Historically validated facts in the Bible are compatible with mainstream science and an ancient Earth. For instance, Hezekiah’s tunnel nicely confirms the accuracy of carbon dating. The invasion by Shoshenq synchronizes with the Egyptian chronology which extends back over 5,000 years.
3 Likes
The Philistines are an historically validated fact. And Exodus uses their presence on the coast as a reason why the Exodus party doesn’t head to the promised land along the coast road.
So…. do you accept the historical reality that the Exodus had to have happened some time after circa 1130 BCE when the Philistines became established?
George
There is a lot of controversy around the sea people, earlier populations of the Levant, and the timing, character, and dimensions of the exodus, and I have not at all kept up with that discussion to offer an opinion.
Setting aside the Philistines, since the Exodus account mentions a Ramesid installation, do you agree that Exodus had to have occurred sometime AFTER the birth of Ramesses I. The archaeological data for Pirameses is:
Archaeology indicates the building of Pi-Ramesses largely occurred during the 13th century BCE, initiated by Pharaoh Seti I and greatly expanded by his son, Ramesses II (1279–1213 BCE).
[MY MATH BELOW NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED!]
Do you agree that Exodus would have to have occurred sometime AFTER 1260 BCE (only 130 years earlier than using the Philistine cutoff date)?
Archaeologically speaking, the global flood during the time of Noah, would have to be a REGIONAL flood, yes? And thus the animals on board the ark, if you think there was an ark, would have been only for livestock purposes and for consumption, yes?
G.Brooks
Good to see you’re still alive and kicking.
This is a false dichotomy because group A) is directly contributing to the growth of group B). When the people “committed to Christ” teach obvious falsehoods and cause millions of people to reject Christ and Christianity, there’s clearly a problem. It’s not much different than when white evangelicals openly support policies in this country that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. That also causes young people to turn away from Christ. Should we remain silent in the face of this crisis? No thanks.
2 Likes
I also remember a long-ago conversation I had with a YEC believer who was a young father. I asked him if he would rather his daughter grew up to be a non-Christian or a Christian who believed something similar to what Pete Enns or I believed. He said he’d have to think about it. Never heard back from him.
2 Likes
-
Atheism seems to be on the rise the world over. Blaming American YECs for this seems a bridge built too far. There is more at work. Personally, I would consider the enlightenment, rise of scientism, urbanization, and look at the secularization of state and expansion of public education as all playing a role. Out of mind out of sight.
-
Theologically speaking is it belittling to God’s love to suggest someone’s incorrect beliefs about science could cause millions to truly reject him? Do they cause you to do this? Or billions of other Christians? Our actions certainly matter but the reason for rejecting Jesus seemingly goes much deeper than “some of your neighbors having incorrect facts about science.” There seems to be a fine line that needs to be straddled in here somewhere. Blaming YECs is just the surface manifestation IMHO. For some people, they are eager to take the wheel and get rid of God. It’s party time. They think their enslavement to sin is freedom. YECism is the excuse.
-
I think the the overinflation of science as the only mode of truth is as much if not more to blame than YECism. I suspect these same people you are blaming YECism on will have such a poor understanding of things, they would probably ask for material evidence for God’s existence. Because they are immersed in scientism and secularist ideology. The rise of secularism is just as much at fault. Heck, I might even consider YECism as simply a poor response to it. And this all started back at least in the time of Newton with his mechanical (closet deism) image of God who fills in gaps here and there of a universe running on its own.
I think the perpetuation of scientism I see by Christians (even on this forum) is just as much to blame as YECism for people losing faith. Denying science altogether and worshiping at its alter both will have negative consequences in the world. But in the end, why people truly reject God’s call is beyond my ability to determine. But I would say a persons behaviors and actions are far more important than their beliefs so pointing to YECism misses the mark. People have remarkable conversions without requiring evidence or syllogisms. We see tons of them in the Bible.
