Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to you.
I agree. And, as TEs are found across the full spectrum of Christianity from conservative to liberal, I think the same thing is true if one allows the creation accounts to be more than eyewitness historical records.
You mean like how God inspired many straight-forward accounts of how he tests people's thoughts and instructs them?
"Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous -- you who test the hearts and kidneys, O righteous God!" (Psalm 7:9; ESV, using literal Hebrew translation from footnote)
"I bless the LORD who gives me counsel; in the night also my kidneys instruct me." (Psalm 16:7)
"Prove me, O LORD, and try me; test my kidneys and my heart." (Psalm 26:2)
And lest anyone say that this just happens in Psalms, or just happens when humans are speaking...
"I the LORD search the heart and test the kidneys, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:10)
So not only did human authors speak using their understanding of the mind, but God also condescended to them when speaking about the mind. God used their language, even though it was technically, literally incorrect. So, how did these phrases which would have been taken literally by them become non-literal for us?
Aside from the example of the kidneys, God probably also condescended when he revealed the vision of Revelation to John. I expect the same is true when Jesus revealed what heaven is like. Who's to say that God couldn't have been consistent in also doing so when he inspired humans to write about creation?
Which is more reliable science or the Bible?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Plain Old Bill, Sep 28, 2005.
Page 12 of 16
-
-
Merc.:
See, we have been listening....
I said:
"Brother UTE, however, won't be swayed from his appointed path."
It is interesting how sometime folks meet in the middle when they are going opposite directions. Though, it seems that we passed each other some time ago.
Since there seems to be a moment of calm why don't we ask THE LORD to forgive and bless one-another. We can go back to the battle later.
A.F. -
"I understand UTE's thesis to be - GOD created the various creatures by way of evolution. And also that both the Scriptures and the witness of nature are true. That is neither traditional creationism nor classical evolution theory.
Although UTE's ideas aren't completely new they are not main stream. Classical evolution has no need for GOD. UTE says there is a GOD. Traditional creationism requires no evolution. UTE says there was (and is) evolution. His solution to the obvious dilemma is to say that both the Bible and nature are in harmony. But also to say that the conflict is due to our imperfect understanding. Don't you think that is a fair summary?"
It is a fair summary of my position, however I think there are some things which you may be missing.
Traditional science certainly does not have a requirement for God. Yet neither does it say that there is no God or god. God is outside of the ability of science to test. To say that evolution removes the need for God is no different than to suggest that electromagnetism removes the need for God. Is it not common to say God is light? In both cases, the creation behave according to the natural laws of the Creator to carry out His will.
And while the scientists while doing their field work and their laboratory experiements are unable to invoke God as an explanation, a 1991 Gallup poll found that about 40% of scientists in the US are described as theistic evolutionists. So my personal opinions are not far from the personal opinions of many scientists. The same poll found 39% of the general population to have the same opinion, so it is not that scientists differ much from everyone else in that regard.
There is a bit more to my "thesis" that you may not have been around enough to have heard me say. In my opinion, there is no where in the history of the universe till now where it seems that it is not possible for a naturalistic mechanism to account for what's here. From inflation to galaxy formation to the formation of our solar system and planet to the development and diversification of life, the basics seem believable. There are no gaps for a God of the Gaps to be injected. But I also qualify that this way. Humans are a particular outcome and the outcome that God obviously desired when He set all of this in motion. So while the overall process was set up so perfect by God that it simply works, I think that the particular result of us required periodic intervention to steer the results. So I see a perfectly created system that works but I also see a specific result that I think must have been the result of Divine intervention and guidance at key junctures.
"I would not call UTE "an intelligent layman." His learning and understanding (of his particular subjects) is obviously far beyond that level."
Thanks, but I would characterize it as no more than an intelligent layman myself. I think the key part of this is that I am a big geek who just naturally soaks this kind of stuff up when exposed. It is osmosis. And the interests in geeky things run far beyond what we talk about here. I have all sorts of interesting (to me) things floating about in my head.
"Brother UTE, however, won't be swayed from his appointed path."
I have already been swayed once and you might be surprised at how open I would be to being swayed back. But I think you are correct in suggesting that it is unlikely.
"It is interesting how sometime folks meet in the middle when they are going opposite directions. Though, it seems that we passed each other some time ago.
Since there seems to be a moment of calm why don't we ask THE LORD to forgive and bless one-another. We can go back to the battle later."
I agree.
I much prefer to Q&A than "battle." But, with such strong opinions, you normally get the latter. This is not the only topic around here in which strong opinions can lead fellow believers to be a bit, uh, agressive with one another. We should all try and keep in the back of our minds that we are on the same side ultimately. -
</font>[/QUOTE]Too late! :D I was wondering why you were helping me out there. But it was nice of you.
