Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

There is some good info on the primitive beliefs and evolutionism at the end of this.

This is for Paul Seely and Ed Babinski. Since Ed starts each email of his with a new
title, it puts them into two different threads. And to answer each of his emails would
mean wasting two of my 4 daily allotted notes on topics I am not that interested in.
So, to avoid this, I am going to ignore the threading and answer his posts in this thread
cause it is one I am interested in. This is what a strict 4 posts per day limit
inadvertently causes. So, in the future, when people peruse the threads, it will look as
if I ignored Ed when I didn’t, but that is too bad, we have limits on the number of
posts, but not on the length of the posts (ok, 40 k characters but that is really long).
Thus, I am not saving anyone bandwidth, just titles on their email inbox list.

This is for Paul Seely in the thread "Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter."
and
Ed Babinski in the thread "Re: Paul Seely and Glenn Morton, two great minds on the issue
of how literally to take Gen. 1-11."

On Fri Jun 9 20:21 , 'Paul Seely' <PHSeely@msn.com> sent:

>PHS: Not so fast. Accommodationalists believe that Christianity is based in
>part on the actual historicity of Jesus Christ and particularly his
>resurrection; and I think the objective evidence for both is strong enough
>to warrant faith without fideism, that is, without saying, "I believe
>regardless of the facts, or worse yet even though the facts are contrary to
>the claim." So, there is an objective base for the accommodationalist's
>epistemology.

From today's vantage point, one can't objectively or empirically demonstrate the
resurrection. I believe it, but I can't demonstrate it. One can do a job of verifying
Christ's existence, but the resurrection? That should require more documentation than
statements from followers.

>
>Secondly, your nearly positivistic epistemology does not completely comport
>with NT Christianity. As it is written in 1 Cor 2:4,5 "And my message and my
>preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of
>the Spirit and of power, that your faith _should not_ rest on the wisdom of
>men, but on the power of God."

Well, here is the thing. We all agree that the creation is not the basis of
Christianity; the resurrection is. So, since we are dealing with the creation and the
question of whether or not God was really there and noticed what happened so he could
tell someone, evidence is all we can deal with.

>
>Thirdly, there is no necessary logical connection between the proposition
>"Genesis 1-11 is objectively true science and history" and "Christianity is
>the true religion." You still have to make a jump by faith.

I absolutely agree. But there may be a connection between Genesis is utterly and
abysmally false, and the falsity of Yahweh, which would then put a dent in the Christian
faith since Jesus spoke of the Father and everyone understood him to mean Yahweh.

>
>Finally, in exchange for a basket of religions contradicting each other and
>each claiming to be the true one, Concordism offers a basket of imaginative
>scenarios (Ramm, Newman, Ruest, Fischer, Hill, Morton, et. al.)contradicting
>each other and each claiming to be the true one. So, one is still left in
>subjectivism without a foundation based in reality.

Ok, here is another myth that shows that people don't listen. I have said many times I
can't say that my views are true. I can say that they are possible. So, please don't
include me in that list of people who claim their theories true.

I would say that you missed a list. I have had several people, Rich Blinne, George M.,
you all tell me different versions of accommodation, so maybe there needs to be a list of
those claiming mutually exclusive accommodationalist theories all of whom claim their
views to be true.

>
>Concordism thus offers no advantage over Accommodationalism, and has the
>disadvantage of IMO substituting private interpretations for the
>historical-grammatical meaning of Genesis 1-11.

Oh come now. Given that I have 11 different explanations of what the true theology is in
Genesis 2. They are mutually exclusive but each guy thinks he has the real theology.

Here they are again. Which one is the TRUE theology?

1 "Tolkein" interp: Cassuto: "'The Garden of Eden according to
the Torah was not situated in our world.'"
2. Preaching: homiletic exposition built on primeval residue,
3. sociologic: a late sociological commentary.
4. utopian: It represents paradisal beatitude,' what an idyllic
life is offered by obedience to the Torah and god
5. archaeologic: It represents the transition from hunter-
gatherering to farming.
6. Mormonic: Man can become Gardner-King. Man is not a slave of the
gods but has been made a king himself.
7. Marxist It's a political allegory dealing with the battles
between the Judahite royalty and the peasant class,
8. Hefnerian its a sexual allegory,
9. accomodationalist: a polemic against Caananite religion,
10. Gibbonian, power is fleeting: a parable of the deposition and
deportation of a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of
2:10-14)

11. Feminist: the story intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' "

taken from:
John C. Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130

So far, no one has ever told me which is the true accommodation.

