A question for accommodationalists

[fmiddel]

@gbob

No, they don’t have to be a blank slate, but lets assume you are standing before a burning bush or some other manifestation of God’s power and he tells you your cosmology is wrong, are you seriously going to say, "Sorry god you have to speak in terms of my cosmology and I am not going to listen to your cosmology. " REALLY? That is the response yall expect of the Hebrew?

Again, assumptions. You’re assuming that God’s priority is to correct cosmology?

It seems your argument is a restatement of your premise–that accommodation is an incorrect perspective because God would have communicated correct cosmology?

I say, let’s assume that God’s intention was something other than “communicating correct cosmology”; thus, whatever he says to the Hebrews would be interpreted and understood in light of their existing cosmology.

I read a fascinating paper about Paul’s admonition for women to wear long hair–that it was based on the most up-to-date medical understanding of the day. Reasonable? Even though that “medical theory” was completely false?

@gbob

Even if you were considering them to be derivative of Egyptian myths, I would consider them human-made stories, not God inspired stories, unless we believe our God was one of the Egyptian pantheon. You claim that you weren’t saying we don’t have Egyptian myths, but then you link to a paper which attempts to show the similarity of the bible and this Egyptian myth? Sorry, I only had to jump an inch to arrive at the conclusion you criticize. lol

I didn’t say the Egyptian myths were somehow divine. Nothing of the sort, actually.

I said that the Hebrew story is a polemic against those creation myths.

@gbob

I don’t think our God came out of the Chaos, he brought order out of the chaos, and God coming out of a lotus blossom on the water? Where is the similarity there?

EXACTLY! That’s part of the point of the Genesis story, over against the Egyptian stories (there were many, it seems, one for every regional deity). The Genesis story seems to follow the pattern of the Egyptian story (e.g., "creation over 6 days), but it corrects it.

In Genesis, God does not “emerge out of the water” or “out of chaos.” He preexists it and subdues it.

He doesn’t create “other gods.” He is the sole God, and master of everything material.

I’m exactly not saying “they are saying the same things.” That is the point of the polemic.

The same goes for “what is created on the sixth day”–the pinnacle of creation and the “image of God.” In one Egyptian myth, it is the Sun–Ra is the “image of God.” In that version, mankind is created earlier, a “servant of the gods.”

The same goes for a “cyclical creation,” where the sun rises and sets every day and creation “happens over and over.”

Not so in Genesis; God created everything once and mankind is the pinnacle of Creation, the “image bearer of God.”

If all that is true, then physical cosmology is at best incidental.

[gbob]

@fmiddel

Again, assumptions. You’re assuming that God’s priority is to correct cosmology?

Sigh, how many ways and times do I have to say this in this thread with each new person thinking they have the gotcha question. Hebrews 6:18 says it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore if he speaks on nature, which is in Genesis 1, if it is false what he says, then God can lie and Hebrews 6 is false. It has nothing to do with God’s priority or intention it has to do with who God is and comparing that to what he says.

It seems your argument is a restatement of your premise–that accommodation is an incorrect perspective because God would have communicated correct cosmology?

Sigh, this just proves you haven’t read much of this thread.

So what if the story is different and contradictory of the stories around it? That is to be expected both in your view (that the intend of God was to magnify himself against other Gods) and of my view that Where god speaks on nature he better not lie for both Biblical and theological reasons of his nature. I too believe the story should be different from the Egyptian account if it is telling us something true. If you haven’t read my Days of Proclamation view, you would be well advised to. My view reads Genesis 1 as telling us true things about the creation even if the Hebrews didn’t understand it.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@gbob

My view reads Genesis 1 as telling us true things about the creation even if the Hebrews didn’t understand it.

That was my point as well. The ANE discussion wasn’t even a thing prior to the discovery of the Rosetta stone and subsequent archeological discoveries and scholarship, but the sequential reading has always been there.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

gbob. I’m half pissed (UK drunk not US angry) as we just fell out of the EU and I’ve had a moving night at church and then down the Labour Party. You deserve a considered response for multiple reasons and I will give it.

Unfortunately I meant what I said. I agreed with each position as I read it. More tomorrow. Hold on the irrationality. You are a brilliant man under ghastly duress and I am looking up at you in the deep end from the wee wee end of the pool. … But. I’m the bloke on the bus, down the pub, dim with a capital bee but dogged. I will answer and you can knock me in to shape.

[fmiddel]

@gbob

Sigh, how many ways and times do I have to say this in this thread with each new person thinking they have the gotcha question. Hebrews 6:18 says it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore if he speaks on nature, which is in Genesis 1, if it is false what he says, then God can lie and Hebrews 6 is false. It has nothing to do with God’s priority or intention it has to do with who God is and comparing that to what he says.

It doesn’t have to be “true to contemporary physical science” to be “true.”

