Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You mean the great weight of "science's" horse manure. Jesus did say, "Come unto me all you who weary and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest". This is true in more ways than one.

I'm really trying to understand your compliance with skeptics holding to the "dichotomy between religion and science" canard, since for you and me, science and scripture, e.g., have the same primary author.

I don't think you favor the inspiration of scripture as God dictating to a stenographer since, for example, Paul is presented as having forgotten something he wanted to mention (1 Cor 1:14-16).

I suspect the superficial contrast between modern science and the words (when understood as static, rather than dynamic) present in Gen 1 challenge the providence of God. There are many scholarly Reformed who have little difficulty with, say, the use of a contemporary Near Eastern myth by the author of Gen 1 (who couldn't have known the science) in order to return to sender as a theological polemic of monotheism, no battle of the gods, etc...(Pg 154 specifically in link, pg. 132 for entire chapter)...

https://books.google.com/books?id=TR...(1998)&f=false

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'm really trying to understand your compliance with skeptics holding to the "dichotomy between religion and science" canard, since for you and me, science and scripture, e.g., have the same primary author.

I don't think you favor the inspiration of scripture as God dictating to a stenographer since, for example, Paul is presented as having forgotten something he wanted to mention (1 Cor 1:14-16).

I suspect the superficial contrast between modern science and the words (when understood as static, rather than dynamic) present in Gen 1 challenge the providence of God. There are many scholarly Reformed who have little difficulty with, say, the use of a contemporary Near Eastern myth by the author of Gen 1 (who couldn't have known the science) in order to return to sender as a theological polemic of monotheism, no battle of the gods, etc...(Pg 154 specifically in link, pg. 132 for entire chapter)...

https://books.google.com/books?id=TR...(1998)&f=false

I'm not in agreement with the skeptics. They have set up a false dichotomy between the bible and science. And I also don't agree with them that science books and the books of the bible are substantially and essentially dealing with the same subject matter.

Having said this, I do not hold to theistic evolution due to the many insurmountable theological problems that would attend to this view -- dilemmas that would even affect the gospel. So...no thank you, I appeal to Occam's Razor for starters.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not in agreement with the skeptics. They have set up a false dichotomy between the bible and science. And I also don't agree with them that science books and the books of the bible are substantially and essentially dealing with the same subject matter.

Having said this, I do not hold to theistic evolution due to the many insurmountable theological problems that would attend to this view -- dilemmas that would even affect the gospel. So...no thank you, I appeal to Occam's Razor for starters.

I don't entertain such dilemmas, since I accept that the chasm between rational and non-rational beings was crossed metaphysically, and that goal-oriented behavior (teleology) in nature is obvious, and was rejected with a hand wave.

Evolution doesn't select for altruism. It selects against traits that inhibit reproduction. It looks around at the population and selects just enough to look over the heads of the locals (local maxima) Fig. 1 in link...

https://evolution-institute.org/focu...-main-article/

So despite the religion-as-evolutionary-advantage crowd, it's another chasm from just barely climbing the evolutionary hill, to the pursuit of sanctity. (Mt 5:48). Or as Tommy Aquinas stated, "Grace does not destroy but perfects nature".

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I do not hold to theistic evolution due to the many insurmountable theological problems that would attend to this view

I read your statement as, "I cannot accept the truth unless it adheres to my beliefs."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I don't entertain such dilemmas, since I accept that the chasm between rational and non-rational beings was crossed metaphysically, and that goal-oriented behavior (teleology) in nature is obvious, and was rejected with a hand wave.

Evolution doesn't select for altruism. It selects against traits that inhibit reproduction. It looks around at the population and selects just enough to look over the heads of the locals (local maxima) Fig. 1 in link...

https://evolution-institute.org/focu...-main-article/

So despite the religion-as-evolutionary-advantage crowd, it's another chasm from just barely climbing the evolutionary hill, to the pursuit of sanctity. (Mt 5:48). Or as Tommy Aquinas stated, "Grace does not destroy but perfects nature".

What about the "chasm" between a rational God and his rational creatures? Was that, too, crossed "metaphysically"?

