Why is evolution unbelievable?

[Resha Caner]

Sure, they were smart. Just as smart as us.

But they were also ignorant.

I agree. On the one hand I can brag about having my name on 6 patents with several more on their way. On the other hand, throughout school and my engineering career there have been many times when I see what other people do and think to myself, "I never would have thought of that."

I don't see "Bronze Age" to be the pejorative than Dunban intends it to be, but I was just curious to see a few other opinions.

It's one of those "reality show" kind of things. I bet if people were just launched into the wilderness and told to go make some bronze, most would fail ... most would fail just trying to get a fire started (I know. Both of my sons are Scouts so I've seen a lot of that).

So, I guess my next question would be this. Suppose I were to make the following statement to Moses:

After a long time fish were able to breathe air and come up onto the land, and after a long time again they gained wings and were able to fly.

Do you think he would have been able to understand that?

Note: I'm not asking you to nitpick the details of my evolutionary tree or whether Moses is historical. I'm just asking, given that a statement similar to this were said to a person of that time, does it seem plausible they would understand it?

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. On the one hand I can brag about having my name on 6 patents with several more on their way. On the other hand, throughout school and my engineering career there have been many times when I see what other people do and think to myself, "I never would have thought of that."

I don't see "Bronze Age" to be the pejorative than Dunban intends it to be, but I was just curious to see a few other opinions.

It's one of those "reality show" kind of things. I bet if people were just launched into the wilderness and told to go make some bronze, most would fail ... most would fail just trying to get a fire started (I know. Both of my sons are Scouts so I've seen a lot of that).

So, I guess my next question would be this. Suppose I were to make the following statement to Moses:

After a long time fish were able to breathe air and come up onto the land, and after a long time again they gained wings and were able to fly.

Do you think he would have been able to understand that?

Note: I'm not asking you to nitpick the details of my evolutionary tree or whether Moses is historical. I'm just asking, given that a statement similar to this were said to a person of that time, does it seem plausible they would understand it?

Where physicians smart 100 years ago?
Where astronomers smart 100 years ago?

I think the answer would be yes, for their time. And if either group was told 100 years ago what we know now about either of their specialties, I am sure they would be amazed and some of it may not be believable.

 

[Resha Caner]

And if either group was told 100 years ago what we know now about either of their specialties, I am sure they would be amazed and some of it may not be believable.

Quite possibly, but I didn't ask about belief. I asked if the statement would be understood.

 

[bhsmte]

Quite possibly, but I didn't ask about belief. I asked if the statement would be understood.

Likely, some of the current knowledge would not be understood by professionals from 100 years ago. The discoveries of the last 100 years, would be the precursor to them being able to understand, without that, their gap to understand would be wide.

 

[Resha Caner]

Likely, some of the current knowledge would not be understood by professionals from 100 years ago. The discoveries of the last 100 years, would be the precursor to them being able to understand, without that, their gap to understand would be wide.

Maybe we're still not understanding each other. I was referring to the statement in italics in post #61.

Maybe the details of current biology would be hard to grasp, but the idea of evolution is quite old. Aside from Anaximander (considered one of the earliest to pose the idea), there are several origin myths that center around the idea of people coming from animals, for example, the Yao in China.

So, I think Moses would have been able to grasp the idea.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe we're still not understanding each other. I was referring to the statement in italics in post #61.

Maybe the details of current biology would be hard to grasp, but the idea of evolution is quite old. Aside from Anaximander (considered one of the earliest to pose the idea), there are several origin myths that center around the idea of people coming from animals, for example, the Yao in China.

So, I think Moses would have been able to grasp the idea.

Sure, I said "some" of the knowledge they may not be able to understand, which also means other pieces they would be able to understand, if it was an extension, of basic knowledge they already possessed.

 

[gluadys]

I agree. On the one hand I can brag about having my name on 6 patents with several more on their way. On the other hand, throughout school and my engineering career there have been many times when I see what other people do and think to myself, "I never would have thought of that."

It is said that Thomas Huxley, on first reading a draft of Darwin's theory, exclaimed "How stupid of me not to have thought of that!"

I don't see "Bronze Age" to be the pejorative than Dunban intends it to be, but I was just curious to see a few other opinions.

It's one of those "reality show" kind of things. I bet if people were just launched into the wilderness and told to go make some bronze, most would fail ... most would fail just trying to get a fire started (I know. Both of my sons are Scouts so I've seen a lot of that).

I agree. I was going to add that not only have we gained a lot of knowledge since the Bronze Age, most of us have also lost a lot as well. Placed in their situation without their knowledge, most of us could not survive. I've seen reports that the average American 4-year old can identify over 1,000 commercial logos. A child raised in the rainforest of Brazil can probably identify as many edible plants.

So, I guess my next question would be this. Suppose I were to make the following statement to Moses:

After a long time fish were able to breathe air and come up onto the land, and after a long time again they gained wings and were able to fly.

Do you think he would have been able to understand that?

I don't see any problem with understanding it. As you say, the notion of transformation is old. Just the science of how it happens is young.

I expect you would then ask why he says something quite different in Genesis. My response would be that he doesn't.

 

[Resha Caner]

I expect you would then ask why he says something quite different in Genesis. My response would be that he doesn't.

Yes, I would ask that question. And so we disagree on the answer.

I had to read Gilgamesh for a history class - the document from which so many claim the Biblical flood account comes. If that's what people consider similar or derivative stories then I suppose The Raven and To Kill a Mockingbird are similar because they both mention birds.

It's why I noted the Yao people of China. Not that it's a story about evolution, but it at least shows that ancient people considered the idea of mingling species and transformations. Read the story of Pan Gu.

Chinese Creation Myths - Crystalinks

Or think of Greek Centaurs and Satyrs. Or the Egyptian Ra.

It was also the reason for my proposed verse. Moses was not too backward and simple to understand what I wrote, and if evolution were true it would be a much more truthful way to present the story - allegory or not.

IMO the Bible is completely unique - completely separate from any idea that the species are somehow related by anything other than that God created them all.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, I would ask that question. And so we disagree on the answer.

I had to read Gilgamesh for a history class - the document from which so many claim the Biblical flood account comes. If that's what people consider similar or derivative stories then I suppose The Raven and To Kill a Mockingbird are similar because they both mention birds.

LOL. That is why you are an engineer and I am a student (and former teacher) of literature. I think you misunderstand what scholars mean when they point to a relationship between Gilgamesh and Genesis. They do not mean Genesis is intended to be a retelling of Gilgamesh (or more specifically the story of Utnapishtim which is embedded in the story of Gilgamesh). What they are getting at is that the basic idea that there had been a great flood, ordained by the gods, in which one person/family survived was already deeply embedded in the culture of the time. Different story-tellers would tell the story in different ways with different characters and different events, but the general framework would remain intact. Like variations on a theme in music.

It is the similarity of theme that is important. So a superficial resemblance (like both mentioning birds) when the theme is very different does not count. By the same token, superficial differences when the theme remains intact don't take away the basic resemblance.

It's why I noted the Yao people of China. Not that it's a story about evolution, but it at least shows that ancient people considered the idea of mingling species and transformations. Read the story of Pan Gu.

Chinese Creation Myths - Crystalinks

Case in point. That myth is very reminiscent of the creation myth in Enuma Elish. All it lacks is the great battle of Tiamat and Marduk. It is a much more peaceful tale, but has the same key elements of the separation of earth and sky and the use of the body parts to construct the various parts of the earth.

A similar separation of earth and sky also occurs in Genesis as well.

Or think of Greek Centaurs and Satyrs. Or the Egyptian Ra.

Sure. The interesting thing about evolution is that such creatures could not exist via evolution. So although they have a place in imagination, their presence in Greek mythology shows a completely different concept of transformation that evolution allows for.

It was also the reason for my proposed verse. Moses was not too backward and simple to understand what I wrote, and if evolution were true it would be a much more truthful way to present the story - allegory or not.

One can't tell a story one does not know. Moses may well have written such a verse if he knew of evolution, but he didn't.

IMO the Bible is completely unique -

In some ways it certainly is. But the biblical writers themselves made no bones about the fact that they took ideas from other peoples, especially in the book of Proverbs where there is specific reference to the wisdom imparted to a King Lemuel, who was never a king in Judah or Israel. Many of the legal prescriptions of Exodus are not new to the culture being known and practiced since the Code of Hammurabi. The bible seems less unique the more one knows of other contemporaneous literature, especially that of ANE culture.

The genius of the bible is often in those places where it departs from the common culture and is truly unique.

completely separate from any idea that the species are somehow related by anything other than that God created them all.

Ah, that is a lovely idea. Of course that God created them all in no way rules out evolution.

I have just been reading quite a lovely (though also disturbing) book by Sallie McFague. It is not about evolution. It is superficially about climate change. But what it is really about is God, us and nature. She would say it is about those things, because we have to get them right if we are going to make the right decisions on climate change. Well, we have to get them right to make the right decisions about anything at all as I see it.

Anyway, I love her descriptions of how we all fit together, God, humanity and all the rest of nature. I highly recommend her writing. This one is called A Climate for Change. Better known is her Life Abundant.

 

[Resha Caner]

LOL. That is why you are an engineer and I am a student (and former teacher) of literature.

