Bingo! I don’t think many people will understand the magnitude of that statement, though. For instance, what happens if we apply that same principle to the literal, de novo Adam and Eve?
You mean, how could God communicate anything to them if they all of the sudden arrived on the scene with no human experiences, conceptual categories, or language? I think the typical answer is that they were created “mature” just like the mountains and trees. But you are right that it gets sketchy when you are talking about a human who is created with an implanted history and implanted memories, but who is also completely naive, innocent, and sinless.
2 Likes
I’m just noting that perhaps if YECs are getting early Genesis wrong [as you agreed], then maybe you should re-consider your confidence in them “having a point” about the rest of scriptures.
I’ll propose exactly the opposite: that you may be the party here that isn’t allowing it to be real. Because for you, “real” seems to be limited to “physically literal”. You want the talking snake and the angels with the flaming swords, etc. - or rather you see the required acceptance of those literal things as a necessary prerequisite before any spiritual level truth can be taken seriously. You take the denial of such literal events as an affront or denial of God’s capability to do whatever he wants. But to approach it this way is all backwards. Instead we should be asking ourselves - what did God do? Not what can God do! Everybody here agrees that God could have created all of the universe in a single instant. Doesn’t mean he did. So you have to search scriptures and put in the intellectual “sweat equity” if you’re going to try to delve down to satisfactory answers for how it is to be taken. And the flippant modern take that “it’s gotta be talking snakes or bust” quite frankly comes up short. It fails to be faithful to scriptures, where we learn that quite possibly the physical stuff that so impresses us as real may not actually be the most real or permanent dimension of reality at all. Important - yes. But perhaps not the end-all, be-all that some insist on making it. […at least not its ‘pre-transformed’ state].
Those words are changed in translation because they don’t communicate the center of thought/emotion in English.
1 Like
I was actually responding to the problem(s) that were expressed by the original poster, Lostnfound.
I don’t know Randy, That is the nature of a miracle. There are loads of ways God could do it and speculating on which method was used, can be endless. Once miracle is invoked, I don’t ask questions. Consider the resurrection. After 3 days of being dead, Jesus’ brain cells would have massive damage. I looked up human decomposition and it starts 4 minutes after death. CO2 begins rising and creates an acidic environment, rupturing cells. I know there is an opportunistic fungi that quickly starts eating us. We live with it and our immune systems keep it in check normally, but when we die, they get going eating us up. A site on human decomposition said:
24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.
So, by the 3rd day, Jesus’ organs were in bad shape. What did God do to fix it and raise him? I don’t know and we will never know. It is a miracle and asking how it was done is asking for a naturalistic explanation.
I don’t know how many languages you have learned, but I learned Mandarin largely on the street. Never took formal classes in Mandarin. I learned it the way God taught Adam to speak–by learning the names of things. Our de novo Adam was brought all the animals for naming. I went out in the evenings and weekends with one phrase I used often, Zhe ge Zhong wen Jiao, shen me? Literally That in Chinese is called what? And I would point at something. By the end of my time in China I was determining meaning of unfamiliar words by context. And I learned new concepts from the Chinese that I had never heard of before, like qi, and the Xi, who attacks at New Years. Guizi are entities unlike anything I encountered in the West. So I think I disagree with your idea.
I would also point out that our language is in a totally different part of the brain than animal sounds come from. This makes us special in nature and there are debates about how the change took place. Our language is in the cortex, Great ape sounds are from the limbic system. Human language is very unique.
"Indeed, Jane Goodall believes that vocalizations are so closely tied to emotional states that ‘the production of a sound in the absence of the appropriate emotional state seems to be an almost impossible task for a chimpanzee.’ Even among chimpanzees, the sound production appears to be controlled in the brain by the ancient structures of the limbic system and the brain stem, which we’ll read about shortly and which are involved in emotional response. The ‘higher’ centers of the brain do not appear to be much involved. This is a far cry (sorry!) from language as we humans know it, which is initiated in those higher centers the cerebral cortex) and is dependent on production and interpretation of sounds in isolation from the emotional states of the speaker and hearer. It is also dependent upon rules of grammar, syntax and so forth that are totally absent from the sound combinations chimpanzees make. So, no. Not only do chimpanzees not have languate; they don’t even have an incipient form of it." ~ Ian Tattersall, Becoming Human, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998), p. 60-61
Well, you both taught me something about those translations and caused me to do some interesting research. Maybe before we denigrate the Bible maybe we should do some research. This denigrate first, don’t do research is a typical atheist trick but disappointing when it comes from Christians. One of my favorite atheists had recently on his page the criticism of god creating man because he put the sex organs next to the sewage system on the body. He, like Dawkins earlier said something to the effect of what kind of creator would put the birth center in such a germy place. I have watched for years as interest in our microbiome has arisen in medical science, and indeed, MD Anderson put me on a trial where my microbiome is being analysed. The reason science now understands why the birth center is next to the sewage dump on the mammalian body is that the world is a very germy place, and it is best if the offspring, whose intestines are empty of bacteria, etc, be exposed to a tried and true group of microbiota—Mom’s microbiome. She lived and if her germs inhabit the child’s gut, then it too will likely survive. The wrong bugs can cause trouble. And indeed there evidence that C section kids, like 3 of my grandkids sometimes have troubles with the intestines.
