Re: Discussion of von Rad's _Genesis: A Commentary_

On 06 Dec 2007 06:13:30 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartographical@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

zoe wrote:

snip>

sure, time taken up with unprofitable scientific disputes could be
better spent on what is spiritually beneficial. But what if certain
"scientific" subjects serve to deflect interest in things spiritually
beneficial? Would it matter then?

I provided this example to show that non-literal readings of Genesis
began long before evolution came on the scene, and that such non-literal
interpretations have been very much in the mainstream. Can science
deflect interest in spiritually beneficial things? Certainly, but so
can anything else.

just to clarify, by "science" here, I am referring only to evolutionary
theory, and more specifically, macroevolutionary theory. Not science in
general.

I don't know what macroevolutionary theory is. Is this what you mean?
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html

do you know what macroevolutionary theory is now, after reading that
link?

My understanding of what evolutionists mean by macroevolution is that
when sufficient changes occur that take a population from one species
into an entirely new genus, i.e., dinosaur to bird, ape to human, then
macroevolution has occurred.

In the link you have provided, I'm a little confused. It says that
"Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and
macroevolution," but also says that "macroevolution refers to things
......occurring over tens of millions of years..." If every little
change in alleles is considered to be speciation (microevolution) and
if these speciation events are the dividing line between micro and
macro, then macro should be observable in less time than tens of
millions of years. I bet I am misunderstanding something here.

Just a note: There is a misprint in the article where it says, "When
the principle tenants of the Modern Synthesis were being worked out in
the 1940's...."

I'm sure Laurence Moran would not appreciate that typo and would want
"principle tenants" replaced by "principal tenets."

I'm not aware of any scientific subject that cannot be by
definition spiritually beneficial -- it's the study of God's creation,
after all.

my position is that a scientific study of nature that promotes a God
uninvolved with His creation versus a God involved and caring intimately
about His creation, can have widely differing effects. It matters what
the study promotes.

Science in general, and evolution in particular, has nothing to say about
God's continuing involvement in creation. As to what science promotes, I
think we've done pretty well with "go where the evidence leads".

What does the study of electricity promote?

once again, I am not talking about science in general. Can we stay
with evolution in particular. I mean, this is the hot topic in this
newsgroup, not science in general. There is no dispute with regard to
electricity or gravity or any of the real sciences.

snip>

I agree, but what if we get to a point where the "shape" of the universe
is theorized to be such that salvation is no longer considered a reality
or a necessity?

Science can't arrive at that point. Scientists can, but on this they're
simply speaking as individuals.

Ok, that's not strictly true. If a religion stands or falls on a
naturalistic claim, then science can validate or invalidate that
individual claim. (Validation of the single claim does not validate the
religion, and invalidation -- well, it's up to the practitioners of the
religion whether or not their religion is really invalidated.) So if I
belonged to a religion along the Pythagorean line that required all
numbers to be rational, I have a problem with the scientific existence
of the square root of 2.

are you comparing math to the theory of an unknown first common
ancestor, evolving randomly and willy-nilly? I don't think they are in
the same category, you know.

I was hoping for a civil exchange, and I think I've treated the ideas of
yours that I disagree with fairly and respectfully. If you need to
engage in caricature, then please do it elsewhere.

forgive me if my question came across as disrespectful or uncivil. It
was a genuine question, not an attempt at caricaturization.

No, I was not comparing evolution to religion in the above paragraph.

neither was I comparing evolution to religion. I was comparing
evolution to scientific evidence that invalidates a religious stance.
And I asked you if that was what you were comparing.

my question again: are you comparing the "scientific existence of the
square root of 2" to the theory of an unknown first common ancestor,
evolving randomly and accidentally? (I'll remove "willy-nilly" in
case that term offends.)

Your point seems to be that if a religion is based only on rational
numbers, and science demonstrates the existence of an irrational
number, then that would undermine a religious belief that only
rational numbers exist. Right? Likewise, you seemed to be saying
that if my position is that the creation story is literal, and if
scientific evidence (the theory of evolution) demonstrates that the
creation story could not be literal, then that invalidates....well,
it's up to me whether I consider it validated or not, right?

If I have again misunderstood what you said, just put a dunce cap on
my head, and not a "rude" cap, okay?

My
point was to show that theology should not make naturalistic claims, and
what happened to the Pythagoreans when they did.

I don't know why theology cannot make naturalistic claims. My
theology sees the world as a natural product of intelligence, and I
don't use Bible texts to come to that conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

snip>

if a philosophy on how the heavens were made is of a nature to blind
one on how one goes to heaven, then should not such a philosophy be
challenged?