BTW, if as you said, God can allow false statements in the accommodated scripture, can
you tell me which ones are the false statements put in the Bible because God allowed man
to have his say? It would be nice to get rid of those out of the Bible. Should we rip
all of Genesis 1-11 out of the Scripture as being totally false?

Ed Babinski wrote:

On Fri Jun 9 21:23 , Edward Babinski sent:

>Well spoken Paul. Fine points you raised. What have
>you been up to research wise? I would hate to think
>that I missed reading something you've written. Have
>you and Glenn exchanged books, articles?

I have reviewed several of Pauls articles before publication--indeed, I need to get onto
one now.

>I agree that the resurrection is indeed the focal
>point of Christian faith of all types, though some
>Christians like the "Answers in Genesis" crowd believe
>that "creation" must be an equal focal point, and
>others believe that a completely inerrant Bible must
>be the focal point.

If Yahweh isn't creator, how can he be savior?

Ed Babinsky wrote:
>
>Glenn, have you read many of Paul's thoroughly
>researched articles on the Hebrew shape of the cosmos,
>along with The NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on Genesis
>by John Walton (Prof. of Wheaton), who cites Paul's
>excellent scholarly work?

Golly gee, if I had known that Paul was cited in the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on
Genesis by John Walton, I would have immediately accepted everything Paul says with no
questions, washed his car and offered to be his valet. But then, you probably should
know that Walton cites my work on pages 323, 329, and 330. While I will not quite hold
myself up to Paul’s level of accomplishment and influence, it seems to me that your
paragraph above is nothing but an implicit argument from authority.

Yes, I have read many of Paul's articles and his book (the only one I know of). I have
also reviewed things for him prior to submission for publication. Indeed, I need to get
the one he sent me this week read. I like Paul and would help him at any opportunity.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with his theology.

In another note Ed wrote:

>>>>--- glennmorton@entouch.net wrote: Given that other
ancient cultures DID believe in evolution (not the
modern form of it but evolution none-the-less)...The
ancients COULD understand evolution as evidenced by
those other cultures.

ED: Glenn, Can you please share some references or
clarify what you are speaking about when you write
that other cultures DID believe in evolution? I know
about a few Greek philosophers of a radical bent who
mentioned something akin to evolution but there does
not appear to be any evidence of "evolutionary" views
among ancient Near Eastern cultures, unless you are
referring to how the gods themselves lived among or
came out of the initial elements. But that is simply a
description of the mystery of beginnings, not
evolution, and the gods reacted in quite a
"creationist" fashion afterwards in making the little
flat-earth heaven encrusted cosmoses that the ancients
presumed to be their own. For instance you can email
Prof. Michael Heard at Pepperdine, or Prof. John
Walton at Wheaton, or as Paul Seely. <<<

Oh, I see, these guys are the ones who hold the absolute truth and I should not doubt
what they say. Emailing them will enlighten me. Interesting.

When I said other cultures believed in evolution they did. I note that you say that a
few Greek philosophers of a radical bent’ mention something akin to evolution. I am
amazed to learn that Aristotle is of a radical bent.

“Nature proceeds little by little from things lifeless to animal
life in such a way that it is impossible to determine the
exact line of demarcation, nor on which side thereof an
intermediate form should lie. Thus, next after lifeless things
in the upward scale comes the plant and of plants
one will differ from another as to its amount of apparent
vitality; and, in a word, the whole genus of plants, whilst
it is devoid of life as compared with an animal, is endowed
with life as compared with other corporeal entities. Indeed,
as we just remarked, there is observed in plants a continuous scale of ascent*
towards the animal.” Aristotle, History of Animals, Book VIII, Chapter 1, Great Books of
the Western World, Vol 9, Aristotle II, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952,), p.
114, 115

*The word translated ascent is metabasis, which means `change' or `transition'

But even more importantly, the elements of evolution were understood by quite primitive
people, which means, that if God wanted to inspire an evolutionary tale to a primitive
group of people, he could have done it.

Primitive shamanistic societies believed that one form of animal could give rise to
another.