Just hypothetically, let's say God suddenly spoke today, Oct. 14, to all those on the BB in the US, and said he wanted us to get his word into our hearts. Well, we know that God's word does not literally get into our literal heart - we take it for what it means by the metaphor. If we translated that to another language, "heart" would likely become another word in other languages. -
-
Mercury, I think the serpent was Satan or used by Satan. The curse on the serpent was apparently because it was used to tempt man, and it's "offspring" in the form of poisonous snakes did become deadly enemies of man (though I realize not all snakes are poisonous).
This view is not unusual:
-
I think the account makes more sense if the serpent represents Satan, just as Satan is called a serpent in Revelation 12:9. What God does to the serpent in the story represents God's judgment on Satan.
Anyway, have a good trip Marcia and I hope you're feeling better. -
I still don't see how God using "kidneys" for "mind" means that Gen. is not literal. And I am not sure we know that the OT people really thought their mind was in their kidneys. Even if they did, God using that term does not mean he would tell a story like the creation story as he did while really meaning something else.
God could have said he created the world and after many ages, man was formed. Or God started an explosion and then the earth came about and then animals and then people. Or God created the world and after many ages, man was created (or came about). But God specifically said what He said and reiterated the 7 days in Exodus in giving the 10 commandments.
I think this is where I get off because I'm leaving town tomorrow for several days and have a big project when I come back. I might post on a few more threads, and then that's it for a bit. Thanks for the good discussion. Very thought provoking. -
And really, why would God do that? After all, he gave humans the ability to eventually figure out things like that themselves. Why short-circuit our discovery of his creation? To me, it would be like telling a friend the ending to The Sixth Sense before they went to see it. ;)
-
Well, I'm still around.
It could be a template and be literal, at the same time. The account of creation is the first account of what God has done and is very much a foundation, as I see it, for the rest of scripture. So God created in 6 days, then the Sabbath comes, and God did that to set up the template for the work week and Sabbath, as well as to show us Jesus is our "7th day rest" in Hebrews.
Since God used details in the recurring phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning" to mark each day, it seems to indicate a real literal day (despite the sun being created on the 4th day -- which I think we discussed on other threads).
It seems to me that templates and symbols don't mean anything if they themselves rest on symbols. Symbols usually spring from or indicate something literal. -
-
Mercury
The problem with your argument is that God did not use any symbols in Genesis 1. God simply describes his work day by day. This is normal speech. This is no different than saying I had chili on Monday and spagetti on Tuesday.
Now, if God had said he poured out his bowl and the world was created, then you would have a valid argument.
When Jesus said he was the bread of life, of course that must be a symbol. But if Jesus said, I go up to Jerusalem, there is no symbol.
Your argument is not valid. -
(Of course, the above is not really what I believe. Symbolism is more complicated than that.)
-
"The problem with your argument is that God did not use any symbols in Revelation 16. God is simply describing his wrath bowl by bowl. This is normal speech. This is no different than saying I have a bowl of fruit and a bowl of soup."
Come on, try going to a restaurant and saying, "I'll have a bowl of wrath, please."
Wrath is an emotion. You cannot put emotion into a bowl or cup or glass. So this must be symbolic.
And Jesus was a real physical man, therefore he could not be a loaf of bread, so this too is a symbol.
But a literal man can go up to Jerusalem, so this is not a symbol.
This is a silly argument. You know this is true as well as I do. -
Of course, for God nothing is impossible. He can make days without the sun as easily as he can put his wrath in literal bowls.
-
Mercury
We do not know the source of the light that caused the morning and evening before the sun was created. Perhaps the Lord himself was the light.
Act 22:6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
Act 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Act 22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
If the light was from a single direction, and the earth was rotating, you could have a morning and an evening.
This does not contradict science at all. I have a flashlight in my home. I can produce light without the sun. -
Also, trees don't give life. Trees can provide food which sustains life, but they don't make someone live forever. There is no elixir for eternal life that you can put into a tree -- eternal life comes from God, not trees. So, the tree of life must be symbolic too, right?
Also, serpents don't speak, not even if they're subtle. Aside from mimicry like parrots, you cannot make an animal carry on an intelligible conversation with a person, and Genesis 3:1 does not state that any miracle occurred to make the serpent speak (unlike Balaam's donkey, for instance). So, the serpent must be symbolic as well, right? -
-
Mercury
We certainly get medicines that heal disease from plants. Perhaps there is a substance than can reverse aging, death and disease.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
According to God's word, there is such a tree.
Good enough for me.
Look, don't ask me why God said, "Let there be light" and provided a morning and evening for three days before the sun, moon, and stars were created.
God is no fool. Do you not think he understood this would be controversial to man?
God tells the truth whether it seems reasonable to man or not.
Page 12 of 16