Don't sell me short just because I'm an engineer. I read and write quite a bit, so I'm familiar with the fundamentals of a literary analysis - even if I'm not a professional. My example was intentional - to indicate exactly the superficial relationship you spoke of. For example, it was often asked of Tolkien if he had borrowed from Wagner's Niebelung for LOTR. He was emphatic that he had not. There may have been some accidental similarities, but nothing intentional.

Sitting on the other side as a writer is sometimes amusing. I'm aware of who my influences are and know when my stories are similar to others. But sometimes a reader will tell me I seem similar to so-and-so, and ask if I know such-and-such author. It is often the case that they mention someone I've never heard of.

One can imagine similar themes between the literature of different cultures, but it is only speculation. Further, IMO, insisting too strongly that the Bible resembles other literature is to promote that it says nothing special. And, indeed, if Genesis is nothing more than an allegory, then one might as well take lessons from any religion as from Christianity.

Historians speculate as well. I should know because I have a dual degree - my other being history. The supposed borrowing by Moses of the flood story is a topic I've discussed with professors of ancient history. I asked this: Since there were Semite tribes moving through Mesopotamia at the time Gilgamesh was recorded, why would you conclude the Semites borrowed from the Sumerians and not the other way round?

The answer: Because the extant Sumerian texts are older.

So? Oral tradition preceded writing. Writing says nothing of how old the story is. The professors to whom I've noted that have basically agreed, then, that we don't really know who borrowed from whom.

So, might Moses have borrowed? Sure. But I'm trying to make 2 points here:

1) There always seems to be an unstated subtext that if Moses borrowed from other sources the Bible is somehow not a genuine accounting of early history. That is a flawed conclusion.

2) It doesn't matter what Moses knew or didn't know - what he borrowed or wrote as original text. God knew the truth. If God was not conveying that truth to Moses, then Christianity is no better than any other religion. John 14:6 is wrong and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 is right that our faith is futile.

 

[gluadys]

Don't sell me short just because I'm an engineer. I read and write quite a bit, so I'm familiar with the fundamentals of a literary analysis - even if I'm not a professional. My example was intentional - to indicate exactly the superficial relationship you spoke of. For example, it was often asked of Tolkien if he had borrowed from Wagner's Niebelung for LOTR. He was emphatic that he had not. There may have been some accidental similarities, but nothing intentional.

Well, that is the point I am making. When a comparison is made between the bible and other ANE literature, the point is not (or should not) be that one writer borrowed (much less copied) from another any more than Tolkien borrowed from Wagner.

Rather both Wagner and Tolkien worked from a common cultural base. And both developed similar themes in their writings. So did the biblical writers and their ANE contemporaries and predecessors.

Further, IMO, insisting too strongly that the Bible resembles other literature is to promote that it says nothing special.

That is certainly the way some people use the resemblances. But as I said, the bible is indeed unique in some ways. There are other scholars who see the way the biblical writers make unique uses of common cultural elements as very special and important.

For example, in Gilgamesh, the flood has no moral meaning. It is simply a whim of the gods. But in Genesis, the moral meaning is predominant. God does not decide on the flood out of petty annoyance with humanity, but to cleanse the world of corruption and make a fresh start. That is unique and significant.

Or take Genesis 1 which has many affinities with Enuma Elish. One principal contrast, of course, is that Genesis 1 is completely monotheistic. So the whole story of the conflict of Marduk and Tiamat is removed. The formidable and primordial sea monster Tiamat appears in Genesis 1 as simply another sea creature made on the fifth day. In EE the heavenly bodies are homes of the gods. In Genesis, they are nothing more than lamps to give light and serve as a calendar. In EE the creation of humanity is an afterthought to relieve the gods of carrying a burden of work. Humanity is made to be a slave species at the beck and call of the gods. In Genesis 1 humanity is presented as the crown of creation, the image of God in the world, and given dominion over the rest of creation.

Genesis 1 is a marvel of using a common cultural background and reworking it to use against the prevailing polytheistic culture--and in doing so, it provides unique insights we still treasure about God, nature and ourselves.

And, indeed, if Genesis is nothing more than an allegory, then one might as well take lessons from any religion as from Christianity.

I see this as the prejudice of the literalist against allegory.

Of course, there are lessons in other religions as well that are useful to Christians, but even with extensive study of other religions (worked a lot in interfaith dialogue) I have not found anything in them I do not also find in Christianity. In some ways studying other religions is like studying other languages. One of the primary benefits is that one gets to know and understand one's own language/faith better.

Historians speculate as well. I should know because I have a dual degree - my other being history. The supposed borrowing by Moses of the flood story is a topic I've discussed with professors of ancient history. I asked this: Since there were Semite tribes moving through Mesopotamia at the time Gilgamesh was recorded, why would you conclude the Semites borrowed from the Sumerians and not the other way round?

The answer: Because the extant Sumerian texts are older.

So? Oral tradition preceded writing. Writing says nothing of how old the story is. The professors to whom I've noted that have basically agreed, then, that we don't really know who borrowed from whom.

It is not quite that simple. Agreed, the oral stories preceded both sets of writings and we cannot determine among which people the oral story originated. That is why we can speak of a common cultural base. But there are also literary lines of evidence by which it can be deduced whether a later author was influenced by an earlier one. Something similar to investigating which copy of a text of Plato or the NT is earlier than another.

So, might Moses have borrowed? Sure. But I'm trying to make 2 points here:

1) There always seems to be an unstated subtext that if Moses borrowed from other sources the Bible is somehow not a genuine accounting of early history. That is a flawed conclusion.

It is flawed reasoning for the conclusion, but the conclusion itself is sound. Neither the Genesis creation accounts nor their ANE parallels are genuine accounts of early history. This is not to say that the Genesis accounts are not history because they resemble non-historical accounts from other sources. It is more the other way around. The Genesis accounts resemble non-historical accounts because they themselves are not historical, but of a similar genre as the other accounts. Both sets of accounts simply fall into the same class of literary composition.

2) It doesn't matter what Moses knew or didn't know - what he borrowed or wrote as original text. God knew the truth. If God was not conveying that truth to Moses, then Christianity is no better than any other religion. John 14:6 is wrong and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 is right that our faith is futile.

And this would take us into a long excursion into our diverse understanding of what is implied by "inspiration".

So I will limit myself to one point. Why must we assume that given God's knowledge of all scientific truth (including what we ourselves do not yet know), God must have conveyed that to the biblical authors so that we 21st century Christians would be assured of the truth of the bible?

If God is under obligation to reveal all that is known to biblical writers and prophets, why did Jesus heal by casting out demons instead of teaching about bacteria and how to protect oneself from infection or use antibiotics to cure diseases?

If God is under obligation to reveal scientific verities from the beginning, why did he permit Psalmists to write that God fixed the earth in place so that it could not move or be shaken from its foundations, while describing the sun as moving through the heavens.

Can we not simply say that God had more important truths to convey to biblical authors than the machinery of natural processes and left us to discover the latter for ourselves? As, of course, he knew we would.

Meanwhile, biblical authors, whose writings touched on such matters, would phrase their message in terms of the knowledge of their time.

 

[Resha Caner]

Rather both Wagner and Tolkien worked from a common cultural base. And both developed similar themes in their writings. So did the biblical writers and their ANE contemporaries and predecessors.

True, and yet I want to make what I consider to be an important point. The types of analyses you speak of, which include the documentary techniques applied to Genesis and the "search for the historical Jesus" movements too often fall victim to the "common man" mentality. I have seen it argued that Jesus would not have done things stated in the gospels because a Jew from Nazareth wouldn't do those things.

Well, Jesus was not a common man. History is replete with examples of uncommon people who break away from their culture.

That is part of why Tolkien was so offended by such questions. His objective in writing LOTR was to create an "English mythology". He was specifically working to put off the Nordic roots of Wagner. So, to be compared to Wagner was, in his mind, a failure in his goal.

That is certainly the way some people use the resemblances. But as I said, the bible is indeed unique in some ways. There are other scholars who see the way the biblical writers make unique uses of common cultural elements as very special and important.

I can see how we are saying similar things, but it doesn't seem to be quite the same thing. Yes, Moses used cultural elements that played to those who heard him. And yes, he also turned some of those elements to a unique purpose ... as did Jesus in his parables. Not all of Jesus' parables were new either, but the "moral" was new. He put unique twists on the story. Still, I'm going for something more here.

Or take Genesis 1 which has many affinities with Enuma Elish. One principal contrast, of course, is that Genesis 1 is completely monotheistic. So the whole story of the conflict of Marduk and Tiamat is removed.

This is an example. My reaction is, "So what?" I don't care that the Sumerian story is polytheist and the Semite story is monotheist. What I care about is the question: Which one is true (monotheism or polytheism)? Unless Moses' story is true, the allegorical elements are meaningless.

The formidable and primordial sea monster Tiamat appears in Genesis 1 as simply another sea creature made on the fifth day. In EE the heavenly bodies are homes of the gods. In Genesis, they are nothing more than lamps to give light and serve as a calendar. In EE the creation of humanity is an afterthought to relieve the gods of carrying a burden of work. Humanity is made to be a slave species at the beck and call of the gods. In Genesis 1 humanity is presented as the crown of creation, the image of God in the world, and given dominion over the rest of creation.