And I say that as one who lost faith due to being painted into a literalism corner earlier in life. People today have access to resources I know I didn’t-- for a struggling Christian trying to make sense of science and the Bible and literalism. You have to want it.
Enns was beneficial to me for a while. Not sure how much now though. At some point my suspicion was he kept going and going and finally was gone. I’m not sure how keen I am on agnostic Christianity or one who purposefully uses such a polarizing description. In his brain it makes sense I’m sure, but maybe I’m not one of the “normal people” reading the Bible. In fact, in my experience, “normal people” don’t read the Bible. Just us religious freaks. At least in secular New England.
Vinnie
1 Like
I would question the assumption that atheism is on the rise globally. There are movements away from the doctrines of the traditional religious institutions but that does not necessarily tell about a shift to atheism. The persons may have some sort of belief in supernatural even when they leave their church and tell that they do not believe as their former church teaches. Many take an agnostic, not an atheist worldview.
In addition, there seems to be growing interests towards the matters of faith in some societies that could be called post-Christian, at least among the youngest generations.
Education plays an important role, both in good and bad. We get our worldview through the teaching we receive from our parents, teachers and the wider society, including churches.
Education is good in that it helps us to explain the reality around us and respond to what happens around us in a rational, constructive way.
Education may turn bad if the education includes fundamental claims that are false and leads to behaviours and decisions that are harmful for the person or those around the person. Teaching may include ‘packets’ where some part of the teaching is false while the other parts are fine (a basket with both good and bad fruits). If one part of the teaching turns out to be false (a bad fruit), there is a risk that the person throws the whole basket away, also what is good. That may lead to a personal crisis, internal chaos, until a new worldview grows to replace the abandoned one.
3 Likes
There’s an old saying about teaching that there is more that is caught than taught. Meaning that whatever the quality of the factual content of your teaching or curriculum is, it’s the teacher’s approach to life that the students take note of. The teacher is the most important and only real curriculum in the room (again…for better and worse). Of course, what printed curriculum a teacher embraces and pushes (or is saddled with and merely tolerates) is also part of who they are that students will see.
2 Likes
There’s only one ultimate reason why warranted, justified, true belief might increase as a proportion of belief; being open to evidence.
1 Like
@Vinnie
I would ask the same about suggestions that God guides evolution? Does it make sense to you that suggesting God uses natural methods to achieve some of his divine ends would be enough to trigger people to reject God?
Compare this possibility with those who insist that the Earth is 6 days old, and that science can’t be trusted? I would think the latter trend is by far the more toxic!
[My erroneous final sentence deleted.]
Sewell:
In an effort to triangulate a mutually acceptable timing for the Exodus, I have already provided the archaeological evidence for the Philistines, and for the beginnings of the Ramessid era of Egyptian history.
In the first we have an early limit of about 1130 BCE, and for the second we have an early limit created by the 20th birthday of Ramesses II, or circa 150 years prior to the Philistine arrival.
For the third plank, let’s look at the notorious Israel engraving. A fellow BioLogos member provided an interesting link:
THE MERENPTAH STELE
AND THE BIBLICAL ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
LARRY D. BRUCE*
Abstract: The Merenptah (or Israel) stele is a fundamental and problematic datum affecting
the biblical account of Israel’s origins. The stele contains the first and only accepted reference to
Israel in ancient Egyptian records and may suggest the location of Israel before ca. 1209 BC.
Virtually all engaged scholars believe the stele intends to locate Israel in Canaan at the time of
Pharaoh Merenptah.
“But the traditional arguments (linguistic and literary) supporting this view may also allow an Israel-in-Egypt interpretation, as this study will attempt to show. A problem with the traditional Israel-in-Canaan interpretation is that it renders the Bible’s account of Israel’s origins in the land of Canaan incoherent and irreconcilable with the archaeological evidence. An Israel-in-Egypt reading, in contrast, presumes an exodus after Merenptah’s time (e.g., ca. 1175 BC) resulting in a chronology that aligns or accommodates the biblical events and the archaeological evidence at every clearly identified biblical site with data….”
