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.
No, I said that the text does not teach geo-centrism; it assumes it. Or the author chooses to use that perspective as an accommodation to his audience. Neither of these would be as strong as an affirmation of geo-centrism.
I think science comes into play only in the case of the geocentric language, because it seems to be the only reason to reject a literal reading of these passages.
For the others, I think there are good and sufficient reasons to justify a non-literal reading of these texts on theological grounds without an appeal to science.
What I do not think is justified is to reject science to save a literal reading in one instance, yet appeal to science to save a non-literal reading in another instance. There is no consistency in rejecting science to save a literal reading of 6-day creation or a global flood, yet appealing to science to reject a literal reading of a geocentric cosmos.
If the writer chooses to adopt an idiom, then all we have is an idiom and very little information about what the writer thought about the nature of things.
I thought about this a while after posting. If the writer chooses to adopt an idiom, then all we have is an idiom and very little information about what the writer thought about the nature of things. So, it would seem that you and I were saying the same thing from different perspectives.
Unfortunately, I was speaking past you and addressing the idea that we measure the knowledge of the writer or his inspiration (ie, the BIble is not inerrant in these passages) on the basis of his audience. (I will accept for sake of argument that the audience was geocentric, since I don't think it matters greatly as long as we are not demanding that the writer be as ignorant as his audience.)
Now what we need is a set of rules that tells you when the writer is simply illustrating a point by idiom and when what some have taken to be an idiom (ie, six days of creation or the flooding of eretz) is really the point of the passage and literal truth.
If I am not mistaken, some others posting seem to be of the opinion that the text itself contains the ignorance of the writer. Said otherwise, the text itself is of human authorship and its divine inspiration goes no farther some general spiritual principles and is not capable of being extend to historical facts outside of the experience of the writer.
If the YEC view is correct about what scripture purports to be, the text itself should tell you when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended.
Well, that is the big IF isn't it? You might consider what the implications are for YEC if it cannot be established from the text itself when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended. What if no proposed rule gives us a consistent interpretation? Is that sufficient to falsify YEC?
But if we accept your way of thinking, the idiom made it into Scripture; the writers' ideas about the nature of things didn't. If you believe that what is in Scripture is important to us and what isn't, isn't, then why should you think the writers' ideas about the nature of things is important?
One thing I think we both agree on is that God knew the geocentric cosmos was not what he created. So at some level there was an accommodation to the geocentric perspective.
I don't think it is particularly important whether God revealed the true nature of cosmological structure to the writer, who then chose to use the current idiom so that his more important theological points would not be obscured by the unfamiliar perspective, or whether the writer held the geocentric perspective himself and God accommodated his revelation to that for the same reason.
As shernren says, a non-geocentric perspective did not make it into scripture in either case. Though I do think the latter is more probable.
If we don't accept that the audience was geocentric, we have the problem of how the information on the inaccuracy of geocentrism was lost for millennia until retrieved by Copernicus. Of course, the idea of heliocentrism is much older than Copernicus, having been raised by some Greek philosophers. But these were lone voices and their ideas were, at the time, rejected by their contemporaries. As far as I know there is no historical record of an ancient society that did not by and large assume geocentricity. If the Hebrews were ever an exception to that, we have no record of when they were or when and why they gravitated to the same geocentrism as their neighbours.
I don't understand why it should be a problem if the author was as ignorant as his audience on this point. Obviously he was not as ignorant as his audience on the matters which God wished him to speak of, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for the Holy Spirit to endow an author with basically incidental information on scientific matters not to be discovered by ordinary means for hundreds to thousands of years in the future.
I doubt if there is or can be a rule. Perhaps some guidelines. One I would propose is the theological purpose of the author. Does the controversial item play a significant role in that purpose and what is that role?
Most of the geocentric passages are part of texts in praise of creation/the Creator. While geocentrism is the framework which gives shape to this praise, it is not a theologically important framework. No matter what relationship our perceptions of the cosmos bear to the reality of its structure, the cosmos itself is a wonder and a marvel that elicits praise for its Maker. So the use of a contemporary idiom does not detract from the principal theme and focus of the writer.
In the case of the creation account, the six days do have an important theological purpose, but it is not a chronological or historical purpose. Nor is there an indication (as with geocentrism) that this is a matter of using a common idiom. Other creation accounts do not specify six days--not even other creation accounts in the bible. The six/seven day sequence is unique to this author and so has importance to this author which he wishes to convey to his audience.
