Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

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

No humor intended. The author of Job obviously knew nothing of the nature of the earth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Said foundation being on the back of a turtle?

Actually, word has it that God used four elephants as his foundation and stationed them on the four corners of the earth.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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.



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.



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.

"I conceded that scripture can have multiple vertical applications to the one objective meaning."

I suspected you were addressing what many call the "four senses of scripture", but your phrasing was foreign to me.

"I never said that everyone would understand scripture properly..."

I think you're walking back your preceding post and choice of words, but it could be a case of my first reply above.

"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"?

Creation "ex nihilo" has nothing to do with evolution. After creating from nothingness, God can use his created matter from nothing, to further create rational man however he chooses, via dust/clay or hominid. I'm free to accept either, though I find the scientific case to be more than a theory at this stage. Exegetical research (historical criticism) regarding Genesis, and the findings of modern science contribute to the discussion greatly.

"You would have to tell us that Adam "descended" from an ape or chimpanzee (made in its image and likeness)"...

You're giving no weight to "theological man", man now imbued with the immaterial powers of intellect and will (image/likeness), a new creation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"I conceded that scripture can have multiple vertical applications to the one objective meaning."

I suspected you were addressing what many call the "four senses of scripture", but your phrasing was foreign to me.

"I never said that everyone would understand scripture properly..."

I think you're walking back your preceding post and choice of words, but it could be a case of my first reply above.

"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"?

Creation "ex nihilo" has nothing to do with evolution. After creating from nothingness, God can use his created matter from nothing, to further create rational man however he chooses, via dust/clay or hominid. I'm free to accept either, though I find the scientific case to be more than a theory at this stage. Exegetical research (historical criticism) regarding Genesis, and the findings of modern science contribute to the discussion greatly.

Okay...but where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of evolution" appear. Where did Jesus or any NT writer correct all the many misconceptions of creationism taught in Genesis?

"You would have to tell us that Adam "descended" from an ape or chimpanzee (made in its image and likeness)"...

You're giving no weight to "theological man", man now imbued with the immaterial powers of intellect and will (image/likeness), a new creation.

Forget "theological man". I'm talking about the first physical man. How could it possibly be said that Adam and Eve were created in God's image and likeness when God did not create them directly, as Genesis teaches? It would seem to me that whatever God had a hand in directly creating would be made in his image and likeness, which in the case of evolutionary theory could have been just about any simple, one-cell life, which in turn would have been very far removed both in time and from the top drawer (Adam) of the evolution chain. Adam was very far removed from the Last Adam but a very close "relative" to apes or chimps. Adam, then, would have been "made" in the image and likeness of his nearest relative in the animal kingdom.

And since you think Adam and Eve came unto the world stage gazillions of years after God kick-started the evolutionary chain, how could it be said in Gen 2:7 that God directly breathed life into Adam -- and man, subsequently, became a living being. Isn't Adam the product of 100% natural forces in your hybrid scheme of theistic-evolution?

Also, what do you think Jesus' interpretation of the Genesis creation account was? He seemed to think that God had a direct hand in creating two very specific human beings -- Adam and Eve. Any thoughts?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

No humor intended. The author of Job obviously knew nothing of the nature of the earth.

My mistake. I thought you were referencing Bertrand Russell.

Why is this so difficult, aside from one's emotional, targeted bias against a particular source of historical literature? Grade school and high school kids get it...

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help...ertain--404668

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...but where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of evolution" appear. Where did Jesus or any NT writer correct all the many misconceptions of creationism taught in Genesis?

"You would have to tell us that Adam "descended" from an ape or chimpanzee (made in its image and likeness)"...



Forget "theological man". I'm talking about the first physical man. How could it possibly be said that Adam and Eve were created in God's image and likeness when God did not create them directly, as Genesis teaches? It would seem to me that whatever God had a hand in directly creating would be made in his image and likeness, which in the case of evolutionary theory could have been just about any simple, one-cell life, which in turn would have been very far removed both in time and from the top drawer (Adam) of the evolution chain. Adam was very far removed from the Last Adam but a very close "relative" to apes or chimps. Adam, then, would have been "made" in the image and likeness of his nearest relative in the animal kingdom.

And since you think Adam and Eve came unto the world stage gazillions of years after God kick-started the evolutionary chain, how could it be said in Gen 2:7 that God directly breathed life into Adam -- and man, subsequently, became a living being. Isn't Adam the product of 100% natural forces in your hybrid scheme of theistic-evolution?