These are all interesting comparisons, and messages that needed to be heard. But again, the story is presented as history. There is no indication that it transitions from allegory to history at other parts of the pentateuch. The whole thing is presented as history.

I see this as the prejudice of the literalist against allegory.

And it seems to me prejudice is going the other way as well. I will say, however, that I am not YEC and not as much a literalist as you may be supposing. I accept that Scripture contains allegory, metaphor, and many other poetic devices.

Of course, there are lessons in other religions as well that are useful to Christians, but even with extensive study of other religions (worked a lot in interfaith dialogue) I have not found anything in them I do not also find in Christianity. In some ways studying other religions is like studying other languages. One of the primary benefits is that one gets to know and understand one's own language/faith better.

I would agree there are lessons in other beliefs, but I imagine we disagree on what those lessons are. Truth comes from God. As such, any truth that appears in other beliefs is not due to an ability of that belief to discover truth.

It is flawed reasoning for the conclusion, but the conclusion itself is sound. Neither the Genesis creation accounts nor their ANE parallels are genuine accounts of early history.

I find there to be a common misunderstanding about how historical sources are used. Most creation myths are taken by proponents of that faith to be just that - a myth. So, the source is read as a myth. I'm not talking about what our contemporaries think of the text, but what various historical people thought of it. I'm not aware of a historical context in which Gilgamesh is taken as anything other than myth.

Genesis is a different situation. There are many examples of it being interpreted as historical. And, as time goes on, more and more is found to corroborate some of the claims. However, at this point, the creation account is uncorraborated. And, as many would point out, science seems to indicate it is wrong. But I wouldn't say it is not history since everything I am aware of seems to indicate that is how it was intended ... unless you want to start getting into some of the Jewish exegesis that started around the time that Christianity became a challenge to Judaism.

Taking off the hat of a historian, it is my faith that then says Genesis is true. But there are many ways history can be written. I would never claim the creation account to be a detailed treatise. Rather, it is obviously a summary. And, as I tried to show, it would be very easy to provide a summary that better matches evolution while still incorporating all the allegorical lessons you noted.

So I will limit myself to one point. Why must we assume that given God's knowledge of all scientific truth (including what we ourselves do not yet know), God must have conveyed that to the biblical authors so that we 21st century Christians would be assured of the truth of the bible?

Because God knew 21st century Christian would exist and because truth doesn't change. But as I'm trying to note above, it's not that God had to convey "all scientific truth" but that what God conveyed to Moses needed to be true. It wasn't just Moses who wouldn't be able to grasp all truth. We wouldn't either. So, God summarized. But the summary is still true.

If God is under obligation to reveal all that is known to biblical writers and prophets, why did Jesus heal by casting out demons instead of teaching about bacteria and how to protect oneself from infection or use antibiotics to cure diseases?

Jesus explained why he came. Physical healing was not his primary purpose, so it was not what he taught. Are you saying Jesus cured a bacterial infection rather than casting out a demon? Are you saying demons don't exist? I haven't heard bacteria speak, so who was speaking to Jesus when he did these things?

If God is under obligation to reveal scientific verities from the beginning, why did he permit Psalmists to write that God fixed the earth in place so that it could not move or be shaken from its foundations, while describing the sun as moving through the heavens.

It's funny you should bring this one up. My other recent conversation has been to argue against geocentricity and people who interpret the Psalms to mean that.

Can we not simply say that God had more important truths to convey to biblical authors than the machinery of natural processes and left us to discover the latter for ourselves? As, of course, he knew we would.

Yes, but my point all along has been that he was not accomodating inferior people with fairy tales. God speaks truth.

 

[frogman2x]

I don't see "Bronze Age" to be the pejorative than Dunban intends it to be, but I was just curious to see a few other opinions.

Would it surprise you that Cain's son Tubal-Cain the forger of all instruments
of bronze and iron(Gen 4:22)? To be forger of bronze he had to know how to make fire.

Without all of the insturments we have today, the Babylonians had a fairly accurate calendar. Teh Egyptians knnew how to embalm.

God did not create ignorant men. The person who originated the idea might be the smartest one and everyone else built on what they strrted.

So, I guess my next question would be this. Suppose I were to make the following statement to Moses:

After a long time fish were able to breathe air and come up onto the land, and after a long time again they gained wings and were able to fly.

Do you think he would have been able to understand that?

He like me might say, "where is the bioloicval evidence for such a statement" After all God created each species individully"

kermit

 

[gluadys]

True, and yet I want to make what I consider to be an important point. The types of analyses you speak of, which include the documentary techniques applied to Genesis and the "search for the historical Jesus" movements too often fall victim to the "common man" mentality. I have seen it argued that Jesus would not have done things stated in the gospels because a Jew from Nazareth wouldn't do those things.

Well, Jesus was not a common man. History is replete with examples of uncommon people who break away from their culture.

Good point. The gospels are pretty clear that at many points Jesus did break with his culture. He broke with the popular concept of the Messiah as a military leader who would drive out the Romans. The Pharisaical concept of perfect obedience to the law (as they interpreted it) as the means of salvation. Radical table fellowship with anyone and everyone rather than strict social separation from those deemed to be sinners.

What sort of things have you seen people say that Jesus would not do?

That is part of why Tolkien was so offended by such questions. His objective in writing LOTR was to create an "English mythology". He was specifically working to put off the Nordic roots of Wagner. So, to be compared to Wagner was, in his mind, a failure in his goal.

Yeah, I was trying to sort out the different feel between the two writers, and that hits it very well. I could see, for example, much stronger affinities with Celtic culture (King Arthur motifs) than Germanic.

In a way that sort of mirrors the way Genesis plays off a common culture and yet at the same time critiques it and differentiates itself from it.

This is an example. My reaction is, "So what?" I don't care that the Sumerian story is polytheist and the Semite story is monotheist.

Maybe that is because our culture takes monotheism for granted. The reverse was true in ANE culture. In that context monotheism was startling.

What I care about is the question: Which one is true (monotheism or polytheism)? Unless Moses' story is true, the allegorical elements are meaningless.

I think we agree as to which is true. And I would also agree that unless the story is true, the allegorical elements are meaningless.

But I also think you are using the term "true" to mean "historical events". That is a connection I do not make. I don't think the truth of the biblical stories depends on them being historical events.

To put it another way, I think the apparently historical events are the allegorical elements, and the truth is in what they signify to the first audience--what is the author trying to convey in this text?

Take the polytheism/monotheism contrast. It is not as simple as "Babylonians believe in many gods, but Israelites in just one". Polytheism and monotheism necessarily contrast also on what the nature of deity is. One God is not just one God rather than many, but a completely different kind of God than the deities in polytheistic belief systems. And it follows that humans relate to this God differently than to the gods of those systems.

These are all interesting comparisons, and messages that needed to be heard. But again, the story is presented as history. There is no indication that it transitions from allegory to history at other parts of the pentateuch. The whole thing is presented as history.

Frankly, I don't know what it means to say "they are presented as history". They are narratives, stories. They have a beginning a middle and an end. Historians also write narratives about the flow of events in the time and place they are studying. Then there are writers of narratives who make a conscientious effort, in the name of verisimilitude, to give their fictional narratives the feeling of "real history". A few years ago, I read Brigit Jones' Diary. There is nothing fantastical or extraordinary in it, just a year in her life, as recorded in her diary, in which she develops a relationship with a man whom she eventually marries. I think if such a narrative were discovered by some future archeologist without a cover indicating it is fiction, there could well be solemn debates about its authenticity.

Without some extra-textual means of verifying the historicity, I think it may often be quite unclear whether a narrative is history, semi-historical legend, historical fiction or a complete invention of the writer. Because the narrative form is pretty much identical in all of these.

And it seems to me prejudice is going the other way as well. I will say, however, that I am not YEC and not as much a literalist as you may be supposing. I accept that Scripture contains allegory, metaphor, and many other poetic devices.

Well, I didn't say YEC, I said literalist. And all literalists accept that Scripture contains allegory, metaphor, etc. My impression though is twofold:

they seem to think it is easy to classify texts as either allegorical/metaphorical/figurative etc. or historical. In their view, narrative is taken to be an indication of historicity. Well, in and of itself, it is not.

I get the sense that they devalue non-literal forms of communication. Only texts which can be identified as literal-historical are taken to be true and reliable. I have never seen a good justification for why a literal meaning should be a default meaning or a superior mode of communication while non-literal communication is suspect.

I would agree there are lessons in other beliefs, but I imagine we disagree on what those lessons are. Truth comes from God. As such, any truth that appears in other beliefs is not due to an ability of that belief to discover truth.

I don't think beliefs discover truth. I think people do. Or it is revealed to them. Let us not forget that the Holy Spirit has access to every person in every land of every faith. We should not be in the least surprised if the Holy Spirit has found listeners in every land, and of every faith. An inspiring (and true, historical story!) example of this is the experience of missionary Don Richardson as recounted in his book Eternity in their Hearts.

So, I agree, Truth comes from God. But God doesn't restrict his message of truth to the channels of church and Judaeo-Christian scripture. Truth, wherever we find it, comes from God. And sometimes we find it in surprising places.

I find there to be a common misunderstanding about how historical sources are used. Most creation myths are taken by proponents of that faith to be just that - a myth. So, the source is read as a myth. I'm not talking about what our contemporaries think of the text, but what various historical people thought of it. I'm not aware of a historical context in which Gilgamesh is taken as anything other than myth.