I'm not aware of such a philosophy that *will* blind someone. Any
philosophy -- including all Christian ones -- *can* blind someone.

actually, I didn't ask if you were aware of such a philosophy. I asked,
IF a philosophy of how the heavens were made is of a nature that it
could blind one on how to go to heaven, should such a philosophy be
challenged? Yes or no.

I guess you have already indirectly said, yes, it should be challenged,
but you are adding that you are not aware of any such philosophy, right?
Let me make bold to proceed on that guess.

*Every* philosophy should be challenged. That's how we weed out the bad
ones.


Okay, if a philosophy claims that there are no miracles beyond what men
know nature can do today, and if a philosophy claims that we exist
through a series of accidents, and if it claims that everything we are
is a result of accident and not design, where does that leave a God Who
comes to earth as a man and says, "If you have seen me you have seen the
Father," Who is reported to have said, "I created you"? What do you do
with a God Who claims that He has accomplished the "miracle" of
overcoming death and nature, but who, it is now claimed by some, cannot
and does not perform those kinds of miracles?

I think you would enjoy taking a few philosophy classes.

So yes, let's challenge the above philosophy. It's doubtful [which is a
polite way of saying "It ain't gonna happen"] that "there are no
miracles" can be supported, so that part of it fails [can't prove a
negative outside of mathematics, and this is a semi-naturalistic claim].
Further "everything we are is a result of accident and not design" fails,
as there is no empirical way of determining the presence of design (and
accident is not necessarily the opposite of design, but let's leave that
be for now).

So that philosophy is looking pretty tattered right off the bat. If it's
your honest representation of what evolution implies, then I can
understand why you find evolution off-putting.

I don't believe this. After hanging out here for many months, I can't
think of anyone in this group who believes this.

The reason is simple. It's an obviously flawed philosophy.

I don't know what threads you have been reading, but I am constantly
told by many posters that evolution is purposeless, random, a result
of chance (accidental) and that there is no evidence of design in
nature. Any attempt of mine to point out what I consider to be
evidence for design in nature is met with strong denials that any such
design can be detected, let alone exist.

So, tell me then, do you think that these posters, by your evaluation
above, are holding to an obviously flawed philosophy?


Having removed the source of our salvation afar, how is one expected to
see or even understand how to go to heaven when the means of our
salavation is no longer even considered to be real?

As at least two links in the chain failed above, we do not reach this
point.

okay, would you kindly replace those two failed links with what you
think evolutionary theory is really saying -- or should be saying?

snip>

I'm betting that if Augustine lived today, he would not be giving such
carte blanche to science if he knew it would lead many to deny the
existence of God....an unfortunate consequence that I have personally
observed.

I don't doubt that you've seen many deny the existence of God, and that
they used science to do so. This [based on my dim, superficial
understanding of the work] was *precisely* Augustine's concern.

Christians who were using a literal interpretation were misrepresenting
God, and this particular misrepresentation is a very easy god to deny.

is it possible at all that there are Christians today who can also
misrepresent God by stripping away His power to create, by turning His
miraculous activity into myth and legend; who make God out to be one who
sits back and watches life experimentally struggle through death and
suffering in order to evolve into what we are today?

With the possible -- possible! -- exception of the Unitarian/Universalist
tradition, I can't think of a single mainstream denomination that accepts
evolution that would support this view. Sure, a Christian could believe
this view, but since they would be contradicting their denomination's
doctrine and the Bible, why would they?

I don't think you've conceived that there exists a large body of
Christians who take great comfort from a personal, caring, loving God.
Not only do they fail to find evolution threatening, they see it adding
to the glory of God.

it is encouraging to know that there are Christians who are able to
take great comfort in a personal, caring, loving God, even as they
accept the idea that God played no part in their creation, other than
to maybe get a blob or protoplasm going and watching it struggle
through life and death and suffering and survival until its
descendants managed to emerge as human beings. I wouldn't want them
to lose such a connection with God by considering the dichotomy. It
might be best that they don't think about it at all.

So let me ask you: what aspect of evolution contradicts the existence of
a personal, caring, loving God?

the aspect of suffering and death as a necessary path to the survival
of a species.

The aspect of an unplanned, purposeless existence awaiting the chance
random mutation that might take a life form in some unknown
purposeless direction.

The aspect of a god, IF one exists, being so far removed from being
discovered that it is impossible to find him.

The aspect of earthlings struggling on into the unknown, without a
future and without hope.

A personal, caring, loving parent would never put their children
through this process, if they could choose a method of creating their
children. How much more so a perfectly loving God who says: "I know
the thoughts I think toward you, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to
give you a future and a hope; then you will seek Me and pray to Me,
and you will find Me if you search for Me with all your heart, and I
will be found by you."


This was not at all the fault of science -- which is just describing
what God created -- but the fault of an incorrect interpretation of
scripture.

maybe I should ask: Do you believe that Jesus was a literal person?