Also, what do you think Jesus' interpretation of the Genesis creation account was? He seemed to think that God had a direct hand in creating two very specific human beings -- Adam and Eve. Any thoughts?

"Where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of evolution" appear"?

"Where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of quarks" appear"?
Evolution is not a deeper spiritual truth, hidden behind the literal sense of Gen 1, anymore than say, quantum mechanics is. The sacred author isn't inspired to convey, in his contemporary genre, truths about how the interactions of matter occurred, but rather that the First Cause of those interactions was YHWH, and the other theological truths (no pre-existing matter, battle of gods, etc.)

" It would seem to me that whatever God had a hand in directly creating would be made in his image and likeness..."

Is dust, caused previous to man, in his image and likeness?
https://biblia.com/books/esv/bibleesv.Ge3.19

It's the infusion of intellect and will (Gen 2:7) united to the body that realizes "image and likeness" i.e., "not like the animals"...

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/image-god/

"And since you think Adam and Eve came unto the world stage gazillions of years after God kick-started the evolutionary chain, how could it be said in Gen 2:7 that God directly breathed life into Adam -- and man, subsequently, beca me a living being. Isn't Adam the product of 100% natural forces in your hybrid scheme of theistic-evolution"?

My previous replies would be consonant here. God directly breathed life (intellect, will, rationality) into Adam, regardless if it was days or 10 million years, whether formed from dust or hominid. So no, Adam is the product of 0% natural forces, admitting YHWH as First Cause as the Genesis author intends. "A God outside of time could just as soon move swiftly as slowly" to paraphrase Chesterton.

" He seemed to think that God had a direct hand in creating two very specific human beings -- Adam and Eve."

So do I. Taking the hypostatic union seriously (Heb 4:15), Christ in his divinity is omniscient. Christ in his humanity, contemporary to the 1st century ancient Near East, would share that perspective. Admittedly, I haven't encountered much reading on just what that perspective was.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of evolution" appear"?

"Where in the NT does the "deeper spiritual truth of quarks" appear"?
Evolution is not a deeper spiritual truth, hidden behind the literal sense of Gen 1, anymore than say, quantum mechanics is. The sacred author isn't inspired to convey, in his contemporary genre, truths about how the interactions of matter occurred, but rather that the First Cause of those interactions was YHWH, and the other theological truths (no pre-existing matter, battle of gods, etc.)

And that is one of my points for why theistic evolution cannot be biblical. You argued from the "four senses of scripture" to tell us that scripture can have multiple meanings. Then you cited a few examples, such as baptism, circumcision, typology, etc. == all of which are biblical doctrines and all of which also have multiple applications as affirmed in the NT. We're both in agreement on this. Yet, now we're supposed to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, accommodated ancient man's ignorance of science by condescending to man and making the ancients believe that he created the universe in six literal days. So, the very first problem with your appeal to the "four senses of scripture" is that now, by your own admission, the NT is completely silent on any affirming revelation that would reveal a deeper, spiritual truth to the literal 6-day creation account. Therefore, this is unprecedented because, as we have discussed, the NT does support multiple senses of interpretation by actually revealing deeper, spiritual truths to doctrines that originated in the OT. But you're telling us that the NT contains no such affirming revelation to give us any deeper, spiritual meaning behind the literal 6-day creation account. Your appeal to the "four senses of scripture" is convenient and arbitrary, since you have categorically ruled out any spiritual meaning to theistic evolution and have admitted that there is no affirming NT revelation that teaches us any such truths.

Not only that, but you're telling us that theistic evolution itself is not a spiritual truth. Yet, CREATIONISM is!!!. Or are you going to tell us that the Genesis creation account is not spiritual truth? Do none of the "four senses of scripture" (spiritual, moral, theological or eschatological) apply to the Genesis creation account?

