The Case of the Phantom Menace

[juvenissun]

When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, I do not take this as an error (it is not the smallest seed), since I don't think Jesus was intending to make a scientific statement, but was making a theological point.

I don't think you have to shy away from the truth so fast simply because you do not fully understand the detail.

I think this issue has been discussed before. My point was:

This analogy is usually criticized only on half of its content. The teaching is to "compare" the size of the seed with the size of the fully grown plant. the size means the ratio of size but not just the absolute size. With this limitation, I am not a botanist, but I suspect the mustard seed IS the smallest one, or is one among the smallest ones. I would appreciate if any one could dig out a database that contains relevant data.

We should never assume that because Jesus wants to use an understandable illustration to teach, so He is willing to make a scientific mistake. He is too great to do that.

 

[juvenissun]

I reached my conclusions about how Genesis should be read simply by learning to read the text the way an ancient Israelite would have. If they would not have read it as strict literal narrative history, why should we? That makes no sense.

I don't know how would you know how did ancient Israelite read the Torah. But that is fine. You can read the way you like.

However, you do not have to feel shame about the "apparent" scientific inaccuracy in the Genesis and to seek alternatives. Nobody can prove they are wrong YET. And newer scientific evidences tend to lean toward the side of literal reading.

-------

Let's take Job, for example. Conservative commentators from Calvin to C.S. Lewis believed that it was not meant to be read as literal history, and I really don't take a stand on that point. But, assume for a second that they are right. If there was something in the text that was simply contrary to historical reality (although I know of no such instance), I would not say that was an error since the text was not attempting to present literal history.

I wonder which part in the Book of Job are you talking about? May be I can tell you something about it.

 

[Vance]

You know, you really seem to be getting some strange misconceptions about where we TE's are coming from or how we reach our conclusions. You act as if it is perceived errors that are driving our conclusions and, so, if we just clear up those errors, our conclusions will be different. It is as if you think that there should be a default of strict literalism, and historical and scientific accuracy for some reason.

We are starting from a very different point, which is starting with no assumption other than that what the Scripture gives us is God's message to us, and (for me at least) that it conveys this message exactly as God would want it conveyed. If this is by literal historic narrative, that is fine, but I am not going to demand that God must write in that literary genre and then twist everything around to fit that genre. That makes no sense. We can not go by what the "plain reading" is to us, since we were not the original audience.

We know a great deal about how the ancient Israelites would have read the text, and the answer is they would not have read it as strict literal history, but as a retelling of literal events, but using symbolic, typological and figurative language. That is simply how they LIKED to tell stories about their past, even though it is not at all how we like to do it.

As for Job, I was using that as an example. I don't think there are any historical or scientific anachronisms, but if there were, it would not bother me in the least, if we conclude that it was not written as strict history. That is the point.

And, no, the mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world, so if we treated the text as a science book (the way some want to read Genesis 1 and 2), then that statement would be in error. But, since it was NOT meant as a scientific statement, but a teaching tool, it is NOT an error. He SAID it was the smallest seed, and in the "plain literal reading", it would be in error. But in the CORRECT, contextual, less literal reading, we see that there is no real error at all. We should consider Genesis the same way.

 

[juvenissun]

As for Job, I was using that as an example. I don't think there are any historical or scientific anachronisms, but if there were, it would not bother me in the least, if we conclude that it was not written as strict history. That is the point.

The Book of Job contains the most abundant and the most wonderful scientific anachronism in the whole Bible.

No, it will not bother you. It will simply amaze you.

That is why I love the movie Alien and Predator.

 

[Vance]

Well, we know that none of the supposed dinosaur references are valid, if that is what you mean, there is an entire separate thread on that one.

My point here is that, when read properly there are no contradictions between what modern science is saying and what Scripture says. Throughout history, whenever there seems to be a conflict, we end up finding out it was the reading of Scripture that was wrong, not the science.

 

[champuru]

I would agree with the general proposition that some Christians have stronger faith than others, that is a given. But that "strength of faith" issue has absolutely nothing to do with this issue of a person's position on origins. As I point out in the OP, there is absolutely no evidence of it.

In fact, one could argue (if one were so inclined), that the faith of the YEC is more likely to be weak, brittle and likely to fail. I once asked the question here "what would happen if you found out, without a possibility of doubt, that Mankind DID evolve over billions of years from earlier life forms? How would it effect your faith?" The answers from the TE's were "not at all, my faith would be as strong as always". The answers from many of the YEC's were that they would have to abandon their faith since it would prove that the Bible was not true. Dangerous stuff.

i agree with you a million percent. You could even ask the opposite question "How would it affect your beliefs if it was proven without a doubt that Humans DID NOT evolve" TEs would say that there faith would still be strong as would yec/oecs. So it seems TEs would still be christian in both situations while yec/oec would be christian in only one.

 

[Vance]

i agree with you a million percent. You could even ask the opposite question "How would it affect your beliefs if it was proven without a doubt that Humans DID NOT evolve" TEs would say that there faith would still be strong as would yec/oecs. So it seems TEs would still be christian in both situations while yec/oec would be christian in only one.

That is a good point. I would be shocked and fascinated to find that God did, indeed, do things similar to the way Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe Ministry) describes. He opposes evolution, but agrees that the fossil record does, indeed, seem to describe a progression of hominid species that *seem* to lead right up to homo sapiens, but still insists that God created those homo sapiens as an act of special creation. Very possible, I suppose, and I would have a million questions regarding how those first homo sapiens related to the earlier hominids, etc, but you are right: it would not negatively impact my faith at all.