Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Bernie,
Are you saying that the clear declaration that there is one God and that
he created what the ANE claimed as gods is not theological? Of course, if
one fudges on the exegesis, there are some very stupid theological
claims. Recall that there are sluice gates in the firmament to let the
waters above the firmament flow. Of course, this can be a canopy that
Glenn showed would cook the earth. Even it did not have sluice gates. Of
course, there is the nonsense that all we have is what it says to each
individual, so that there are as many truths as persons.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:49:23 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
Dave Siemens said:
“There is a great difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and
the ANE "science."”
 
I don’t think that statement makes sense. There is no such thing as a
“theology of Genesis 1 and 2.” Everyone has their own “theology of
Genesis 1 and 2”, some incorporating ANE and some not. I would say Book
1 is the Bible, and Book 2 includes science and history (like ANE history
and modern history). A persons theology may or may not consider ANE
concepts.
 
George Murphy said:
“We don't literally "read" the world.”
 
I could argue that. I think Book 2 could be read as much as Book 1.
Sure, no book could contain everything about nature, but neither could
any book contain everything about God. We can read about the world in
textbooks and other books- that’s the primary way I’m learning about
science and history from others, and also through the spoken word
(podcasts). Book 1 and 2 isn’t much different in that respect:
 
Book 1: God’s Word: The Bible which tells us about God and salvation.
Without literally reading this book, we would know nothing about the
death and resurrection of Christ (there would only be verbal stories- and
numerous versions so as to confuse the message). People learn about God
by reading the Bible, commentaries, and listening to lectures of those
trained in theology.
 
Book 2: God’s works: History and science. People learn these from
reading actual textbooks, books, and listening to lectures of those
trained in science and history.
 
Both use literal books to get their message across. Even Book 1 has many
translations and many languages, and the original is lost. So I think we
do literally read about God’s Words and God’s works, and also contemplate
the concepts in our minds (meditating on applications and impact of all
this knowledge).
 
George Murphy said:
“…for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in history
that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which is a
witness to that revelation.“
 
The Bible is a witness, true. But it is also the vehicle for the
message. No Bible, no message. No Bible, and all you have are numerous
conflicting verbal stories… like playing the game of telephone. In this
way, it seems to me the Bible has a much stronger role that you are
suggesting by that statement, because I think without the Bible, we’d
really have no faith at all.
 
Each book can tell us something that the other can’t. For example, Book
1 tells us about the remedy for sin, but not Book 2. Book 2 tells us
about photosynthesis, but not Book 1. Sometimes they disagree on points,
such as the worldwide flood; and in that case, we have to pick a winner
when there is a direct contradiction.
 
I have a book called “The three views of Genesis.” Each believes the
Bible is inerrant. For the meaning of day, one has a 24 hr
interpretation, one day-age, and the other framework. The 24hr. view
claims the other two are compromised by modern science, as if Book 2 is
corrupting them. To my surprise, the other two claim that they are not
driven by Book 2, but by hermeneutics and internal evidence… I think that
is untrue. Why not admit there is a Book 2 and it should take
precedence? Oh- how evil it must be to have nature affect your theology?
 I agree with YEC’s that the only reason not to have a YEC position is
because modern science (Book 2) is consulted. And I’m not a YEC. I
accept that there is a Book 2 and encourage it’s use and dominance over
Book 1 where it is clearly (to me) more correct, such as in the worldwide
flood question.
 
,,,Bernie
 

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:16 PM
To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
 
I think I would put the matter more strongly. There is a great difference
between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and the ANE "science." Theology
is not about a mud pie origin for man with woman coming later, or a
simultaneous creation of both sexes, but the fact that God is the
originator and director of all that is. While most peoples have
recognized some sort of deity, I keep running across psychological and
evolutionary explanations for this. And a strong philosophical case for
materialism can be made. I deny such claims on the basis of scripture,
not because of what I can deduce from a study of nature.
Dave (ASA)
 
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:29:24 -0400 "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
writes:
That makes it sound as if theology is committed to a worldwide flood &
loses out to science on that issue. It's much better to say that
theology needs to be open to the insights of the sciences in its
interpretation of biblical texts - which is pretty much what I've said.
 
