TE links

[theotherguy]

Hi, I'm kind of hung up over this. I'm something of an antagonist when it comes to this subject and my veiws regularly swing from YEC to uncertainty and back again (though most of the time, I take the creationist line). I've decided to do something about this, so anyone know were I can get some relatively unbiasis resources on the whole topic?

 

[Vance]

Well, I am not sure there can be any truly unbiased sources, but for the science, I am sure you know about talkorigins, but while the have the science down entirely, most of the contributors are agnostic at best, so you might not trust their conclusions. But for the TE position from fellow Christians, you might check out some of the following:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ - which is one TE’s personal perspective on a variety of issues.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm - which is Glenn Morton’s stuff, he posts here on occasion

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html - a group of Christian scientists who have written essays on a variety of relevant issues

You will find that, as with any other topic people study, those who accept that God used evolution as part of His creative process, and that the earth is definitely old, hold a variety of positions on the details, just as Creationists might be OEC, YEC, Gap, progressive creationists, etc, and Christians might be pre-trib/post-trib, predestination or not, etc, etc. What binds TE together is an absolute assurance that God created everything and is in control of everything, and that the discoveries of science do not, and can not, contradict this fact. All science can do is better inform us of HOW God did it.

 

[theotherguy]

Is't there a veiw that says Evolution happened and hat God then created the Garden and then the first man? Anyone know about that?
Also how do you account for the biblical flood without calling God a lier (There are lots of local floods).

 

[Vance]

As for your first question, there are some TE's who do think that there may have been a literal garden and a literal Adam, and I believe Herev considers this a strong possibility. So, I will let him elucidate if he is about.

As for the flood, you are starting with the premise that a God telling a non-historical story is somehow lying. This simply is not the case. At the time these passages were first inspired, and then first written down (assuming they were inspired earlier than they were written, and told orally for a while first, but this is not positive), people did not draw strict distinctions between literal historical events and semi-historical stories or even legendary stories with only very limited historical foundation. They would not consider it lying at all to pass down important truths in this way. Today, we have a different mindset since the Enlightenment and our more scientific approach to the past. For us, it is either historically accurate or it is "false". This is not how people viewed such things for thousands of years.

So, if the intent of a story is not to provide strict historicity, then it can not be a falsehood when it is not historically accurate.

So, the Biblical flood could have been a local flood in which the events happened very much as described, but from a local perspective. The language would just have been expanded in the telling to make the flood more widespread. Since the purpose of the Scripture is to convey a theological truth, not provide a historical record, there is no "lying" about it. The truths come down to us loud and clear, regardless of whether every detail happened in literal history or not.

Or, alternatively, it could just be God taking a story in circulation at the time (ie, the Sumerian version, which would have been known by Abraham and could have been passed down through his family), and altered it to present the truths HE wanted conveyed. This still would not be a falsehood.

 

[United]

Is't there a veiw that says Evolution happened and hat God then created the Garden and then the first man? Anyone know about that?
Also how do you account for the biblical flood without calling God a lier (There are lots of local floods).

Hi theotherguy,

Firstly I should point out that there is nothing in Genesis which rules out evolution of plants & animals before man. The bible only refers to "the earth brought forth" etc - which could imply creation or evolution.

After plants & animals, the bible talks about the creation of man from "dust". The plainest literal interpretation would conclude that man was created & not evolved - & I have no real issue with this interpretation. However, in Genesis God also says to man "to dust you will return" (with reference to the death of man). So God considers a dead body dust. There is no reason why God could not have taken the body (or merely DNA) of a dead pre-human and breathed life & a soul into it to become Adam.

Genesis does not provide sufficient information to conclude whether the flood was global or local. It describes the flood as being over the "entire land". But "land" could mean the land around where Noah lived or it could be all land on the planet - we cannot know. I would assume it was spread over a large area (ie a freak of nature, not the regular local floods you refer to), but mainstream science has confirmed it was not the entire earth. A possible explanation could be the breakthrough of the Black Sea about 7,500 years ago - but other possibilities exist.

 

[Vance]

Bump since I think the links provided are very useful if someone would like to know where TE's are coming from.

 

[California Tim]

Hi, I'm kind of hung up over this. I'm something of an antagonist when it comes to this subject and my veiws regularly swing from YEC to uncertainty and back again (though most of the time, I take the creationist line). I've decided to do something about this, so anyone know were I can get some relatively unbiasis resources on the whole topic?

Yes. Start with the Bible utilizing a Greek and Hebrew lexicon. I recommend http://www.blueletterbible.org/ . It is unbiased and you will be capable of pulling up the original Hebrew and Greek text on every word and passage. Begin each and every reading session with prayer for guidance and wisdom since the Bible can only be interpeted properly by the Spirit. Finally, avoid the temptation to hunt and peck for translations that most closely match your own point of view.