And the only way grace will ultimately perfect nature is at the redemption of the bodies of God's people. Then...and only then will nature quit groaning and suffering the pains of childbirth (Rom 8:22-23). Only then will the curse that is upon all creation be lifted (Rev 22:3). Only when DEATH, the last enemy, is finally conquered will grace perfect the new creation.

Tell me, please, how would the original audience of the ancient Hebrews have understood Moses' creation account?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I read your statement as, "I cannot accept the truth unless it adheres to my beliefs."

No, I cannot accept anything that purports to be truth that at the same contradicts the truth of God's word. When that happens my only choice, as an adopted, redeemed child of God, is to believe my Redeemer. For it is also written:

Ps 118:8-9
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in man.
9 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in princes.
NASB

And,

Rom 3:4a
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..
NASB

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What about the "chasm" between a rational God and his rational creatures? Was that, too, crossed "metaphysically"?

And the only way grace will ultimately perfect nature is at the redemption of the bodies of God's people. Then...and only then will nature quit groaning and suffering the pains of childbirth (Rom 8:22-23). Only then will the curse that is upon all creation be lifted (Rev 22:3). Only when DEATH, the last enemy, is finally conquered will grace perfect the new creation.

Tell me, please, how would the original audience of the ancient Hebrews have understood Moses' creation account?

"Was that, too, crossed "metaphysically"?

Metaphysical = How? by the infusion of the soul, i.e., Aristotle regarding Soul, Form, etc., improved upon by the Scholastics.
Supernatural = Who? Infusion of the Soul by God.

By removing the "s" from "perfects", your second paragraph became irrelevant due to confusing the intended tense.

"How would the original audience of the ancient Hebrews have understood Moses' creation account"?

That's the point--God primarily and the inspired sacred author secondarily, meeting his people right where they were. In the case of a people familiar with mythopoetic communication of truths for instance, the sacred author does not have his human faculties usurped by God, but communicates to his audience in ways they understood. Revelation takes place in stages.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Was that, too, crossed "metaphysically"?

Metaphysical = How? by the infusion of the soul, i.e., Aristotle regarding Soul, Form, etc., improved upon by the Scholastics.
Supernatural = Who? Infusion of the Soul by God.

By removing the "s" from "perfects", your second paragraph became irrelevant due to confusing the intended tense.

"How would the original audience of the ancient Hebrews have understood Moses' creation account"?

That's the point--God primarily and the inspired sacred author secondarily, meeting his people right where they were. In the case of a people familiar with mythopoetic communication of truths for instance, the sacred author does not have his human faculties usurped by God, but communicates to his audience in ways they understood. Revelation takes place in stages.

Okay then...since God's word is eternal, unchanging, perfect and purer than silver tried in a furnace seven times, and is flawless throughout, then it's not possible that God would have multiple lateral meanings for multiple generations of his people. Yes, God does often times have multiple vertical significances or applications that drill down to reveal deeper profound, spiritual truths, but those truths never change the writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience. Quite the contrary. They affirm the original meaning!

Furthermore, and this is extremely important, whatever deeper, more profound truths any given scripture passage may be discovered to have, that truth will be found in scripture itself -- not outside of it! In other words, the mighty fallen men of science and their profanely inspired science text books are not going to unveil any great mysteries to the Word of God, or reveal to us any deep spiritual truths. And there's certainly nothing spiritual about the theory of evolution. In fact, we couldn't get a theory more anti-God than evolution! Can you not hear the mighty wise scientists, emulating their spiritual father by whispering loudly into mankind's ear, "Has God really said..."?

My friend, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is no shadow of turning with him. What he revealed to his prophets and apostles thousands of years ago has the same objective meaning to his people today.
We cannot possibly say that God's Word is objective, absolute truth if the meaning of that truth has been evolving for thousands or gazillions of years.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, I cannot accept anything that purports to be truth that at the same contradicts the truth of God's word. When that happens my only choice, as an adopted, redeemed child of God, is to believe my Redeemer. For it is also written:

Ps 118:8-9
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in man.
9 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in princes.
NASB

And,

Rom 3:4a
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..
NASB

I like this quote:

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Groucho Marx

Not every man is untrustworthy, and it is not always man you have to trust. You don't have to believe Galileo. But if you conduct your own experiment you'll find you come up with the same answers as he did about things like the earth going around the sun instead of the sun circling the earth.

