 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Getting Desperate... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 7:34 AM (GMT -6) |   |
MephEternal said...
POW:
What is an historical basis? (I can think of several, and they are all salient.)
Events happen, in history.
Writings are recorded in appropriate literary form, like chiasm, and covenants.
Covenants are RE written, in sich a way as to retain thier event-connection... in such a way as to maintain connections to the older covenants... in such a way as to construct new covenants. Books of the Bible get rewritten and reworked by committees, especially after the Babylonian captivity.
Writings are made canon.
ALL FOUR of these are history.
I am focusing more on the first one. All that I am saying is that there are SOME BIBLICAL CLAIMS that end up being problematic unless there is some kernal of EVENT that grounds it. For example, doesn't it matter whether or not there was SOME form of "Exodus" that occurred?
It matters that the exodus took place. Moreover, it matters that the captivity in Egypt took place, and that God delivered them (however...), and that they experienced this and still grumbled.
Take ALL of those FOUR together, as that is how the writers did.
Not just focusing more on the first one. That tells me that you might be taking the first one IN ISOLATION from the other three.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2006 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Your restatement of things helps tremendously. Thanks, Brandon.
Brandon:
I would not say that it has to have historical bases. It may have it, but scripture is full of different genres that are not historical in nature but are still authoritative. We already mentioned this. I would hope that we don’t walk away from this and say that because something is not historical or factual that that means that it is LESS authoritative. So it may not be a biblical injunction of factual history, but this doesn’t demand that we don’t take it as authoritative.
...
First off, specifically on your point above concerning Jesus and sexuality, I don’t know if we should go so far as to say that Jesus had to believe that he was quoting history when he referenced the narrative. When Jesus spoke in reference to the Genesis narrative his point was not to say, “Hey, let’s have a history lesson. Let’s go back to THE WAY IT WAS.” Jesus was not concerned about HISTORY. He was concerned about the Creator’s INTENT. Thinking of Paul’s issue on creation order, again, one does not need to think that Paul thought of the Adamic couple as literal only that he may of thought in terms of the narrative of who came first--“This is what the story says.”
Ok. I find this problematic. When I hear this, I feel like someone saying that even if there was NO ACTUAL EXODUS, all of the Old Testament theologizing on it should be seen as authoritative because it may convey God's "heart" or intentions towards us. Or like some people saying that it really doesn't matter if there was an ACTUAL RESURRECTION or not for the same reason. The fact is that there are SOME things that undergird certain biblical claims that end up making little to no sense unless there is some kind of historical kernal to ground it.
Now, I just want us to think through the things you mentioned, Brandon. Let's really think those through, ok? (The relevant scriptures are below, if you like) Do you really...REALLY...think that either Jesus or Paul didn't try to use what they believed was actual occurances in the past to explain their concepts? I'm NOT saying they were trying to give some "history lesson". I am asking if you really believe that their assertions make MORE SENSE with them believing that there was no kernal of actuality in what they were saying. It seems extremely problematic to me. Just like it would seem problematic for me to make sense of Habakkuk without his thinking the Exodus actually happened.
All this seems so obvious to me that I'm thoroughly confused now!
----------------------------------------
On the Other Stuff.
It seems to me that all this ends up going back to two things.
1) Jesus and Paul's authority, in major part, comes from their own unique relationships to God's mission for their lives.
2) We should follow Jesus' example of how HE took scripture.
Basically, what I'm interpreting something that I understand but don't like...authority doesn't necessarily presuppose being undergirded by actuality. In other words, it's possible to have someone with "authority" who "compels or urges" people to follow them...even though they are ACTUALLY inaccurate in their beliefs or assertions. We can look at charismatic cult leaders or incompent military officers and see incidents of this.
So...it doesn't really matter whether or not Jesus and Paul may have believed any falsehoods or on WHAT they may have been inaccurate. Their beliefs about scripture and God's working through scripture should constrain OUR approaches to the same scripture...rather than to question their veracity.
(I'm NOT saying that YOU have said this in your post, Brandon. I am saying that this is what I'm interpreting here!)
This is hard for me to get down with.
------------------------------------
Mark 10:1-12
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
-------------------
Matthew 19:1-12
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
------------------
Romans 5:12-21
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
------------------------------
1 Corinthians 15:35-49
But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
-------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
-----------------------------------
1 Corinthians 11:3-16
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2006 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | POW:
It matters that the exodus took place. Moreover, it matters that the captivity in Egypt took place, and that God delivered them (however...), and that they experienced this and still grumbled.
Take ALL of those FOUR together, as that is how the writers did.
Not just focusing more on the first one. That tells me that you might be taking the first one IN ISOLATION from the other three.
I'm NOT trying to take just one in isolation. What I'm trying to say is that without the ACTUALITY of the exodus event (which yes, presupposes the captivity)...any theologizing from this could ONLY be taken in an "everyman" format ("The moral of the story, boys and girls, is...) and not as a revealing activity of God in history.
I think it's the same way with the Adamic couple. Paul seems to rely significantly on the idea of an ACTUAL couple and ACTUAL primal turn away from God.
