Re: [asa] A parable of three investors

This comes rather late. I'm sorry about that, but it took some time
to go
through this, read the points, and I could not find some easy way to
shorten it very much.

Glenn wrote:
>
>
>
> I actually have come to disagree with the concept that the intent
> of the
> original author (or more correctly his understanding) is important.
> If it
> is, then clearly we can't change the interpretation. What that guy
> believed
> is what we must believe, no matter how stupid that is. Since I
> believe in a
> strong form of inspiration, in which God inspired the writings to
> tell us
> something of a concrete nature, then it is His intent which is
> important,
> not the understanding or intent of the original Hebrew writer.
>
> This view that the original intent of the Hebrew writer is what has
> made the
> status quo so bad. It limits our choices and makes it impossible to
> actually
> come up with a solution.
>

Yes, somehow, God would try to cut through our human efforts to
"help". Yet if people believed (in the science of their day) that
the sky is tacked up, then it makes it all the more remarkable
that "stretching out the heavens" satisfies their view of science
and ours. Each believed this was reasonable, and each was right.

> WKD>>>I find in these writings more than one dimensional. They
> could be
> just
> simply
> journalistic accounts of events from occurred in antiquity, and
> certainly,
> given that being their sole purpose, it would be nice to find some
> evidence
> for the facts that these accounts purport. However, I sense there
> is a much
> deeper poetic side to much of this writing that was somehow survived
> long.<<<
>
> GM: If it is just poetic with nothing in fact, then I go back to my
> overly
> tired
> argument that there are lots of false creation stories. Just pick
> one and
> go with the God that comes along with it. They are all equally
> false and so
> one could chose his god based upon which one he liked.

If I had said _just_ poetry, then what you say is right.
I think you miss what I mean by poetry. Poetry is a way to
use words in a powerful way. It's hard to imagine that a
book dedicated to heavenly matters would start its "manifesto"
with a dry scientific treatise, just to satisfy some 21st century
atheists. It should speak to all time, since God created all time,
and it should speak in a way that addresses all people (whether
they be artistic, scientific, political, etc) in all of those times.
Poetry can do that; a dry scientific treatise to satisfy a few
unrelenting atheists, well... what do you think?

    But, like you,
    I
> find more dimensions to the account, but not in the sense I think
> is your
> intent. I keep mulling over how a Deity could communicate
> something to
> humanity and have it be seen as true throughout the generations with
> increasing knowledge. If I were the Deity I would inspire it in
> such a way
> that as knowledge increases, people could see it as true. The fact
> that the
> firmament comes from a root word with the meaning 'stretch out' is
> curious
> given our current understanding that the sky really IS stretching
> out. We
> call it cosmic expansion. I find it curious that the Hebrew says
> "Earth!
> Bring forth living creatures after their kind..." Which is, of course,
> evolution. I even find it interesting that if one looks at
> consciousness
> and language (a subject for a future post), that these seem to require
> enculturation. Enculturated apes can do things that no ape does in the
> wild--communicate, even if primitively. The Bible describes an
> enculturation process when God brought the animals to Adam. A book
> I am
> currently reading on the evolution of consciousness notes that even
> today
> people who miss this enculturation period in their childhood are
> unable to
> self-generate symbolism and language. We don't have a language
> instinct. We
> have to learn it. I find it curious that one cause--a growing head
> size,
> creates 3 of the curses put upon Adam and Eve. I find it curious
> that there
> is little in the Bible which absolutely requires a recent Adam--
> baked bricks
> may be about it.
>

I see your idea of a day of proclamation is there in your writing.
However
I also see that the document also has the sun "created" on the
forth day as a polemic against the religions of the time and
their sun gods. (Isn't that also what some people here are saying).
It also drives home the point that _everything was created_ by God.
I think there are many themes that it brings forth, and we, perhaps
because we are scientists, seem overly preoccupied with ONE way
of looking at the book.

Should we expect God to only care about satisfying a few recalcitrant
scientific blokes in the 21st century? These ancient writings have
spoken
through the ages, and, if we listen, it can speak to us. Good poetry is
compact, timeless, deep and multidimensional (or multilayered) like
this.

