If this is what is being promoted by a group started by a Nazarene then I’m seriously considering changing denominations. How do I delete my user from this site?
While somewhat late to the party, I am realizing more and more the importance of story to what the Bible says. We tend to divide and study verses and chapters in Sunday School, and miss the big picture of what God is trying to tell us unless we read the whole story as a whole. That goes for Jonah, Job, and even the gospels and Acts. We have recently been studying Samuel, and that too makes a lot more sense when you read the story intact rather than fragmented.
2 Likes
I understand people who criticize theological liberals saying that you can’t just decide what you can accept from the Bible and then mold it to your image of what the Bible should be (conveniently deleting everything miraculous or “sexist” or “racist” for example.) But if you come to the Bible insisting that it has to be factual objective history and everything the Bible says has to fit some modern concept of ‘propositional truth’ or ‘fact’ seems to me to be just another way of insisting the Bible conform to a human expectation of it. It seems as equally arrogant and misguided as the liberal approach.
In a previous comment on Jonah, Scott Jorgenson said the following:
Well, as for me, I think the book of Jonah is a parabolical short story, a work of inspirational fiction to teach how God’s mercy extends beyond the borders of Israel to even the worst and most undeserving of enemies. I find that the book just reads far more naturally in that light; many interpreters including C. S. Lewis have thought so too. I’ve given several reasons for understanding the book this way previously, none of them original or idiosyncratic, and you can reference them if curious ("Narrative Theology" approach to Scripture - #50 by Relates).
So I find speculation about what really happened to the man Jonah while in the belly of the fish to be misplaced. What happened to him? Well, as the story says, the character Jonah prays elegantly, poetically and at length to God over the course of 3 days as he contemplates his fate, until God causes the fish to vomit him onto dry land; and nothing more of note (like a death and resurrection) takes place to Jonah over that period.
So I borrowed Robert Alter’s excellent translation and commentary on Jonah from the library as an ILL. So now I agree even more with Scott; the story is fabulous, not meant to be taken literally.
1 Like
I don’t think it is reasonable to think Jesus had access to divine omniscience while he was in a human body. Think how easy it would have been to demonstrate his omniscience in the slightest way:
1) he could have explained fallen stars as asteroids, instead of stars.
2) he could have explained that the Earth moves around the sun, instead of vice versa.
3) he could have explained that slavery is immoral.
4) he could have explained that pork had to be fully cooked.
5) he could have explained that people become ill because of germs, not demons.
I agree. Jesus emptied himself, setting aside his glory and power during his earthly ministry.
1 Like
I’m baffled by the OP question. For God’s existence to be “scientifically proven” (even though only mathematics involves proving and proofs), I assume the questioner is referring to God’s existence to be confirmed by the scientific method. But that would require God to be redefined as a part of the matter-energy universe. So to “scientifically prove” God’s existence would be to REFUTE the very definition of God as the transcendent creator of the universe.
So the question is much like asking “If the existence of square circles were proven tomorrow, how would your life change?”
Could you please define what you mean by “scientifically proven”?
And why did you specify “scientifically proven” instead of something more conventional and more relevant to the topic, such as “logically proven”?
(In some cultures, “scientifically prove” means “prove according to the most advanced, modern standards.” Perhaps @tpowe (Terry Powell) is coming from another cultural vantage?)
1 Like
Good post. You can’t stuff God into a test tube.
I hope Mr. Powell follows up on his question.
Some of the above posts seem to use an alternative definition of science. For example, how could there be science before the scientific method was developed? Equivocation fallacies arise quickly when the word “science” is devoid of meaning----such as when Ken Ham commits the etymological fallacy when he claims “Science means knowledge” just because SCIENTIA is the Latin word for knowledge. Of course, he does that in order to pretend that science is unreliable and changing and irrelevant. (It is part of a broader strategy to make his pseudo-science seem more credible.)
Whenever people promote concepts like “science keeps changing an contradicting” or “science can’t be trusted”, I recommend Asimov’s famous essay on how science gets “more correct” with time—but that doesn’t mean today’s science is wrong tomorrow.
I even hear Christians denigrating science because “science used to claim bloodletting was an important and very useful cure.” No. Bloodletting was ancient folk medicine that got adopted by Greek Philosophy involving the four humours. Galen entrenched that non-scientifically supported bloodletting in Europe for many centuries because his texts were preserved in greater quantities than any other ancient text. George Washington was bled to death because the colonies LACKED the science developing at European medical schools. Science is what ENDED bloodletting. Science NEVER supported blood letting (except in the case of too much iron build up in the blood, a condition plaguing some people today.)