George, your tongue may be in your cheek (and if it isn’t, it ought to be). But supposing all those prophecies existed, in a century or two from now they’d have to be reinterpreted as the way we like to view the universe, which is really the questions we ask of it, changed into a different set of priorities.
I can imagine some future civilisation asking “Why would God bother to tell people about trivia like nuclear power and the birth of stars, when he could have been telling us how to gain eternal life?”
Okay … seriously then (or at least partially seriously), you may have missed your calling, George. You aren’t looking for Christianity or even theism. You’re looking for science --of the specifically modern sort (circa 21st century). You want(ed) revelations about material stuff and efficient causes, and all you got was ‘trivia’ about how we should live with God and neighbor. You wanted instructions that would do a civil engineer proud to be building amazing roads and bridges thousands of years earlier. Instead we got examples on how to respond to victims while we travel those roads. You wanted preemptive doctoral theses about the cosmos. Instead all we got were the poetic expressions calling our attention to how the heavens themselves praise their Creator.
In short (if your tongue really isn’t at all in your cheek), then science seems to be your highest aspiration for all wisdom and knowledge. Some of us around here have identified that as Scientism. And there are also those here who have imbibed deeply of that very philosophy. They might be glad to take you on as their disciple. If you can be happy with that, more power to you. If you want to aim even higher, though … you’ll get so much more and still get the entirety of science thrown in with it!
I understand that “science as my highest aspiration” seems like the theme here. But it really isn’t.
When I was considering all the miraculous things that are available, and all the miraculous things that would make a difference to the human mind, I came up with two categories:
Prophecy of the future (which is obviously why the old Church Fathers expounded so much on prophecies being answered). It carries a lot of weight. But the two greatest prophecies of Christianity is using the Old Testament text about a virgin birth (applicable to a real person 700 years earlier) for double-duty, and Revelations which is a Prophecy yet to be answered. Some could argue that Nostradamus had more impressive prophetic utterings.
the Opposite of not understanding Cosmology and the nature of Creation. So what is the opposite of being dead wrong about the natural world? It’s is knowing the right things, when there is no way to know such things.
One of the miracles of the Old Testament was making an axe float in water. Not exactly a show-stopper, right?
A much better miracle is walking on water - - assuming we have the grammar correct. But that is a one-time description that really can’t be assessed for its miraculous quality, except on Faith (which is frequently a necessary component in any man’s religion).
But knowing about germs, instead of talking about disease being caused by demons, this is a Truth. And Truth carves through the mind and world of mankind like nothing else.
To me, God is Truth. I can’t even imagine God wanting to make the Earth in 6 days. What would be the point? And so for YEC’s to insist on this point puts a smirk on my face almost every time.
Based just on these few recent comments, it [Scientism] would seem to be more than just a “highest aspiration”. It is the unquestioned presupposition of such challenges. That presupposition is unmasked here:
So is that to be the one test of any and all truth assertions, George? Whether or not they reveal physically empirical truth, or at least dazzle a scientifically watching audience with predictions that come true? Yes, that does encompass a form of truth – God has and did reveal things to and through prophets for his own purposes and expected people to take note of whether prophecies came true or not. If this took the form of convincing stubborn doubters like Gideon by accommodating to their probing tests, then sure enough God humored them. But what we don’t see is a blanket promise that any of us [instead of God] get to call the shots about when or where we summon up demonstrative performances to eradicate all doubt. There is a word or two for when apparently supernatural power is under the command of some human authority: magic, or sorcery, or a genie from a bottle. We can certainly cheer as we turn away from such non-Christian “vending machine” concepts. Don’t for a moment confuse such things with God or Christianity. They are worlds apart. Don’t follow into that same category error that bedevils so many who overly venerate science.
We can celebrate and use all of science for what it can do. But we shouldn’t pretend that what science can do (even in principle) encompasses everything. It is not the only gate-keeper to all truth. In trying to make it so you join in with YECs who unwittingly swallowed this bait (while denying it), and their allies the anti-theists who dispense this bait (and celebrate it).
So in the end, I would be careful about imagining who is smirking. What the YEC wants to see or at least prove (spectacular 6-normal-day creational fiat) is what you seem to be wanting now too if you aren’t finding floating axe heads or water strolls to be quite exciting or sharable enough for your satisfaction. God indeed does do spectacular things. Most of the time God seems to be doing normal things. Spectacular = rare because if it didn’t then, well, it wouldn’t be very spectacular, would it! Normal = common, and here is where observation of the faithful regularities of creation [science] helps us understand some of these immediate contingencies, perhaps to even grow in our responsibility in using them.
The question becomes, what is a miracle befitting God? If you read a Dead Sea Scroll that said God created a Square Circle, would you say “Praise God!” Or would you think the writer was a bit of a flake? Do we think it makes sense for God to be making Square Circles?