Heck, POW. You know the Fathers a heck of a lot better than most of us here. In your opinion, what was the general perspective on the Creation narrative(s), with respect to the existence of a primal couple and a primal act of sin that causes problems for humanity later? Is there a general belief that Adam and Eve were indeed an actual man and woman?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/7/2006 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
Heck, POW. You know the Fathers a heck of a lot better than most of us here. In your opinion, what was the general perspective on the Creation narrative(s), with respect to the existence of a primal couple and a primal act of sin that causes problems for humanity later? Is there a general belief that Adam and Eve were indeed an actual man and woman?
If I might also contribute a reply to this question, here's some of what the 2nd century Christians had to say:
Theophilus (see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm )
The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge;. but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily. For now, also, when a child is born it is not at once able to eat bread, but is nourished first with milk, and then, with the increment of years, it advances to solid food. Thus, too, would it have been with Adam; for not as one who grudged him, as some suppose, did God command him not to eat of knowledge. But He wished also to make proof of him, whether he was submissive to His commandment. And at the same time He wished man, infant as he was, to remain for some time longer simple and sincere. ... so also for the first man, disobedience procured his expulsion from Paradise... And Adam having been cast out of Paradise, in this condition knew Eve his wife, whom God had formed into a wife for him out of his rib. And this He did, not as if He were unable to make his wife separately, but God foreknew that man would call upon a number of gods. And having this prescience, and knowing that through the serpent error would introduce a number of gods which had no existence,--for there being but one God, even then error was striving to disseminate a multitude of gods, saying, "Ye shall be as gods;"--lest, then, it should be supposed that one God made the man and another the woman, therefore He made them both; and God made the woman together with the man, not only that thus the mystery of God's sole government might be exhibited, but also that their mutual affection might be greater. Therefore said Adam to Eve, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."
Irenaeus: But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the first formed man, of whom the scripture says that the Lord spake, "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness;" and we are all from him: and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title.... It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: "God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man." But man received, as the punishment of his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken. Similarly also did the woman [receive] toil, and labour, and groans, and the pangs of parturition, and a state of subjection, that is, that she should serve her husband; so that they should neither perish altogether when cursed by God, nor, by remaining unreprimanded, should be led to despise God. But the curse in all its fulness fell upon the serpent, which had beguiled them. "And God," it is declared, "said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this, cubed art thou above all cattle, and above all the beasts of the earth." And this same thing does the Lord also say in the Gospel, to those who are found upon the left hand: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into ever: lasting fire, which my Father hath prepared for the devil and his angels;" indicating that eternal fire was not originally prepared for man, but for him who beguiled man, and caused him to offend -- for him, I say, who is chief of the apostasy, and for those angels who became apostates along with him; which [fire], indeed, they too shall justly feel, who, like him, persevere in works of wickedness, without repentance, and without retracing their steps. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103323.htm )
In the first place, then, in the garden of God he disputed about God, as if God was not there, for he was ignorant of the greatness of God; and then, in the next place, after he had learned from the woman that God had said that they should die if they tasted the aforesaid tree, opening his mouth, he uttered the third falsehood," Ye shall not die by death." But that God was true, and the serpent a liar, was proved by the result, death having passed upon them who had eaten. For along with the fruit they did also fall under the power of death, because they did eat in disobedience; and disobedience to God entails death. Wherefore, as they became forfeit to death, from that [moment] they were handed over to it. Thus, then, in the day that they did eat, in the same did they die, and became death's debtors. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103523.htm )
Clement of Alexandria:
But nobility is itself exhibited in choosing and practising what is best. For what benefit to Adam was such a nobility as he had? No mortal was his father; for he himself was father of men that are born. What is base [bad] he readily chose, following his wife, and neglected what is true and good; on which account he exchanged his immortal life for a mortal life, but not for ever. And Noah, whose origin was not the same as Adam's, was saved by divine care, For he took and consecrated himself to God. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02102.htm )
By which consideration s is solved the question propounded to us by the heretics, Whether Adam was created perfect or imperfect? Well, if imperfect, how could the work of a perfect God -- above all, that work being man -- be imperfect? And if perfect, how did he transgress the commandments? For they shall hear from us that he was not perfect in his creation, but adapted to the reception of virtue. For it is of great importance in regard to virtue to be made fit for its attainment. And it is intended that we should be saved by ourselves. This, then, is the nature of the soul, to move of itself. Then, as we are rational, and philosophy being rational, we have some affinity with it. Now an aptitude is a movement towards virtue, not virtue itself. All, then, as I said, are naturally constituted for the acquisition of virtue. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm )
Seeing as this topic string is indirectly addressing the topic of evolution, here is also some of what the pre-nicene fathers said about creation and the evolutionary thinking of their day:
Methodius: For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth... ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/062303.htm )
Lactantius: But I cannot here omit that which some erring philosophers say, that men and the other animals arose from the earth without any author; whence that expression of Virgil: "And the earth-born race of men raised its head from the hard fields." And this opinion is especially entertained by those who deny the existence of a divine providence. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07012.htm )