 

[gluadys]

Yes. Start with the Bible utilizing a Greek and Hebrew lexicon. I recommend http://www.blueletterbible.org/ . It is unbiased and you will be capable of pulling up the original Hebrew and Greek text on every word and passage. Begin each and every reading session with prayer for guidance and wisdom since the Bible can only be interpeted properly by the Spirit.

While using Greek and Hebrew lexicons is helpful and I would in no way discourage it, one should also remember their limitations.

A lexicon cannot give you a feel for the language that actually learning the language does. It cannot, in itself, tell you which of the over 40 meanings of "shalom" is the proper one to use in a specific context. And knowing that "peace" is the usual meaning doesn't mean it is always the best meaning.

If you have ever seen a foreign text translated word-for-word into English, you will understand how inadequate a lexicon based knowledge of Hebrew & Greek are.

Finally, avoid the temptation to hunt and peck for translations that most closely match your own point of view.

Is that what you think people are doing when they disagree with your preferred interpretation?

 

[California Tim]

Is that what you think people are doing when they disagree with your preferred interpretation?

Isn't that what you are doing?

 

[PaladinValer]

**Senses a copout**

 

[gluadys]

**Senses a copout**

I think your senses are in good working order.

 

[California Tim]

I think your senses are in good working order.

Surely you jest. Apparently, the advice I gave to the OP author to avoid selection of a translation based on personal bias somehow struck a nerve with you. Do you find this to be unsound advice?

 

[Vance]

No, the problem is when you said later "isn't that what you are doing?" which I thought was a bit presumptuous.

 

[California Tim]

No, the problem is when you said later "isn't that what you are doing?" which I thought was a bit presumptuous.

Interesting. I got a completely different feel for the tone of the subject response presuming I was using selective translations to bolster my own bias when in fact I was clearly advising against it. What was the point of the rebuttal? Well, it just goes to show you why I never could have been a good psychologist. Neither would I have made a very compelling politician.

 

[Didaskomenos]

While I must say I'm surprised that you care anything about the original languages (not exactly a plain and obvious way of reading the Bible), you insist on going no further to try to situate each text in its cultural and literary Sitz im Leben. This is the best way to understand how to interpret each given text. Please explain to me why this is the case. I really can't understand why. Do you not regard the texts as written in different cultural environments over time a long time ago? Then why wouldn't you use these cues to decipher the literature of the Bible?

 

[Vance]

I think you may have misunderstood Gluadys, then. All she was asking was whether you believe those who arrive at different interpretations than you are doing so as a result of selective translation.

In response, you seemed to be implying that this is exactly what she was doing.

Maybe just miscommunication both ways then.

 

[California Tim]

I think you may have misunderstood Gluadys, then. All she was asking was whether you believe those who arrive at different interpretations than you are doing so as a result of selective translation.

In response, you seemed to be implying that this is exactly what she was doing.

Maybe just miscommunication both ways then.

In that spirit, let me be the first to offer my apology for so obvious a mistake on my part:

Gluadys, I am sorry for the misunderstanding and further, for being careless in word selection in my response. My intent on this forum is not to stir up strife or aggravate. The firmness of my convictions is often prone to appear condescending, a personal character flaw I hope one day to overcome with the aid of this forum experience. I sincerely hope that in all my future responses you understand that if any offense seems implied, I can assure you it is unintentional. I will continue to make better use of "pause and reflection" then "preview and edit" before answering future posts.

Your "Fundie" Brother in Christ
Tim

 

[Vance]

A good idea for all of us.

 

[gluadys]

Surely you jest. Apparently, the advice I gave to the OP author to avoid selection of a translation based on personal bias somehow struck a nerve with you. Do you find this to be unsound advice?

Actually, if you read my post, it was about not over-estimating the help a lexicon can give in coming to an understanding of the scripture. A lexicon is a very useful tool, but it is not the equivalent of knowing the language.

I actually agree with the advice given on choosing translations. But I would still be interested in your answer to my question.

Is such biased selection of scripture what you assume people are doing when their intepretation of scripture disagrees with yours?

 

[California Tim]

I actually agree with the advice given on choosing translations. But I would still be interested in your answer to my question.

Is such biased selection of scripture what you assume people are doing when their intepretation of scripture disagrees with yours?

In this case my answer would be no. Even though there may be some "apparent" minor discrepencies between the orthodox translations, I find the essence of the message is conveyed intact more often than not. What I feel is most likely to influence a bias (including that of my own) is reliance upon commentaries to accept the meaning of a passage. While helpful, it seems unwise to favor one or the other to the exclusion of all else. The second pitfall and perhaps the most difficult one to manage or decipher is the "gut feeling" that something may or may not be right about a certain passage. Overreliance upon one's own understanding of what God should be saying based on one's own limited view of His plan and righteousness, seems to cloud the spiritual eyes from fully accepting what the Holy Spirit reveals to the reader. This does not preclude using some common sense in application of interpretation, but as I mentioned can become a stumbling block for many.