> Of course, the whole thing is never meant to tell us anything about
> physical
> reality, right?
>
>

The "poetry"
is huge enough that we can accommodate the facts we have on the
history of the earth into it. Yet if we ram a forced interpretation
of scripture into the facts about the history of the earth, we see
the trouble the YEC folk have caused. That's not you (or Dick for
that matter), but I think there is room for many interpretations of
what is in the scripture because the chances are, it was never
intended to have only one meaning and one intended purpose.

Scripture is meant to enlighten us through the work of the holy
spirit. The CNN headline news reports (that some atheists require
to be satisfied) only speak to them, not to all generations. If they
want to insist on that attitude, well, fine.

> WKD>>>I don't argue with the value of "facts"in my reading of creation
> accounts.
> Nevertheless, the accounts seem to have their main purpose on getting
> us to recognize that all is the work of a creator --- regardless of
> whether
> of whether life emerged from a bubbling pond of chemicals or by the
> first
> investor's belief in a dramatic "poof" (just push the "on" switch: off
> switch?
> Oh!). So certainly, there is value to trying to see if there is
> some way to
> reconcile what we know with what is written. <<<<
>
> GM: I fail to see how the story, as traditionally interpreted
> actually does
> that. Thousands have left Christianity because they believe the
> creation
> event is a bunch of hokum and tells a false story. It is truly an
> odd way of
> doing business to tell a false story to point out how the Creator
> created
> the world.
>

I'm not completely sure why you are saying this. Traditionally
interpreted? It is quite interesting to see how St. Augustine
reads Gen 1 in his "Confessions". Is that traditional enough?
I'm not saying I am in full agreement with Augustine's reading,
but it has taught me that even in that time, at least _some_ of
the Church fathers did not read the creation account like YEC do.
I might guess there were a lot more than just St. Augustine like
that. Again, yet another dimension to Gen 1 than anything typically
mentioned here.

As some people (aka YEC) _currently_ read it, I can agree with the first
part,
but I still don't see how that fits with what I am saying or what I
think
about
the matter.

> GM: If the only purpose of the creator was to tell us that he
> created, but
> not
> HOW he created, he, or the Hebrew writer, went about it in an entirely
> inappropriate way. He told us a story of HOW he created which we
> are not
> supposed to take as an actual account of HOW he created. This
> makes no
> sense to me. The purpose was to tell us more than just that God
> created. If
> that was all there was, then why didn't he just say, God created
> the Heavens
> and the earth, and move on to Abraham?
>
>

I didn't say "there _must_ not be a HOW" (though maybe God should also
be trying to say "ni hou ma"). All I am saying is that the emphasis is
on God creating the heavens and the earth in Gen 1. It is interesting
that a HOW (and even a "ni hou") can be gleaned out of the text, but
that is a different matter. Let's not forget that the book is for
learning
how to get to heaven.

>
> WKD>>>On the issue of Adam and Eve, the Garden, sin & death, Cain &
> Abel,
> Noah
> and the tower of Babel, I never had much attachment to those as being
> real accounts. If any of them are, fine, it's interesting, but if
> they are
> _mere
> stories_, I would lose no sleep over it. They speak loudly to me
> about my
> own
> nature, my sinful nature, and my arrogance to make their point very
> clear.
>
> Even if the accounts are historical, and maybe they are, I would be
> just as
> satisfied that it was some Neanderthal who took the Lord's name in
> vain
> after stubbing his toe. We're all "Neanderthals" from time to
> time. It
> happened
> somewhere, and to get stuck on the details, in many ways, misses
> the real
> point
> of these writings in our spiritual life.<<<
>

> GM: There are religions which don't believe in sin. What if they
> are the
> True
> religion? Would you feel so sanguine? To utterly spiritualize the
> accounts
> can be done with just about any document whatsoever but I can't for
> the life
> of me see why take one document as true and another false. And
> since they
> are all hopelessly mutually exclusive, they can't all be true at
> the same
> time and have logic hold up.
>

Yet if it was intended to be read as Augustine read it, then
what? Maybe we both have been reading too much (and too little)
into it. I don't say that is necessarily the best reading, but
it would not be fair to expect something of a writing that the Author
never intended or put little importance on. I know atheists typically
criticize pleas such as this. Well, fine. They want scientific
proof, and
I cannot satisfy them. They want precise historical accounts that can
be exactly verified to the time and location with extra Biblical sources
to back them up. None of use can satisfy them with our approaches
whatever they may be. People have doubted long before the time of
Moses, just as they doubt today. Yet we go on, and we do our best.