For if we all derive our origin from one man, whom God created, we are plainly of one blood; and therefore it must be considered the greatest wickedness to hate a man, even though guilty. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07016.htm )
They have introduced not one origin only, and cause of building a city; but some relate that those men who were first born from the earth, when they passed a wandering life among the woods and plains, and were not united by any mutual bond of speech or justice, but had leaves and grass for their beds, and caves and grottos for their dwellings, were a prey to the beasts and stronger animals. Then, that those who had either escaped, having been torn, or had seen their neighbours torn, being admonished of their own danger, had recourse to other men, implored protection, and at first made their wishes known by nods; then that they tried the beginnings of conversation, and by attaching names to each object, by degrees completed the system of speech. But when they saw that numbers themselves were not safe against the beasts, they began also to build towns, either that they might make their nightly repose safe, or that they might ward off the incursions and attacks of beasts, not by fighting, but by interposing barriers. O minds unworthy of men, which produced these foolish trifles! O wretched and pitiable men, who committed to writing and handed down to memory the record of their own foil; who, when they saw that the plan of assembling themselves together, or of mutual intercourse, or of avoiding danger, or of guarding against evil, or of preparing for themselves sleeping-places and lairs, was natural even to the dumb animals, thought, however, that men could not have been admonished and learned, except by examples, what they ought to fear, what to avoid, and what to do, or that they would never have assembled together, or have discovered the method of speech, had not the beasts devoured them! These things appeared to others senseless, as they really were; and they said that the cause of their coming together was not the tearing of wild beasts, but rather the very feeling of humanity itself; and that therefore they collected themselves together, because the nature of men avoided solitude, and was desirous of communion and society. The discrepancy between them is not great; since the causes are different, the fact is the same. Each might have been true, because there is no direct opposition. But, however, neither is by any means true, because men were not born from the ground throughout the world, as though sprung from the teeth of some dragon, as the poets relate; but one man was formed by God, and from that one man all the earth was filled with the human race, in the same way as again took place after the deluge, which they certainly cannot deny. Therefore no assembling together of this kind took place at the beginning; and that there were never men on the earth who could not speak except those who were infants... ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07016.htm )
Arnobius: But perchance some one dares--for this remains for frantic madness to do--to be uncertain, and to express doubt whether that God exists or not; whether He is believed in on the proved truth of reliable evidence, or on the imaginings of empty rumour. For of those who have given themselves to philosophizing, we have heard that some deny the existence of any divine power, that others inquire daily whether there be or not; that others construct the whole fabric of the universe by chance accidents and by random collision, and fashion it by the concourse of atoms of different shapes; with whom we by no means intend to enter at this time on a discussion of such perverse convictions. For those who think wisely say, that to argue against things palpably foolish, is a mark of greater folly. ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/06311.htm )
Tatian: Man is not, as the croaking philosophers say, merely a rational animal, capable of understanding and knowledge; for, according to them, even irrational creatures appear possessed of understanding and knowledge. But man alone is the image and likeness of God... ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0202.htm ) (Interestingly, Jerome [2 centuries later] calls man a "rational animal", and implies that Tatian is a heretic [not on this particular topic, but concerning abstinence - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm]. Actually, Tatian did, later in his life, become the leader of the Encratites. The quote above, however, is from his orthodox period).
Origen (in response to a pagan critic named Celsus): Let Celsus then say distinctly that the great diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of Providence, but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms gave birth to qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds of plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no disposing reason gave existence to them, and that they do not derive their origin from an understanding that is beyond all admiration. We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them, because not only for us, but also (on our account) for the animals which are subject to us, He has prepared such a home, seeing "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that He may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." ...
Now it follows from this, that it is false that "in the beginning men were captured and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom caught by men." And from this, too, it is evident that the following statement of Celsus is untrue, that "in this way God rather subjected men to wild beasts." For God did not subject men to wild beasts, but gave wild beasts to be a prey to the understanding of man, and to the arts, which are directed against them, and which are the product of the understanding. For it was not without the help of God that men desired for themselves the means of protection against wild beasts, and of securing the mastery over them. ...
Immediately after this, as if doing his utmost to reduce the human race to a still lower position, and to bring them to the level of the irrational animals, and desiring to omit not a single circumstance related of the latter which manifests their greatness, he [Celsus] declares that "in certain individuals among the irrational creation there exists the power of sorcery;" so that even in this particular men cannot specially pride themselves, nor wish to arrogate a superiority over irrational creatures... ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm ) ... Celsus has also expressed his opinion that the narrative of the creation of man is "exceedingly silly," without stating any proofs, or endeavouring to answer our arguments; for he had no evidence, in my judgment, which was fitted to overthrow the statement that "man has been made in the image of God"... ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm )
See also the following from Dionysius of Alexandria: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0612.htm | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/7/2006 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | |
OK. Let’s deal with this once and for all D. First off, for the most part I was responding to issue of authority not the issue of the use of fiction in the Bible or more specifically the use of fiction in narrative or story. Second, I’m NOT saying what you think I’m saying with regard to your first paragraph: that there is no historical basis WHATSOEVER.
