women. I am aware that Paul recognizes sisters as his fellow workers but given his beliefs I would understand that they probably served in roles other than leading, preaching or teaching in churches from Paul's views.

Are you aware that women were sometimes prophets?

Your statements here sound as if you haven't really studied what Paul stated in the context in which he stated them in. Paul put women in high positions, but you seemed to have left that out...

2. Why did Paul tell women to cover their hair in church, when it is almost never implemented in modern evangelical churches?

First, you ought to look at the context in which you read.

Second, are Evangelical churches the authority of Church doctrine these days?

3. Why do modern evangelical churches take the laying of hands lightly? Everybody is prayed for with the laying of hands.

Let's take one of the words you used here, everybody. In Scripture, as you state, is this actually true? When Paul was in Corinth and wrote to the Thessalonians, and Paul says he always thanks God for them in his prayers, you think Paul extended his hands several hundred miles to lay them on the Thessalonians? How about when Paul was in jail and asked for prayers of support in his letters, did they come to him and then pray?

In the Scriptures this gesture was used exclusively in ordination and in baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit, as I recall.

And this isn't done in all churches? You do have proof for your assertion that this isn't done anymore right?

Oh and btw, it is done in my church for every baptism. But I guess you failed to have a test sample before making an assertion using only Evangelical Churches as an example.

There is a reason for posting this in Origins Theology. Most answers to these questions will hinge around how the social context of Paul's day was different from the social context of today, and thus his commands need to be obeyed in different form, but staying true to the core of the message. Well, why is it that we can do this to Paul but not to Moses? After all, the scientific context of Moses' day was different from the scientific context of today, and thus God communicated the core truth of creation in a different form to Moses than He would have to us today.

Now, let's take something that is actually relevant, the holy kiss. This was the customary greeting of the day. Today it is a hug, handshake, etc, all depending where you live. But, you cannot compare a greeting with God's words stating His calling of creation into being. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and state, 'why aren't they the same or why can't we treat them the same'.

You should be comparing God's commandments with God's commandments or what God says with what God says.

You see, in Genesis 2 we have God giving His first commandment to man. Genesis 3 we are told how sin came into the world and why death is now part of life. Yet, you call these myths, maybe partly true, but probably mostly not. Instead, TEs claim, they are to teach that God is the Creator and Sovereign, nothing more. TEs discount the first revelation and replace it with naturalism, materialism, and reason only to try and support their belief by stating they believe that God is the Creator, He just didn't create how He said He did.

That, in effect, calls God a liar. This blasphemes God by judging Him as a sinner or possible sinner(if TEs are wrong in their belief).

 

[shernren]

Are you aware that women were sometimes prophets?

Your statements here sound as if you haven't really studied what Paul stated in the context in which he stated them in. Paul put women in high positions, but you seemed to have left that out...

I am aware that Philip's four daughters were prophetesses in scripture and that Paul included women often in his greeting lists at the end of the epistles, in addition to his recognition of Euodia and Syntyche as fellow servants. And yet what he says about the behaviour of women in church services stands. Doesn't it? I would imagine that the apparent resolution is that these women served in roles which did not involve leadership and speaking to the church. Or you can show me a resolution which involves both women serving in Paul's day, women being quiet in church in Paul's day, and women being vocal in church today.

First, you ought to look at the context in which you read.

This is precisely what my question is.

If we look to the cultural context of Scriptural times to resolve Scriptural issues, instead of the cultural context of modern times,
why is it wrong to look to the scientific-philosophical context of Scriptural times to resolve Scriptural issues, instead of the scientific-philosophical context of modern times?

Modern Christians believe very different things from Scriptural Christians. They believe in the immortal soul, in the secular-sacred divide, in a rapture that will come somewhere soon after 2000 AD instead of somewhere soon after 33 AD. They believe in atoms and relativity and electronics and quantum physics. These differences need to be recognized in order for Scripture to be understood.

Second, are Evangelical churches the authority of Church doctrine these days?

As far as I know, YECism is mainly coming out of American evangelicalism. Don't shoot yourself. On the other hand, we had people like St. Augustine telling us that the six days of Genesis were not necessarily literal-historical-chronological six days, but rather accommodations of the actual truth to human, temporal understanding.

Let's take one of the words you used here, everybody.

I meant everybody in modern times, not in Scriptural record. Sorry if my language was less than clear.

And this isn't done in all churches? You do have proof for your assertion that this isn't done anymore right?

What I meant was that a gesture which was exclusively used for ordination/infilling is now being used very casually for prayer.

Oh and btw, it is done in my church for every baptism. But I guess you failed to have a test sample before making an assertion using only Evangelical Churches as an example.

No, I have simply failed to communicate that example clearly.

Now, let's take something that is actually relevant, the holy kiss. This was the customary greeting of the day. Today it is a hug, handshake, etc, all depending where you live. But, you cannot compare a greeting with God's words stating His calling of creation into being. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and state, 'why aren't they the same or why can't we treat them the same'.