In other words, do you believe your own eyes?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay then...since God's word is eternal, unchanging, perfect and purer than silver tried in a furnace seven times, and is flawless throughout, then it's not possible that God would have multiple lateral meanings for multiple generations of his people. Yes, God does often times have multiple vertical significances or applications that drill down to reveal deeper profound, spiritual truths, but those truths never change the writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience. Quite the contrary. They affirm the original meaning!

Furthermore, and this is extremely important, whatever deeper, more profound truths any given scripture passage may be discovered to have, that truth will be found in scripture itself -- not outside of it! In other words, the mighty fallen men of science and their profanely inspired science text books are not going to unveil any great mysteries to the Word of God, or reveal to us any deep spiritual truths. And there's certainly nothing spiritual about the theory of evolution. In fact, we couldn't get a theory more anti-God than evolution! Can you not hear the mighty wise scientists, emulating their spiritual father by whispering loudly into mankind's ear, "Has God really said..."?

My friend, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is no shadow of turning with him. What he revealed to his prophets and apostles thousands of years ago has the same objective meaning to his people today.
We cannot possibly say that God's Word is objective, absolute truth if the meaning of that truth has been evolving for thousands or gazillions of years.

"Those truths never change the writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience".

If I understand you correctly, You've just obliterated the typological sense, else Christ had no need to reveal the New hidden in the Old...https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Lk24.27

So for the author and hearers of the command of YHWH that circumcision be an everlasting covenant sign...

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Ge17.10-14 ...

the "writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience" was that baptism would supplant circumcision?..

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Col2.10

... Then why the "Council of Jerusalem" to hash out the question (Acts 15), if all understood the intent and absolute truth of Gen 17?

"Whatever deeper, more profound truths any given scripture passage may be discovered to have, that truth will be found in scripture itself"...

Discovering those "deeper, more profound truths" requires exegetical research in order to contextualize passages in terms of era, culture, contemporary literary genre (e.g, mythopoeic narrative in the Ancient Near East), political situations, geography, etc. In that manner, many Reformed scholars attribute the language and intent of Gen 1 to a mythopoeic polemic against Israel's polytheistic neighbors. They don't consult "Evolution Monthly".

" We cannot possibly say that God's Word is objective, absolute truth if the meaning of that truth has been evolving for thousands or gazillions of years".

Don't confuse me with the UCC... "Don't place a period where God has placed a comma".

Organic theological development...

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Eph5.32

has nothing to do with the way God may have chosen to form previous matter, be it dust or hominid, into rational man.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I like this quote:

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Groucho Marx

Not every man is untrustworthy, and it is not always man you have to trust. You don't have to believe Galileo. But if you conduct your own experiment you'll find you come up with the same answers as he did about things like the earth going around the sun instead of the sun circling the earth.

In other words, do you believe your own eyes?

Tell me, sir, did Groucho witness with his own eyes the genesis of the universe? Or did you? Your post brings to mind this passage:

Job 38:1-4
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

2 "Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 "Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
NASB

[Actor]

#9057

Science and religion are in conflict. To accept one the individual must reject the other. The third option is to deny the conflict. This is accomodationalism. The epitome of accomodationalism is NOMA, Non-Overlapping Magesteria, a thesis of Stephen J. Gould, which holds that science and religion are not in conflict because they ask different questions.

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. … These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry.” – Stephen J. Gould

An opposing view

"it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. Gould's observation that ‘These two magisteria do not overlap...’ does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.” – Richard Dawkins

Yet another form of accomodationalism is selective belief, the acceptance of scientific truths which the believer finds comforting or enjoyable, e.g., his computer, car, TV, inoculations against disease, while rejecting others, e.g., and old earth, evolution, a spherical earth, with the only criterion for his disbelief being the conflict between science and scripture.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

Said foundation being on the back of a turtle?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Those truths never change the writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience".