> There are several religions throughout the ancient world which held
> that a
> God had been killed and then resurrected. Why is ours the correct
> one? To
> claim that the resurrection is the proof ignores Horus and lots of
> other
> ancient resurrection religions. I ran into this several years ago:
>
> "Easter Pathology [contents snipped to save space]
>
> Should we be worshipping Osiris? The only way I could tell is via
> observational data. Nice poetry won't tell me.
>
>

Dave scolded my reading of Job a few weeks ago, so maybe I'm
in for more, but I think Paul address this exact issue on ancient
(and contemporary mystery religions of his day) in 1 Co 15. That
is why he says, along with everything else "and if Christ has not
been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sin."
(verse 17). It seems one place where all the "non-existence"
people are viciously abusing Paul, I think. A man can speak
on his honor, and some people will still chose to ignore him,
but anyway.... So for one thing, Jesus is not imaginary like Osiris.

I begin to feel that there was little difference between Paul's time and
our own; particularly in the way people will try to bend and twist
things
so that everything is trivialized. Whereas great works are also
published
in obscure places, "banned-books" gives me a good idea what to expect,
and that I will not be "disappointed". There is a lot of issue with
Middle
Eastern thought in general that would mean that these concepts shouldn't
be expected to have occurred in isolation. What we have is the
scripture
account, and if people chose to ignore that, then obviously to them,
Jesus
is little more than another Osiris.

>
> WKD>>>I don't like your attribution that we "prefer the Bible to be
> false".
> The Bible is a book. The way I came to God was because God was
> gracious enough to try to reach me, a sinner, and I must find a
> way to understand more about this. So the bible is an important
> guide to me, but at the end of the day, it is a book. The best
> I can do is try to glean out what the book is trying to tell me.<<<
>
> GM: No one likes that, but when I offer concordistic solutions, I
> get lots
> of
> criticism for doing it. I believe actions more than words. Words
> are cheap,
> actions tell what is really the case.
>
>

Some have certainly been hard on you. I don't think I
have, but correct me if I am wrong. All I am saying is that
there is room for you and Dick, but there is also room for
Paul and George and some other people who I realize disagree
with you to varying degrees. I sense you are fighting so hard
for your point of view, that you're not seeing that His House
has many Rooms and there is one for you there too. I guess
Calvin was convinced he was 100% right, and maybe he was,
but anyway, I leave it at that.

> That taught me that there are some people here who do not want to
> see
> concordism work. But without it, I have no rational basis upon
> which to
> believe in Christ rather than Osiris. Both arose, both have Lord's
> suppers.Both descended into Hell. Both claim to be our shepherd etc.
>
> It seems to me that when people oppose concordims, they are saying
> they
> don't want verification of their belief system. Because to claim
> that one
> shouldn't seek or doesn't need any physical evidence means that
> verification
> is not important. It isn't important if the account is utterly false,
> factually. So, how would we know if we are worshipping a false
> religion? I
> see no way except THROUGH verification.
>
> But opposition to concordism does place people as opposing the
> bible being
> factually/observationally true, and that is the sense in which I
> use the
> term.
>

I can only speak for myself here. I am not opposed to
concordism, but I am concerned about the roller-coaster
ride of science. It is possible to get lost in trying
to mesh it all with the latest news on cutting edge.
In addition, sharing a similar tendency, as I do, to do
these sorts of thing, I find I may have wanted to have the
same "intellectually satisfying" (as a Christian) feeling that
Dawkins talks about as an atheist. Instead,
I have come to see that I must live by Grace. There are times
I may have to live without any satisfying answers.

> WKD>>>Why are we surprised that atheists ignore and disparage such
> writing? Israel's kings ignored scripture when it was fresh; long
> before it was compiled in a printed bible and long before there was
> any systematic form of science we know today. <<<<
>
> GM: I am not surprised. When we Christians say the Bible says nothing
> factually/scientifically/historically true about creation, why
> should the
> atheist defend the Bible? He just draws the proper conclusion, that
> it is
> false and leaves it at that!.
>

Yes, some of it seems very weak. How I wish I could have
a cudgel like Dawkins has. I could go around rapping
people over the head and bust the really dull ones.