Genesis is a different situation. There are many examples of it being interpreted as historical.

I guess the question for me would be "Can we show that the Hebrews treated their own formative stories any differently than the Egyptian or Syrians or Babylonians treated theirs?" Each of these nations would have been aware of the narratives of other nations, but it would seem they did not seek to show that their own was truer than those of other nations. They just took for granted that each nation had its own stories.

I very much doubt that the people of Babylon assigned any less historicity to characters in their stories (especially human characters like Gilgamesh) than the Israelites did to Abraham and the other patriarchs. And I very much doubt that the Israelites considered their stories in a less mythological way than the Babylonians. In both cultures legend and myth WERE their history. They had no other history.

Questions of what is "really history" belong to a later time. By the time that question gets asked we are well past the time in which the stories were first told and written.

And, as time goes on, more and more is found to corroborate some of the claims. However, at this point, the creation account is uncorraborated. And, as many would point out, science seems to indicate it is wrong. But I wouldn't say it is not history since everything I am aware of seems to indicate that is how it was intended ... unless you want to start getting into some of the Jewish exegesis that started around the time that Christianity became a challenge to Judaism.

I have no doubt there is a historical core at the heart of many legends, so there is real history there to be corroborated. Archeology, however, mostly corroborates impersonal history: the name and site of a city, the use of camels, social practices, such as a barren wife giving a handmaid as a concubine to her husband. Except for royalty, very few personal names are recorded, so we can corroborate the existence of the sort of culture milieu in which Abraham lived, but not the personal existence of Abraham or the events of his specific life.

Taking off the hat of a historian, it is my faith that then says Genesis is true.

Same here. but again, I think for you "true" carries the subtext of "real historical people experiencing real historical events." It is that subtext which I disagree with. I don't think we should confound two different concepts in that way.

But there are many ways history can be written. I would never claim the creation account to be a detailed treatise. Rather, it is obviously a summary. And, as I tried to show, it would be very easy to provide a summary that better matches evolution while still incorporating all the allegorical lessons you noted.

Sure, but that still assumes it is important to put evolution into the biblical text. I don't see why it is any more important to put Darwin's ideas into the biblical text than Newton's or Pasteur's.

Because God knew 21st century Christian would exist and because truth doesn't change.

Truth doesn't change, but human perception of what is true does. God also knew the 11th century Christian would exist, and that for the 11th century Christian it would be true that the earth is a motionless sphere around which move the Sun, Moon and stars of heaven. And God knew and knows (should humanity last that long) that the 35th century Christian will exist who will be amused at what erroneous things we 21st century Christians believed to be true.

The Bible was not written to speak specifically to the 21st century and it is certainly hubris to expect that something we consider important be in it, if it was not important in the time it was written.

But as I'm trying to note above, it's not that God had to convey "all scientific truth" but that what God conveyed to Moses needed to be true.

You know, Jesus disagreed with you. He countermanded Moses' teaching on divorce saying it was written only because of the hardness of men's hearts, not because it was right or just. And then he virtually countermanded the law on adultery when he spared the life of the adultress. And think how often in the Sermon on the Mount he quotes Moses (You have heard it said ....), and then says "but I say to you".

Yes, sometimes he is actually referring to the scribes interpretations rather than the Mosaic law itself, but often he is directly quoting the law.

So now, what do we say: that some of what God conveyed to Moses was not true, or that some of what Moses wrote was not conveyed to him by God?

Are you saying Jesus cured a bacterial infection rather than casting out a demon?

Take two facts.
In Jesus day, almost all sickness was ascribed to demonic activity. e.g. the father of the epileptic boy prays that Jesus will cast out the demon who afflicts his son.
In our day, we explain most sickness without attributing it to demonic activity.

I don't think the sicknesses are different. Just the perception of the cause.

Are you saying demons don't exist? I haven't heard bacteria speak, so who was speaking to Jesus when he did these things?

I don't think that kind of illness comes from bacteria.

It's funny you should bring this one up. My other recent conversation has been to argue against geocentricity and people who interpret the Psalms to mean that.

Most of us today don't interpret these passages literally. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with someone who uses a standard modern non-literal interpretation of the Psalmist's words and tries to call it a literal interpretation.


I think this comes about because of an incorrect conflation of "literal" with "true". I think what people mean is that a true interpretation of the Psalmist's words allows for the earth to orbit the sun and rotate on its axis. I quite agree. But please don't call that a literal interpretation, because it is not. The only possible literal interpretation of "not move" is "not move" as in "remain still, in one place". Similarly the only possible literal interpretation of "the sun stopped in midheaven" is that the sun stopped moving across the face of the sky. You can put a Copernican spin on that, and give me an argument about language of appearance. I have no objection, so long as you recognize it is an interpretation to accommodate a modern view of the solar system which you consider to be true and therefore the true interpretation of the text. I will even agree this is a true interpretation of the text, but it is in no way a literal interpretation.

Yes, but my point all along has been that he was not accomodating inferior people with fairy tales. God speaks truth.

The people were not inferior to us. Their knowledge was. But they also thought their knowledge was true, even when, by our lights, it was not. So God spoke truth to them within a framework of "truth" they could hear. After all, as Calvin said, any communication of God to a creature IS communication to an inferior and has to be accommodated to what the creature can understand, much as any parent has to accommodate their communication to a young child to what the young child can understand.

How often do we tell a young child that a new baby is growing "in Mummy's tummy"? The truth, the full truth, requires that the child learn first the basics of human internal anatomy, especially of the reproductive system. But it will be a while before the child can assimilate that, and they need to know about the impending arrival of a sibling now.

 

[Resha Caner]

What sort of things have you seen people say that Jesus would not do?

Most of them center around education and Jewish custom - that he wouldn't have been able to read, that he wouldn't have spoken to his mother the way he did, that he wouldn't have been travelling and gleaning from the fields on the Sabbath, etc.

Frankly, I don't know what it means to say "they are presented as history" ... A few years ago, I read Brigit Jones' Diary. There is nothing fantastical or extraordinary in it, just a year in her life, as recorded in her diary, in which she develops a relationship with a man whom she eventually marries. I think if such a narrative were discovered by some future archeologist without a cover indicating it is fiction, there could well be solemn debates about its authenticity.

I'm not saying it's easy. I'll grant that taking the extreme positions (fully literal or fully allegorical) are easier. But I'm not looking for the easy button.

The difference with your Brigit Jones example would be whether anyone in later years would claim to be her descendent. If Gensis becomes just an allegory, then the lineages are an allegory, so Matthew and Luke (and Acts?) become allegories. Where does it stop?

It's a question I often ask in these discussions. Who would you consider to be the first "real" person mentioned in the Bible?

Without some extra-textual means of verifying the historicity, I think it may often be quite unclear whether a narrative is history, semi-historical legend, historical fiction or a complete invention of the writer. Because the narrative form is pretty much identical in all of these.

Is there a difference in form between Genesis and Exodus? I guess I don't see it. So is Exodus also an allegory? And Numbers? It's similar to the question I asked above, but I'm setting up an answer to your question. For the cases I'm aware of, the text announces the transition. Joseph announced his dreams as dreams. In Chronicles David announces the "fixed earth" psalm as a psalm when he tells Asaph to worship. The gospel writers introduce Jesus' parables as parables. These all seem like simple things to recognize to me.

I'll give you the tough ones. Is Jonah just a narrative? Given he is claimed as a historical figure in 2 Kings, I think the book is meant as history.

Is Job a narrative? Even the Bible doesn't corroborate that one, so my answer is: I don't know.

I get the sense that they devalue non-literal forms of communication. Only texts which can be identified as literal-historical are taken to be true and reliable. I have never seen a good justification for why a literal meaning should be a default meaning or a superior mode of communication while non-literal communication is suspect.

I don't mean to do that. I'm a big fan of a book called From Homer to Harry Potter. Yeah, a goofy title, but a great read. They push hard on the use of "story" to convey meaning that can't be conveyed directly - in the "scientific" way that many of our modern contemporaries demand.

I don't think beliefs discover truth. I think people do. Or it is revealed to them. Let us not forget that the Holy Spirit has access to every person in every land of every faith. We should not be in the least surprised if the Holy Spirit has found listeners in every land, and of every faith. An inspiring (and true, historical story!) example of this is the experience of missionary Don Richardson as recounted in his book Eternity in their Hearts.

True, but the Bible has all we need WRT truth. We don't need to look elsewhere for it. And whatever "truth" other religions may have stumbled upon, it will only be filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) when the day of judgement comes unless they have Christ. I believe God reaches out to everyone, and so He will find a way to reach those whom western missionary efforts don't reach. But if those people turn to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, or whatever it is, they have rejected Christ.

I'm the odd duck here. I'm even willing to consider that God spoke to Mohammed as he claimed. My point of departure would be that whatever message Mohammed received, it was corrupted.

I very much doubt that the people of Babylon assigned any less historicity to characters in their stories (especially human characters like Gilgamesh) than the Israelites did to Abraham and the other patriarchs. And I very much doubt that the Israelites considered their stories in a less mythological way than the Babylonians. In both cultures legend and myth WERE their history. They had no other history.