As to the point about "books" - both the "books" of which we're speaking
when we talk about knowledge of God from science & from God's historical
revelation are metaphorical. We don't literally "read" the world. & for
Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in history that
point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which is a witness
to that revelation. (& no, I don't mean to say that the Bible can't be
spoken of as revelation but it isn't primary.) In this regard
Christianity differs from Islam.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
 
George Murphy said:
“But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology.”
 
I don’t think I said that, but I did say that Book 2 (God’s works) can
trump Book 1 (God’s Word).
 
As an example, Book 1 says there was a worldwide flood, and Book 2
disagrees (in mine and George Murphy’s opinion). I think Book 2 wins.
Book 2 trumped Book 1. Theology is adapted accordingly.
 
I think David Opderbeck made a good point in his first response on this
thread about the queen- we are confusing the topics “two books” with
“Theology as Queen.” Theology can be based on anything, 0 or more books…
even mystics with no books have their own theology, as well as scholars
who consider all books. Claiming to have no theology is also a theology
in itself.
 
…Bernie

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
To: David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
 
I see that I stirred up a good deal of discussion & won't try to respond
to everything point by point. But a few clarifications -
 
1st, there are some phrases in my original post that seem to have been
overlooked. I said that a putative general revelation - I would rather
just say "observation of the world and reason" - "tells us nothing about
who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement." I did not deny
that a person may conclude from observation of the world that "there is a
God." But it simply does not tell us who that God is - i.e., that he is
the one who brought Israel out of Egypt & raised Jesus from the dead. It
tells us nothing about God as Trinity or the Incarnation. Nothing. &
that has always been recognized by Christians who argue for a natural
knowledge of God.
 
2d, I used the image of theology of the queen of the sciences to develop
a metaphor. Note my language - "If (as used to be said) theology is the
queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers." David O &
Ted D have had some interesting things to say about the "queen of the
sciences" idea but my purpose in evoking it was simply to have a
picturesque way of describing the roles of theology & the natural
sciences other than the well-worn "2 books" one.
 
& I went on to say, "But a wise queen will listen to her ministers in
their areas of competence." (Emphasis added.) Bernie says quite rightly
that when it comes, e.g., to the question of 6-day creation or evolution,
evolution wins. That is because theology listens to the sciences when
they speak about their own areas of competence and, as I said further,
will "if necessary reconsider its interpretation of biblical texts in
that light."
 
But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology. The
serious danger of the ideas of natural knowledge of God and natural
theology is that people will begin to think that they can learn
everything they need to know about God and God's will for us by studying
the world - or in other words, from "natural revelation." Nor is this a
mere theoretical danger - it was pervasive in the eighteenth & nineteenth
centuries with the thought of the Enlightenment & deism, & is quite
explicit in something like Lessing's "Education of the Human Race." I
could give numerous examples & Ted D could no doubt do so more
thoroughly. What it produced at best was a kind of unitarian deism with
an emphasis on morality & some kind of hope for an "afterlife." & you
can find this sort of thing today - e.g., Paul Davies.
 
The proper procedure in theology, as I emphasized in the PSCF article I
referenced, is to start with God's historical revelation that culminates
in Christ. Then we know who God is and can turn to what science tells us
about the natural world and in some ways learn more fully how the God
revealed in Christ is active in the world. We do that by looking at
scientific knowledge in the light of that historical revelation - that's
why I used the title The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross for one of my
books. & that's the kind of thing that the prophet is doing (in an OT
context) in Is.40:18-25 that was cited here. He isn't pointing to the
heavens as independent proof that YHWH exists. If any Babylonians had
been listening in (this is written to those in exile) they would have
said - "Big whoop! Marduk is the one who stretched out the heavens." (&
after all, to all appearances Marduk had defeated YHWH.) Rather, the
prophet is speaking to Jews from the standpoint of the faith of Israel &
simply claiming - if you prefer, revealing - that the God in whom they'd
believed, the God of the Exodus, was the creator of the whole world.
 
& note that at the beginning of the last paragraph I made the
qualification "in theology." In studying the world, OTOH< we don't need
to do any theology or say anything at all about God. The queen shouldn't
micromanage her ministers.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
 

____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
____________________________________________________________
Click here for low prices on a huge selection of popcorn poppers!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mS8SAhMOEG4OMYKJy1mhKie79gjIfQGYJiaWpT9NhziJwbD/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 25 14:40:05 2008