Hello George. In this case I would find your theology flawed. Or at least the theology the question you posed is based upon. Nature doesn’t exist apart from God. We moderns are plagued, since at least the time of Newton, maybe much longer, with a mechanistic image of God. The universe is car and God the mechanic goes in to fix it. I call this deistic thinking, and un fortunately, many people who would flatly reject the deist label actually subscribe to this deistic image of God. But in my view all of creation is upheld, created and sustained by God every instant. That is what a correct understanding of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo entails to me. That is what cosmological arguments and metaphysics requires me to believe as well. Not to mention scripture. Natural methods are how God regularly runs, sustains and upholds creation. Any super-natural events are not God intervening or interfering with nature. He is already intimately involved with nature. You can’t interfere when you are already involved and a part of it. They are God going beyond the normal way of things like a jazz musician improvising on the score and music he already wrote and is playing to go beyond it. So would not distinguish between natural ends and divine ends. They are one and the same.
You might have me mistaken for someone else. I accept the basics of biological evolution. I said I was not entirely comfortable with some of its implications. I remain that way. Nature looks red in tooth and claw. The cancer in my wife’s body seemly wants to survive at her expense. That is nature. And questions of a literal Adam and Paul’s Christ/Adam arguments, along with some form of original sin remain. I know many modern exegetes feel the Bible fell from heaven straight for them and as longs they can unlock its secret meanings and true original context, that all the other Christians got wrong the last 2,000 years, they can believe whatever theology they like. For me, the Church and Christian tradition is my anchor. Widespread theological beliefs, especially ones pertinent to what Jesus is claimed to have done on the cross, are not disposable to me like garbage or to be easily jettisoned because science makes them hard. It’s more of a last resort option for me.
I’m not sure these have to be mutually exclusive. But we also need to reconcile this with creation being good but I suppose that is easy since learning lessons and growing makes it good.
I think it seems to be about both. Life thriving at the expense of other life. If we humans did this to our neighbors–and many do-- it would be grotesquely immoral. I also don’t recall any current life giving consent to being used and stepped on by nature so future can thrive more fully. This all reinforces my belief that human life is special, has a soul, etc.
Vinnie
1 Like
No, because I understand how literature works.
1 Like
Depends on how much time the teacher spends with the students.
Also depends on the training and skills of the teacher.
But basically yes, we cannot fully separate the teacher and what is told - words are just one form of communication. There is so much more that the teacher can communicate, for better and worse.
Still, without words and facts there is little building material for the construction of a worldview. Try to teach modern cosmology without words or sign language - that would be a challenge.
Except that it is an observed phenomenon that young people abandon the faith in droves because of having been YEC before they met science.
1 Like
That doesn’t mean the underlying reason for the complete spiritual rejection of Christ is due to mistaken intellectual beliefs. It might be. But I think that need to be established. Those might be just the outward manifestation of something deeper on a spiritual level.
You can even believe God exists and still reject Him. Isn’t there a whole heavenly host that did that?
Vinnie
HA! Greater men than either of us have attempted to reconcile the 2 positions!
Ever read a little history on the Eastern Orthodox communion vs. the Roman Catholics regarding original sin?
Perhaps I didn’t summarize the distinctions well … but for 1,500 years, there have - - and continue to be - - an important distinction.
Your anxious posture regarding evil is a problem invoked via THEODICY … not evolutionary theory. The orthodox feel anxiety … but by accepting sin as the ONGOING CONSEQUENCE of Free Will (instead of a permanent stain created by one couple 6000 years ago), they seem more at ease with the natural world.
G.Brooks
@St.Roymond
Roger that. But the question is for @rsewell who is attempting to woo Christian Evolutionists with his effort to reconcile archaeology with the Bible.