No one who is aware of the reality of God’s very good creation, including its vast antiquity, is going to listen to your proclamations or give them any credence because of the lack of perspective that accompanies YECism.
From a while back:
1 Like
Factually correct. He applied speculation, which was known as the Documentary Hypothesis or Higher Criticism (JEPD hypothesis). Modern theologians have soundly refuted his speculations by showing that Genesis was one literary book and not a combination of several sources. You need to do your homework. You cannot support anything you claimed. He was not supporting Mosaic authorship. Graf and Wellhausen borrowed from him. You have your history wrong, and you cannot cite those various sources speculation said was used because they never existed. But again, I am not here to argue with you. The problems with the Documentary Hypothesis are that Austruc did not have the fragment sources and discoveries we have today and he and others read into the text rather than reading from author intent. The same so-called scholars who approached Genesis wrong also applied their wrongheaded approach to the Gospels and Pau and Peter’s letters. Again and again, they have been proven wrong by Christian scholarship.
Support your answer
This is just not correct. While the Documentary Hypothesis may have gone overboard, that does not invalidate the principles being applied. One of my grad school professors put together a print of Genesis using colors to show which phrases were assigned to which sources by several different critics and most verses had multiple colors. We jokingly called it the “the rainbow Bible” because so many verses had two or even three colors. But what jumped out at anyone paying attention was that there were a number of verses where there was unanimous agreement on which source that verse was from. His lesson was twofold: first, that the verses with multiple colors were a symptom of a common malady among scholars, namely that many scholars try to give an answer to every detail, which in this case meant trying to assign every last word to a source; and second, that when the scholarship is boiled down some of the conclusions jump out as solid.
The thing is, as Austruc upheld, that Moses having used sources – and yes, he did argue for Mosaic authorship (even Wikipedia got that right) – does not invalidate inspiration. There are clearly different sources being used in the Pentateuch, some bearing marks of being really ancient, others not so much. That does not, however, mean that the result lacks literary unity; what it does mean is that the writer was definitely better than average at weaving disparate strands into a single account.
The additional manuscripts we have now have little to no impact on the parts of the Pentateuch that have been solidly assigned to certain sources. In order for that to happen there would have to be radically different versions of verses, and what we have is confirmation that the text that has come down to us has been transmitted faithfully.
Have you actually studied higher criticism? Unless you’ve really learned it, preferably at a grad-school level, using the term “so-called” of scholars who spent their lives learning it and using it is actually speculation.
The approach wasn’t “wrong-headed”, though applying it to the Gospels was. This points to another malady among scholars: extending what is appropriate for one thing to other things where it is not appropriate.
I suspect that by “Christian scholarship” here you actually mean “scholarship that affirms my views”. It’s an easy trap to fall into, but it leads to problems.
3 Likes
It’s actually an “apologetic” method taught by some fundamentalist/‘evangelical’ figures as a way to “own” people who actually know what they’re talking about without actually having to learn anything about the subject.
What’s ignored about this is that it is disrespectful. That’s especially true when the challenge is to prove a negative, which anyone with the least amount of logic knows is a void challenge.
I’ve come across forums where it’s common, and it can be amusing to watch those ‘challenges’ fired back and forth between different people.
Not uncommon with people who constantly accuse others of ad hominem attacks when there’s no such thing there.
1 Like
Again, you misread and thereby drew erroneous straw man conclusions. Think about why the translated English word isn’t in the Bible, and it might dawn on you why you are in error. The Jehovah Witnesses try to disprove the Trinity by stating that the word trinity is not in the Bible. They fail, also. Your statement commits the same faulty reasoning outside of being a straw man argument.
I am talking about the word ζητήσεις (zētēseis) which is the only word in the Bible translated as “speculations” in any translation of the Bible I can find. This word is only in three epistles: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Please tell us what word you are translating as “speculations.” That would be interesting. I looked at Romans 1 in the Greek and so far I have found nothing that would fit your claim.
Jesus says in John 18:38, “In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth.”
I believe Jesus saying this. Others not so much. William Miller thought he proclaimed the truth when he predicted the coming of Christ in 1844. And none of his followers expected a secret rapture as you say. They only talked like that when Jesus didn’t show up on the year predicted.
Even if you don’t predict a date you are still predicting a future time when Jesus will come to say you are right about evolution. I don’t see any reason to believe your prediction any more than that of William Miller about the second coming in 1844. The plain fact is that this is no evidence or believable argument whatsoever.
Many Christians take the full preterist view that Jesus came again quickly as He said He would. They particularly point to Matthew 16:28 where Jesus said He would return during the lifetime of one of the apostles. I don’t know if they are correct but your prediction of personal vindication is less believable than their conclusions.
A reader of your article may read this, and then be curious. They will search on the internet to see if Evolution really is speculative. They will find that it isn’t. They will see that the theory of evolution is backed by mountains and mountains of evidence. So what are they to think of your article at this point?
3 Likes
So you believe that in a future without sin, there are no miracles?
Its obviously a leading question so ill get the the point…
If creating from nothing is a miracle, and given that in either of our world views… at the time of creation there was no sin, wouldnt you agree that the very act of creation is a miracle and that therefore dicredits part of your statement above?
"and also since we will be living with God reality will be on a higher level anyway so miracles wouldn’t even be special."
I would argue miracles and the significance of miracles are not limited by sin and as such the mere offering of eternal life (among other things in the new earth) will be a significant miracle. I wonder of perhaps there is a bit of an underlying idea that miracles will become boring for those who are saved, redeemed, and restored.
Perhaps your point was that the saved will appreciate miracles and never tire of them, so God can perform them more often in heaven?
- So Where is your big paper being published and when?
There is a separate thread for humor (that includes irony).
1 Like
This might be educational:
Whether or not you let yourself be edified is another question. (Note especially the citations from Augustine.)
1 Like
No, a question.
This is a forum, not a corner preacher soapbox. Unsupported statements are likely to be challenged.
It is not a matter of past versus future, but a matter of the transcendence versus the immanence of God. We live out our lives in a dynamic reality ordered by natural law, and it is our place to trust and not know more than is revealed of Heaven. In this world, evolution is part of our past, it is present in the DNA of your every cell, and shall continue in the future so long as the Lord shall tarry.
2 Likes
I did not address my comments to you.
The irony continues. So you read Psalm 23 absolutely literally? There is nothing poetic about Genesis 1?
1 Like
Fallacy of rhetorial and loaded questions and rabbit trail disgressions that fail to address what I wrote. Any further discussion with you serves no useful purpose.
What passage(s) are you talking about? The opening of Genesis certainly doesn’t fit that, it’s the wrong literary genres.
So? This is a forum – posting invites replies from anyone and everyone.
I pray that Psalm every night.
So far, though, I haven’t laid down in any green pastures, though I’ve hiked along many still waters.
But I’m looking forward to that table and cup!
1 Like