Theistic Evolution, Catholicism or ND?

[chevyontheriver]

So then - am I willing to toss MY Bible out the window for such a skimpy system as the one described above? Turns out that being informed is very VERY helpful in coming to a well-reasoned conclusion.

Yet how many there are out there today for whom this information - known to some atheist evolutionists themselves at the highest levels - is being kept away from public view!!

Why do you think I have tossed my Bible out the window? Why would you even think that? Is it that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible in your own mind and thus anybody and everybody who does not share your actually fallible interpretation is trekking towards atheism? Creationism is a theological invention of the enlightenment. My tradition goes way back before the enlightenment. It isn't limited to faith vs reason thinking. Creationism is, even if creationists may claim to be ever so reasonable. There is too much of nature they have to not see. And too much of the Bible they have to force into their fallible interpretive mold. Some of them have worked at this so hard that they have also become flat-earthers. Same logic.

 

[FaithT]

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

​

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story​

​

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

​

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’​

Are you suggesting that I reject the virgin birth, bodily ascension and miracles?

 

[The Barbarian]

I keep hearing that claim, but so far, no one has substantiated it. What do you have? Or are you just repeating the story without substance?

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says

We were asking you to substantiate your claim about what Hebrew scholars say. If you don't have anything to support your claim, just say so. If you have something, now is the time to show us. Changing the subject probably won't help much.

And as you see, long before modern science, Jewish scholars recognized that Genesis wasn't a literal history. Apparently, Dr. Barr didn't know about Maimonides and others who realized this. How odd.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

Hmm... it appears that your guy is a bit out of touch with biology, not to say unfamiliar with Stephen Gould's actual opinions:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Stephen Jay Gould Quote

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no...

libquotes.com

Notice that he says species level transitionals are "generally lacking", not absent. He has documented those for horses, forams, and ammonites. (all of which have lots of fossils, so such short-time transitions are often found) Maybe it's better for you to pay attention to scientists directly, not what someone else tells you that they say.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I keep hearing that claim, but so far, no one has substantiated it. What do you have? Or are you just repeating the story without substance?


We were asking you to substantiate your claim about what Hebrew scholars say. If you don't have anything to support your claim, just say so. If you have something, now is the time to show us. Changing the subject probably won't help much.

And as you see, long before modern science, Jewish scholars recognized that Genesis wasn't a literal history. Apparently, Dr. Barr didn't know about Maimonides and others who realized this. How odd.

It is something he says was said by James Barr. That was a few posts back. No direct reference given. James Barr was a theologian who rejected Biblical inerrancy. And ended up being used as some sort of 'proof' that a literal 24 hour seven day creation is believed by all Biblical scholars. Doesn't work for me.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is something he says was said by James Barr.

I got that. My question is "what is the evidence to support Barr's claim?"

 

[chevyontheriver]

I got that. My question is "what is the evidence to support Barr's claim?"

None I can see.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm... it appears that your guy is a bit out of touch with biology, not to say unfamiliar with Stephen Gould's actual opinions:

I am fine with evolutionists feeling the need to oppose world-class atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson whenever he admits to some detail that is deemed "inconvenient" --


from: Colin Patterson (biologist) - Wikipedia

​

Patterson was one of the architects of the cladistic revolution in the British Museum of Natural History in the 1970s. In addition to his many works on classification of fossil fishes, he authored a general textbook on evolution, Evolution,[4] in 1978 (and a revised 2nd edition in 1999), and edited Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (1987),[5] a book on the use of molecular and morphological evidence for inferring phylogenies. He also wrote two classic papers on homology.[6][7]​

​

Patterson did not support creationism,​

​

Awards and honours​

• Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1993[11]
• Romer-Simpson Medal of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1997[12]
• Linnean Medal, 1998[13]

 

[BobRyan]

It is something he says was said by James Barr. That was a few posts back. No direct reference given. James Barr was a theologian who rejected Biblical inerrancy. And ended up being used as some sort of 'proof' that a literal 24 hour seven day creation is believed by all Biblical scholars. Doesn't work for me.

Bar was an atheist professor at one of the world class universities and specialized in Hebrew language and OT studies . So when he speaks about what the text of Genesis is - and what it means - he is not talking as a creationist... rather as a scholar in a world class university.

"James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught​

​

James Barr FBA (30 March 1924 – 14 October 2006) was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, known for his critique of the notion that the vocabulary and structure of the Hebrew language may reflect a particular theological mindset.[1] At the University of Oxford, he was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1976 to 1978, and the Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989.​

​

As an atheist he has no "need" to bend the literature and try to get Moses into being some sort of "Darwinist" to protect his own bias about the text being in line with evolutionism's doctrines on origins

 

[The Barbarian]

I am fine with evolutionists feeling the need to oppose world-class atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson whenever he admits to some detail that is deemed "inconvenient" --

Notice, that Patterson claimed that Stephen Gould said that there are no transitional forms and Gould actually said that they were "abundant." So you figure it out.

(stuff about Patterson)

Bottom line; he misrepresented Gould's words. And that's what matters. Why he did so is really not the issue. It merely shows that we can't trust what he says about it.

 

[FaithT]

Bar was an atheist professor at one of the world class universities and specialized in Hebrew language and OT studies . So when he speaks about what the text of Genesis is - and what it means - he is not talking as a creationist... rather as a scholar in a world class university.

"James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught​

​

James Barr FBA (30 March 1924 – 14 October 2006) was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, known for his critique of the notion that the vocabulary and structure of the Hebrew language may reflect a particular theological mindset.[1] At the University of Oxford, he was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1976 to 1978, and the Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989.​

​

As an atheist he has no "need" to bend the literature and try to get Moses into being some sort of "Darwinist" to protect his own bias about the text being in line with evolutionism's doctrines on origins

You never answered my question in post #62.

 

[The Barbarian]

Bar was an atheist professor at one of the world class universities and specialized in Hebrew language and OT studies . So when he speaks about what the text of Genesis is - and what it means - he is not talking as a creationist.

Don't care. I want evidence. As I showed you, Hebrew scholars who don't see scripture as literal are not a recent thing. So seems to me that Barr isn't very informed on this. I notice that both atheists and creationists have an agenda to make scripture incompatible with science. So that might be it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Bar was an atheist professor at one of the world class universities and specialized in Hebrew language and OT studies . So when he speaks about what the text of Genesis is - and what it means - he is not talking as a creationist... rather as a scholar in a world class university.

"James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught​

​

James Barr FBA (30 March 1924 – 14 October 2006) was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, known for his critique of the notion that the vocabulary and structure of the Hebrew language may reflect a particular theological mindset.[1] At the University of Oxford, he was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1976 to 1978, and the Regius Professor of Hebrew from 1978 to 1989.​

​

As an atheist he has no "need" to bend the literature and try to get Moses into being some sort of "Darwinist" to protect his own bias about the text being in line with evolutionism's doctrines on origins

As an atheist he has every reason to misinterpret Scripture. I am less impressed the more I know of him.

 

[BobRyan]

As an atheist he has every reason to misinterpret Scripture.

Actually he does not. Atheists don't care if the Bible says 2+2 = 4 or if it says 2+2 = 5. He would love it if scripture had said "and God made everything come about on Earth in 4 billion years ". That would be just fine with him. But he also does not object if the text says God made everything on earth in 5 seconds. Either way is fine for an atheist since he does not care if the Bible is getting it right or not. His goal is only to state what the text says.

There is only one group that tied their wagon to both Darwin and to God - and then has to bend the text to make it fit. It puts them in a compromised position and obviously there is no evolution text today saying 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the Earth" nor one declaring "and by the seventh day God made everything on Earth".

This is "the easy part"

 

[BobRyan]

Hebrew scholars who don't see scripture as literal are not a recent thing.

don't care - that was not my point. People who believe in the Bhagavad Gita are not a recent thing and Christ's statement that the Jews of his day were getting a lot of things wrong as He said in Mark 7:6-13 shows that this too is not "new".

Some Jews in Matt 22 rejected the resurrection. That was 2000 yeaers ago... so "not a recent thing" and they were Hebrew scholars.

My point is James Barr's statement that Hebrew scholars in all world class universities fully accept the literal meaning of the text as the correct rendering just as the creationist Bible believing Christians do. The only ones that have a problem with that - are the ones trying to get darwinism out of Moses. Neither of the first two groups are in that compromised position.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you suggesting that I reject the virgin birth, bodily ascension and miracles?

no.

I am saying that pointing to arguments made by atheists against the Bible being literally true -- is taking a sledge hammer to the Bible since they make that claim about a great many things in the Bible. Miracles can't be reproduced in the lab - so then it does not matter if you are talking about the Bible and it's 7 day creation week for all life on Earth or the Bible and the virgin birth, or the Bible and the miracles of Jesus or ... If your main criteria is "can't reproduce that in the lab so then... it did not happen" well then that is a dead end for the entire Christian religion after you get to the end of that road.

 

[FaithT]

no.

I am saying that pointing to arguments made by atheists against the Bible being literally true -- is taking a sledge hammer to the Bible since they make that claim about a great many things in the Bible. Miracles can't be reproduced in the lab - so then it does not matter if you are talking about the Bible and it's 7 day creation week for all life on Earth or the Bible and the virgin birth, or the Bible and the miracles of Jesus or ... If your main criteria is "can't reproduce that in the lab so then... it did not happen" well then that is a dead end for the entire Christian religion after you get to the end of that road.

There you go again, sounding like you’re lumping me in with atheists. If you’re not insinuating that I’m an atheist then you really need to brush up on your communication skills.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually he does not. Atheists don't care if the Bible says 2+2 = 4 or if it says 2+2 = 5. He would love it if scripture had said "and God made everything come about on Earth in 4 billion years ". That would be just fine with him. But he also does not object if the text says God made everything on earth in 5 seconds. Either way is fine for an atheist since he does not care if the Bible is getting it right or not. His goal is only to state what the text says.

Um, no. The atheist has every interest in making the Bible look rediculous and in making Christians look rediculous. Easy enough to do by saying the Bible demands creation in seven 24 hour days and then saying all Christian interpreters agree. When the Bible does not demand that and Christian interpreters are not agreeing that is the case. Me. Barr can be ignored as irrelevant at best or hostile more likely.

 

[BobRyan]

Um, no. The atheist has every interest in making the Bible look rediculous and in making Christians look rediculous

Well they don't get into world class universities in the field of OT studies and Hebrew languages by "not knowing what the text says".

. Easy enough to do by saying the Bible demands creation in seven 24 hour days

Especially when paying attention to context such as Ex 20:8-11 legal code that begins with "six days you shall labor" and ends with "for in six days the LORD made...' where it then points directly to the Gen 2:1-3 text.

Both the Bible believing Creation-accepting Creationists 'notice' that fact and so also do all the top professors in OT studies and Hebrew languages in world-class universities.

As noted before - atheists don't care if the Bible says "2+2 = 4" -- they still admit it says it.
They also don't care if the Bible says Christ was born of a virgin - they admit that it says that too.

This is the easy part.

 

[The Barbarian]

don't care - that was not my point.

I get your point. Your guy has an agenda to make science and God mutually exclusive. But he's wrong. And it's not just recently that Hebrew scholars read Genesis as figurative.