Likely.

Do
you accept that He literally performed what we term as miracles?

No, but the fact that you're asking indicates to me that you've
completely missed the intent of the authors of the gospels.

what was the intent, please? And why do you limit God to only what
you think nature can do?

That He
claimed to be God incarnate?

This isn't my area, but I'd say that's less likely than a later
interpolation.

what do you mean by "interpolation"?

snip>

My point was that both rely on text to communicate truth, but that in
neither case would a literal reading allow access to more than a
fraction of the truth that's available (and can, in many cases, lead to
a reading that's exactly wrong). If someone were to propose that a
literal reading of Shakespeare was what Bill S. intended, this would be
an extraordinary claim that would have to be backed up with not only
evidence as to why this reading was better, but why the historical,
extra-textual evidence should be ignored. A similar claim that certain
passages in the Bible should be read literally should require the same
evidence.

which passages are you referring to, please? Genesis 1 and 2? If so,
there is evidence outside of Genesis, in other books of the Old and New
Testament, that refer to the activity in Genesis 1 and 2 as literal.

Yes, I was referring to Genesis 1 and 2. What other references suggest
they should be read as literal?

well, I'm beginning to think it won't help to give you other
references because if I were to quote Jesus, for instance, you might
simply say that He meant something else because to take Him literally
would go against what you already believe....or if I were to quote
Isaiah, you might say that he didn't mean what he said, either, but
was merely stating some cultic beliefs of a group of people.

See, if you are settled in your mind that wherever scripture speaks of
realities that don't reverberate with what scientists claim, then
those realities must yield to what scientists claim to have discovered
in their vast and infinite knowledge. So my presenting other
references will do no good. Not if that is your state of mind.


You characterize the scriptures as "the history of literal peoples who
still exist today". To an extent, that's true. But it's also true that
our ideas of what constitutes history -- facts presented objectively
based on primary sources -- is a comparatively recent development. If
you don't mind, let me substitute "record" for "history", which brings
us to:

wait, wait, wait, not yet....don't bring us to anything more yet. Finish
that thought. If scripture portrays a history of a literal people, what
are our present ideas of what constitutes history that would rule out
Biblical history as being literal?

Our idea of history -- objective, neutral, and thus perhaps amenable to a
literal reading -- begins with Herodotus and Thucydides. Before this,
the records that were passed down -- while playing a vital role in the
community -- were simply not intended to be a literal record of what had
gone before.

Now, that's easily said, and it's quite reasonable for you to ask for
more than my say-so. But this is a far larger question than the
interpretation of a few passages of Genesis. What you're proposing is a
comparative study of literature for the entire region, certainly up to
300BCE or so. We'll be touching on a bit of it, though.


do you think that any writings older than the 5th century BC
automatically fall under a rule that says it was not intended to be a
literal record? On what basis this position?

For example, here's a decent article. No footnotes, but by the end he's
getting into details:

"Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance"
Conrad Hyers

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

this is polemics, nothing else. And worse, at one point, Hyers
writes: "Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1
would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to
read it."

How has he managed to read through the eyes of the people who wrote
Genesis, I wonder. He calls upon the perspective of surrounding
nations, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and decides, without
supporting evidence, that these were the "eyes of the people who wrote
Genesis." Some historian of the future might as well look back at the
nations of today and decide that they can read the New York Times
through the eyes of the people of Iran or Iraq. Doesn't compute.


Now a question for you: Biblical literalism is a very modern
phenomenon. Augustine didn't interpret the Bible that way, Medieval
scholars didn't, the higher critics didn't, etc. What support can you
bring for choosing this interpretation?

I don't know what you mean by Biblical literalism if your claim is
that it is a modern phenomenon. Because, to my knowledge, accepting
the Bible accounts as history when it reads as history, poetry when it
reads like poetry, and prophecy when it reads as predictions, is not a
modern method. Just because you can find critics through the ages that
have attempted to promote a non-literal approach does not mean that
Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. It is as old as the Bible
itself.

snip>


It may be possible to assemble evidence for a literal reading of this
episode, but I think doing so misses the entire theological point of the
passage: Israel's God is strong, Israel's God is perfectly capable of
withdrawing that strength, but ultimately Israel was forgiven. *This*
is the important truth that needed to be preserved, and to the extent
that other details -- however truthful -- got in the way, they were
removed. Likewise, if any detail could be added to reinforce this larger
truth -- even if that detail wasn't literally true -- then I expect the
authors would have accepted it.

I personally find it difficult, it not impossible, to worship a God
whose attributes of strength and power are relegated to myth and to the
imaginings and cultic sagas of any group of people.