I mean, not to quibble, but the mustard seed is not really the “smallest of seeds.” And yet Jesus said that.

There is truth from multiple points of view that is not just about “objective fact.” Was John the Baptist Elijah? He denied it. Jesus said he was. Maybe he was and didn’t know? Or maybe it was depending on a frame of reference or depending on what was important in the context.

So what is the “true answer” to “why is the water boiling”?

1. Because increasing heat energy to the water weakens bonds between molecules resulting in a phase change from liquid to gas.

2. Because I’m making tea.

I know you will argue that the second doesn’t contradict the laws of physics, but that’s not the point. The point is–what does the audience need to know?

It’s impossible for God to lie–and yet, though he’s not made of stone, he claims to be a “rock.” I assume he doesn’t have feathers (but he would “cover you with my wings”), etc. There is intended meaning in the text apart from our imposed qualifications of what we consider “facts” or “truth.” A man sowed seed in a field and some seed fell on the road–did that actually happen? Because if it didn’t actually happen as such, isn’t that a “lie”?

Well, no, even if it didn’t “actually happen” it’s still true in what it is communicating.

@gbob

So what if the story is different and contradictory of the stories around it? That is to be expected both in your view (that the intend of God was to magnify himself against other Gods) and of my view that Where god speaks on nature he better not lie for both Biblical and theological reasons of his nature.

Who is imposing the criteria of what qualifies as “truth” here? And by what parameters and paradigms? Post-enlightenment rationalism?

@gbob

I too believe the story should be different from the Egyptian account if it is telling us something true.

You’re missing the point. It’s not that “it’s different.” The point is that he is directly addressing the Egyptian accounts to specifically communicate in what ways he is different, in what ways mankind is different, in what ways all of creation is different.

@gbob

If you haven’t read my Days of Proclamation view, you would be well advised to. My view reads Genesis 1 as telling us true things about the creation even if the Hebrews didn’t understand it.

I think the Days of Proclamation perspective is reasonable.

I would suggest though, that the biblical texts were intended to be understandable at a basic level to their original audiences, moreso than to “us,” except in cases where there were secondary fulfillments of prophecy. In the latter case, though, scripture is opened up from the perspective of Jesus, not contemporary science (in the same ways that the book of Revelation is much more about Jesus and the context of the first century than it is about headlines of the 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, 21st century, etc.).

[gbob]

@Klax

You are a brilliant man under ghastly duress

I am not under duress and I can wait. Understand the term, lived in Scotland for 3 years. lol

[gbob]

@fmiddel

I know you will argue that the second doesn’t contradict the laws of physics, but that’s not the point. The point is– what does the audience need to know ?

It’s impossible for God to lie–and yet, though he’s not made of stone, he claims to be a “rock.” I assume he doesn’t have feathers (but he would “cover you with my wings”), etc. There is intended meaning in the text apart from our imposed qualifications of what we consider “facts” or “truth.” A man sowed seed in a field and some seed fell on the road–did that actually happen ? Because if it didn’t actually happen as such , isn’t that a “lie”?

Well, no, even if it didn’t “actually happen” it’s still true in what it is communicating.

I can agree in part about what you say above what I quoted. First, the ONLY chance we have of any verification that THIS is the God of the creation is if there is some demonstration that he has a clue about what happened at creation. Having read loads of other founding documents of other religions, most don’t do much with creation (Dhammapada), Bhagavad-Gita says things like:
In the beginning of creation, Brahma created humankind along with duties, and said, “Prosper in the performance of these yajñas (sacrifices), for they shall bestow upon you all you wish to achieve.” 3:10

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.
7: 6

Can’t figure out much from that. I don’t recall much from the Kiti I iqan of the Bahai’s

Now, one thing that I find to be a double standard in the accommodational approach. Yall say God accommodated this cock and bull story for the benefit of the Hebrews, that God put his stamp of approval on this six days of nonsense. So why does everyone get mad at the young-earthers for doing the same thing God did which you approve of in his case but disapprove when the YECs state the same cock and bull story? By doing what you all are doing you are placing God’s stamp of approval on the story you don’t like. You are saying it really does mean a 6 day creation rather than giving an alternative interpretation.

[Laura]

@gbob

Yall say God accommodated this cock and bull story for the benefit of the Hebrews, that God put his stamp of approval on this six days of nonsense.

I haven’t seen anyone here refer to Genesis 1 as “cock and bull” or “nonsense.” That’s all you.

[gbob]

@Laura

I haven’t seen anyone here refer to Genesis 1 as “cock and bull” or “nonsense.”

So you believe in a 6 twenty four hour period for creation?

I have heard it referred to here as a fable, that isn’t flattering to its status.

I am told over and over it isn’t what happened at creation–that says it isn’t saying anything real.

