207 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: It is however worth pointing out that while the stories do bear evidence of drawing on divergent
: traditions, these divergent traditions have been skillfully woven together into a literary whole
: that exhibits strong inner unity.

Oh, sure. That's the sort of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the writer and/or redactor of Genesis. Obviously Genesis is more than just an anthology of prior traditions. (And as I noted in an earlier post, in reply to Plankton, the opening verses of Genesis 6 make a very clear allusion to an entire body of narratives -- whether oral or literary, who knows -- that is otherwise not mentioned at all in the scriptures.)

Haven't got time to respond to the rest of your post, though I suspect I may be a little more skeptical than you on the "eyewitness" nature of the gospels and the OT accounts of the kings; e.g., if memory serves, I & II Kings tend to wrap up the account of each king's reign by saying, in effect, "As for all the other stuff he did, it's all in the archives." Of course, we don't have those archives any more; but the point here is that the book of Kings appears to be the work of a later editor who is digesting the records of earlier generations, and thus, it's not quite an eyewitness account -- though it's certainly closer to the historical record than some of the other texts you mentioned (e.g. Exodus), in the sense of there being less steps between the original event, the first telling of it, and the telling that was written down for posterity's sake.

Plankton wrote:
: . . . as 2 Timothy says, all Scripture is "God-breathed" . . .

As Alan notes, we have addressed this in other threads already. But to be ultra-brief, Paul's statement to Timothy meant both more and less than what most Protestants take it to mean -- more, because the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Timothy and Paul included what are now called the apocryphal texts, and less, because the New Testament had not been compiled yet (how could it have been, since Paul was still writing his portion of it?).

Note, I say "meant", not "means", because I do think the meaning of a text can change as it is applied within a community of faith -- that certainly seems to be what's going on when Matthew finds meanings in the OT prophets that the prophets themselves never intended! -- so I have no problem with the words "God-breathed" being applied to the NT as well, now that we have it.

But it does raise the question of how we got the NT in the first place, and how we define relationships between texts and communities, and whether "the plain meaning of scripture" or the historically-located meaning of scripture is always the best -- and that is exactly the sort of issue that gets raised when we debate how to interpret the creation accounts in the first chapters of Genesis!

(BTW, I recently finished reading Jaroslav Pelikan's Whose Bible Is It?: A History of the Scriptures through the Ages, which is an excellent book on the history of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I don't recall him getting into the evolution debate there at all, but it's still worth a look.)

[Plankton]

As Alan notes, we have addressed this in other threads already. But to be ultra-brief, Paul's statement to Timothy meant both more and less than what most Protestants take it to mean -- more, because the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Timothy and Paul included what are now called the apocryphal texts, and less, because the New Testament had not been compiled yet (how could it have been, since Paul was still writing his portion of it?).

Note, I say "meant", not "means", because I do think the meaning of a text can change as it is applied within a community of faith -- that certainly seems to be what's going on when Matthew finds meanings in the OT prophets that the prophets themselves never intended! -- so I have no problem with the words "God-breathed" being applied to the NT as well, now that we have it.

But it does raise the question of how we got the NT in the first place, and how we define relationships between texts and communities, and whether "the plain meaning of scripture" or the historically-located meaning of scripture is always the best -- and that is exactly the sort of issue that gets raised when we debate how to interpret the creation accounts in the first chapters of Genesis!

Yes. Tricky issue all around. And obviously, our opinions are going to differ. But this does bring up the issue of what has the final word in some issues ... such as history, science, and spirituality. I think everyone here would agree that the Bible has the final word in the latter (correct me if I'm wrong); history and science are a bit trickier.

From what I've read (from secular and Christian sources) the Bible seems to be historically accurate ... any inconsistencies have possible explanations, and are no less common than in any historical document of the times (note the "s"; we have to take into account the various periods in which the various books of the Bible were written).

Science is possibly trickiest of all; however, being recently "converted" to a non-literal framework reading of the creation account(s) in Genesis, it seems less of an issue. The Bible seems to be fairly vague on purely scientific matters, allowing us to discover it for ourselves, without being worried whether it jives with Scripture or not. Like I said:

And here's that verse from Proverbs I mentioned:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. - Proverbs 25: 2 (NIV)

I find this verse particularly relevent to the whole debate.

