Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Just to let you know Glenn.

I have not seen an email from Ed Babinski for many months. I assumed he had
unsubscribed from the list.

Nevertheless, I have not seen any thread titled "Paul Seely and Glen Morton,
two great minds on the issue of how literally to take Gen. 1-11." This
must be a seperate collection of private emails not part of ASA. Either
that or I have missed (what sounds like several) threads that Ed was
responding too.
----- Original Message -----
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Paul Seely'" <PHSeely@msn.com>
Cc: "'asa'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: 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 Jun 10 16:03:55 2006