I disagree. From what I've seen different cultures treat their origin stories very differently. It was something my professors emphasized over and over again in my classes on Chinese and Japanese history.

Sure, but that still assumes it is important to put evolution into the biblical text.

It is important that it be true. If evolution is the mechanism, God didn't make the animals in Gen 1:25 ... which leads to the second question I asked a while back. I think it got lost in the length of these posts (which I'm trying to cut down on).

What do we make of prophesy in a non-deterministic system?

The Bible was not written to speak specifically to the 21st century and it is certainly hubris to expect that something we consider important be in it, if it was not important in the time it was written.

I don't see it as hubris. Rather, I see it as a demonstration of how amazing God is that he can write a text which speaks truth to all ages of history. Look at the Psalms. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book on the amazing nature of the Psalms, that poetry in Hebrew translates so well to poetry in other languages. Such is not true of most poetry.

You know, Jesus disagreed with you. He countermanded Moses' teaching on divorce ...

He also said he had not come to abolish the law. We can't cherry pick here. What did Jesus mean by such statements? It is more that he is saying he is the fulfilment of the law than that he is countermanding anyone.

The people were not inferior to us. Their knowledge was. But they also thought their knowledge was true, even when, by our lights, it was not. So God spoke truth to them within a framework of "truth" they could hear. After all, as Calvin said, any communication of God to a creature IS communication to an inferior and has to be accommodated to what the creature can understand, much as any parent has to accommodate their communication to a young child to what the young child can understand.

Yes, you are correct, but I don't like it when this becomes an excuse for dismissing Scripture. Dealing with idiom is what makes this a difficult conversation.

The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the center of the universe is - or if there even is one. But the fact still remains that relative to where I stand, the sun moves across the sky. As such, weathermen still use the idioms of sunrise and sunset even though we know those are not factually correct descriptions of the motions of bodies in space.

So, we could require God to tell Joshua, "I will make the sun appear to stand still with respect to how you view it from where you stand," or we can accept that God sometimes speaks to us in our own idiom.

The question is: Is Gen 1:25 an idiom? I haven't seen any convincing arguments that it is. There is nothing in the text that would distinguish what God does create from what God sets loose to function on its own ... which ties back to the question I asked earlier about non-determinism.

 

[gluadys]

Most of them center around education and Jewish custom - that he wouldn't have been able to read, that he wouldn't have spoken to his mother the way he did, that he wouldn't have been travelling and gleaning from the fields on the Sabbath, etc.

Well, all a study of education and custom and any other aspect of society can tell you are the probabilities for an average person of Jesus' station in life. They can't speak to anything unique about that person which may lead to exceptional behaviour. One can hardly say a person whose public life was a challenge to custom never actually broke with custom.

I'm not saying it's easy. I'll grant that taking the extreme positions (fully literal or fully allegorical) are easier. But I'm not looking for the easy button.

That's good. Neither am I.

The difference with your Brigit Jones example would be whether anyone in later years would claim to be her descendent. If Gensis becomes just an allegory, then the lineages are an allegory, so Matthew and Luke (and Acts?) become allegories. Where does it stop?

Oh, that is hard to say. Genealogies tracing family roots to legendary or even divine beings were a dime a dozen in ANE and even Greco-Roman cultures. The Greek historian, Herodotus, for example, lists a lineage of 22 Kings of Lydia descended from one of the children of Hercules, himself sired by Zeus. It is a common enough impulse to seek connections to people of importance. My own grandfather used a coincidence of name to claim a relationship to English nobility. An Archbishop in the family tree?? | Memoirs for a Memory

It's a question I often ask in these discussions. Who would you consider to be the first "real" person mentioned in the Bible?

Depends on the criteria of "real". Does it mean "documentable"? If memory serves one of the first to be named extra-biblically is King Ahab of Israel, though the name is given as Omri (the name of his house). But I don't follow archeology closely and you may have more information of this sort than I do. I have a vague recollection of something being found with connections to King David.

Without documentation all we can go on are probabilities based on textual analysis in comparison with what is known of the culture of the time. Given indications that the social setting is accurate for the time and place, I would take it as probable that Abraham was a historical figure. More shadowy are people like Noah and Lamech, his grandfather. Of them, I would be less certain without ruling out the possibility.

This does not mean the stories featuring them are of historical events.

Is there a difference in form between Genesis and Exodus?

Not precisely, because there are different forms within Genesis and different forms within Exodus, so as both display a plurality of forms internally one cannot do a whole book comparison the way one would contrast a modern novel with a modern film script.

For the cases I'm aware of, the text announces the transition. Joseph announced his dreams as dreams. In Chronicles David announces the "fixed earth" psalm as a psalm when he tells Asaph to worship. The gospel writers introduce Jesus' parables as parables. These all seem like simple things to recognize to me.

Ah, but there are stories within stories. If, for example, the story of Joseph is, as a whole, a story, his dreams are part of the larger story. I am glad you notice that it is the gospel writers, not Jesus himself, who introduce Jesus' parables as parables. Jesus' listeners got no such introduction. So did they automatically assume he was speaking of real people and events? Then there is the whole erroneous equation of reality with prose and non-reality with poetry. 1 Chronicles is about as historical as anything in the OT, but what does it mean to you that David places his reference to a "fixed earth" in a Psalm? Do you think that the poetic form gives you licence to say David did not think he was referring to an actual reality?

I'll give you the tough ones. Is Jonah just a narrative?

No, it is a great narrative, not "just" a narrative. Why do people insist on demeaning literature? This narrative is as important as scripture as any historical narrative is.

Given he is claimed as a historical figure in 2 Kings, I think the book is meant as history.

I think the writer of Jonah chose an obscure historical character, known to be a prophet, but with no record of his words or deeds extant, as a convenient peg for his fiction. (In a similar fashion, Shakespeare wrote a great fictional drama around an obscure but historical prince of Denmark.)

Is Job a narrative?

Only the opening and closing is narrative. The bulk is drama. Sets of speeches by Job and his interlocutors. None of it seems to be historical.

I don't mean to do that. I'm a big fan of a book called From Homer to Harry Potter. Yeah, a goofy title, but a great read. They push hard on the use of "story" to convey meaning that can't be conveyed directly - in the "scientific" way that many of our modern contemporaries demand.

OK, I'll withdraw the complaint above then.
It is noticeable that everything we have kept from ancient culture is primarily in the form of story. It is not that stories, especially in the form of epic poetry, is the only thing the ancients wrote. They had oodles of records of taxes received, laws promulgated, court annals, temple rituals, medicinal practices, etc. But who, other than archeologists, ever read those things? Who today wants to recall the lists of kings and dynasties of ancient Egypt?

What continues to fascinate us, and resonate with us, even over millennia, are stories. I think that is important when it comes to studying the bible. If the message of scripture is important to all generations, has to be understandable to all generations through millennia, what better vehicle to assure that it is transmitted intact all through the ages than to place it in stories? Stories originally told by illiterate nomadic people wandering through the deserts or camping at oases. Stories of their ancestors, real and not-so-real. Stories told to convey lessons and perhaps modified to make a point. Or stories that grow in the telling. But stories that hold people together. I think it is the wisdom of God that puts much of the teaching of the bible, not in the didactic form of laws or doctrinal dissertation (though there is that as well), but in story and poetry and song. Because this is what people find easiest to remember.

Of course, stories can be about historical people and events; but so is historical fiction. When story and history are entwined as they so often are, it is meaningless to insist on their separation. The impression I get from scripture is that history is embedded in story, with story being primary.

True, but the Bible has all we need WRT truth.

I think this is a distortion of the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. Calvin set out this doctrine in response to the Roman doctrine of the necessity of the sacraments and the priesthood for salvation. Scripture may be sufficient for the most important thing--finding one's way to God, but that sufficiency is compatible with enlarging one's knowledge by other means. Sufficiency after all means just enough, not all there is. Why content oneself with just sufficient food to keep barely alive when it is God's pleasure to provide us with a banquet?

We don't need to look elsewhere for it.

Sometimes we do.

"We shall not cease from exploration/ And the end of all our exploring /Will be to arrive where we started /And know it for the first time." T.S. Eliot

Sometimes we need to see our faith through the eyes of another faith to understand it better ourselves. I look right now at what Christians are learning about the creation mandate of Genesis via explorations of indigenous spirituality. Who knows but what God preserved them for this time when we so much need to rediscover our own nearly-lost tradition of responsibility for the earth and all its non-human inhabitants.

And whatever "truth" other religions may have stumbled upon, it will only be filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6)

O, come, come, come, this is a hideous distortion of Isaiah's meaning. After all, he was speaking to his own people and he was not speaking about what other nations believed. This is a condemnation of the "righteousness" of Israel which is not righteousness at all, but merely self-serving hypocrisy.
To apply it to other faiths is to misapply it entirely.

Besides, truth is truth wherever it is found and no matter by whom it is found. All truth is God's truth and comes from God by whatever channel God pleases to use.

I believe God reaches out to everyone, and so He will find a way to reach those whom western missionary efforts don't reach. But if those people turn to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, or whatever it is, they have rejected Christ.

Gandhi is often quoted as saying "I love your Christ, but I hate your Christians. They are so different from your Christ." If it is our own "testimony" whether by word or action that drives people to other faiths, or to atheism, I fear the condemnation on our own heads will be far greater than on any who made that choice.