Let the record show that I disgree with Peter...If 2 Timothy is inspired, it could be referring to the Bible as we know it today or as it was generally known to be at every point in history.

Er ... I got the sense that that's what Peter was saying (once again, correct me if I'm wrong).

[SDG]

--content deleted--

Hasn't the thread already been good and derailed, or at least jumped tracks?

Anyway, I've deferred my reply to Plankton to the "Sola scriptura" thread.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Plankton wrote:
: Er ... I got the sense that that's what Peter was saying (once again, correct me if I'm wrong).

It may not be quite what I said, but yes, I don't see where it "disagrees" with me.

[Swami Because]

Evolution:

God swims in the cell.

What more is there to discuss?

[Plankton]

No offense, but ...

WHAT?!?

I mean, what do you mean?

[Chashab]

No offense, but ...

WHAT?!?

I mean, what do you mean?

I'm assuming it's a reference to a Hindu idea, judging by his/her signature.

[Plankton]

Does that mean it's a joke?

[Chashab]

Does that mean it's a joke?

My impression is that it is not . . .

[Plankton]

Er, OK ...

Hey, Swami. Help clear this up. What are you talking about?

In any case, there obviously IS more to discuss.

[Swami Because]

Er, OK ...

Hey, Swami. Help clear this up. What are you talking about?

In any case, there obviously IS more to discuss.

God swims in the cell, within every strand of DNA, etc.

God is the will, the intelligent force behind all development and morphing of forms over time.

As for motives, who can explain the whims of a Mind that knows no bounds? A lesser example: Chattaway's fascination with the word quasi.

Who can explain it?

[Chashab]

Er, OK ...

Hey, Swami. Help clear this up. What are you talking about?

In any case, there obviously IS more to discuss.

God swims in the cell, within every strand of DNA, etc.

God is the will, the intelligent force behind all development and morphing of forms over time.

As for motives, who can explain the whims of a Mind that knows no bounds? A lesser example: Chattaway's fascination with the word quasi.

Who can explain it?

This is different than "Man is made in the image of God?" Or just an elobaration on this Truth?

[Swami Because]

This is different than "Man is made in the image of God?" Or just an elobaration on this Truth?

God is Supreme Consciousness. He has the freedom to choose, to create, etc.

He gave you consciousness, and you also have the freedom to choose, to create, etc.

Thus, you are "made in God's image."

A blessing indeed.

[Plankton]

Well, I'm lost here.

God is the will, the intelligent force behind all development and morphing of forms over time.

Yes, that's the thinking, if one believes in macroevolution (which I don't; I'm still convinced the evidence is against it.)

This whole train of thought is getting a bit too "Yoda-ish" for me.

[SDG]

A potentially interesting line of thought, indeed.

[Tony Watkins]

I keep looking at this thread wanting to wade in, but I really don't have time right now. One day I will. Meanwhile, here's a summary of my three-penny-worth of thoughts. These are the headings of a two-part article I wrote for Christianity magazine last year:

• Not all Bible-believing Christians see things in the same way
• Evangelicals have not always tended to hold to a six literal day model
• This issue creates real tensions for some people – especially students
• Believing in evolution can stop people taking the Bible seriously
• Believing in a literal six day creation can stop people taking the Bible seriously
• Science and the Bible have different agendas, and humans aren't perfect
• There are good reasons for believing in Special Creation
• There are good reasons for believing in Process Creation
• Everyone has to live with some tough – maybe unanswerable – questions
• Controversy means we often miss the main points of Genesis 1–3

You can probably guess from my headings that I got into trouble with all kinds of people over it!
I started the article this way:

Writing anything on creation and evolution within these pages feels akin to sticking a sign on my back reading, ‘Kick me!' I'm exposing myself to attack from one side or another – or maybe from every side! What drives me to stick my head above the parapet is a couple of strong convictions. First, I am absolutely convinced that Christians who disagree should be discussing the issues in a loving, gentle, humble way rather than attacking each other. It seems to me that attacking each other is becoming more common as the debate becomes more polarised. My second conviction is that by focusing on controversy, we are missing significant opportunities to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ in a world which desperately needs to hear it.