So what does this have to do with your kidney business. Last night in bed, I thought of the claim that we think will our intestines and recalled the microbiome issue. Modern science does indeed think our microbiome, housed in the intestines absolutely do influence our behavior. And then I saw your kidney thing, and went to google scholar to see if there was a kidney-brain axis. There is. Thank you for teaching me this. But it really destroys your criticism of the Bible based on kidneys and the one based on intestinal thinking. For your illucidation and entertainment, here are abstracts from the modern medical literature.
In this one, CKD is chronic kidney disease
Epidemiologic data suggest that individuals at all stages of CKD have a higher risk of developing cognitive disorders and dementia. This risk is generally explained by the high prevalence of both symptomatic and subclinical ischemic cerebrovascular lesions. However, other potential mechanisms, including direct neuronal injury by uremic toxins, could also be involved, especially in the absence of obvious cerebrovascular disease. We discuss the prevalence and characteristics of cognitive disorders and dementia in patients with CKD, brain imaging findings, and traditional and nontraditional risk factors. Understanding the pathophysiologic interactions between renal impairment and brain function is important in order to minimize the risk for future cognitive impairment. Jean-Marc Bugnicourt et al, Cognitive Disorders and Dementia in CKD: The Neglected Kidney-Brain Axis, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology March 2013, 24 (3) 353-363 Cognitive Disorders and Dementia in CKD: The Neglected Kidne... : Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
The next abstract is brain-kidney cross talk:
Encephalopathy and altered higher mental functions are common clinical complications of acute kidney injury. Although sepsis is a major triggering factor, acute kidney injury predisposes to confusion by causing generalised inflammation, leading to increased permeability of the blood–brain barrier, exacerbated by hyperosmolarity and metabolic acidosis due to the retention of products of nitrogen metabolism potentially resulting in increased brain water content. Downregulation of cell membrane transporters predisposes to alterations in neurotransmitter secretion and uptake, coupled with drug accumulation increasing the risk of encephalopathy. On the other hand, acute brain injury can induce a variety of changes in renal function ranging from altered function and electrolyte imbalances to inflammatory changes in brain death kidney donors. Arkom Nongnuch, Kwanpeemai Panorchan and Andrew Davenport, Brain–kidney crosstalk, Critical Care 2014,18:225
There are many more articles that crop up on google scholar but I will leave it to you to do that further study.
Now for the intestines:
Gut/brain axis and the microbiota
Emeran A. Mayer,1,2,3,4 Kirsten Tillisch,1,2,5 and Arpana Gupta1,2
First published February 17, 2015 - More info
Abstract
Tremendous progress has been made in characterizing the bidirectional interactions between the central nervous system, the enteric nervous system, and the gastrointestinal tract. A series of provocative preclinical studies have suggested a prominent role for the gut microbiota in these gut-brain interactions. Based on studies using rodents raised in a germ-free environment, the gut microbiota appears to influence the development of emotional behavior, stress- and pain-modulation systems, and brain neurotransmitter systems. Additionally, microbiota perturbations by probiotics and antibiotics exert modulatory effects on some of these measures in adult animals. Current evidence suggests that multiple mechanisms, including endocrine and neurocrine pathways, may be involved in gut microbiota–to–brain signaling and that the brain can in turn alter microbial composition and behavior via the autonomic nervous system. Limited information is available on how these findings may translate to healthy humans or to disease states involving the brain or the gut/brain axis. Future research needs to focus on confirming that the rodent findings are translatable to human physiology and to d**iseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, autism, anxiety, depression, and Parkinson’s disease.**Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/76304
here is another one on the gut:
From Nature Reviews Neuroscience CNS is the central nervous system–i.e. brain and spinal cord:
Recent years have witnessed the rise of the gut microbiota as a major topic of research interest in biology. Studies are revealing how variations and changes in the composition of the gut microbiota influence normal physiology and contribute to diseases ranging from inflammation to obesity. Accumulating data now indicate that the gut microbiota also communicates with the CNS — possibly through neural, endocrine and immune pathways — and thereby influences brain function and behaviour. Studies in germ-free animals and in animals exposed to pathogenic bacterial infections, probiotic bacteria or antibiotic drugs suggest a role for the gut microbiota in the regulation of anxiety, mood, cognition and pain. Thus, the emerging concept of a microbiota–gut–brain axis suggests that modulation of the gut microbiota may be a tractable strategy for developing novel therapeutics for complex CNS disorders. John F. Cryan & Timothy G. Dinan Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13, 701–712 (2012) Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour | Nature Reviews Neuroscience
See also,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01664.x
or go to google scholar and search gut-brain axis microbiome
Don’t tell me how stupid the Bible is on this particular topic until you tell all those medical researchers how wrong they are. Both Kidneys and intestines affect our mental condition and behavior. This is a brand new field of study being only about 10 years old. There is much more to learn in this area. So making categorical statements about stupid biblical statements is risky right now. But I do thank you for causing me to learn of the Kidney brain connection. I have a tumor near my kidney but not in it. I might need to watch my P’s and Qs if it ever gets into it… lol
Edited to add. I think accommodationalists simply give up on the bible before doing requisite research. Anyone could have found this, but no one looked for it.