A little further along in the Truth continuum/spectrum, someone else writes that God created the Earth with veins of coal already in the sediment layers… and what’s more the sediment layers themselves have been arranged and composed in a way to look like the Earth is very old, even though God made the Earth only 6000 years ago.
Would our God really do anything like that? When I read material like that, I don’t think less of God, I think less of the scribe! Ancient writers put stories like this down, because for them, everything was a miracle… not because it made sense for God to create things like this…
It wouldn’t make sense for us to define two such simple things in such a way that they were exclusionary of each other and then turn around and say they weren’t. I praise God that He gave us enough sense to discern this.
I would conclude that said someone was “flaky”.
I’m so sorry that all the ancient scribes failed to meet your 21st century approval. I find them (or rather God’s work through them) amazing myself. As I’m reading some of the later chapters of Isaiah, I tend to have trouble remembering that I’m reading an old testament scribe. I praise God (and admire his scribes and prophets) for pointing us toward Christ. What a waste it would have been had they merely pointed us toward something that … would be chased after and discovered anyway. Not that such things wouldn’t be valued at the time (I’m sure they would --what king or subject turns their nose up at tips and tricks for immediate material betterment to get ahead of their neighbors?), but by comparison to the missed value if the Bible had been used to concentrate on narrowly aligned 21st century values of a handful of Scientism followers. I mean – being able to take the daily material concerns we all have and see them in a larger context is sort of the whole point, isn’t it? We are most to be pitied if it is for this world and this world only in which all our hopes are invested. C.S. Lewis also adds this to that thought: “Aim at Heaven, and you get earth thrown in. Aim at earth, and you get neither.” Quibbling over these things, George, would be like some historian of a later century finding these words of Lewis and thinking “what stupid bosh! – everybody knows you can aim something upward and the projectile will still hit the earth eventually. This poor ignorant writer obviously didn’t know what he was talking about!” What do you think Lewis would say to that? I think the boorish criticism would be swiftly realigned back towards its original source.
You mean they would be alive right now if only they had known about these things? Granted, there were /are no doubt many whose lives ended earlier than they might otherwise have because of habits or practices that may have been fed or allowed by various ignorances. I wonder how many early lives were saved due to such things as ritual washing that ostensibly may have been for religious or other motivations since it couldn’t yet have been motivated by knowledge of bacteria. Or various seemingly arbitrary prohibitions against eating various things. How do you know that countless lives weren’t saved? There are always the millions who don’t make it out of (or even to!) infancy, of course. That will always be a problem.
When divine knowledge may be behind it, I wouldn’t turn my nose up at “mere” inspiration!
I’m not so sure that revealing germ theory to the Hebrews would have been a good idea. Scientific discoveries generally arise in a society ready to receive and investigate them (ok sometimes they aren’t appreciated right away!!). The ancient Hebrews didn’t have microscopes, they didn’t have antibiotics, etc. Merv notes that the Hebrews practiced ritual washing. In addition, they knew that not all water was safe to drink, preferring wine instead. Avoiding pork would protect them from trichinosis And they knew enough to quarantine people with skin diseases. Another concern is that they could be tempted to use germ warfare.
I feel a medical joke coming on!
A Jewish mother was out walking with her two preschoolers. Another woman came along and exclaimed, “What beautiful children! How old are they?”
The mother replied, “The doctor is two and the dentist is three.”
It also seems to be atendency for humans to lapse into idolatry and one of the things we tend to idolize is health. God cares about our physical well being, but it is not the ultimate goal. We can fall victim to our desires and try to trade worship of God for physical health and well being, which makes us no different than the worshipers of pagan Gods.
The whole YEC thing is Last Thursdayism. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about loaves and fishes or individual trees, the position is the same. Note that YEC is constantly burdened with the problem of having to explain why things which have the appearance of age are not actually old. There is no corresponding problem on the other side of the issue.
There are no bristlecone pines which (from their size), should be hundreds of years old but which in actual fact when examined have no tree rings at all. There are no massive lakes which (from their environmental context), should be thousands of years old but which in actual fact when examined have no varves at all. There are no continents which should display evidence of continental drift, but which in fact when examined show that they have never moved at all. The YEC view has no footing in reality, and must instead appeal to complete fakery on a cosmic scale.
No it doesn’t. You might have had a point if I’d used the word “deceptive”, but the word “fake” doesn’t tell us anything about the motivations of God. It tells us whether the appearance of past is an authentic past or a past which is literally not true and never existed.