Laura, tell me what the meaning of Genesis 1 is. What is it saying to modern humanity? I bet if I asked that question of everyone I would get lots of different answers. One I know of is that it makes God look better than the surrounding gods. But it does so by telling an untrue story?

I don’t know, but down here where I live we call an untrue story a fishing tale, or a cock and bull tale.

And given that you have said God wouldn’t walk in the garden (don’t make me go pull up that post of yours), that story too is a fishing tale. I think I am just a bit more willing to face up to truth and falsity than the average person here.

Edited to add: if it isn’t a cock and bull story why object when the YECs use this story as an apologetic?

[Laura]

@gbob

And given that you have said God wouldn’t walk in the garden (don’t make me go pull up that post of yours), that story too is a fishing tale. I think I am just a bit more willing to face up to truth and falsity than the average person here.

You are certainly welcome to think that.

It’s been explained to you many, many times, by people more knowledgeable than I, why your “fishing tale,” “nonsense,” “cock-and-bull story” and various other belittling designations amount to a false dichotomy and misrepresent what most here actually believe about Genesis interpretation. You don’t buy it, and that’s fine. But if you’re already convinced that you’re right and your unique interpretation of Genesis is the only one that makes sense of the evidence, why continue to disparage others’ views? In other words:

[fmiddel]

@gbob

Yall say God accommodated this cock and bull story for the benefit of the Hebrews, that God put his stamp of approval on this six days of nonsense.

Besides the fact that “y’all” is singular (“all y’all” is plural), that is quite the straw man argument.

If you want to effectively represent someone else’s argument, it’s usually a good idea to make sure that they would agree with your summary.

In short, I would echo Inigo Montoya: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

A polemic against the creation stories of the surrounding cultures is hardly “cock and bull story for the benefit of the Hebrews, that God put his stamp of approval on this six days of nonsense.” It is leveraging a type of literary form to make a point.

@gbob

By doing what you all are doing you are placing God’s stamp of approval on the story you don’t like. You are saying it really does mean a 6 day creation rather than giving an alternative interpretation.

Well, you know, that’s another false dichotomy. It’s not a choice between “a false story” and “six day creation.”

I don’t know…that’s two logical fallacies in one post…

@gbob

But it does so by telling an untrue story?

I don’t know, but down here where I live we call an untrue story a fishing tale, or a cock and bull tale.

What do you mean by “untrue”? By what standard? Objective rationalism?

You kind of ignored what I asked about that in a previous post. Does God have feathers? Is he made of stone? Did a sower really sow seed and some fell on the road to be eaten by birds? Did someone really lease out a vineyard to tenants that ended up killing his son? Was John the Baptist really Elijah? I mean, was he really Elijah?

[fmiddel]

@Laura

It’s been explained to you many, many times, by people more knowledgeable than I, why your “fishing tale,” “nonsense,” “cock-and-bull story” and various other belittling designations amount to a false dichotomy and misrepresent what most here actually believe about Genesis interpretation. You don’t buy it, and that’s fine. But if you’re already convinced that you’re right and your unique interpretation of Genesis is the only one that makes sense of the evidence, why continue to disparage others’ views? In other words:

WOW! WOW! WOW! I didn’t even see this post before I made a second Princess Bride reference!

Great minds and all…

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

OK gbob. On a day to day basis I’m empirical, a posteriori: whatever the theory, prove it with a repeatable experiment: suck it and see. I love the empiricist Hume for his perfect take on morality, as so evinced here; reason is the slave of the passions. It cuts through all pretension. But I love common sense too, the poor man’s logical positivism? Although Hume seemed to epitomize it… And yeah, I was using ‘rational’ where it suited me, in the context of the utterly unempirical, untestable, no sense data available, but pleb on the bus bleedin’ obvious a priori synthetic fact of eternity of infinite self-explaining materiality and debunking specious nonsense like the B-time block universe. Let alone magic versions of that pervaded by God. Which seems pretty logically positive to me. Using logical analysis in an area only amenable to it. So, I was right first time: I agree. On the empirical. And the rational. Reconciled by yer Kantian transcendental idealism I believe. I just need another lifetime and 20 IQ points at least to get clever at it. Ain’t gonna happen. I’m happy with that. Tho’ I would like to get Lacan at all.

I’m not smart enough to be beguiled by the specious (e.g. because of the paradoxes of the relativity of simultaneity, it’s a block universe). Which doesn’t mean I’m right. Though I am. But for the wrong reasons I’m sure, but nobody, and that’s nobody, has been able to stoop to show me why I’m so wrong. Especially in matters of theological particularity (weird, weird, unnecessary claims). And I thought you were very ill? Hence under duress, but I apologize for any inappropriate a posteriori synthetic conclusion.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I guess I just simply don’t have that paradigm and it does not make sense to me.