Now, this is extremely interesting. It seems that you are actually asserting two levels of divine inspiration:

1. Contextual inspiration. God had an idea that He communicated to people within the temporary social norms of the day, and if He wished to communicate that idea today, He would communicate it differently.

E.g. God through Paul (unless you discount verbal inspiration, in which case there is much less reason to believe in YECism) told believers to greet each other with a holy kiss. (Or was that in Hebrews?) If God were to tell us the same thing today, He would tell us to greet each other instead with a holy hug, or a holy hello, or a holy handshake.

2. Literal-indelible revelation. God had an idea that He simply communicated, and would have communicated regardless and independent of societal norms.

E.g. God through Moses told us that He created the world in six days by splitting and organizing the primeval chaos waters. If God were to tell us the same thing today, He would still say that He created the world in six days by splitting and organizing the primeval chaos waters, even though not even many Christians, let along non-Christians, have any cultural idea or concept of chaos waters.

I thought you YECs had an agreement that all Scripture was verbally inspired?

It is fantastically ironic that this is the exact same "slippery slope" argument YECs always use against TEs. "Gee, if the Creation account is a myth (i.e. a big dastardly horrendous deception!) then what stops the Resurrection account from being another myth?" I can turn it around and say:

If the holy kiss should be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous culture,
why shouldn't the Creation accounts be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous science?

You should be comparing God's commandments with God's commandments or what God says with what God says.

Firstly, this is a vacuous argument. For you to say this indirectly contradicts your own principles of complete inerrant verbal inspiration. After all, isn't what God told the church through Paul just as holy and sacred and inspired as what God told the Jews through Moses? If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been in the Bible! It is the same God who authored it! How can Scripture interpret Scripture if different passages of Scripture have different levels of authority? How can you be fair to say:

"Alright, what God told the church through Paul, He didn't mean for me. He meant to say something else to me through what He said to Paul and I am free to interpret it in today's social context as an eavesdropper on Paul's conversations with the church..."

and then say

"Alright, what God said to Moses was the exact same thing He intended to say to me, nothing else, and I am not free to interpret it by my social context but must act like I am a prescientific Hebrew listening at the foot of Sinai when I read this passage."

This is nothing less than saying Paul, because he never quoted direct speech from God (but He did!) is less inspired than Moses, even though they are in the same Bible.

But let's take your argument as if it is fine. Then what about Job? After all, God Himself said that He had storehouses of hailstone and snow, stored up for war. Does He really expect us to believe that? Why is it that we can take Job's storehouses of snow as figurative and prescientific expression, and Moses' six days six thousand years ago as a scientifically and historically authoritative criterion? And even if one promotes the argument that Job is poetic while Genesis 1 is "historical" (which it does not honestly appear so to many), what about the underlying motivations and messages? Why is it that we can take Job's idea of God's direct, proximate causation of the weather as a prescientific perspective on His power ... and then lock ourselves to Moses' similar idea of God's direct, proximate causation of creation as if it automatically disqualifies naturalistic explanation, even if we have not done so with Job?

You see, in Genesis 2 we have God giving His first commandment to man. Genesis 3 we are told how sin came into the world and why death is now part of life. Yet, you call these myths, maybe partly true, but probably mostly not. Instead, TEs claim, they are to teach that God is the Creator and Sovereign, nothing more. TEs discount the first revelation and replace it with naturalism, materialism, and reason only to try and support their belief by stating they believe that God is the Creator, He just didn't create how He said He did.

That, in effect, calls God a liar. This blasphemes God by judging Him as a sinner or possible sinner(if TEs are wrong in their belief).

What you hear when you listen to Scripture is obviously not what we hear when we listen to Scripture.

Check your ideas of verbal inspiration. They seem to be becoming inconsistent. If I were a non-believer, looking at how you compared the holy kiss which is culturally irrelevant with the six day creation which you believe is culturally relevant, I would feel inclined to cynically say that everything you don't have a problem believing is culturally relevant and everything you do have a problem practicing is culturally irrelevant. I pray that you will not open yourself to this avenue of disproof from non-believers. I do not believe that it is as simple or as unscrupulous as that for you, knowing how hard it is to make godly decisions in this time and age, but a non-believer may not identify with you so.

 

[Critias]

I am aware that Philip's four daughters were prophetesses in scripture and that Paul included women often in his greeting lists at the end of the epistles, in addition to his recognition of Euodia and Syntyche as fellow servants. And yet what he says about the behaviour of women in church services stands. Doesn't it? I would imagine that the apparent resolution is that these women served in roles which did not involve leadership and speaking to the church. Or you can show me a resolution which involves both women serving in Paul's day, women being quiet in church in Paul's day, and women being vocal in church today.

I assume you are talking about 1 Corinthians 11.

Verse three says, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved."

Odd, that you claim Paul teaches woman should be quiet, but Paul talks here about woman not being quiet in the Church. Again, you take Paul's teachings out of context so that you can prove some point about origins.