“An interesting elaboration of this belief was given by a Siberian Avam Samoyed man who
described how he became a shaman. His animal guides, the ermine and the mouse, took him
to a cave that was not dark but bright. It was covered with mirrors and in the center
there was something like (but not actually) a fire. So far he seems to have been
describing the vortex with its lateral imagery and bright light at the end. Then he
emerged from the tunnel into a large chamber that was in fact the realm of Stage Three
trance with its hallucinations. These included two naked women covered with hair like
reindeer. One of the women told him that she would give birth to two reindeer. One would
become the sacrificial animal of two tribes, the Dolgan and the Evenki, the other that of
the Tavgi. The second woman would also give birth to two reindeer that would symbolize
the many animals that would aid humankind in all things.” Jean Clottes and David Lewis-
Williams, The Shamans of Prehistory,” (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc, Publishers, 1998),
p. 27

The following is from a website on the history of ideas from the University of Virginia.
Note the Taoist view of animal species:

“Proto-evolutionary ideas occur very early in man's
thinking about the world. They were perhaps suggested
to him by the observation of processes of growth in
plants and animals. Such phenomena seem to have
served as a model for speculations about how the world
began and how it acquired the features it has. Evolu-
tionary cosmogonies, largely mythical in content, ap-
pear in ancient Chinese and Indian cultures. Confucius,
for example, is said to have held the view that “things
were originated from a single, simple source through
gradual unfolding and branching” (Chen, 1929). By
others it was believed that the primary elements of
the universe—water, fire, wood, metal, earth—had
come into being in an evolutionary order under the
influence of natural forces. Furthermore, “the Taoists
elaborated what comes very near to a statement of a
theory of evolution. At least they firmly denied the
fixity of biological species” (Needham, 1956). In early
Indian thought, one of the Buddhist groups affirmed
“that nature... is a unitary entity which evolves into
varying forms, including minds (here regarded as dis-
tinct from underlying souls)” (Smart, 1964). The term
“evolution” (parināma) in this context is said to imply
that nature successively manifests new properties as
a result of a process which began when an initial state
of equilibrium was disturbed. Yet the novelty involved
at each stage is only apparent, for whatever manifests
itself must have been implicit in unitary nature from
the start.
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-21

I would add this explanation of Taoist evolution:

“Development of Taoism: Lao-Tzu first formalized Taoism, Chuang-Tzu presented a
considerably more coherent philosophical system, developing cosmology (theories of the
origin of the universe), metaphysics (theories of the nature of reality) and epistemology
(theories of the nature of knowledge). In Lao-Tzu the Tao is essentially natural, in
Chuang-Tzu it becomes transcendental. Lao-Tzu seeks to reform society; Chuang-Tzu is
concerned with self-transcendence. Lao-Tzu thinks in terms of being generated from non-
being and emphasizes spontaneity and constancy; Chuang-Tzu adds the concept of becoming
and makes change the major theme of his deliberations. Like the early Greek philosopher
Heraclitus he views the universe as a cosmic process of transformation, involving
innumerable stages succeeding one another. He focuses on the flux of and in things. He
even proposed a theory of evolution from tiny silk-like plants via insects and horses to
man.” http://www.usao.edu/~usao-ids3313/ids/html/taoism.html

The concept of morphological change was widespread throughout the primitive world:

“On the other hand, nineteenth-century southern African San believed that shamans could
control and actually become swallows.” Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams, The Shamans
of Prehistory,” (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc, Publishers, 1998), p. 26

Ancient cultures also believed in abiogenesis—something that we believe in as well. They
called it spontaneous generation. Once again, one can cite Aristotle:

"So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others
grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of thes instances of spontaneous
generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a
number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out
of the secretions of their several organs." Aristotle, History of Animals,"

>>>>So, I have not
heard about "evolutionary" beliefs in the Ancient Near
East. Here's a summation of what I HAVE learned after
studying Ancient Near Eastern beliefs concerning
creation:<<<

I wasn’t speaking about the Near East. I have repeatedly noted that when people say God
had to tell the ancient folks a tall tale because they couldn’t understand evolution,
that there are plenty of examples of primitive peoples showing an understanding of those
concepts." Book VIII, Chapter 1, Great Books of the Western World, Vol 9, Aristotle II,
(Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952,),, p. 65
Received on Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:56:40 -0400