Yes, that would be my position. I would say it is not so much the text that is inspired as the writer. Consider how Luke describes his research into the life and doings of Jesus. It sounds like a very ordinary human endeavour. Indeed, I expect he thought it was. Just as Paul probably thought of his letters as being an ordinary form of communication and nothing really special. I think inspiration provides the impulse to communicate, and/or to commit the communication to writing, and also provides the conviction of what God's will is in terms of what must be communicated whether as warning or promise. But the translation of that inspiration into human words is the responsibility of the author and will take place within the capability, knowledge and world-view of the author and his audience. Nevertheless God places his blessing on this text and uses it to convey to all future generations the experience of his Word. So in a sense scripture recapitulates/anticipates the incarnation, in its union of divine and human aspects.
I think it noteworthy here that the Church has always referred to the scriptures as the word (singular) of God, not as the words (plural) of God. The words are not the words of God. The words are human, but the Word they reveal is divine.
I don't understand at all what you said in the first two sentences, but I do understand the latter and I think you're quite mistaken. We can infer many things about the ancient Hebrew culture based on extrabiblical sources. That the Hebrew people lived in Egypt and Assyria, and because the Bible repeatedly notes that many parts of these cultures worked their way into the Hebrew culture (sometimes against God's command, other times without problem) only reinforces the idea that it's not at all invalid to compare the cultures.So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature. Normal language proves every day that this association of these two is not required by the same people who want to require it when it comes to the Bible. Evidence of what the Egyptians thought about the age of things or the sun or whatever is the lamest form of guilt by association, which is standard academic fare for the filling in the missing link. What is so alarming is the intense desire for that link to exist. Why does academia want it so bad?
My burden is to defend inerrancy. I am not concerned about the audience. So, we have agreement about the early going of your post.
My other burden is for tendentious arguments. The cultural beliefs of the audience have been used by academics generally to try to show that the biblical writing was not inspired by God in its factual content.
They are working against the argument that the BIble is unique.
What happens is that we have a proposition that requires that you assume a context or data-set to in order to "debunk" it. So, you invalidate another view by the circular reasoning that your own world-view self-validates. I am not pointing the finger, I am just noting why I am trying to take such care on that point.
As for whether the evident purpose of a passage requires that an idiom be considered literal, I think you proposal is very sound indeed.
As for whether "six days" was intended to be literal, the question becomes how we define the purpose and context. I understand the argument. The question becomes, must we find the purpose announced specifically in the passage to apply your reasoning?
Some have argued that this looks like a hymn, so it must have the same purpose.
We are now on familiar ground: is there a surface text or isn't there? My argument is that there isn't a specific definition of purpose, as in the psalms, where the raw power of God is context for all that follows.
On the surface, IMHO, the primary questions are time and sequence in Gen. 1.
There are no adjectives for God at all, which is different than the psalms. The opening phrase is about time, not God -- "In the beginning". In a way, this could be considered as a phrase out of order, since God should always be first.
Iargue, that like the incarnation itself, it is for us, who are in time. Our frame of reference is the first subject, since God is reaching to us....
... exalting his Word above His Name.
Some corroboration appears in Exod. 20. God apparently could have taken a billion years, but six days suited us better - thus the week and sabbath -- a pattern made for us, not God.
But again, we must make a choice about surface text. I argue that your context is implied by world view - since the Word must make sense to our knowledge.
I argue that the Word tells you explicitly its context and purpose -- that is, time and sequence, which is the essence of "in the beginning."
You can argue that this is a statement of power. Again, the power is implied. Elohim were otherwise alone, of course. But, the first information we receive is not Elohim's uniqueness, but the act of making is explicit, and not any adjective about Elohim's nature..
So, that which you reason upon is actually presents. It is not invented. So, I understand why the "surface text" is considered a tendentious argument. But, because it is only implied, as I argue, we have a surface text that is distinct from this implication and significant on its own terms -- terms of time and sequence.
Doesn't the inerrantist view also self-validate by assuming that the Bible must be inerrant and then assuming context or rejecting certain evidence or data in order to validate the assumption of innerancy?My other burden is for tendentious arguments. The cultural beliefs of the audience have been used by academics generally to try to show that the biblical writing was not inspired by God in its factual content. They are working against the argument that the BIble is unique. What happens is that we have a proposition that requires that you assume a context or data-set to in order to "debunk" it. So, you invalidate another view by the circular reasoning that your own world-view self-validates. I am not pointing the finger, I am just noting why I am trying to take such care on that point.