You should read chapter 11 in context and understand the hierarchy of God, Christ, man, and woman. Then you should learn about the culture of the times and what was viewed as appropriate for men and women.

This is precisely what my question is.

If we look to the cultural context of Scriptural times to resolve Scriptural issues, instead of the cultural context of modern times,
why is it wrong to look to the scientific-philosophical context of Scriptural times to resolve Scriptural issues, instead of the scientific-philosophical context of modern times?

Modern Christians believe very different things from Scriptural Christians. They believe in the immortal soul, in the secular-sacred divide, in a rapture that will come somewhere soon after 2000 AD instead of somewhere soon after 33 AD. They believe in atoms and relativity and electronics and quantum physics. These differences need to be recognized in order for Scripture to be understood.

And some modern Christians believe that Jesus isn't God, all the OT is fictional(not myth), that there will be no second coming, that Jesus didn't raise from the dead, that all they have to do is believe Jesus is real but don't have to do any changing or anything about it, etc.

Do you want to talk about them as well? Shall we talk about every belief of one who calls themself a Christian?

As far as I know, YECism is mainly coming out of American evangelicalism. Don't shoot yourself. On the other hand, we had people like St. Augustine telling us that the six days of Genesis were not necessarily literal-historical-chronological six days, but rather accommodations of the actual truth to human, temporal understanding.

Then you aren't aware of much. There Lutheran Churches, who are not evangelical churches, that believe the Bible when it talks about origins. There are Catholic sects, Methodists, Orthodoxy, and numerous others that do as well.

What St. Augustine said was that six day creation is true, but it could have also been instanteous. You have incorrectly paraphrased his teachings. He accepted and believed a six literal day creation, but also an instaneous creation as well. That was his range, instant to six days. You won't find any agreeance for a billion year creation.

I meant everybody in modern times, not in Scriptural record. Sorry if my language was less than clear.



What I meant was that a gesture which was exclusively used for ordination/infilling is now being used very casually for prayer.



No, I have simply failed to communicate that example clearly.

It seems you have chosen a particular sect of Christians to focus on, forgetting that there are many different sects of Christians.

Now, this is extremely interesting. It seems that you are actually asserting two levels of divine inspiration:

1. Contextual inspiration. God had an idea that He communicated to people within the temporary social norms of the day, and if He wished to communicate that idea today, He would communicate it differently.

With me, He speaks in a way that I can understand. Just as He did in Biblical times. The message never changed. The delivery has.

E.g. God through Paul (unless you discount verbal inspiration, in which case there is much less reason to believe in YECism) told believers to greet each other with a holy kiss. (Or was that in Hebrews?) If God were to tell us the same thing today, He would tell us to greet each other instead with a holy hug, or a holy hello, or a holy handshake.

1 Thessalonians.

2. Literal-indelible revelation. God had an idea that He simply communicated, and would have communicated regardless and independent of societal norms.

E.g. God through Moses told us that He created the world in six days by splitting and organizing the primeval chaos waters. If God were to tell us the same thing today, He would still say that He created the world in six days by splitting and organizing the primeval chaos waters, even though not even many Christians, let along non-Christians, have any cultural idea or concept of chaos waters.

I thought you YECs had an agreement that all Scripture was verbally inspired?

He created everything by splitting the waters?

Not all YECs are in agreement on Scripture being verbally inspired. Just as not all YECs are in agreement that a pre-trib rapture will take place.

It is fantastically ironic that this is the exact same "slippery slope" argument YECs always use against TEs. "Gee, if the Creation account is a myth (i.e. a big dastardly horrendous deception!) then what stops the Resurrection account from being another myth?" I can turn it around and say:

If the holy kiss should be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous culture,
why shouldn't the Creation accounts be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous science?

For the same reason we hear TEs state. Genesis is not a science book. It doesn't teach about atoms or the speed of light. It does teach that God created in six days.

Culture and science are two different things that you seem to not be able to understand.

Firstly, this is a vacuous argument. For you to say this indirectly contradicts your own principles of complete inerrant verbal inspiration. After all, isn't what God told the church through Paul just as holy and sacred and inspired as what God told the Jews through Moses? If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been in the Bible! It is the same God who authored it! How can Scripture interpret Scripture if different passages of Scripture have different levels of authority? How can you be fair to say:

That depends on your definition of verbal inspiration. What is verbal? Is vocally loud for our ears to hear? Don't assume you know what the other person believes when you are conversing with them. You never have asked me if I believe in verbal inspiration and defined it as you understand it.

You need to understand the message and the cultural context in which it is delivered.

"Alright, what God told the church through Paul, He didn't mean for me. He meant to say something else to me through what He said to Paul and I am free to interpret it in today's social context as an eavesdropper on Paul's conversations with the church..."

and then say

"Alright, what God said to Moses was the exact same thing He intended to say to me, nothing else, and I am not free to interpret it by my social context but must act like I am a prescientific Hebrew listening at the foot of Sinai when I read this passage."