Thirdly, it is begging to be asked why an infinitely wise, all-loving, holy God, who cannot lie, would, in a manner of speaking, trip over himself, break his back bending over backwards, and go out of his way at every turn, and jump through hoops in the creation account to lead the ancients to believe that he created the universe in 6-literal days, when it was entirely unnecessary for him to do so? It's one thing to inspire Moses to use Hebrew terms that denote "create" and "made" because the ancients might not have understood what it means for something to "evolve" over time; yet, it's quite another to repeatedly ram literal days down their throats with first day, second day, third day, fourth day, etc. when God could have used other time-related terms that would have denoted long ages, such as owlam used in Eccl 1:10. Or he could have used other poetical language to convey a very long period of time. In fact, the Holy Spirit set the precedent in the creation account with the day-counting formula "one day", "second day", third day", etc., since wherever this formula is found in scripture it always refers to a literal day. Therefore, what compelling, exegetical and scriptural reason is there to not interpret the creation account and other closely related creation passages in the sensible sense of scripture -- which in this case would be literal days?

Me:
" It would seem to me that whatever God had a hand in directly creating would be made in his image and likeness..."

Is dust, caused previous to man, in his image and likeness?
https://biblia.com/books/esv/bibleesv.Ge3.19

Must be, since you think God being the Fist Cause is good enough for all things to be made in his image and likeness. The entire universe, then, must be made in God's image and likeness.

It's the infusion of intellect and will (Gen 2:7) united to the body that realizes "image and likeness" i.e., "not like the animals"...

But the text above has God also being the immediate cause.

Me:
And since you think Adam and Eve came unto the world stage gazillions of years after God kick-started the evolutionary chain, how could it be said in Gen 2:7 that God directly breathed life into Adam -- and man, subsequently, became a living being. Isn't Adam the product of 100% natural forces in your hybrid scheme of theistic-evolution"?

My previous replies would be consonant here. God directly breathed life (intellect, will, rationality) into Adam, regardless if it was days or 10 million years, whether formed from dust or hominid. So no, Adam is the product of 0% natural forces, admitting YHWH as First Cause as the Genesis author intends. "A God outside of time could just as soon move swiftly as slowly" to paraphrase Chesterton.

Okay...time out. So, in your scheme of theistic evolution, God's hand was directly involved in every single stage of evolution? He directly and immediately superintended every step of the evolutionary process? Is this correct? He treated man differently from the rest of the animals, and even the lower animals from the higher ones, etc., right? If this is the case, then the only real, substantive difference between creationism and theistic evolution is the time frame involved. With the former model, it took God 6 literal days to create the universe; with the latter model it took God about 14 billion years to evolve the heavens and earth (i.e. universe)? But in both cases God was the first, formal and immediate cause of all that was created/evolved, correct?

So, let's stop here until you tackle the problems in this post.

Good luck.

[Buckeye]

I'm simple minded.

There's allot of wisdom in humility.

Leaves room to believe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I'm simple minded.

There's allot of wisdom in humility in my opinion.

Leaves room to believe.

I like to know why I believe what I believe. It gives me greater confidence in my God.

[Buckeye]

The main point is you believe in the first place not why.

God is not testing us on why.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

The main point is you believe in the first place not why.

God is not testing us on why.

If the goal is to believe without asking why...then why has God equipped us with such a complicated brain? Didn't he intend for us to use it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Why is this so difficult, ...

Why is what so difficult?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

...aside from one's emotional, targeted bias against a particular source of historical literature? Grade school and high school kids get it...

Get what?

Your average grade school or high school kids are not exactly critical thinkers.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If the goal is to believe without asking why...then why has God equipped us with such a complicated brain? Didn't he intend for us to use it?

Boxcar does not believe the brain has anything to do with thinking. He thinks Phineas Gage just had a "bad hair day."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why is what so difficult?

Get what?

Your average grade school or high school kids are not exactly critical thinkers.

What was the student and his/her responder referring to in the link? Placing an author in the context of his/her times. So what am I referring to? Placing Job in the context of his times. It's called generally "historical criticism", or in this case, "biblical historical criticism" of ancient Near Eastern literature, i.e., the book of Job.

That means deriving the author's intended message (literal sense) from his choice of genre, and all other contemporary influences, such as perhaps a 600 B.C. understanding of science.

Conclusion: For the religious and biblically literate, your jibe draws no blood as far as "Science invalidates theism" or the Hebrew & Christian scriptures. The Christian doesn't give a fig about Job not having a zoology degree, since Job was basically wrestling with the problem for the ages--the existence of evil.

I wouldn't worry about the grade schoolers.

[Buckeye]

What's the question-- just so I know?

I can't ask as eloquently as the previous poster, but I can pick horses!