Doesn't the inerrantist view also self-validate by assuming that the Bible must be inerrant and then assuming context or rejecting certain evidence or data in order to validate the assumption of innerancy?
If what we can establish about the cultural beliefs of the Biblical people counters inerrancy in details, why should that counter the message of the Bible? And where does the Bible claim to be different by way of factual inerrancy? To be useful for teaching and correcting on spiritual matters, does the Bible need to correctly describe the geometry or age of the universe?
In studying other religions as I believe all Christians must in our call to preach the good news to the world, I have found that there are indeed many differences between the Bible and other religious writings. Most of these, however involve human nature. For example, the Bible does not claim to be divinely dictated as the Qu'ran. The stories in the Bible are more supported by continuing evidence ("the 400 who saw Christ are still alive today") than by claiming to be perfect as they were written by God!
Funny how your defense of your circular assumption of Biblical inerrancy is based on a rather arbitrary choice of "gonna have to serve somebody."busterdog said:As for self-validation, or starting with an assumption of validity, as Bob Dylan said, you're gonna have to serve somebody -- epistemologically speaking.
Funny how your defense of your circular assumption of Biblical inerrancy is based on a rather arbitrary choice of "gonna have to serve somebody."
You do realize that half of those references to God speaking are not talking about scripture right? One is talking about the law which DOES claim to be directly from God and which the Hebrew people certainly thought was on a higher level than other spiritual wiritng. The passage in 2 Timothy doesn't suggest in any way that all scripture is written by God (or dictated by God) and thus must somehow be inerrant.
Certainly Paul considered contemporary writing on spiritual matters to be 'scripture' so doesn't the plain reading suggest that "scripture" can refer to any inspired writing and not just those we've collected in our Bible?
About contradictions not standing up to scrutiny, quite honestly, the mental gymnastics people play to accomodate texts that are contradictory in their plain meaning is quite unnecessary and even contradictory to a point of view that refuses to consider allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 based on a "plain meaning" hermeneutic. One would do well to do away with the nonsense of inerrancy altogether given that it's not even a useful doctrine since our interpretation and understanding of these alledgedly inerrant scriptures could never be perfect anyway!
So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature. Normal language proves every day that this association of these two is not required by the same people who want to require it when it comes to the Bible. Evidence of what the Egyptians thought about the age of things or the sun or whatever is the lamest form of guilt by association, which is standard academic fare for the filling in the missing link. What is so alarming is the intense desire for that link to exist. Why does academia want it so bad?
We're not academia, and we don't need Scripture to be geocentric. We'd be entirely happy if the Bible had a whole chapter on how the earth goes around the sun. But the Bible doesn't. That's really the heart of it. We're interested in making the Bible say what it says. You're interested in making the Bible say what you want it to say. You want the Bible to be heliocentric, and to have a spherical earth, and to explain the scientific evidence better than modern theories do.
But why demand of the Bible something the Bible never demanded of itself?
Look at what you're trying to say here: "So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature." Aren't you agreeing that the Bible indeed speaks from a geocentric idiom? That is what concerns us: the idiom the Bible uses is always geocentric and never heliocentric. Think about that for a moment. You believe that the Bible is verbally inerrant, and that God decided to include the geocentric idiom without including the worldview of the authors. You claim to be concerned about the Bible. Well, the geocentric idiom is in the Bible. Any views the authors had about the universe that might not have been geocentric, isn't. The Bible says it. Shouldn't you believe it?
You may be unable to seperate an author's world view from idiom on this issue. I apply the rule generally that they should be presumed seperate for any other type of communication and there is no reason why this is a special case requiring that the possible ignorance of the audience must rule out the perfect knowledge of the Holy Spirit in every phrase and expression of Scripture -- excepting copyist issues, which are trivial.
So essentially, the author's worldview cannot have been geocentrist no matter what, even if his idiom was, simply because he was writing Scripture? How did you determine that?
I think the question is, "Did you not come to this view that it is nothing more than an idiom because you have information from extrabiblical sources showing that the Earth is spherical and that it orbits the sun?"1. We are talking about the Holy Spirit.
2. No one can prove that it was likely to be a world view. Ordinary literary rules do not require it. The best reading from a purely literary critical view is that idiom only is the most reasonable reading, not world view.
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?