You are completely lost, Shernren. You cannot even understand the difference between a the statement of a holy kiss and the message of Genesis 1-2.

This is nothing less than saying Paul, because he never quoted direct speech from God (but He did!) is less inspired than Moses, even though they are in the same Bible.

Grasping at straws, Shernren. Cultural context in which the message is delivered. You should learn about it.

But let's take your argument as if it is fine. Then what about Job? After all, God Himself said that He had storehouses of hailstone and snow, stored up for war. Does He really expect us to believe that? Why is it that we can take Job's storehouses of snow as figurative and prescientific expression, and Moses' six days six thousand years ago as a scientifically and historically authoritative criterion? And even if one promotes the argument that Job is poetic while Genesis 1 is "historical" (which it does not honestly appear so to many), what about the underlying motivations and messages? Why is it that we can take Job's idea of God's direct, proximate causation of the weather as a prescientific perspective on His power ... and then lock ourselves to Moses' similar idea of God's direct, proximate causation of creation as if it automatically disqualifies naturalistic explanation, even if we have not done so with Job?

Actually, Job is full of figures of speech. But, the message is still the same. It is God who calls the rain, it is God who controls the day and night, it is God who controls the snow, etc.

But let's take a detour. Tell me, do you know God and His mind and ways well enough to state that there is no storehouse of snow?

What is the deeper message of this? That God is in control and we don't cannot fathom His ways. Yet, scientists are prideful enough to think they can and TEs have faith in them.

Do you think Jesus really expected the Jews of His day to believe that He was the bread of life? Do you really think Jesus expected them to believe He was God?

What you hear when you listen to Scripture is obviously not what we hear when we listen to Scripture.

Well, that is obvious.

Check your ideas of verbal inspiration. They seem to be becoming inconsistent. If I were a non-believer, looking at how you compared the holy kiss which is culturally irrelevant with the six day creation which you believe is culturally relevant, I would feel inclined to cynically say that everything you don't have a problem believing is culturally relevant and everything you do have a problem practicing is culturally irrelevant. I pray that you will not open yourself to this avenue of disproof from non-believers. I do not believe that it is as simple or as unscrupulous as that for you, knowing how hard it is to make godly decisions in this time and age, but a non-believer may not identify with you so.

What part did you not understand? I would be happy to explain it better for you.

Shernren, you seem to now want YECs to treat the Bible as a science book and interpret it into today's understanding of science, but it is not. We should become learned about the culture in which the Bible was written to better understand the message. And, it is my opinion, that if you do not study about Jewish history, culture, rituals, ceremonies, etc you won't truly understand the Bible.

 

[shernren]

I was referring more to 1 Corinthians 14: As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Quite clear.

I don't think I'm being clear enough here. What I am saying is that I am seeing an inconsistency in the difference between how you interpret the idea of the holy kiss and how you interpret the idea of the literal six-day creation.

When it comes to the holy kiss, or to women preaching in church, or etc., you say:

Well, we have to look at the social context. We have to look at what was acceptable and not during that time. We do not have to take the words as if they were spoken directly for our modern culture in which it is gay for guys to kiss each other (in Western culture, at least) and perfectly alright for women to run about with exposed hair.

but when it comes to the six day creation, you say:

Nope, social and scientific context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that every other creation myth involved splitting the waters, that the ancient cosmogony consisted of a fixed rigid firmament on which stars appeared, that the six days are arranged in two panels of three days with tohu-bohu matching syllogism. We have to take those words as if they are spoken directly to our culture with our vastly differing concepts of what is truth and what is causation and what is history.

Then you aren't aware of much. There Lutheran Churches, who are not evangelical churches, that believe the Bible when it talks about origins. There are Catholic sects, Methodists, Orthodoxy, and numerous others that do as well.

Nice subtle jab at how TEs don't believe the Bible. But isn't it American evangelicalism that spawned AiG, ICR and Kent Hovind? And isn't creation science (maybe not YECism) mainly derivative of the efforts of those three?

But let's take a detour. Tell me, do you know God and His mind and ways well enough to state that there is no storehouse of snow?

How much do you know about the atmosphere?

What part did you not understand? I would be happy to explain it better for you.

Basically ... why is it that customs and norms that are not practiced today we can take and say "Okay, the Bible is literally irrelevant in this because it is written in different cultural norms, we must extract the main idea of what it says and apply it to today while ignoring the social container of that idea" ...
and yet when TEs say about creation accounts "Okay, this was written in a diferrent scientific and historical norm, we must extract the main idea of what it says and apply it to today while ignoring the social container of that idea", we are labeled Bible-burners, inferior Christians and being outside the will of God.

Shernren, you seem to now want YECs to treat the Bible as a science book and interpret it into today's understanding of science, but it is not. We should become learned about the culture in which the Bible was written to better understand the message. And, it is my opinion, that if you do not study about Jewish history, culture, rituals, ceremonies, etc you won't truly understand the Bible.