Choosing the God you prefer to worship is sailing pretty close to
idolatry.

we are allowed the freedom to prefer whom we worship. Hopefully, whom
we prefer would be the real God and not some false god of our
imagination. I can tell you that if I became convinced that the god
of the universe were a sadistic, vengeful, and unloving god, I would
do everything in my puny power to fight him, even if it meant my sure
death in the process; much better to go down fighting than to live
worshipping that kind of god.

Fortunately, this is not the kind of God that rules the universe.

Garamond, I can live only by my own convictions and ability to reason,
not by anybody else's say-so. God says, "Come now, let us reason
together," so I think I'm on sound ground when I try to reason out my
foundations, from which a leap of faith can then be taken. If I find
that I personally cannot worship a god who is considered to be harsh,
vindictive, uncaring, then why would you hold that against me and
insist that I must worship the kind of god you or anyone else chooses
to put forth, otherwise I'm sailing pretty close to idolatry?


Why would anybody
want to worship a God whose attributes are made up out of whole cloth by
some group of people wanting to outdo their neighbors? I wouldn't.
Would you?

Sorry, I missed the bit about the whole cloth. Nothing in this critical
approach prevents divine inspiration, only a literal reading.

if you do not take the Biblical descriptions of God at face value,
then you are left with nothing to go on other than a wishful, warm,
fuzzy feeling that some kind of god must be out there, being a certain
way, whatever way it is that you deem fits your wish for what he must
be like. And such a god would be a figment of your imagination
because you have nothing to go on if you dispense with the Biblical
description of YWH.

I worship God because He is real, does real and powerful
things beyond my ken; not because some group of people have made up
these attributes.

When someone says, out of the fullness of their experience with a living
God, "God made." And someone else comes along and says, "Your god did
not make."

Who said "Your god did not make"?

evolutionists do. Do you read these threads?


Who do you go with? The interpreter of nature, or the
revelation of God?

This approach to the text is independent of divine inspiration. I can
imagine a God powerful enough to create a text that not only is
precisely correct over a literal reading but supports the other
important readings as well. However, I think such a text could only be
appreciated by angels. It's entirely plausible to me that divine
inspiration would not support a literal reading, just as it would not
(necessarily) support a numerological reading or a Marxist reading. (We
don't get to limit God's choice of prose styles.)

well, as I've said earlier, I don't think the prose of the Bible is
God's choice of prose styles. He says, "My thoughts are higher than
your thoughts, and My ways than your ways." If it were verbatim
dictation from God, then, you are right, only the angels (if even) could
understand.

The same is even more true for the Creation account. I'm not aware of
any evidence at all that can be brought forward to justify a literal
reading. (Such a reading can be a preference, of course, and you may
have sufficient personal reasons to choose that. Let me remind you that
all I wanted to accomplish in this conversation was to show you that a
non-literal reading was plausible.)

oh, if that is all you wanted to accomplish in this conversation,
Garamond, you have quite accomplished your goal, and we can move on to
other topics. Indeed I have already determined long before this, that
for many, a non-literal reading is plausible. All you have to do is
decide that a literal reading does not have to be literal, and then
marshal your points as to why it can be non-literal.

My goal is for a non-literal reading to be plausible for *you*. Sorry, I
wasn't specific.

are you trying to convert me?


I respect your freedom to take that course, if you so choose, but I also
exercise mine to view the opposite.

Certainly.


The Israelite's God is different in significant ways from the gods of
surrounding nations, and the point of the creation account is to
highlight these differences.

if the differences aren't real (meaning mythical, made up by a people
who wanted their god to be different from the surrounding gods), then
what is that to us? It's a waste of our time to worship a figment of
some group of people's imaginations. But if the differences are real,
literal differences, then that calls for worship.

Real differences need not be literal, and I had not been discounting
divine inspiration.

I don't know where you get your picture of God if the Biblical picture
is discounted as being not literal. What's real about your God, then,
and where do you get this information about His reality?

snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >>> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >>Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ... >>breathed life into. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What does ID have to offer to the scientific community?
    ... tell science when some line of research was pointless, ... phenomenon" of evolution from lower to higher ordered life. ... the evolution of a new organ or system over a human lifetime. ... Richard Dawkins's views on God and theism are not evolutionary theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM [was Re: Evolutions problems]
    ... >> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to ... >Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. ... >"Life from life, with modifications" describes the Theory of Evolution. ... You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Francis Collins complains about creos, new atheists
    ... deeply troubling to watch the escalating culture wars between science ... A spate of angry books by atheists, ... evolution as a rhetorical club over the heads of believers, ... It seems unlikely that God, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Which Monkey Did You Come From?
    ... that the human eye was "impossible" to explain through evolution, ... God *could have* done ... Science is not based on what things "seem like" to you, ... save ourselves all that tedious lab work and dangerous mucking about ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading