Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

"In the beginning God created a singularity of infinite density. Then God
said, 'Let there be Bang, and let space--time come into existence.' And it
was so. And a point the size of a needle with a density of 10 to the 90th
power cubic centimeters appeared, with a temperature of 10 to the 32nd
kelvins. And God said, "Let there be inflation.' And it was so. And the
universe expanded beyond the first 10 x -43 of a second. Then, at 10 to
the -10 of a second, God said, "Let radiation appear..." Now, in God's name,
what Hebrew would make any sense whatsoever of that as the story of
creation? Why would anybody pass such a creation story down orally for
centuries until sometime in the very early first millenium BC someone began
to write the oral stories down in Hebrew? The storyteller might as well be
speaking a non-semetic language like Hittite; that wouldn't make any less
sense.

Besides, God might well expect or know that we human beings, as we observe
the cosmos, might some day in a future distant from ours, offer a better
cosmological model and historical reconstruction than Big Bang. What then?

I've just finished reading the first chapter of Peter Enns' book,
_Inspiration and Incarnation. Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old
Testament_. He states that the rootedness of the creation/flood episodes in
the ancient mythic tradition of ANE "is precisely what it means for God to
speak to his people."

"This is what it means for God to speak at a certain time and place--he
enters _their_ world. He speaks and acts in ways that make sense to
_them_..This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people--he
accomodates, condescends, meet them where they are. The phrase _word of God_
does not imply disconnectedness to its environment. In fact, if we can learn
a lesson from the incarnation of God in Christ, it demands the exact
opposite. And if God was ready and willing to adopt an acient way of
thinking, we truly hold a very low view of Scripture indeed if we make that
into a point of embarrassment. We will not understand the Bible if we push
aside or explain away its cultural setting, even if that setting disturbs
us. We should rather learn to be thankful that God came to them, just as he
did more fully in Bethlehem many, many centuries later. We must resist the
notion that for God to enculturate himself is somehow beneath him. This is
precisely how he shows his love to the world he made" (p. 56).

I cannot imagine that God would inspire the ancient writer to a narrative
that brought the message that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created
the world without using the cosmology familiar to those hearing the word.
Does that make God a liar? I think not. Let's give God credit and not
insist that he reason the way we do.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Paul Seely'" <PHSeely@msn.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak
butter.

>
> Hi Paul, good to hear from you. It was wonderful to meet you last year.
>
> On Sat Jun 3 14:46 , "Paul Seely" sent:
>
>>Glenn wrote,
>><<Where does it say that God will only
>>prevaricate about science but not prevaricate about theology?>>
>>
>>The question is good, but you have distorted the issue by using
>>the word prevaricate. Like many evangelical Christians you have put God in
>>a box and given him just three possible ways of speaking about matters: He
>>can
>>make a mistake (whoops), or he can lie, or he can tell the truth.
>>Apparently,
>>you have decided, I think rightly, that biblical statements accommodated
>>to the
>>science or cultural beliefs of the times are not due to God’s ignorance or
>>failure of memory, so in the box you have made for God, there is nothing
>>left
>>but to label them as lies (prevaricate).
>>
>>So, I ask, Where does it say that God only has these three options?
>
>
> GRM: In logic. One is either speaking about what is true or what is false
> when it
> comes to macroscopic items. This isn't quantum mechanics we are speaking
> of.
>
> The category mistake you make, in my opinion is to offer God a chance to
> accommodate his message and you would place it equal to those categories
> above--
> mistake, truth or falsehood. But accommodation is not as fundamental as
> these. To
> say something is accommodated is to explain WHY God didn't tell the truth.
> It isn't
> a category akin to truth or falsehood. INdeed, mistake is not a
> fundamental
> category either. It is also an explanation of WHY one doesn't tell the
> truth--he
> made a mistake. In the case of accommodation, God didn't tell the truth
> because HE
> ACCOMMODATED his message to those dummies (they weren't dummies and could
> have
> understood much more than God gave them credit for when he accommodated
> the
> message.)
>
> In communication, propositional statements are either true or false. They
> are not
> accommodated or non-accommodated unless you equate truth with
> non-accommodated and
> falsity with accommodated. In that case, you have just played an
> equivocation game,
> and committed the logical fallacy of equivocation in which you change the
> meaning
> of a word during a logical syllogism.
>
>
>>
>>
>>A few years ago I heard of a missionary who went to central Africa to
>>preach, but he knew very little of the native language, so when he
>>preached he
>>used an interpreter. In the midst of a sermon, he quoted James 3:4
>>“Behold, the
>>ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are
>>still
>>directed by a very small rudder, wherever the inclination of the pilot
>>desires.” But, the interpreter’s message at this point did not sound
>>right
>>to the missionary, so he stopped preaching and asked the interpreter,
>>“What did
>>you just tell them?” The interpreter said, These people have never seen a
>>ship
>>and do not know what one is, so I told them that even though trucks are
>>large,
>>they are directed by a little steering wheel.”
>
> I guess I am always a bit puzzled by analogies which make God out to be a
> linguistic bumbler. Having spent much of the past 14 months learning
> Mandarin, I
> know a bit about being a linguistic bumbler. But that isn't my view of
> God. But I
> also know something about ALL languages. They can be used to communicate
> any and
> all complex ideas and concepts. In the poor analogy you provide, you have
> provided, the thing I note is the false concept that the people had never
> seen a
> ship. In central Africa they use canoes. The paddles act as rudders.
> Everyone can
> relate to this, even if they are using dugout canoes. So, first off, I
> doubt your
> story is true--it doesn't ring true. Secondly, the claim that the
> translator had to
> use an example of a modern truck is equally silly. If this is during the
> 20th
> century, those people may very well have seen boats on rivers or lakes.
>
> In any event, this is merely a case of poor translation, but is not a case
> where
> some alien concept had to be communicated to these people.
>
>
>>
>>The interpreter was telling the people that the missionary and the
>>Bible spoke of a truck and a steering wheel, which is NOT TRUE. It is not
>>what
>>they said. Now my question to you is this: Did the interpreter
>>accidentally get
>>the translation wrong, or did he lie? Or is it just possible that
>>there is another perfectly ethical and even rational alternative?
>
>
> The rational alternative I see is that the story is bogus. People know of
> trucks
> but don't know of boats??? Give me a break. I don't think this story is
> true in any
> way shape or form. You should have a wee bit more scepticism.
>
> But lets take God's communication to a primitive society. IF God is
> actually
> communicating something, then why not communcate the truth, even if they
> don't
> quite understand it? I mean, what is the harm in
> saying/inspiring/communicating
> that the world ISN'T created in six days? What is the harm in saying that
> the
> earth is extremely old? God doesn't have to give a figure to communicate
> the truth
> that the earth is very old (by the way, I think there is evidence in the
> Scripture
> that God does communicate an ancient age of the earth
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm ) By whatever means God's
> communication
> happens, he doesn't have to fill the bandwidth with false faerie tales, or
> allow
> man to dictate to Him what should be in the Holy Bible.
>
> Your view places man in the driver's seat and makes God to be a politician
> who
> tells his followers what they want to hear so that God will get their
> votes and
> elect Him ruler of the universe. Isn't that what good politicians do?
> They lie to
> their constituents, collect the votes (adulation and followers), and then
> the
> politicians do whatever they want to do.
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 3 21:36:51 2006