What I seem to want was an artifact of my unclear communication. Sorry. I hope you do understand now what I am saying.

 

[Critias]

I was referring more to 1 Corinthians 14: As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Quite clear.

What is the context of these verses? Could it possibly be about speaking in tongues and giving interpretations, say teaching as a Pastor teaches? Would this have to do with Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy where he says he will not permit a woman to teach, within the context of Pastoral teaching?

Or do you want to say that women are not allow sing hymns or praises within Church?

I don't think I'm being clear enough here. What I am saying is that I am seeing an inconsistency in the difference between how you interpret the idea of the holy kiss and how you interpret the idea of the literal six-day creation.

What you are seeing is a realization that Genesis is not science, but it does contain cultural ways of life. I don't see how you cannot see a difference between a holy kiss and God creating. Let me try and explain it to you:

The holy kiss is a cultural act of a greeting for mankind. God creating is not a cultural act of mankind. Yet, you claim it is and you want them treated equally.

When it comes to the holy kiss, or to women preaching in church, or etc., you say:

Well, we have to look at the social context. We have to look at what was acceptable and not during that time. We do not have to take the words as if they were spoken directly for our modern culture in which it is gay for guys to kiss each other (in Western culture, at least) and perfectly alright for women to run about with exposed hair.

I don't remember these being my words or thoughts. Thanks for falsely presenting them.

but when it comes to the six day creation, you say:

Nope, social and scientific context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that every other creation myth involved splitting the waters, that the ancient cosmogony consisted of a fixed rigid firmament on which stars appeared, that the six days are arranged in two panels of three days with tohu-bohu matching syllogism. We have to take those words as if they are spoken directly to our culture with our vastly differing concepts of what is truth and what is causation and what is history.

And yet again...

Nice subtle jab at how TEs don't believe the Bible. But isn't it American evangelicalism that spawned AiG, ICR and Kent Hovind? And isn't creation science (maybe not YECism) mainly derivative of the efforts of those three?

I don't follow AiG, ICR, or Kent Hovind. I don't interpret in the light of what they say. I have read some of AiG and ICR's stuff, but that is just for interest, not for trying and figuring out what the Bible says.

It wasn't just a subtle jab, but the truth. TEs argue against the Bible and this shows they don't believe it when origins are concerned. I am being completely honest with you, more honest than maybe I have been, but you cannot extend that same curtiousy.

And no, six creation didn't come from AiG, ICR, or Mr Hovind. It came from the Bible and has existed long before them. Do you know that before Darwin, Christian Theologians, including the Apostles and Church Fathers agreed that Genesis is a historical narrative?

Yet, now TEs say it isn't.

How much do you know about the atmosphere?

How much do you know about what you cannot see and what God can? Are you going to suggest that what He sees and we cannot doesn't exist?

Basically ... why is it that customs and norms that are not practiced today we can take and say "Okay, the Bible is literally irrelevant in this because it is written in different cultural norms, we must extract the main idea of what it says and apply it to today while ignoring the social container of that idea" ...

The Church I go to, doesn't say anything that the Bible speaks about is irrelevant. The main idea was never giving a holy kiss. You really need to learn about context. You have shown more than once that you do not understand it.

and yet when TEs say about creation accounts "Okay, this was written in a diferrent scientific and historical norm, we must extract the main idea of what it says and apply it to today while ignoring the social container of that idea", we are labeled Bible-burners, inferior Christians and being outside the will of God.

No, not scientific norm. There wasn't one. There is your first mistake, thinking that Genesis 1-3 is written in a scientific way, therefore it should be understood in modern scientific understanding.

If it is not a science book, if Genesis 1-11 was not given for scientific understanding, then you cannot upgrade it to modern scientific understanding. But, Genesis and all the Bible is written in a cultural setting and we ought to learn about the culture in which it is written.

I never stated you or any TE was a Bible-burner or inferior Christians being outside of the will of God. You are just exaggerating to make yourself feel like a victim.

TEs are deceived, plain and simple about Genesis. They claim it is not a historical narrative when it is. This assertion has only surfaced since the enlightenment period. And the "enlightenment" is such an arrogant and proud thing to say about mankind when we know absolutely nothing of what is truly important! TEs say science and God, atheists anything but God, and us stupid YEC's say God and the Bible. When it is all over, will science knowledge help you on judgement day? Will it help someone else? Yet, so much importance is put on it as if it is a savior of mankind.

Read the Bible, it points to the only One who can save us and that is all that truly matters. Everything, material possessions, homes, cars, computers, science, technology, they are all meaningless!

What I seem to want was an artifact of my unclear communication. Sorry. I hope you do understand now what I am saying.

You are still saying the same thing as before. You don't understand why cultural acts can be understood differently in modern times but Genesis' supposed scientific teaching cannot be understood in modern science.

You simply are arguing for Genesis now being a science book.