Look thou here, while “fact” could convey untruth, fiction may be the BEST WAY TO REPRESENT HISTORICAL TRUTH. Actually, it may be the ONLY WAY. Scripture is such that biblical narrative is located SOMEWHERE BETWEEN both fact and fiction—narrative needs to be within reach of actual experience and not wholly discontinuous with it. For an example in the movie “Chariots of Fire” there is a scene in which Harold Abrahams wins a race round a Cambridge quadrangle. Now that scene is fictional. It never happened. But it is a reliable, though legendary portrayal of the significance of the man. And so, narrative would include those stories that would offer imaginative nonfactual presentations of historical realities, but in the sense that their narrative does not DIRECTLY refer to the historical events AT ALL. Parables would be the LEAST CONTROVERSIAL as a way of revealing the truth of historical reality. But when we get into both the Old and New Testament narration, it becomes more complicated. On the one hand, obviously, there needs to be “fact” and it wouldn’t be ANY good to us that the Bible was ALL fiction, because then it could hardly say ANYTHING to us about what God has done IN HISTORY i.e. your point above. However, on the OTHER HAND, it should not come as a surprise to us that neither Jesus or Paul would NOT recognize such fictional uses in that genre of literature known as “narrative”, which by its very nature is not modernistic in historiography. This is the point that I don’t think you are getting. And it seems that even in those texts that you quote, one could view them in the way that I’m describing above such that we don’t need to infer that Jesus and Paul were wrong on the historicity or BELIEVED IN AN ACTUAL ADAMIC COUPLE.
Let's look at Job for a second. Job, according to some scholars, is TOTALLY a philosophical fable. It is close to being a play, it is nearly all in verse, and it parallels other ancient fictional treatments of its theme. That is, it is a fictitious portrayal of a man’s life that brings a number of issues concerning God’s way with us. That it is fictitious in no way lessens its capacity to speak the truth about God and humanity. It may even do so by NOT being LIMITED TO historical facts of one person’s experience.
But here’s one of the rubs D. Say you have a scholar who believes that a text of scripture should be taken as totally fictitious and one who believes it should be read as history. It must be admitted that distinguishing between narrative INTENDED to be taken as fact and narrative INTENDED to be taken as fiction may be ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT CRITICAL ENTERPRISES. It is not merely that an author is trying to be factual and makes a mistake; it is just in attempting to figure out if the author is TRYING to be factual AT ALL. And THAT Meph Man is next to IMPOSSIBLE. If this is hard for us, I don’t think it would have been any easier for Jesus or Paul. All they are doing is simply REFERENCING the narrative whether it is factual history or not. Though Hebrew narrative is PRESENTED as history, except for Job and Jonah, it is more accurate to say that it is HISTORY-LIKE. Not that it claims to convey ONLY historical fact. This was done, NOT TO DECIEVE, but to make the stories more-life like. One could say, PARADOXICALLY, that the more realistic and detailed the account, the higher the illusory effect of the text. Yet the more fictive the text, the closer the approximation of universal truth. Whether something is literature or not is for the readers to decide. Whether it is fact or fiction is for the author to decide. The author’s stance and intention.
Thus, scripture being both fact and fiction gives us a sense of liberation, because in knowing this, this invites us into imaginative approaches to interacting with scripture that we would use with other literature of the imagination and avoiding becoming bogged down in a study of scriptural narrative that makes it boring old-fashion school history i.e. what you are doing. 
Thus, you may engage in the text such as to allow you the freedom to reconsider homosexuality. However, I REALLY think you are stretching it by making claims that Jesus or Paul were fundamentally wrong about history (this IS what you REALLY ARE DOING—saying they were giving a history lesson when all they really were doing was referencing the story to make a theological point) considering intricacies involved in the process of distinction between both fact and fiction. I, on the other hand have more reasons other than basing my whole argument on the actual historicity of the Adamic couple for believing homosexuality to be immoral and not reflecting God’s ideal.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 2/7/2006 7:19:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | I owe you coffee, Brandon.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/7/2006 7:39:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2006 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: (emphases mine)
Look thou here, while “fact” could convey untruth, fiction may be the BEST WAY TO REPRESENT HISTORICAL TRUTH. Actually, it may be the ONLY WAY. scripture is such that biblical narrative is located SOMEWHERE BETWEEN both fact and fiction—narrative needs to be within reach of actual experience and not wholly discontinuous with it. For an example in the movie “Chariots of Fire” there is a scene in which Harold Abrahams wins a race round a Cambridge quadrangle. Now that scene is fictional. It never happened. But it is a reliable, though legendary portrayal of the significance of the man. And so, narrative would include those stories that would offer imaginative nonfactual presentations of historical realities, but in the sense that their narrative does not DIRECTLY refer to the historical events AT ALL. Parables would be the LEAST CONTROVERSIAL as a way of revealing the truth of historical reality. But when we get into both the Old and New Testament narration, it becomes more complicated. On the one hand, obviously, there needs to be “fact” and it wouldn’t be ANY good to us that the Bible was ALL fiction, because then it could hardly say ANYTHING to us about what God has done IN HISTORY i.e. your point above. However, on the OTHER HAND, it should not come as a surprise to us that neither Jesus or Paul would NOT recognize such fictional uses in that genre of literature known as “narrative”, which by its very nature is not modernistic in historiography. This is the point that I don’t think you are getting.