I am not making the argument “X makes sense to me therefore it makes sense to God”. I am making the argument “The claim that we don’t know what God has done isn’t true because He has left us a very clear and indisputable record in the earth itself of what He has done, and the claim that He may instead have done X (YEC) is falsified not only by this record but by what He has told us about His own character, namely that He does not lie”. We’re not shooting in the dark here. The idea that we don’t know all the facts that well (in this case), simply isn’t true. Likewise the idea that we don’t know God enough to know whether or not He would simply lie and deceive us, is frankly laughable.
This makes no sense at all. We’re not putting weight on our assessment of “what God ought to do in the case of trees”, we’re putting weight on what God has said about Himself, and what God has recorded of His actions in the earth itself. And Jesus was patently not imitating a fakir, anymore than an atheist having a bath is “imitating a baptism”.
No they can’t. That’s completely nonsensical. The statement"my ways are not your ways" cannot support such an argument. Read it in context and it’s saying “I am more merciful than you”. That’s it. It isn’t saying “I’m an incomprehensible being, such that even when I tell you I don’t lie, you can’t believe me”.
So you’re letting your theology dictate your science. Quelle surprise.
But we’re not using our assessment of God’s character as evidence about empirical facts. We’re appealing to God’s character when people deny empirical facts by claiming that God could instead have acted in a way which is deceptive. The argument then comes down to whether or not God is a deceptive person, and that question can be assessed by what He has told us about His own character.
I think you are rather proving my point. Yes, there are sections like Isaiah 52 to 53 that are interpreted to be a prophecy. But it’s not really what we would call a slam-dunk, right?
I described Revelations as a Prophecy yet to be answered. You say No? You mean I missed the rapture completely?
I also said that the text interpreted as a prophecy of Jesus is one of the “Greatest Prophecies” of Christianity? Do you doubt this?
Here are the verses from Isaiah 7:14 to 7:16 -
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "
"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. "
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
Maybe you don’t interpret this text as a prophecy of the virgin birth, but there are plenty of people who do.
This is what a Hebrew scholar (Kressel) said about it:
“Now where is there mentioned the Messiah? How does a virgin fit into this? Even if you can prove that almah means a virgin – and you can’t-- it is STILL not talking about the Messiah. Jesus was born some 700 years later. How would that have answered King Ahaz’s problem? None of the words of that chapter fit into any such interpretation.”
“Let me restate this, to make sure everyone understands. Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells of a conversation between King Ahaz and Isaiah, sometime around the year 600 B.C.E. King Ahaz of Judea was worried. The Kings of Aram and Israel were planning a siege and attack against Judea. G-d told the Prophet Isaiah to reassure Ahaz and tell him not to worry, it will not happen. Aram and Israel will not succeed against Judea.”
"Isaiah offered a sign. He would foretell an event, and when it came true that would prove that he spoke prophetically. Then Ahaz could cease worrying. What sign did he offer? “This young woman here is pregnant. She will give birth to a son. She will call him Emmanuel. Once he is old enough to have intelligence, he will eat rich foods, because there will be peace in the land. This is because even before he attains intelligence, Aram and Israel will be conquered, and their people will be taken away.”
"This last point is important. Isaiah showed King Ahaz a sign, to reassure him that during the childhood of the boy Emmanuel the two kings will be rendered harmless. As it says there, in verse 16 of that chapter in Isaiah:
“For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”
" The prophecy was fulfilled not long after, when Isaiah’s wife gave birth to a son. Isaiah 8:4 therefore says: “Even before the child shall know how to cry ‘Father and Mother!’ the riches of Damascus and Samaria will be taken away by the king of Assyria.”
“Isaiah makes it absolutely clear that his prophecy will take place very soon. Not 600 or 700 years later. So the child being referred to was the son of Isaiah, or the son of the king. It has nothing to do with the Messiah. The entire event: the birth of the child Emmanuel and the exile of the two kings, took place over 600 years before Jesus was born. So the verse is not talking about a virgin, and in any case is not talking about the Messiah, but about a child that was born very shortly thereafter.”
"But this is considered irrelevant to many Christians. They argue that Isaiah was referring overtly to the problem of the time, but was also alluding to the Messiah. How do they do this? How can you possibly find in these verses a proof that the Messiah will be born of a virgin? "
“It’s quite simple. Change the “young woman” to “virgin.” Change “she is pregnant” to “she will become pregnant.” Ignore the reference to “Emanuel.” If you don’t mention it, perhaps no one else will notice it either. Don’t be concerned that Isaiah makes no mention of the Messiah here. Perhaps the Christian apostles honestly believed that the Messiah is mentioned in this verse, despite the glaring absence of any such reference.”
“Now, ignore the fact that Isaiah was reassuring Ahaz that in his own time he will have peace. Pretend instead that he was referring to an event 600 years in the future. How that would reassure King Ahaz that he would have peace from Aram and Israel I cannot imagine. Maybe the problem is that I don’t have enough “faith” to believe in a lie.”
[End of Extract]