 

[shernren]

Here I go again. This time I'll do my very best to avoid saying you said something you didn't. (To assume makes an ass out of you and me. Stupid me. I'm sorry.) Here is the core example I will use:

The holy kiss is a cultural act of a greeting for mankind. God creating is not a cultural act of mankind. Yet, you claim it is and you want them treated equally.

When I read that statement the way I parse it in my mind is:

God wants Christians to live in fellowship.
He communicates that by commanding them to greet each other with a holy kiss.

God wants to tell the Jews that He created.
He communicates that by telling them that He created in six days.

You are right, God's creating is not constrained by culture. But God's communication of how He created is. When we read Paul telling us to greet with a holy kiss, we are not reading what God wants us to do today, we are reading what God wanted the Christians to do in Paul's day, and we should explore why He wanted them to do so and then figure out what He would want us to do today.

In the same way, when we read Genesis 1, we are not reading how God created. (Now I am quite sure you will immediately take offence at this.) We are not reading what God told us about His process of creation, we are reading what God told the Jews about His process of creation. We are reading a communication - a communication that had to be contained within cultural boundaries. For example, among the Chinese when we meet (especially the older folk) we will ask "have you eaten?" and the other will say "yes, have you?" and so on. We don't ask this because we are actually interested in the other person's meal times! If a person answers "yes" to "have you eaten?" he is actually saying: I'm okay, I have food on the table, not to worry (and not always "I ate dinner just a few minutes ago!"). Is that a lie? No. He is accommodating to the culture's communicative limits.

As far as I know, the Jews believed in a flat earth, had no knowledge of practical astronomy (i.e. what a star actually is, instead of what it appears to be), electricity, relativity, quantum mechanics, fossils, geology, etc. And God wanted desperately to communicate with them. What were the means available? He took the myths of the time and crafted them into a container for powerful truth that was familiar to them, and yet vastly different from the myths they were adapted from.

As a concrete example take "the waters above the heavens". When I was a creationist I read a book called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys which says that "the waters above the heavens" are a thick layer of ice at the edge of the observable universe. Wow. Then I learnt that in fact most creation myths around the time of the writing of Genesis consisted of a chief god meeting the god of chaos, often symbolized as water, in battle, and splitting him in two, making one part the earth and one part the heavens. Wow! This is almost the same as what we see in the Bible - and yet the Bible is subtly different. In the Bible's accounting the waters never were a god at all, they were never rebellious or able to impose themselves against God's will. When God wanted to part them to form the heavens and the earth He didn't have to do battle and win by might, He just spoke the word and commanded by authority, and that was precisely one thing God wanted to communicate to the Jews - that He has authority over Creation, as the Creator.

That explanation, to me, makes far more sense than having a universe encased in ice, which tells me nothing about God, frankly.

The point I am making is that creationists seem to want to read the Bible in an ancient cultural context, but a modern scientific context. Isn't that incongruous?

 

[Critias]

Here I go again. This time I'll do my very best to avoid saying you said something you didn't. (To assume makes an ass out of you and me. Stupid me. I'm sorry.) Here is the core example I will use:



When I read that statement the way I parse it in my mind is:

God wants Christians to live in fellowship.
He communicates that by commanding them to greet each other with a holy kiss.

God wants to tell the Jews that He created.
He communicates that by telling them that He created in six days.

You are still off. Paul's statement is about greeting each other, not a holy kiss. The holy kiss was the greeting of the day.

God's statement is about what He did which would be the same in any culture. When Genesis say's God created the heavens and the earth, heavens and earth are not a cultural idea or act of the time.

You are right, God's creating is not constrained by culture. But God's communication of how He created is. When we read Paul telling us to greet with a holy kiss, we are not reading what God wants us to do today, we are reading what God wanted the Christians to do in Paul's day, and we should explore why He wanted them to do so and then figure out what He would want us to do today.

God's communication is also not constrained. He is able to aid any man or woman to understand what He wants them to.

When we read that Paul says to greet with a holy kiss, we are reading what God wants us to do today. The holy kiss isn't the focus, greeting is. The holy kiss was a form of greeting for that day.

Today, God wants the same, to greet one another with love. You sound as if you are arguing that God keeps changing His mind as a new culture rises.

In the same way, when we read Genesis 1, we are not reading how God created. (Now I am quite sure you will immediately take offence at this.) We are not reading what God told us about His process of creation, we are reading what God told the Jews about His process of creation. We are reading a communication - a communication that had to be contained within cultural boundaries. For example, among the Chinese when we meet (especially the older folk) we will ask "have you eaten?" and the other will say "yes, have you?" and so on. We don't ask this because we are actually interested in the other person's meal times! If a person answers "yes" to "have you eaten?" he is actually saying: I'm okay, I have food on the table, not to worry (and not always "I ate dinner just a few minutes ago!"). Is that a lie? No. He is accommodating to the culture's communicative limits.

And that is probably one of the core difference between TEs and YECs. YECs believe that Genesis is about God creating. It could have something to do with it repeating that God created.

You sound as if Genesis was written only for the Jews. Yet, it has been taught to Gentiles as well, well before we were ever here.

Maybe it is the fact that you don't understand that the Jews are God's chosen people to bring God's message to all people. That includes the Gentiles. When Jesus came, the Jews would not listen to Him. He cursed a fig tree that was representative of the Jews. Later, Paul was rejected by the Jews and took His message to the Gentiles.

The Jews are still the chosen people, but the Gentiles have now been chosen to bring God's message to all because the Jews refused to listen to Jesus and His Apostles.

The Bible isn't broken up into parts where this book or that is only for the Jews and the Gospels are only for the Gentiles, or whatever. It is for all people.

The messages are carried within a cultural context, but the message doesn't change in different cultures. In the cultural setting of the Ancient Hebrews, Genesis is a perfect example of how they told about their history, a historical narrative. Scholars, until Darwin all knew this, but because of the rise of evolutionism, some Christians now want to deny it.

Six days is six days. Heavens is heavens. Earth is earth. Man is man. Animals are animals. For in the day, is a cultural figure of speech that doesn't talk about the current day, but a day that is coming.

TEs are all backwards in understanding cultural concepts of the Ancient Hebrews. They say six days isn't six days, but 'for in the day' means that current day. TEs are failing to show themselves approved in Biblical studies.

As far as I know, the Jews believed in a flat earth, had no knowledge of practical astronomy (i.e. what a star actually is, instead of what it appears to be), electricity, relativity, quantum mechanics, fossils, geology, etc. And God wanted desperately to communicate with them. What were the means available? He took the myths of the time and crafted them into a container for powerful truth that was familiar to them, and yet vastly different from the myths they were adapted from.

Gentiles believed a flat earth as well, what is your point? It wasn't just Jews, but all people that didn't know these things.

You call them myths, but show me how the Ancient Hebrew supports your assertion. Show why all the Apostles, Church Fathers, and Theologians before Darwin are wrong to state that Genesis is a historical narrative.

It is an indirect TE claim that TEs are right and all holy men of God in the past are wrong, when it comes to what Genesis says. Prove it.

As a concrete example take "the waters above the heavens". When I was a creationist I read a book called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys which says that "the waters above the heavens" are a thick layer of ice at the edge of the observable universe. Wow. Then I learnt that in fact most creation myths around the time of the writing of Genesis consisted of a chief god meeting the god of chaos, often symbolized as water, in battle, and splitting him in two, making one part the earth and one part the heavens. Wow! This is almost the same as what we see in the Bible - and yet the Bible is subtly different. In the Bible's accounting the waters never were a god at all, they were never rebellious or able to impose themselves against God's will. When God wanted to part them to form the heavens and the earth He didn't have to do battle and win by might, He just spoke the word and commanded by authority, and that was precisely one thing God wanted to communicate to the Jews - that He has authority over Creation, as the Creator.

And, a man who proves to be fallible is proof of what?

That explanation, to me, makes far more sense than having a universe encased in ice, which tells me nothing about God, frankly.

Maybe you have a problem with mankind being fallible?

The point I am making is that creationists seem to want to read the Bible in an ancient cultural context, but a modern scientific context. Isn't that incongruous?

Are you saying all creationists here? It is just you and I talking here Shernren and I have been honest and forthcoming with my beliefs. I don't follow creation science. I follow God and listen to what His message says.

People make mistakes, we are all fallible and sinners. Shall you hold God accountable? The Bible? Because man has a habit of complicating things to puff up his own pride? Yes, TEs and creationsits alike do this.

Creationists, on this board - those whom you should be focusing on - start with the Bible. They then take their Bible view glasses and view the world. This is what I think you and other TEs have a problem with. I think you don't like that fact that YECs, here, start with the Bible, not science.

 

[shernren]

The Jews are still the chosen people, but the Gentiles have now been chosen to bring God's message to all because the Jews refused to listen to Jesus and His Apostles.

The Bible isn't broken up into parts where this book or that is only for the Jews and the Gospels are only for the Gentiles, or whatever. It is for all people.

The messages are carried within a cultural context, but the message doesn't change in different cultures. In the cultural setting of the Ancient Hebrews, Genesis is a perfect example of how they told about their history, a historical narrative. Scholars, until Darwin all knew this, but because of the rise of evolutionism, some Christians now want to deny it.

Six days is six days. Heavens is heavens. Earth is earth. Man is man. Animals are animals. For in the day, is a cultural figure of speech that doesn't talk about the current day, but a day that is coming.

TEs are all backwards in understanding cultural concepts of the Ancient Hebrews. They say six days isn't six days, but 'for in the day' means that current day. TEs are failing to show themselves approved in Biblical studies.