Dude. Do you REALLY think I'm not understanding what's being said here? I understand this just friggin fine. My claim is this: there are CERTAIN CLAIMS that are more "history-prone" (I'm just coining a term here) than others. Hell yeah, Job can be a friggin story and still convey some kind of divine truth about the world and God. Just like Esther may be. Or Jonah (which seems more built upon an actual prophet, though having legendary material). But there are SOME CLAIMS that, by their nature, rely more heavily on the facticity element than others. The Themes dealing with the Exodus is one of these. If some type of Exodus didn't happen, then the whole theological and religious identity conveyed in Passover is problematic. Not to mention all of the theologizing on the event itself. One cannot just say that the existence of the Exodus is negotiable. I, unlike you it seems, believe it's the SAME WAY for the actual existence of a primal couple who enacts a primal sin. I asked the question. What has the majority consensus of the Church thought about the existence of a primal couple?
I was REALLY hoping that POW would pop in the help out here! Hint, hint! 
What do YOU think, Brandon? I'm asking for real. Again, I side with NT Wright here. It's not like Paul was unaware of the non-literal aspects of the Creation story...but this in NO WAY means that Paul didn't believe in a primal couple and the primal sin. On what basis, honestly, do you feel Brandon that Jesus and Paul didn't think that the Adamic couple was historical. I'm terribly interested.
And this whole thing is BEYOND just discussing homosexuality. Way beyond that. This gets into issues of bibliology and anthropology (dealing with the broader themes of sexuality.)
I cannot stress this enough. There is a LOT OF STUFF riding on the idea of a primal couple who was created in the Image of God, sinned before God, and brought trouble on EVERY HUMAN DESCENDANT from that point! This would be a revelational point in the history of God and creation. The bringing forth and sanctioning of God's "images! If this didn't happen, then I honestly can't see how the doctrine of marriage can exist unscathed. It's not saying that a person could talk about marriage from a Christian point of view. But I cannot say how a person could rely on Jesus' teaching about marriage EXCEPT by saying that Jesus was LORD and what he says goes...even if God really didn't orginally place man and woman together in marriage in the beginning. I posted the stuff from CBMW for a reason. There are some quarters that talk about divine authority set up with respect to sexes COMPLETELY based upon the Creation narrative(s). You can't TELL me that it wouldn't make a difference in the conversation to question whether or not there really was some Adamic couple or not.
Damn, I hope we ain't goin in circles here. Maybe I just oughta call you. Maybe I oughta call you too, POW. Clear stuff up in less time.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2006 9:13 PM (GMT -6) | | That was a GREAT homily. Loved it. Got more?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | D,
I'm interested in reading what can be gleaned out of the Word's account of how sin came into the world through us and messed things up. There is lots to read and absorb. But...how are you going to do that when you keep going back to one particular version of historical. How? (I think it sounds like you are stuck, like a Minnesota icestorm when you grind your tire down in.)
Fact is, that no matter where you look (and we both know that I don't know 'squat!') you see it ascerted that WE receive the inheritance of said 'ancestorial sin.' (I like that term.)
Yes, whatever the historical conveyance, the conveyence is in history and the effect is really real.
Take a MORITORIUM on thie "history" thing, and spend some time reading about what that history has for you IN IMPACT. Sorry I can't say more than that. Really!!!
Read lots of the church fathers.
Remember how many things Origin was able to get out of the text. And he began with the MOST literal, most original audience possible, and worked from there.
What if you take the five top "historical" narratives in the Bible, and find up to five different commentators on them. . . And then see what you get!
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/7/2006 8:38:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 9:25 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
That was a GREAT homily. Loved it. Got more?
THIS?
(Where you asking me?)
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/7/2006 10:34 PM (GMT -6) | | D,
This MAY be "neither here nor there." OR, it may be worth something.
Looking at the OCA site for icons of the Presentation of Chirst in the Temple (Hannah and Simeon), and noticing how there is always a pre-feast leading up, and after feast leading down, and then a "leave-taking", I ALSO noticed that something __snuck__ in quickly, almost unnoticed. No lie.
Last Sunday our Orthodox friends had a service where they remembered and reflected on someone that I remember from primary Sunday School as being very cool -- Zacchaeus. That dude. They guy who climbed up in the tree because he was so short. Bible triia material.
But he's not just Bible trivia. Zacchaeus IS you and me. Or should be. Do we WANT to meet Christ that bad. Are we in THAT bad-off a state? And do we recognize it? Sunday was Zacchaeus. Next Sunday is about the Tax Collector and Pharisee, and then the Prodigal Son, and then the Final Judgment and then Adam's expulsion from Paradise. And they are ALL about you and me. Oh, and only THEN does the eight weeks of Lent begin!!!
But back to what I was saying, about that something snuck in quickly, almost unnoticed like. Well, here's what its about.
TWO tracks are laid down on the same tape. Like a rythmn track and a base track. One is HISTORY connected and the other is HEAVEN connected. And we know that God's task in the Church is to bring heaven to earth. But what's about those two tracks is that the Zacchaeus (a hearolding of Lent, and a herolding of the Cross and Resurrection -- in that Zacchaeus gets remembered a little bit different time each year, and some years with the Julian calendar be remembered very different times each year...) liturgy and the Zacchaeus icon POP in and out of the longer, more prolonged and noticable attention given to the Presentation.
My point is, then... And I'd better finally make it, is that while history is very, very, very important, it is nothing without the heaven-connected that gives it its meaning.
OK. You M.Div. guys can spout words like "telios." (while I only know "feldspar," "refractory" and "grout." But jsut bacasue their is a ten-dollar word doesn't mean that the wonder has to be taken away from it!
What I think I see is that the "floating" feasts (those that change in date, following the lead of Pascha--which only in English is called "Easter" is that the floating feasts inject meaning into the "fixed" feasts. All the new combinations. Sometimes two really big things happen at the same date in the year -- namely Lent and the Annunciation. Imagine, remembering -- or trying -- BOTH Mary's "yes" that made salvation for the whole Cosmos possible allthewhile also remebering that we are needful sinners unworthy of mercy from the God who loves mankind, and bowing and prostrating in our repentance. Both in the same service, woven carefully together!!!
That way the MEANING of history gets played out in the line of history.
And IMHO the meaning of history needs the line, even if occassionally just to call attention to the fact that what transcends is transcendent.
Thanks for reading this, D.
- B
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/7/2006 11:19 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
I've been lurking with interest on this and other threads regarding the creation/fall narrative. I'm probably a little dense here, or maybe it's my fundamentalist roots showing, but what's the problem with believing "the actual existence of a primal couple who enacts a primal sin"? I sense that I SHOULD be feeling more tension over this than I am. Is it that contemporary science is incompatible with it, or that it may lead to sexism? Or something else, or both?
Explain it to him D. Man and woman come on the scene by God’s special creative act. This couple is said to be the FIRST. There is no hint that humankind would have EVOLVED from lower life forms. Science (or should we really say, our interpretation of the factual evidence?) is antithetical to this. THATS the problem in a nutshell.
OK. Now, D. I REALIZE that some claims are more “history-prone” than others. Question: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Let’s talk about that OK? What exactly do you mean by that? Well you have explained yourself already. The implications are such that if “actual factual history” did not take place, this has MAGNANIMOUS implications for theology. And like you say, we are not simply talking about ONE issue here. This becomes a ripple effect for theology as well as ethical behavior (again, this is YOUR idea and not mine).
Let’s take for example the incarnation and resurrection. You know, two of those HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT events. Some scholars don’t believe that incarnation is hyperbole imposed on Jesus and the resurrection is a metaphor for something that happened IN the disciples. In Jesus, God truly became human and after his death he was restored to life. The narratives that speak of conception by a virgin (a unique person?) and an empty tomb? Well, those narratives offer vivid pictures of those truths. But guess what? Other scholars start describing a process whereby the early Christians FIRST SAW Jesus alive and then reflected backwards that he MUST have been brought back from the dead, that he was resurrected and then INFERRED that his grave must therefore have been empty and then began to tell stories along those lines. Now, while the gospel narratives are CLOSER to history than that, IMHO? This is not to say that even THESE “HISTORY-PRONE” claims cannot contain stories that are fictional. So guess what? In principle? It could be an OPEN QUESTION of how far the Gospel narratives are midrashic—fictions that give imaginative concrete expression to truths such as Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection.
And I don’t have to tell you, that you know when scholars started messing with the virgin birth that conservatives started going nuts over the inerrancy thing and authority.
But the fact is, is that many of these historically significant events are SHROUDED in fiction. Get use to it. But THAT IS the question. The fictions are there for a reason to show something HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
So, another historically significant event, the creation of the universe. I’d say that is pretty significant. But I see no reason to NOT believe that this narrative is quite imaginative and that Genesis through to Kings was gathered for the purpose such that it functions as an account of how Israel reached such a tragic point in its history. The natural inference in Gen 1 is that the chapter came into existence by the same process as the rest of Genesis through Kings by the narrator working from traditional material, empirical evidence, (working backward from the nature of the known world, i.e. God’s involvement with the narrator is such that God does not give additional hard facts; the facts come from the same sources as everyone else’s) and theological conviction. Gen 1 parallels 2 Kings 25 in that it is talking about real events, but the nature of the witness is quite different and more imaginative. Gen 3 may be a historical event, but it is open as to whether the account TRANSCRIBES FACTS or TRANSLATES THEM.
So when you say:
Meph Man said...
if I cannot stress this enough. There is a LOT OF STUFF riding on the idea of a primal couple who was created in the Image of God, sinned before God, and brought trouble on EVERY HUMAN DESCENDANT from that point!
And ask,
Meph Man said...
On what basis, honestly, do you feel Brandon that Jesus and Paul didn't think that the Adamic couple was historical. I'm terribly interested.