If I understand you correctly, You've just obliterated the typological sense, else Christ had no need to reveal the New hidden in the Old...https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Lk24.27

Not so. Go back and re-read my 9053. I conceded that scripture can have multiple vertical applications to the one objective meaning. For example, Psalm 22 is a Davidic Psalm and David is primarily referring to himself; but at the same time, it is also a prophetic Messianic Psalm that alludes to Christ and to his suffering on the Cross. The psalm, therefore, has one objective meaning with multiple applications. The Messianic application being the deeper and more profound application.

Allow me an analogy since I'm pretty good at those. I go into a bakery to buy a fancy cake for an upcoming occasion. And I buy a cake the baker calls a Rainbow Cake. He calls it that because it has multiple layers. One layer is strawberry, one is blueberry and another is apricot. These layers don't make the cake three different cakes. It is still one cake with multiple layers. And so it is with the meanings that undergird scripture. The top "layer" to Psalm 22 refers to David's own life and spiritual condition at the time he penned that psalm, whereas the second deeper "layer" refers to Christ and sufferings. And there might even be third and deeper meaning (application) because Christians can apply Christ's sufferings to their own lives.

So for the author and hearers of the command of YHWH that circumcision be an everlasting covenant sign...

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Ge17.10-14 ...

the "writer's original, objective meaning or the understanding of the original audience" was that baptism would supplant circumcision?..

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Col2.10

... Then why the "Council of Jerusalem" to hash out the question (Acts 15), if all understood the intent and absolute truth of Gen 17?

You're moving the goal posts with your non sequiturs. I never said that everyone would understand scripture properly, let alone that one particular generation of writers and readers would be able to unearth any deeper applications that a passage might have. I doubt very seriously, for example, that David's original audience for Psalm 22 would have had the necessary spiritual insight to drill any deeper into the psalm than the "top" layer. In fact, David himself, even though he was in the Spirit when he wrote the psalm, may not have understood its deeper spiritual, messianic implications.

Since all scripture was progressive revelation, it stands to reason that there would be meetings, such as the Jerusalem Council, to hash out theological questions.

"Whatever deeper, more profound truths any given scripture passage may be discovered to have, that truth will be found in scripture itself"...

Discovering those "deeper, more profound truths" requires exegetical research in order to contextualize passages in terms of era, culture, contemporary literary genre (e.g, mythopoeic narrative in the Ancient Near East), political situations, geography, etc. In that manner, many Reformed scholars attribute the language and intent of Gen 1 to a mythopoeic polemic against Israel's polytheistic neighbors. They don't consult "Evolution Monthly".

" We cannot possibly say that God's Word is objective, absolute truth if the meaning of that truth has been evolving for thousands or gazillions of years".

Don't confuse me with the UCC... "Don't place a period where God has placed a comma".

Organic theological development...

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Eph5.32

has nothing to do with the way God may have chosen to form previous matter, be it dust or hominid, into rational man.

God's absolute truth is not a moving target. It's not a target that was in one place in 1,500 B.C., in another in 700 B.C., in different place in 30 A.D., and in another very different place in the 19th century, etc.

I want you to see what you have done above with various examples you have given -- baptism, circumcision, Jerusalem Council -- you have unwittingly chosen all thoroughly biblical topics -- all of which have deeper biblically VERIFIABLE spiritual applications that are revealed in the NT, and that would have been beyond the original writers' and their original audiences' understanding. Can you show me in the NT where that is the case with evolution. Can you show me how creation ex nihilo in the OT came to be understood as evolution by Jesus or the apostles in the NT?

One more quick question before I take my leave to keep an appointment. In Luke's genealogy in chapter 3, it's perfectly understandable how it could be said that Adam "descended" from the son of God. But in the evolutionary scheme of things, you would have to tell us that Adam "descended" from an ape or chimpanzee (made in its image and likeness), and that perhaps the first, simple cell life (whatever that was) would have logically been made in God's image and likeness.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Said foundation being on the back of a turtle?

That would be condescendingly humorous if Russell was addressing any serious proponent of First Cause arguments who ever stated, "Everything has a cause".