I’m referring to how you mentioned flipping it around. It does not seem stupid to me for a god to have spoke to men in a way they understood. I know, proof by the many views here, that we can grasp it. I am not so certain that they could have.

Moses was writing to a group of recently freed slaves wandering around in the desert after witnessing God deconstruct the genesis creation pattern and reversing it on the Egyptians. They believed completely that God was real, but their flesh was still weak. I imagine he could have said whatever he wanted through Moses. But he did not. He said what he said.

We now have that story. If it came down to it being literal and scientifically accurate then it would be proven false by what we know. If it was not meant to be a literal version of the truth, then it opens it up it being able to be interpreted with what we know about science.

It took me a while to respond. I kind of did not even want too. Not because of any personal issue with you. You seem like a decent enough guy.

I guess my main struggle is honestly this.

I have no clue what position you are trying to make and have no real clue what your argument even is. I started off thinking you were a YEC demanding a literal view. Then I started thinking you were an atheist or agnostic arguing the stupidity in both views band how one makes science accommodates their religious views and how the others ( theistic evolutionists) makes scripture fit with their scientific views) and then I read something and it make me think you are a Christian and at times what you wrote seemed like you agreed with me, but it was coming out as if you did not.

So I honestly have no clue what you were trying to say. I don’t even know if we agree or disagree or what we agree and disagree on or if we are arguing to agree or what.

————- edited —————

I’m reading through your days of proclamation now and I imagine by the end I’ll better get whatever your views are.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I read through it and better understand your view.

I think that your view makes sense, but that it also requires accommodation through a more liberal textual analysis of what’s not said. Which is fine. I feel that’s what I do in part by saying it’s just a myth. I feel that not only is the textual analysis using accommodation but that definitions of words are also.

I guess in the very end it’s just simply this. We both believe we are right and that the other is not and that each side takes liberal stances with different parts of the story.

But we also believe the same exact thing.

God created the universe and made us in his image. We both seem to agree he did this through evolution, and that it was not literally done over a time span of a week. We seem to have the same exact view of how it happened, just I think genesis was a mythological tale and you believe that what was not said alters the meaning of what was said and categorize it through proclamations vs human writers agenda.

[gbob]

One of my favorite movies. As to having it explained, if one counts illogical explanations as an explanation, then yes, it has been explained to me. No one seems to want to deal with the contradiction between the attribute of God–impossible to lie stated at least 3 times in the Bible with the obvious untruth of the conventional interpretation of Genesis.

And since I have been asking why yall get upset at YECs for saying exactly what God said to the Hebrews, but you don’t get upset at God for the same behavior, no one has touched that issue either. A coherent and logical position should be able to actually resolve antimonies and contradictions. Refusing to answer could be viewed as a stand off, or it could be viewed as having no answer–like when I present geologic data to young-earthers and they go quiet.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

My son bought a T-shirt in Estes Park one summer probably three and a half decades ago that said “I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.” When he checked out, the clerk asked him what it meant. If my son had been drinking anything, it would have been sprayed all over. As it happened, however, I think he had to just squeeze his lips together hard and his face got red.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I just figured it was obvious by the responses on why people get upset with YEC.

Unlike you, many of us see what God said was wrote as a mythology and they read it as a literal story that took place over a week and denies what basically every single scientist and all the data that disproves a 6 day universe made 6000 years ago without evolution.

It’s angering because it drives so many people away from God. It’s presented to young believers as either accept this literal 6 day creation that happened 6k years ago and God or disagree with all of it.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Wait a minute what is @gbob claiming is impossible for God? Lying or subtlety?

[Laura]

@gbob

As to having it explained, if one counts illogical explanations as an explanation, then yes, it has been explained to me. No one seems to want to deal with the contradiction between the attribute of God–impossible to lie stated at least 3 times in the Bible with the obvious untruth of the conventional interpretation of Genesis.

Well, people have dealt with them (Christy gave you a thorough explanation of figurative language though it may have been on another thread), and just recently fmiddel has pointed out other uses of it in scripture. And of course there is Job 38 where, according to God’s own words, the sea has doors, there are storehouses for snow and hail, etc. which has probably already been mentioned. Apparently they do not pass the “gbob test,” so as I said before, impasse.

When I was a YEC I would sometimes go quiet when new evidence was presented. But other times I’d just argue that the evidence wasn’t good enough for me and (taking a page from the playbook of many YEC leaders) demand a level of evidence that was impossible to provide. I suppose that’s the difficulty in these kinds of conversations, especially when it comes to literature which can’t be treated like a technical manual, because there are so many different possibilities for what someone decides “makes sense” to them.

@gbob

but you don’t get upset at God for the same behavior

God does all kinds of things that I would get upset at human beings for doing, so this doesn’t seem all that relevant.