I don't write off anyone because they wear a certain religious label. I consider it insufficient evidence of their relationship with God.

I'm the odd duck here. I'm even willing to consider that God spoke to Mohammed as he claimed. My point of departure would be that whatever message Mohammed received, it was corrupted.

And, of course, that is exactly what they say has happened to the message of Moses and of Jesus. In their eyes it is the Torah and the Gospel which have been corrupted.

I disagree. From what I've seen different cultures treat their origin stories very differently. It was something my professors emphasized over and over again in my classes on Chinese and Japanese history.

Depends on what is meant by that. People of other faiths certainly believe i the historicity of key figures in their traditions (e.g. Buddha, Krishna). But whether this sense of history extends to "origin stories" is a different matter. The Chinese apparently are not even sure they have an "origins story".

If evolution is the mechanism, God didn't make the animals in Gen 1:25 ...

Who says? and by what authority or logic?
How does evolution as mechanism (or process) rule out God as Creator?

which leads to the second question I asked a while back. I think it got lost in the length of these posts (which I'm trying to cut down on).

What do we make of prophesy in a non-deterministic system?

Interesting question. Not everyone agrees with non-determinism. Do you?
Interestingly, hard-line determinism has both Christian (especially Calvinist) and atheist forms.

As for prophecy, what is it in your view?

I don't see it as hubris. Rather, I see it as a demonstration of how amazing God is that he can write a text which speaks truth to all ages of history. Look at the Psalms. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book on the amazing nature of the Psalms, that poetry in Hebrew translates so well to poetry in other languages. Such is not true of most poetry.

And one of the big differences between science and story is that story and poetry can speak truth to all ages without needing to change from one generation to another. Story has a timelessness about it that eludes science.

Scientific truth is accumulative. One can fix on a time line where a new truth was discovered. Yet previous generations believed something about the topic prior to that discovery. What could a biblical author believe about the earth prior to the discovery of the mechanics of the solar system or even Aristotle's insight that the earth must be a sphere? He had to have some concept of cosmology, but it could not include what was not yet known.

He also said he had not come to abolish the law. We can't cherry pick here. What did Jesus mean by such statements? It is more that he is saying he is the fulfilment of the law than that he is countermanding anyone.

If we are not going to cherrypick we cannot avoid those instances where Jesus "revises" the law as well. So it is not "more" of one than the other, but both-and.

Yes, you are correct, but I don't like it when this becomes an excuse for dismissing Scripture. Dealing with idiom is what makes this a difficult conversation.

And TEs resent it when it is assumed that the aim is to dismiss Scripture.

The fact is, we have no way of knowing what the center of the universe is - or if there even is one. But the fact still remains that relative to where I stand, the sun moves across the sky. As such, weathermen still use the idioms of sunrise and sunset even though we know those are not factually correct descriptions of the motions of bodies in space.

Sure, but that doesn't make it true that the psalmist thought in those terms when he wrote the psalm. He had no basis for thinking his descriptions were not factually correct, and probably believed that they were. Who in that day and age would not take his depictions as factual?

So, we could require God to tell Joshua, "I will make the sun appear to stand still with respect to how you view it from where you stand," or we can accept that God sometimes speaks to us in our own idiom.

Precisely. And the evidence is that God speaks to us in our own idiom rather than telling us it is factually incorrect.

The question is: Is Gen 1:25 an idiom? I haven't seen any convincing arguments that it is. There is nothing in the text that would distinguish what God does create from what God sets loose to function on its own ...

I should hope not, because the idea of God setting anything loose to function on its own is clearly not within the parameters of biblical faith. That doesn't mean scientific study cannot come to an accurate description of natural process. But "natural process" doesn't mean God has put nature on automatic pilot. "natural process" functions by the power of God, not on its own.

which ties back to the question I asked earlier about non-determinism.

Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between prediction and prophesy?

 

[Resha Caner]

Depends on the criteria of "real".

I would have let you define it as you choose. That is the reason I used "real" rather than something like "historical." I'm confident you know what I'm after. As I tried to explain, studying history means trying to determine the intent of the writer and the impact on those inspired by the writer. There isn't quite as much judging of what is true and what isn't as people seem to think.

So, as far as "documentation" goes, we have the Bible. It is a historical document. It claims certain people to be real. WRT history, as I said, many of those claims are currently uncorroborated. But that isn't a judgement of whether the claims are true or not - though one can often get a good sense of the historian's personal opinion.

But that isn't what I was asking. The question was addressed to you. Who do you think is the first real person in the Bible? As I said, it is apart from my role as a historian and because of my faith that I accept them as real. I will add that faith came first and acceptance of these people as real came second. It seems to me you are saying that you need outside corroboration for the Bible before you will accept the claimed events as real. I see that as a problem - as leaning on the opinions of unbelievers.

I've also tried to explain why I think it's important. First because if what God says isn't true, then I don't care what allegorical lessons are being taught. But second because death is real. Death is more than an allegory, and being saved from physical and spiritual death is more than an allegory. So, to be saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus must be more than allegorical.

So did they automatically assume he was speaking of real people and events?

As you said earlier, we differ on what inspiration means. This is an example. To me inspiration means being faithful to the message God has given. Of course personal styles come through, but all authors were faithful to the message. They didn't change what they didn't understand (and some admitted the message was confusing at times).

I'm sure some of Jesus' listeners misunderstood him. In fact, the gospels indicate that. Praise God it is not our works or our understanding that saves us. However, that is different than God buying into a falsehood just because it makes the message easier to communicate.

Then there is the whole erroneous equation of reality with prose and non-reality with poetry. 1 Chronicles is about as historical as anything in the OT, but what does it mean to you that David places his reference to a "fixed earth" in a Psalm? Do you think that the poetic form gives you licence to say David did not think he was referring to an actual reality?

You make a good point. As I said, these distinctions are not always easy to explain. Announcing a passage as poetry certainly alerts me that it is more likely to use "non-real" forms. In this particular case there is more to alert me to the nature of that particular phrase. In subsequent verses there are lines where the earth and fields rejoice, where the trees sing, etc. Unless I believe trees actually personify such behavior, I am inclined to take all the connected phrases as a simile for something else.

I think this is a distortion of the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.

I'm not a Calvinist. But, again, you've made it clear you're looking outside Christianity for truth. I'm not. It has nothing to do with judging other people. Their fate will be judged by God, not me, but I am called to witness.

O, come, come, come, this is a hideous distortion of Isaiah's meaning.

I didn't mean the verse as the sum total of an argument, but as the punctuation on a summary statement. That is all we have really done here is summarize. We haven't dug into any one particular point with any depth. Were we to focus on how Scripture refers to those who follow other gods - other beliefs - there would be plenty of examples underlining the point that other "truths" are garbage.

I have to say I was surprised you would react this way. Are you saying there is no other meaning to that verse but what Isaiah specifically spoke to those who heard it? I thought you were arguing for the allegorical meaning of Scripture above the historical.

Who says? and by what authority or logic?
How does evolution as mechanism (or process) rule out God as Creator?

Non-determinism.

Interesting question. Not everyone agrees with non-determinism. Do you?
Interestingly, hard-line determinism has both Christian (especially Calvinist) and atheist forms.

We're talking specifically here of how it relates to creation. In every instance I'm aware of where the subject comes up, evolution is stated to be non-deterministic. Every biologist I've ever pressed on the issue has said it is non-deterministic. The only case where I've heard it said otherwise is from theistic evolutionists such as yourself. So, I'm not inclined to think that is a proper representation of the current consensus.

I've even pushed it farther than that. I've asked: is it that evolution is non-deterministic or is it possibly a complexity we don't understand that appears non-deterministic? The answer has always been: it is non-deterministic. Now, I don't think they can actually prove that, but it seems to be the belief. Maybe you'll disagree and say there is no consensus on that issue. But you set the bar of proof rather high during our UCA discussion. I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that there is no consensus.

Since they can't prove it, you're safe to say otherwise, but then you're not in line with what I believe to be the consensus. And if that's an acceptable place to be, then I'm feeling more comfortable in my objections to UCA. You can talk of evolution (with a little "e") as changes in allele frequency, but I think that only pretends agreement with ideas of Evolution (with a capital "E") and avoids the issue.

If evolution is non-deterministic, it excludes God's ability to make the animals. If you're going to throw away the idea of non-determinism in order to align with the idea that God made the animals, why do you stop there? The evidence you have is only circumstantial; no one was there to confirm the circumstances were what evolution would claim them to be; why would you insist we have found the way God did it?

If we are not going to cherrypick we cannot avoid those instances where Jesus "revises" the law as well. So it is not "more" of one than the other, but both-and.

I don't think I used the word "revise". In fact, I think I was objecting to that. I would expect that since Jesus is God he would know the law better than Moses. It was, after all, God who gave it. But one of the reasons for giving it was to show how impossible it is to keep it. When Jesus points out that hate in the heart is equivalent to murder, was he "revising" the law, or expounding upon a law that had already been given? I would say it was the latter. Had it been given in full to Moses, he would probably still be on the mountain writing it all down.

Precisely. And the evidence is that God speaks to us in our own idiom rather than telling us it is factually incorrect.