The cultural context of a message determines its form, though not its content. The difference is that you see both "six days" and "God created" as the content, where I see "six days" as the form and "God created" as the content. I agree that the Bible is written for everyone, but it was not written to everyone. It was written at specific times to specific people and to forget this is to be in danger of misinterpretation.

Six days are six days - in the context of a origins-explaining myth; I do agree with your interpretation of "in the day", so I don't think those are objections to me either.

You call them myths, but show me how the Ancient Hebrew supports your assertion. Show why all the Apostles, Church Fathers, and Theologians before Darwin are wrong to state that Genesis is a historical narrative.

As far as I know, St. Basil supported a "days of proclamation" approach while Augustine said that the days might not be literal days but rather accommodations of an instant creation to man who understands things in chronological order. (With regard to Augustine the argument here isn't over long or short, it's over literal vs. not-so-literal days, and he doesn't seem to show objection to the latter.) I've also seen it claimed that Maimonides believed that where science and the Torah seemed misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.

And, a man who proves to be fallible is proof of what? ... Maybe you have a problem with mankind being fallible?

It is not just a fallible person, it is a fallible approach that seems to permeate the whole creation science movement. I see people who tell me that behemoth and leviathan were dinosaurs, that the windows of heaven were an interstellar cloud of water, that God's stretching out the firmament is a reference to a God-mediated expansion of space-time, and I wonder: are they really serious about it? Is this what Jews in that day thought when they read windows of heaven and behemoth and leviathan and a firmament across the heavens?

How do we know what the Jews would have read of Genesis 1 and 2 if they had had access to modern scientific knowledge? How do we know how God would have told them that He created the world if they had a basic idea of how it had came about? - do we know that He would still have used the container of "six days"? Or some other container?

 

[Critias]

The cultural context of a message determines its form, though not its content. The difference is that you see both "six days" and "God created" as the content, where I see "six days" as the form and "God created" as the content. I agree that the Bible is written for everyone, but it was not written to everyone. It was written at specific times to specific people and to forget this is to be in danger of misinterpretation.

Six days are six days - in the context of a origins-explaining myth; I do agree with your interpretation of "in the day", so I don't think those are objections to me either.



As far as I know, St. Basil supported a "days of proclamation" approach while Augustine said that the days might not be literal days but rather accommodations of an instant creation to man who understands things in chronological order. (With regard to Augustine the argument here isn't over long or short, it's over literal vs. not-so-literal days, and he doesn't seem to show objection to the latter.) I've also seen it claimed that Maimonides believed that where science and the Torah seemed misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.

St. Basil: "'And there was evening and morning, one day.' Why did he say 'one' and not 'first'?... He said 'one' because he was defining the measure of day and night..., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day."

"God made everything together, that is to say, at one time, and in a short time." "'So there was evening and there was morning.' This is to be understood as the duration of one day and one night."

"Those who do not accept the Scripture in their ordinary, common meaning, say that 'water' is not water but something else; plants and fishes they interpret as they please; the creation of reptiles and wild beasts they explain in their own way, twisting it from the obvious sense as do the interpreters of dreams - who give whatever meaning they choose to the images seen in sleep. As for me, when I hear the word 'grass' I think of grass, and the same with plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal. I take everything in the literal sense, for 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel.'"

From St. Basil, Homily II
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/TOC.htm

St. Augustine also believed that Genesis was a historical narrative. His belief was that six day creation and instant creation were both correct.

It is not just a fallible person, it is a fallible approach that seems to permeate the whole creation science movement.

Is science not fallible then? If it is, why do you have problem with creationists being fallible but not evolutionists being fallible?

I see people who tell me that behemoth and leviathan were dinosaurs, that the windows of heaven were an interstellar cloud of water, that God's stretching out the firmament is a reference to a God-mediated expansion of space-time, and I wonder: are they really serious about it? Is this what Jews in that day thought when they read windows of heaven and behemoth and leviathan and a firmament across the heavens?

We don't know the correct translation of Leviathan or behemoth, but there are descriptions of them in the Bible. If honestly is aloud to exist, then an honest answer is, we don't know if they were referring to dinosaurs. It sounds like they could be, but they could just as well not be.

You have to realize that creation science rose out of defense for the Bible when evolution became popular. There is no other reason for creation science to exist other than to defend the creationary teaching from the Bible.

You seem to have no problem with scientist who advocated that aliens created us, but when creation scientists say a leviathan could be a dinosaur, then you have a problem.

How do we know what the Jews would have read of Genesis 1 and 2 if they had had access to modern scientific knowledge? How do we know how God would have told them that He created the world if they had a basic idea of how it had came about? - do we know that He would still have used the container of "six days"? Or some other container?

Because, it is still translated by Jewish Scholars as a historical narrative. Descent only came when Darwin came around.

Ancient Hebrews had an undertanding of long periods of time. It could have been explained in long periods of time without any scientific jargon whatsoever. Instead, we have six days of creation and a seventh day of rest. In Hebrew, if yom(day) and a number are together, it always means a literal 24 hour day.