Again, I personally do not think that they were historical, for scientific reasons and in part based on what I said above. However, that doesn’t have significance for the theological point that Jesus and Paul made concerning homosexuality and gender relations. Jesus and Paul could have known about how the different genres of literature are in narrative.
Time for bed.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 2/8/2006 6:35:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/8/2006 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey said...
I've been lurking with interest on this and other threads regarding the creation/fall narrative. I'm probably a little dense here, or maybe it's my fundamentalist roots showing, but what's the problem with believing "the actual existence of a primal couple who enacts a primal sin"? I sense that I SHOULD be feeling more tension over this than I am. Is it that contemporary science is incompatible with it, or that it may lead to sexism? Or something else, or both?
There's no problem at all with understanding the entire biblical narrative, from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21, as factual and true. "Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4).
Also Col 2:8 "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."
Give God and His word the benefit of the doubt, rather than what is currently in vogue amongst unregenerate men. The naturalistic orthodoxy so prevelant in modern science, which tells you that man and all species evolved over millions of year, is the same faction which insists that Christ's resurrection is impossible. But guess what? All of the miracles of God, from creation to resurrection, are impossible - that's why they are miracles from God, not things born from the natural/created order. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/8/2006 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I've been lurking with interest on this and other threads regarding the creation/fall narrative. I'm probably a little dense here, or maybe it's my fundamentalist roots showing, but what's the problem with believing "the actual existence of a primal couple who enacts a primal sin"? I sense that I SHOULD be feeling more tension over this than I am. Is it that contemporary science is incompatible with it, or that it may lead to sexism? Or something else, or both?
Here's the deal, Corey. Even realizing that there are some gaps in evolutionary theory (with respect to natural selection), to me, at least, I cannot ignore the the very clear consensus of the scientific community on this matter. I'm not a scientist, but I try to read and watch as much as I can surrounding the areas of anthropology and such. From my experience, and with what I have seen, I have been given very, very, little to no reason to dispute that consensus. As JET has said, even some strong, dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals have been forced to deal with the HUGE amount of evidence for an old earth and early hominid development.
The Genesis account, even if you take it as non-literally as you like, while still representing "truth", has always mainly been taken to mean that God FULLY CREATED the first human beings (ONE man and ONE woman) as what we would call homo sapiens sapiens (MODERN humans)...and that there WERE no hominids or other human-like beings on the scene before then. Moreover, the overwhelming idea was that it was a LITERAL 7 days. All of the information we have right now says that this was not the case. Not only that, but there are findings that suggest that modern humans actually had meaningful overlap and interaction with Neanderthals. (I didn't say interbreeding, I said interaction.) So, what do some evangelical old-earthers have to say about this?
Here is a page with one of the clearest articulations of Reason to Believe's origin concept that I could find...
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/idaltu_ethiopian_hominid_no_threat_to_origins_model.shtml
[Digression: Check this out.
Creature Mortality: From Creation Or The Fall?
by John C. Munday Jr., Professor of natural sciences at Regent University in Virginia Beach
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml
PLEASE make sure you read the reasoning behind HOW he believes the Adamic couple forfeited eternal life. Wow.]
RTB Model for Human Origins
RTB’s biblically based model for humanity’s origin regards Adam and Eve as real, historical people—the first human beings. Accordingly, the model maintains that all of humanity descended from Adam and Eve, who were created recently (within the last 70,000 years or less) in God’s image through divine fiat. As such, humanity stands markedly distinct from all other creatures made by God. (For more details see The Genesis Question.)
If humans are made in God’s image as a result of His special creative activity, then what is the biblical perspective on prehuman hominids? RTB’s model views these creatures as separate species, distinct from anatomically and behaviorally modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). These animals were created by God, and since that time they have gone extinct. Genesis 1 makes no specific allusion to the hominids, so it must be inferred that they were created along with other land mammals, most likely on Day 6.
The scientific data fit this view. Hominid fossils assigned to the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrion, Ardipitheus, Kenyanthropus, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus—all ape-like creatures—possessed limited intelligence, nonhuman bipedal capability, and may have used, in some limited cases, extremely crude tools. The hominids assigned to the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis and “archaic” Homo sapiens walked upright, used crude and unsophisticated tools, possessed limited intelligence, and even displayed some emotional capacity. Yet they did not have a spiritual capacity and cannot be considered as humans made in God’s image. The distinction between Adam and Eve’s descendants (Homo sapiens sapiens, or anatomically and behaviorally “modern” humans) and the hominids in the fossil record is not just morphological, but also behavioral.
Paleoanthropologists have no undisputed indication from the archeological record that Neanderthals, or any other hominid, engaged in religious activity. [Meph's Note: PLEASE note what is being said here. There is no UNDISPUTED indication. (and who's doing the disputing?) Not there is NO indication. There's plenty of evidence of burial of the dead and other stuff that leads towards ideas of life after death.] Other discernible aspects of their behavior seem nonhuman as well. Although the hominids in the genus Homo used tools, they were crude and qualitatively distinct from the sophisticated tools used by modern humans.