The sad irony is that despite my plea for disagreement in a 'loving, gentle, humble way' I had some really vitriolic responses - particularly from one side of the debate. Knowing that the debate is way more polarised in the US than in the UK, I could be getting even bigger trouble for myself drawing attention to my thoughts!

[Plankton]

On a very deep, fundamental level, many Christians just don't get science at all, as if the purpose of science were to speak to the human condition in some philosophical way. It isn't.

True. I believe Indy's words relating to archaeology may apply here: "It's the search for facts, not Truth." That's not to say they aren't in agreement, but they are separate things.

The purpose of science is to measure, theorize about, and attempt to understand natural phenomena on a natural level. It is no more a threat to faith than the study of acoustics is a threat to music theory & aesthetics. Related, but not. One is entirely consumed with measurable natural phenomena and natural theories of such. The other is more abstract, and related to meaning.

Also true. Unfortunately, I think that many scientists are not coming from it at that angle; many have hidden agendas. Many Christian scientists want science to support the Bible, and many atheist scientists want it to support the non-existence of God. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but allowing it to affect one's scientific views is. The debate over the existence or non-existence of God is a metaphysical endeavour, not, strictly speaking, a scientific one. It's all very well for one to look at the world and say there is a God; but that's a metaphysical conclusion, and so is concluding that there is no God, for whatever reason.

This is where the rubber hits the road, simply because many scientists, Christian and atheist alike, have confused metaphysics with science. It's all very well for ID to say God exists because etc., and it's all very well for atheists to argue that everything could have come about by pure chance. But they should keep the discussion in the realm of metaphysics. I've come to the conclusion that the Bible is basically neutral about scientific matters, and God has left things hidden so we can discover them. That's my thinking, anyway.

So I find it rather irritating when Christians argue against macroev because they think it contradicts the Bible, and when atheists argue for it because their worldview can't survive without it. Of course, you won't catch THEM saying that's the reason for the argument. But it's quite obvious that for the majority, that's the case. I mean, look at all the other big scientific debates in history. When they were completely neutral, things went fine; spontaneous generation and phlogiston were dismissed eventually, and without any huge controversy. OTOH, take heliocentricism vs. geocentricism. Really another neutral issue, but then taken to be a faith-related issue. Huge controversy. Can you draw any parallels? Of course, the situation seems to have been reversed then; those in favour of geo-, which was thought to be more compliant with the Bible, far outnumbered those in favour of helio-. Today, those in favour of macroev, which *seems* to be contradicted by the Bible, far outnumber six-day creationists.

Ultimately, I believe that the whole debate, at least to the level it has reached, is silly. Macroev can be compatible with Christianity, and I'm sure that macroev isn't the only possible theory for an atheist to adhere to. There were atheists before Darwin, after all. The debate should be more neutral; there's plenty of evidence for and against, but unfortunately it gets skewed on both sides in an effort to gain support for the worldview in question.

I believe the fault lies primarily with the Church which somehow seems to think it owns the rights to all truth claims, even for natural, observable things like "the sky is blue."

Heh. "Church". "fault". "with". Heh. It depends, of course, what you mean by "Church".

[Chashab]

--content deleted--

What branch of science is your wife in?

I really like what you've said Tony . . . Mission Frontiers had an article on this (I may have linked to it already in this thread???) a year or two back, the uncivil disagreement and how it was completely unproductive.

[Tony Watkins]

--content deleted--

Sorry - forgot the link.

On a very deep, fundamental level, many Christians just don't get science at all . . . To be sure, many scientists don't understand religion, nevermind the claims of Christianity, but in my mind, this isn't a chicken-and-egg question. I believe the fault lies primarily with the Church which somehow seems to think it owns the rights to all truth claims, even for natural, observable things like "the sky is blue."

Oh yes!

[Jeff Kolb]

Just to second what Alan said: the typical scientist has plenty of faults, but holding an anti-God agenda is generally not foremost among them. Such claims distract us from the real problems of scientific arrogance and scientific ignorance.

Nice article, Tony. I appreciate the contributions you've been making to this board.