It is not the "proper" conclusion, but it is predictably
their conclusion. Yet that again gets to my objection:
if they have their mind made up, they already see it as
false, and there is nothing you can do. They will look for
the first thing they can seize on to dismiss it, invent their
own rules as judge, jury, prosecutor and legislator,
and carry out their sentence in predictable fashion. You'd
might as well be arguing that the sky is blue to someone who
insists it is green. There must be some green in it somewhere.

[snip]
>
> GM: Genesis isn't about warnings. It is about HOW God created. To
> claim
> that is
> is only about the bare, scraped to the bone, claim that it is about
> the fact
> that he DID create makes all the detail we are given useless and
> unnecessary. Why talk about trees before the sun? Why, for that
> matter, talk
> about Adam being shown the animals? If ALL the writer wants to
> show is that
> God created Adam, there simply is no reason to talk about Adam naming
> animals. That part of the scripture either has a purpose (which
> isn't to
> show mere creation) or it is superfluous fluff, which also happens
> to be
> false.
>

As I said earlier, I don't argue with finding ways to harmonize
scripture with science, but I never felt a need that Adam must
be real, though I have no problem with him being real.

I really don't think that a person who has their eyes to the
heavenly kingdom will be lost to the message of scripture.
However, one who for some reason, has intentionally closed his
eyes to the message, will never be satisfied. I still remember
that the most problematical aspect of my coming to faith and
keeping my faith was creationism. I remained isolated for
many many years, as I could not join with the company of
scoffers, yet I could not join in the company of people who
insisted I was not Christian if I didn't believe the world was
6000 years old. I was not even a scientist or a science student
at that time, so it only got much worse from there. Yet I found
reason for faith anyway, just as some people walk away from it.

So, I grant that it took an act of God to get me to believe, but I
guess that
is how it really is anyway. We cannot get to God on our own power. We
will always find some way to end up walking in the counsel of the wicked
(eventually standing in the way of sinners and finally sitting in the
seat of

mockers), were not that God is gracious enough to find a moment in time
to speak to us and change our hearts.

There is a real place for what you are saying, but please consider that
the problem in atheism is not even about facts, it is a matter of the
heart.

> WKD>>>I don't deny the value of facts, but I think there is a lot
> more going on in these matters than facts: no matter how
> many, how accurate, how predictable, or how far reaching
> they may (or may not) be, as it were.<<<
>
> GM: Genesis 1 is not about sin; it is not about resurrection. It makes
> specific
> claims about things spoken by God in relation to the work of
> creation. Per
> se, it doesn't say when God's statements were made in relation to
> when they
> were fulfilled.
>

That again is your day of proclamation idea. I don't disagree
with your interpretation. Yet I remember one atheist who said
"it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with the order that
appears there." So if you have made up your mind, it is no longer
an issue of facts: atheist, YEC, "great green slug" or anything
else.

> WKD >>Spiritual matters are not things we can control.<<<
>
> GM: Nor are they things we can verify. A religion which has no
> means of
> showing
> that it is consistent with facts can be believed, but only by
> risking a
> massive self-delusion. Which is why factual verification of events
> is so
> important. Verification doesn't constitute proof, but it does
> constitute
> consistency with known facts. Falsification does constitute
> disproof. If the
> Bible is factually false, why does that not constitute
> falsification of the
> claims contained therein?
>

To this day, I remain unsure how to read Gen 1-11. It is clear
that the YEC way is not good. You, Dick, Hugh Ross (for the
matter), and even myself, share the strong tendency to read it
more as a real account (at least at some level). However, the
differing points that people have often raised on the list here
have not been lost on me. I see that concordance is not the only
way to read those books, and in fact, I have learned that church
fathers like Augustine didn't always read it that way either. So
the concordance issue is largely driven by remnants of 19th century
hubris on power of science as the sole purveyor of truth.

I grant, that for the masses, the stereotypical fundamentalist
"the Bible is True" has more appeal than ASA's "well, you see....".
Power shows are great in the political circus. We unfortunately,
cannot claim that place. If you are serious about knowing
truth, and you face the world, it is going to be a very tough going.
The appeal of anyone's work here is not in that they can go into
the world and shout "the Bible is True and you punks better start
listening now or perish in hell!". It is that they sincerely look at
the
matter and try to address them through the eyes of faith. It is all we
can do, and I know that you are doing your best also.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 4 19:07:44 2006