It seems I didn't make my point clearly. Your example of pregnancy is a good one. In the colloquial usage, "tummy" is a generic term that covers a whole area of the body, not just the organ we call the "stomach". As such, it is truthful to say the baby is in mommy's tummy. On the flip side, telling a child babies are brought by storks would not be truthful.

My perspective is the same as Joshua's: the sun rises and sets. So, to use that idiom does not belie the truth. It would be mathematically possible to describe a cosmological system with a fixed earth at the center. It would, however, be ridiculously complex. There is a much simpler way, and the rule of parsimony that many scientists apply then indicates such is the "better" answer.

If God had said, "I'm going to tie a rope onto the sun and lash it in place to the earth," that would be like the stork story - or like George Bailey's promise to lasso the moon for Mary.

Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between prediction and prophesy?

Yes.

 

[gluadys]

So, as far as "documentation" goes, we have the Bible.

One cannot corroborate a document by reference to the same document.

But that isn't what I was asking. The question was addressed to you. Who do you think is the first real person in the Bible?

As I said, without corroboration, all one can do is estimate probabilities. I think it probable that from Abraham on we are dealing mostly with historical characters—but set into legends about them. i.e. the historicity of the person does not render the events, or the events as told, actual history.

It seems to me you are saying that you need outside corroboration for the Bible before you will accept the claimed events as real. I see that as a problem - as leaning on the opinions of unbelievers.

Not opinions and not unbelievers. Evidence, often presented by believers. I would not accept the mere opinions of even believers, but I would not reject good evidence even from unbelievers.

Nor do I take a default position that the event must be proven historical before I accept it as such. I am inclined in the opposite direction: accept it as history, even without corroboration, unless and until there is ample reason not to.

I've also tried to explain why I think it's important. First because if what God says isn't true, then I don't care what allegorical lessons are being taught.

So, to clarify, here you are using “true” to mean “physically & historically actual/real”?

I think this is opening the gates to unbelief. It is all too easy to mock the bible as written by “bronze age goat herders” because they did not and could not conceive Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is a way of excusing oneself from taking anything in the bible seriously.

But not knowing certain facts does not mean they were less human, less intelligent, less capable of reflecting on the meaning of life and coming to conclusions that are still valid today in a way their limited scientific capacity cannot be. So frankly acknowledging their limitations allows us to go on and look at what their real message was.

But second because death is real. Death is more than an allegory, and being saved from physical and spiritual death is more than an allegory. So, to be saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus must be more than allegorical.

Granted. And I think those who dispute the actual historicity of Jesus are bucking the evidence in a most puerile way. I once saw an argument that the whole history of Jesus was invented by the Romans. Ridiculous.

As you said earlier, we differ on what inspiration means. This is an example. To me inspiration means being faithful to the message God has given.

We would have to go deeper than that to see differences. I would agree up to here, but I wonder what additional assumptions this is attached to.

I'm sure some of Jesus' listeners misunderstood him. In fact, the gospels indicate that.

Including the disciples. So how did they know to ask Jesus the meaning of a parable if they could not distinguish a parable from a story about an actual event?

Maybe the point is that it doesn’t matter. Whether the Sower was a real person or not, the meaning of the story is not affected one way or the other. It is still a parable even if the Sower was a real, historical individual. A similar line of thought would apply to Job and to Jonah. They can be real yet the stories that bear their names have the same impact if they are not, and it is the impact of the story that matters, not the connection to history.

In this particular case there is more to alert me to the nature of that particular phrase. In subsequent verses there are lines where the earth and fields rejoice, where the trees sing, etc. Unless I believe trees actually personify such behavior, I am inclined to take all the connected phrases as a simile for something else.

No good enough. The difference here is that people in all times and ages, with or without the aid of science, know that trees don’t sing and hills don’t leap or clap their hands.

But we have solid historical documentation that people really did think the earth was motionless while the heavenly bodies moved through the heavens. That includes Jewish thinkers.

I think therefore that it takes an act of wilfully closing one’s mind to the evidence to suppose that a motionless earth was not taken to be an actual, real fact at the time these passages were written and that the writers themselves considered they were referring to an actual existing physical reality.

Obviously , neither you nor I think it is a reality. And neither you nor I consider that it makes any difference to truth of the bible that it is not a reality. For us, the curtain of ignorance has been removed. We know both the motions of the earth and how they produce the appearance the psalmist and other biblical authors took to be fact. But we have to remember the biblical authors were on the other side of that veil and so could not see things as we do.

I'm not a Calvinist. But, again, you've made it clear you're looking outside Christianity for truth. I'm not. It has nothing to do with judging other people. Their fate will be judged by God, not me, but I am called to witness.

Well I am a Calvinist and I know that sola scriptura means Christian doctrine is to be rooted solely in scripture and not in church traditions apart from scripture. It does not mean that a Christian is forbidden to seek wisdom from non-biblical sources (though, of course, the Christian will evaluate such wisdom in the light of scripture). Augustine justified the study of Greek and Roman literature written by pagans by saying it was like the Israelites on the eve of the Exodus taking treasures from the Egyptians—as God commanded them to do.

I didn't mean the verse as the sum total of an argument, but as the punctuation on a summary statement. That is all we have really done here is summarize. We haven't dug into any one particular point with any depth.

Par for the course on a forum.

Were we to focus on how Scripture refers to those who follow other gods - other beliefs - there would be plenty of examples underlining the point that other "truths" are garbage.

Except Isaiah was not taking about truths. He was talking about behaviour.

I have to say I was surprised you would react this way. Are you saying there is no other meaning to that verse but what Isaiah specifically spoke to those who heard it? I thought you were arguing for the allegorical meaning of Scripture above the historical.

One must always begin exegesis by focusing on what the text meant to the author, what the author expected the listener to understand. So we must begin with Isaiah speaking to Jews, and even including himself “All of US have become like one unclean; all OUR righteous deeds have become like filthy rags.”

Then look at the wider context: it is part of a prayer to God, a prayer of confession and repentance. It is this people, God’s people, who have sinned and need to be restored to fellowship.

If we extend the application, these are elements that need to be kept within the allegory. So we can certainly apply it to ourselves, to our churches, to our societies. But there are rules to allegory too, so we cannot turn it inside out and use it to judge others. Any allegorical use of a text still has to be connected to the text and be a legitimate extension of the original meaning.

Non-determinism.

We're talking specifically here of how it relates to creation. In every instance I'm aware of where the subject comes up, evolution is stated to be non-deterministic. Every biologist I've ever pressed on the issue has said it is non-deterministic. The only case where I've heard it said otherwise is from theistic evolutionists such as yourself. So, I'm not inclined to think that is a proper representation of the current consensus.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. First, I think your premise is wrong. I don’t think non-determinism rules out creation.

OTOH, I think evolution can be non-deterministic in appearance while still being deterministic in fact. It is a matter of recalling that there can be two different perspectives in regard to the same phenomenon: the human perspective and God’s perspective. We commonly speak of certain events being random, while still acknowledging that in God’s view they are planned and purposeful. In Proverbs it states quite plainly that “the lot is cast in the lap” ( randomly in human perspective) “but every decision is from the Lord” (not randomly in God’s perspective. In Genesis, while Joseph’s brothers are debating what to do with him, it just so happens (randomly in human perspective) that a caravan heading to Egypt comes by (not at all random in God’s perspective) opening the opportunity to send Joseph to Egypt and eventually save his people.

So sure, if you are asking, based solely on a scientific (human) perspective “Is evolution non-deterministic?” the only possible answer is “Yes, it is!” But science cannot take into account God’s perspective. Much less any action God might take to “steer” evolution in a way that accords with his plans.

Now I don’t particularly like this argument, but I can’t rule it out. If we believe that God can indicate his choice of Barnabas or Matthias as the replacement for Judas by the casting of lots, I see no reason we cannot also believe God directed an asteroid at the earth 65 million years ago to change the face of the earth and allow mammals to develop in new ways—including toward human beings. Any one who believe in such direct interventions by God cannot rule out determinism in evolution—though it cannot be detected via scientific means. So the textbooks will still, correctly, present evolution as non-deterministic.

But do you know what is really, really non-deterministic? Quantum motion.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7767665-16/#post64010758

One thing this tells me, as a Christian, is that any doctrine of creation other than continual creation, cannot be true. A doctrine which views God’s act of creation as making a machine and turning on the switch is liable to this objection so far as foreknowledge goes. And that (apart from a nod to occasional miraculous interventions) seems to be the default view among anti-evolutionists.

I've even pushed it farther than that. I've asked: is it that evolution is non-deterministic or is it possibly a complexity we don't understand that appears non-deterministic? The answer has always been: it is non-deterministic. Now, I don't think they can actually prove that, but it seems to be the belief.

You certainly have to call in God in some way to move from a non-deterministic to a deterministic view of evolution, so it depends on whether you intended your question (or your listener heard the question) as being restricted to the level of science. Because God cannot be proven, deterministic evolution cannot be proven. But then determinism becomes faith-based not evidence-based.

However, even those who do believe in God do not necessarily see evolutionary history as determined by God. God could determine indeterminacy, but would God do so? Some think God would not.

Maybe you'll disagree and say there is no consensus on that issue. But you set the bar of proof rather high during our UCA discussion. I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that there is no consensus.