A wide body of research shows the brain’s involvement in these processes as well.
God isn’t limited to detecting our mental state through studying our entrails. God can get in our head too. It’s just that the audience didn’t appreciate what we have in our heads the same way we do, so God communicated to them using their own physical understanding. I don’t see it as denigrating God or the Bible to accept that.
Hi, Glenn (I assume),
Thanks for offering a different opinion. Our disagreement isn’t about the IQs of Neolithic farmers–indeed we agree that they were as smart as us. Our disagreement concerns whether those farmers (or, for that matter, the farmers of Kepler’s day) would have been prepared to believe a claim that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. I say they would have entirely rejected it, just as almost everyone continued to reject it in the early 17th century, when Kepler offered this advice to the peasant who found Copernican astronomy incredible:
"Whoever is so weak that he cannot believe Copernicus without offending his piety, and who damns whatever philosophical opinions he pleases, I advise him to mind his own business and to stay at home and fertilize his own garden [i.e., go pee in the bushes], and when he turns his eyes toward the visible heavens (the only way he sees them), let him pour forth praise and gratitude to God the Creator. Let him assure himself that he is serving God no less than the astronomer to whom God has granted the privilege of seeing more clearly with the eyes of the mind.”
As Galileo pointed out a few years later (almost certainly with knowledge of Kepler’s comments), if the Bible tried to teach the true system of the world, then no one would have believed it, leading them to question the truth of its claims about other matters, including the Resurrection.
I think Galileo was entirely right on this one.
4 Likes
I guess I owe you an apology for calling the kidney and intestine thing bizarre. See my post above. Apparently that generation had made the connection that injuries to the kidneys made people go bonkers. Given the old method of fighting battles, which was more of a butcher shop approach, they probably had people who survived damage to kidneys who weren’t the same anymore. Here is another note on kidneys:
"Reduced kidney function is associated with worse white matter microstructural integrity. Our findings highlight the importance for clinicians to consider concomitant macro- and microstructural changes of the brain in patients with impaired kidney function." Sanaz Sedaghat et al, Kidney function and microstructural integrity of brain white matter, Neurology, July 14, 2015; 85 (2)
https://n.neurology.org/content/85/2/154.short
Wiki says white matter long considered passive isn’t: “white matter affects learning and brain functions”
So, kidney problems would appear to neolithics as affecting thinking. Thus, the Bible isn’t as nutty as people believe it to be.
Yes, I do see many of the problems we have discussed leading to a denial of God’s abilities and a human shyness at believing miracles. But your third sentence in what I quoted is impossible. The only way we have to know what God did is via what is written in Scripture.
Yall’s default position is “The bible is wrong if there is any convlict with science” My default position is “lets do some research to see if we can fix the problem” Yall give up without even trying to see if something could be real–like with Genesis 1:6 we discussed.
I am leaving in a couple of hours for 3 days in Houston. I don’t intend to come back to this list. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s I did a lot of debate against YEC and against accommodation. As I said somewhere on this forum, I stand apart from both sides. But my posts can’t be written in 5 min. I do research for most of them to be sure I am on solid ground. I have spent almost all of the past week on this board, and that is going to stop. My time and energy is limited I will not waste them banging my head against immovable objects, which is what these debate boards are. So, this might be my last communication with you for a long time.
How is it denigrating the Bible to try to understand it in its ancient context and recognize the reality that the ancient audience had a pre-scientific worldview? That doesn’t mean they weren’t intelligent or capable of understanding profound spiritual truth. I work with an Native American indigenous group. Many of the older folks are illiterate and ignorant of modern science. But they know far more than I do about plants, animals, and weather, and they are perfectly capable of deep insights into human nature.