So, the idea is that God created all of the various hominid lines...maybe God was tweaking things making sure he'd get things JUST right with homo sapiens sapiens...and THEN created modern humans. But, according to people like Ross (and Millard Erickson) none of these hominids had spirits, even though they showed relatively clear signs of emotionality AND we now know that some of these hominids had burial of the dead and rudimentary life-after-death behavior(???) Notice that instead of saying the authors of Genesis just OVERLOOKED this little fact of pre-homo sapien sapien development...RTB says that these were part and part of the "animals" that were created on Day 6 (using day-age thought, of course). Yay!
All of the evidence that we have shows that violence, death, waste, and nature being "red in tooth and claw" has been with hominids THROUGHOUT their existence, even in the lives of homo sapiens sapiens. Seemingly, there WAS no "golden age" of complete vegetarianism or lack of violence on the earth. Well, it's OBVIOUS, donchaknoow! Unlike all the other hominids that God created, God decided to create homo sapiens sapiens in a paradisical enclave where there would be VERY LITTLE TO NO violence, waste, disease or natural calamity. That way, they would have every reason to "trust God". So, when they fell away (by not trusting God), then they had to go out and brave the outside world and THEN modern humans came to intersect with other hominids. And they were able to use there big new brains and spirituality to basically outlast and outgun the other hominids! (Yes, there seems to be some lines of evidence that there may have been clashes in the interactions between homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals!)
So let's recap.
Even though God has the genuine ability to create human beings FROM SCRATCH with NO OTHER hominids at all, God decides to create a whole string of hominid "animals" who at least rudimentarily think, feel, procreate (mating and HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS between MALES AND FEMALES...painful childbirth and all!), die, and grasp at the idea of an afterlife and beauty (as evidenced by burial for the dead and beautification articles like drawings and beads)...BEFORE his creation of homo sapiens sapiens. Then when he created the modern humans in the paradise place, where deterioration and "death" already existed for EVERYTHING ELSE but human beings, God created "the first marriage" by bringing the male and female together! Also, God wagers their possession of ETERNAL LIFE on whether or not these primative bipeds can consistently and continually be reliant upon and obedient to God...even after God has supposedly seen THOUSANDS OF YEARS of how the animality of homo sapiens (the kind right before homo sapiens sapiens) lead EASILY to their violence, temptation, and self-preservation tactics. Not only this, but (according to Doc's view) SATAN supposedly becomes "god" of the entire cosmos, death and fragmentation now comes to all descending modern human beings and them primarily...because the two little hominids made a decision to not trust God???
Uh...
Uh...
Hmmm....
So this model makes more sense of all the data than saying that homo sapiens sapiens is the product of a very slow, very involved theistically-guided evolutionary process from the first unicellular organism to homo sapiens sapiens, where homo sapiens sapiens indeed evolved from a "lower" life form...and where death and decay were ALWAYS a part of the plan?
Hmmmm...
I don't know about y'all...but this is too much of a friggin harmonistic SSTTTTTRRRREEEETTTTCHHHHH for me. And don't give me the "if you can believe in the resurrection, than what's so hard about believing THIS?" idea. Does anyone really believe that this idea coheres with the Genesis accounts...and how these accounts have been understood throughout the history of Judaism and the Church?
What do YOU think, Corey?
-----------------------------------
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven."
--The Apostle PaulPost Edited (MephEternal) : 2/8/2006 9:22:28 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/8/2006 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/8/2006 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm a software geek. As a recent hobby I've become quite fascinated by attempts at genetic algorithms, i.e. computer programs that can adapt and evolve, passing traits on to successive generations of code. Check out the video clips of some virtual evolved creatures here. Cool stuff.
I've been inside the code on these things, and it takes A LOT of intelligence to set up things just right so that evolution itself is even possible. Even then, the sort of adaptation that can take place is quite limited. So I'm fully convinced that purely naturalistic evolution is implausible. Yet that is the form held by the vast consensus of scientists today. Theistic evolution would still have the problem of being a quite minority view.
"You are too skilled in the art of talking in generalities about everything without letting yourself be personally involved." SK in Either/Or.Post Edited (Corey) : 2/8/2006 11:18:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 2/8/2006 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Corey: So I'm fully convinced that purely naturalistic evolution is implausible. Yet that is the form held by the vast consensus of scientists today. Theistic evolution would still have the problem of being a quite minority view.
JET: "Theistic" evolution isn't incompatible with "naturalistic methodology". Howard Van Till argues for a naturalistic methodology which precludes "immediate divine causality" (i.e., God of the gaps) because such gaps would imply that creation lacked "functional integrity". A creation characterized by "functional integrity" would be able to "employ its capacities to carry out the intentions of the Creator". Thus, special creationism implies a creation that is either deficient or defective.
For Van Till, theistic science or theistic evolution "should differ from ordinary science not by the occasional insertion of immediate divine acts into a world whose internal economy is either deficient or defective, but rather by its recognition that every aspect of the world's functionally complete economy is radically dependent on the Creator's ceaseless activity: as the world's Originator, Sustainer, Governor and Provider."
| | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|