There is definitely a scientific consensus in favour of non-determinism, but, of course, it only applies to the scientific perspective. You sometimes hear it conceded that God could be working in the background to direct evolution, but that is a speculation with no scientific impact. So most scientists, including Christians, don’t use that idea in any scientific work.

You can talk of evolution (with a little "e") as changes in allele frequency, but I think that only pretends agreement with ideas of Evolution (with a capital "E") and avoids the issue.

And that is a typical anti-evolution misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. There are not two evolutions no matter how you label them (micro/macro, big e, little e, within the kind, beyond the kind). Everything you associate with Evolution is a consequence of evolution. What you call little e evolution cannot help but produce what you call big E Evolution given the necessary conditions.

If evolution is non-deterministic, it excludes God's ability to make the animals.

I fail to see the logic of this assertion. How does it do so?

I don't think I used the word "revise". In fact, I think I was objecting to that.

You are correct. I was just saying that since Jesus did “revise” Moses and you are equally correct that Jesus said he was fulfilling, not abolishing the law, we have to keep both in mind, not assume one takes precedence over another.

I would expect that since Jesus is God he would know the law better than Moses. It was, after all, God who gave it. But one of the reasons for giving it was to show how impossible it is to keep it.

Was it now? That is not a universally held view. Certainly Jews, then and now, held that it was possible to keep the law. So maybe it is only Jesus’ “revisions” that turn it to an impossible counsel of perfection.

My perspective is the same as Joshua's: the sun rises and sets.

Your physical perspective is, but your mental perspective is not. You necessarily comprehend what you see in line with the Copernican teaching you have received. Joshua did not have that avenue of comprehension open to him. So while you understand the sun’s motion across the sky to be an artifact of the earth’s rotation on its axis, Joshua could not. He necessarily understood the sun’s motion as true motion. And so did all the readers of scripture for the next 3,000 years. At least all we know of, as it was the consensus of the time.

Yes.

Good, so can you define prophecy without reference to prediction?
And if you can, what was the point of your original question?

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems we're losing the forest for the trees and that a few issues are getting confused. So, I'm going to try to cut way down on the number of discussion fragments. If I skip over something you thought was important, I'll go back and address it.

One cannot corroborate a document by reference to the same document.

I never said the Bible corroborates itself in terms of its historical claims. In fact, I said the opposite - that many of those claims are uncorroborated. Given that the Bible had multiple authors, I think one might be able to make an argument that it is multiple documents that do corroborate some of those claims ... but I'm not attempting that here. Regardless, all I was trying to say is that it is one piece of evidence. Some people with whom I have this discussion try to claim the Bible is not historical evidence at all. That just boggles my mind.

Further, I will point out that much (if not most) of ancient history is uncorrobrated. If that becomes the criteria, we start throwing out all kinds of things. I've used the example of Hannibal in the past.

I am inclined in the opposite direction: accept it as history, even without corroboration, unless and until there is ample reason not to.

This is not the impression I got. In fact, I inferred quite the opposite. Regardless, there is nothing in the text to indicate that the authors thought Abraham more real and his ancestors less real. Again I will say they presented it all as history. And so, again, it seems you are saying the Bible is no better than any other myth in that regard. I disagree.

Based on what my church says about the canon, were we to become convinced Joseph is just a myth, or that the stories about Abraham were just myths, they would likely be removed from the canon. It doesn't mean we would burn them as heresy. Rather, they would be treated the same way we treat the Apocrypha or the Midrash - as interesting historical background and interesting stories that add some extra dimensions to our understanding of Hebrew culture ... but upon which we cannot base theology.

I think this is opening the gates to unbelief. It is all too easy to mock the bible as written by “bronze age goat herders” because they did not and could not conceive Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is a way of excusing oneself from taking anything in the bible seriously.

This also seems to have gotten confused, so let me clarify. I'm not saying the Patriarchs were perfect. It's very possible that Joshua or David thought the earth was the center of the universe - that they had mistaken understandings of physical reality. So, suppose Joshua were to say, "I think the earth is the center of the universe." The truthful way to record that in the Bible is to record exactly what he said. Record his mistakes and his sins as they actually happened.

The difference comes when a passage opens, "Thus saith the Lord." God's understanding is not flawed. If God said it, it's true. I don't believe Joshua (or any Patriarch) put words in God's mouth that are untrue. Nor do I think they recorded events that didn't happen. It may seem incredible that Jonah was swallowed by some large sea creature and survived, but God could certainly do that if he chose. If God can't do that, he's pretty weak. As such, I don't see the reason to doubt the reality of a story about a person the Bible is claiming to be real.

Maybe the point is that it doesn’t matter. Whether the Sower was a real person or not, the meaning of the story is not affected one way or the other.

Well, as I said, salvation needs to be a real thing and so Jesus and his resurrection need to be real. If the stories are just stories, then we have no history of God continually intervening in history to save his people. Jesus suddenly appeared with no prior record. If the stories aren't true, and God didn't intervene in the past, why should I believe he will intervene in the future?

Well I am a Calvinist and I know that sola scriptura means Christian doctrine is to be rooted solely in scripture and not in church traditions apart from scripture. It does not mean that a Christian is forbidden to seek wisdom from non-biblical sources (though, of course, the Christian will evaluate such wisdom in the light of scripture). Augustine justified the study of Greek and Roman literature written by pagans by saying it was like the Israelites on the eve of the Exodus taking treasures from the Egyptians—as God commanded them to do.

The Lutheran tradition on this is quite different. Though it is not a strict rendering, we understand sola scriptura differently. We do reject the Thomism of the Scholastics and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine. It's not that there is no value in what Aquinas or Augustine did, but they did err.

And all other religions are completely off base. Other cultures certainly have value, but their religious "truths" have no merit. I realize that offends people, but I'm not here to accommodate everyone.

Par for the course on a forum.

Sigh. OK, I'll concede what you're saying about the particulars of the Isaiah verse. I don't disagree with your comments on exegesis. But I remain firm on my point with regard to what truth other religions may profess. Studying them to "better understand" Christianity is only a way to water down and distort Christianity. Their value is in understanding how other people think so that one can better present the gospel to them. Are you familiar with the Heliand?

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. First, I think your premise is wrong. I don’t think non-determinism rules out creation.

...

What you call little e evolution cannot help but produce what you call big E Evolution given the necessary conditions.

Yes, given the necessary conditions. Or do conditions limit the extent of what change is possible? I didn't meant to adopt a tired old argument, but the fact remains that all the evidence I've reviewed are what I would consider little changes. I've seen nothing to support the bigger claims. The bigger claims stem from extrapolations - unreasonable ones IMO.

Further, the non-determinism to which I refer would apply to God as well. IOW, God wouldn't have known that humans would be the final result of the process. It seems you are taking the other position - that evolution appears non-deterministic to us, but is determined by God.

What then of the animals? Do they have souls that God is concerned with saving?

Was it now? That is not a universally held view. Certainly Jews, then and now, held that it was possible to keep the law. So maybe it is only Jesus’ “revisions” that turn it to an impossible counsel of perfection.

You seem unfamiliar with the confessional Lutheran tradition. This is part of the sermon almost every Sunday. Sure, some people try to keep the law, but none has. Scripture is clear on that. And it's not like some OT Jew kept the law and it became impossible when Jesus arrived. You need to read Romans and Hebrews. As is made clear, it has always been faith that justified - even with Abraham.

Good, so can you define prophecy without reference to prediction?
And if you can, what was the point of your original question?

A prediction gives the probabilities of what might happen in the future. Prophecy speaks of what is and what will be. It is definite (a 100% probability if you will).

But I'm getting lost now. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Mine was that if God can't determine the future (i.e. can't determine what animals will result from evolution), then his prophecy devolves to prediction - He might be wrong.

Such is not the case.

 

[Papias]

gluadys wrote:

(about Joshua's perspective of the sun standing still in the sky)

Your physical perspective is, but your mental perspective is not. You necessarily comprehend what you see in line with the Copernican teaching you have received. Joshua did not have that avenue of comprehension open to him. So while you understand the sun’s motion across the sky to be an artifact of the earth’s rotation on its axis, Joshua could not. He necessarily understood the sun’s motion as true motion.

It's also worth noting that your same point extends to so, so many other things in our daily lives.

• You see someone get sick - they imagine the viruses, while Joshua would have imagined a demon.
• You see lightning - and imagine the electrons flowing, while Joshua would have imagined glowing divine energy.
• You breath in - and imagine your lungs taking in oxygen, while Joshua would have imagined a spirit moving.
• You see a pregnant woman- and imagine the meeting of a tadpole-like sperm and a round egg, while Joshua would have imagined the man planting some kind of "seed", with the woman as a "vessel".
• You see a rainbow- and imagine sunlight being split by water droplets, while Joshua would have imagined God painting the air.
• You see a tree- and imagine the living cells making up the tree, while Joshua would have imagined a non-living object.
• You see smoke going up- and imagine the hotter gas rising because it is less dense than cool air, while Joshua would have imagined "heavenly" smoke being naturally attracted to the heavens.

And so on, through almost every aspect of our daily lives.

The Bibles don't teach us the real nature of all of those things - because the Bibles are not science books. They teach about Godly things. That means that we shouldn't take a literal reading as if it were describing the scientific reality.

Papias