The major problem I have with deciding that the Bible has to say things that are 100% true from a modern scientific perspective or it is a pack of lies that can’t be trusted is that it privileges our place in history and our modern scientific culture over every other one. That’s incredibly ethnocentric. The Bible was not written to us. That doesn’t mean we can’t access the truth it holds for us, but we have to get outside of our own worldview to do so. Our worldview is not inherently better or more intelligent because it privileges scientific facts.
So you are really going to double down and say that we really do experience emotion in our kidneys? That’s where an undying commitment to concordism will get you. Or you could just embrace a non-concordist approach and accept that it isn’t criticizing the Bible to acknowledge that ancients believed the kidneys were the emotional center. It’s part of good hermeneutics and figuring out the communicative intent of the passage, which was not in anyway intended to be an anatomy lesson. Translating “kidney” as “inner being” is perfectly appropriate and reflects the meaning.
4 Likes
I’m glad you decided to spend some time here. I’m very happy that you’re in the 99.9% and so still able to ruffle feathers in places like this.
As much as part of me (my kidneys?) would like to shift your thinking on something like accommodation, I appreciate that you haven’t. When I get into these topics with some of my YEC friends and they talk about presuppositions and one’s approach to the Bible totally deciding these issues, I’ve sometimes found it helpful to point them to things you’ve written. You read the Bible the way they do, yet still come to a different conclusion on the age of the earth and evolution. Presuppositions aren’t everything.
Blessings on your continued journey.
3 Likes
Would that be the kidneys?
1 Like
yes, I am Glenn. You win a kewpie doll! But I did give you a big hint. lol It is a shame the ASA doesn’t have this kind of list anymore. ASA list is stodgy and not read all that much. One thing I brought yall was readership. lol
Generally, such farmers are prepared to accept whatever the priests tell them God said. So, I have one idea of Neolithic farmers, and you have another. Both positions are assumptions which we can’t prove, and neither is better.
As Galileo pointed out a few years later (almost certainly with knowledge of Kepler’s comments), if the Bible tried to teach the true system of the world, then no one would have believed it, leading them to question the truth of its claims about other matters, including the Resurrection.
I think Galileo was entirely right on this one.
and I think not. I think if the priest said the earth goes round the sun, and threatened excommunication, those farmers would have believed. So, how do we objectively solve this problem using science? I don’t know of any way, but if it stands like this, then we each are working off of two unprovable assumptions and neither is better, unless, in my view, one assumption leads to more and more apparent errors in the Bible. As I have said a couple of times today, yall give up too quickly on any Bible/science or Bible/historical problem. The default position is that in any problems it is the Bible which is wrong. I have to admit that it sure saves the research time and hard work. I have faith that most of the things can be explained, like the kidney thing above. but one HAS to approach the bible with the attitude that the last thing we should jump to is, The bible is wrong. It leads to the problems in the opening post.
People’s hearts can’t rejoice in what the mind is telling them is false. Lost&found came to the wrong place asking for answers to his questions about the Bible. He has begun the slippery slope I have seen many people go down into atheism. He needs his questions answered and here he finds loads of people willing to tell him of more problems in the bible he needs to worry about. It is like throwing a drowning man an anchor. They tell him believe it even if it is false. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the stories of the Book of Mormon, so If a Mormon Missionary told me to believe his religion even if it is false, why on earth would I even consider his religion? People would think I’m crazy. It is no different from what people said to Lost&Found
Ted, you might not know, but the cancer I got way back in 2003 is getting out of control, and I told Mervin a few minutes ago that when I leave for Houston in a couple of hours, I don’t intend to come back. This board has taken too much of my precious time. So yall won’t have to think about solving biblical issues anymore and can go back to finding more errors in the Bible… My time is limited and I don’t intend to argue again all the issues we all argued without result in the ASA list (now sadly shut down and turned into a stodgy uninteresting bunch of papers, no excitement in that place. )
Take care Ted. Nice to talk to you again.
Did you even read the quote I put up? sheesh, the answer is there. That is your homework–to read that quote.
Marshall, that means a lot to me. Yes, I read the Bible like, well, it is God’s word, because if it isn’t God’s word, then it holds nothing of metaphysical interest for me. Why should it? It is just a collection of stories about an insignificant people with megalomania. In that way, I do think like the YECs.
I am impressed also that you figured out who I was, or did Ted tell you? lol
But your note is very kind.
No, let’s just say you’re one of a kind. 
1 Like
Man, that made me laugh Marshall. I may be the only adherent of my world view. 
1 Like