Ken Ham ruins Vacation Bible School with Politics

If we want to talk about epistemology, then I think that we should address the elephant in the room. Namely, that a YEC first must presupposes that Genesis 1-2 should be read be read as literal, historical narrative to come to there conclusions. But the problem is that this way of reading the narrative is alien to both the ANE context in which the chapters were written and to the Church Fathers.

More than that, since this hermeneutical method of reading the Bible is a human creation, YECs are also using the ‘ideas of man’ to interpret the Bible, are they not?

Is this a tacit admission that the scientific evidence does not support YEC?

TE’s don’t accept YEC because of the physical evidence around us. Until you address this central point you will continue to miss the point.

2 Likes

Adam, I think that action is best read as being spiritual life, as while God is seen as human-like by the author in many ways, we know he does not need lungs, or has breath as we do. And if you are taking that as physically, from a purely physical standpoint, you can breathe into the nostrils of someone is lifeless all you want, and they will not come to life. In fact, with out of hospital CPR, they do not even recommend mouth to mouth respirations, just chest compression. So, a physical breath just does not make sense. Also, consider that the word for breath, ruach, refers to spirit other places in the scripture.

So, the meaning of that passage to me suggests that mankind was formed from the substance of creation, the earth, through the process of evolution, and God then gave us a spirit different that that of the rest of creation by his spiritual breath of life which enables us to relate to him in a special way. The breath was spiritual, the dust of the earth is the same dust that Ecclesiastes says that both we and the (animals of the earth) come from and will return.

Is God physical? How exactly does he do exactly that physically?

All this talk about having air blown into your nostrils reminds me of my CPAP machine. And when I don’t have the mask on correctly I hear the sound of a mighty rushing wind.

2 Likes

If tongues of fire shoot out of the machine as well, take it in for maintenance.

3 Likes

hmmm that is a very strange statement to make. Here’s why…

  1. how many miracles are recorded in the Bible…about 120?

  2. Is Jesus God according to the general theological consensus…(certainly according to the Nicean Creed he is) and if so, how is that even possible given your statement?

  3. If a theistic Evolutionist still believes in a God, how then can you reason God cannot physically breathe life into a lifeless body simply because human mortality isn’t capable of doing it?
    Are you claiming that Jesus raising Lazurus from the dead is false? Certainly, those around him (Jesus) at the time were already worried that opening the tomb would allow the smell of a decaying corpse to waft out into the crowd of onlookers!
    Dont you still believe that God created all things just in a evolutionary manner rather than a literal one? Does not this mean that in effect God is still creating life even in a theistic evolution model?

I do not see that your statement there can be supported by the Biologos World View…When I read Biologos fundamentals, your statement would seem contradictory to it in that you appear to be denying there is even a God who is the origin of all existence. My understanding is that even the founder Biologos, Mr Collins, starts off by affirming, “in the beginning God…” (it is only after this that Biologos diverges from YEC)

A couple of clarifications that I think it would be helpful to keep in mind:

  • the moderators aren’t staff, we’re volunteers
  • we didn’t have to sign up to a statement of faith to take up the role
  • we’re a theological diverse group of Christians
  • There isn’t a ‘biologos worldview’ or if there it is indistinguishable from Nicean Christianity
  • BioLogos isn’t a denomination or movement that we (the people on the forum) have joined. I’m not sure that many here are worried about contradicting BioLogos content if they disagree. I’m not sure BioLogos staff are that bothered either.

I hope that helps.

As to Phil’s comments, I’m not sure you’re reading what he said in context. But I’ll let Phil address that himself if he wants to.

8 Likes

That is an interesting way to put it. Since God is Spirit and doesn’t have lungs (though of course, the Bible uses imagery like breath and wings to convey meanings to us), then how much was the original audience intended to assume this is symbolic? I am not sure.
Thanks.

I think the answer to this question is actually very very simple.

If an old lady said to you, “that man is running away with my handbag”, and you documented this narrative and gave it to the police…would not that same statement you made mean exactly what it did today in 10 years time? What about 20 years time? How about 100…well heck lets go for a thousand years time?

No matter how long time passes, a thief stealing an old ladies handbag will be interpreted exactly as it is now written and interpreted. These kinds of fundamental truths are self evident and do not change.

So when Moses writes God created man…and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and he became a living being…that is exactly what happened. It happened this way because that is exactly how Moses wrote it!

What most TEism attempts to do is confuse the interpretation by citing examples in scripture that are very clearly not to be taken literally (things like prophetic statements for example or symbolism in the Book of Revelation). Comparisons are made with what are very obvious prophetic statements in an attempt to confuse the interpretation in Genesis for creation and the flood accounts. This is done purely because the Bible and the non Christian interpretation/science do not agree!

Now here’s the key…if a Christian bible does not agree with secular scientific views, then one must first take the Christian Bible and go search for Christian Science that also has very well constructed academic theories that agree with said Bible!

To build ones theology from secular scientists theories is “the foolish man building a house upon the sand”

The wise man builds his house upon the Rock (that Rock is the Creator and the inspired writings of the Bible first)

Thanks.
You might enjoy reading Walton, who is really interesting–about the way the folks in the ancient near East understood the text. We are going through a class on hermeneutics in our (very, very, very) conservative church, and our teacher emphasized learning what the Hebrews would have understood. In fact, we just had a discussion about this very imagery–and my leader is YEC.
Thanks. I look forward to your discussion.

I agree with this completely, however, I would be careful…I also come from an institution of theologians with doctorate degrees who study these same Hebrew writings and interpretations and indeed can also speak the language (Greek also).
obviously cultural influences change meanings over time, however this is where reading also within the context avoids confusion.

To read in context, one first looks at the overall biblical theme, then one works their way into the nitty gritty of the plan of salvation…but never losing site of the main theme.

As long as one stays true to the tree and its branches in their theology, I believe there is a good chance of coming out the other end with the right world view.

If something philosophically starts to not add up, its time to stop and resolve that issue. I do not see science answering philosophical dilemmas in and of itself…that is not what science is for in my books. It is a mechanism for testing theories, however that does not mean the results are the right ones even if they are repeatable. A person who does not believe in God is never going to question us “coming from apes” because there probably isn’t a philosophical reason why a non Christian should question it, however there is a very strong Christian reason to question it!

Sorry, but that is not what that parable is about. Jesus actually says:

Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock… But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.” ~ Matthew 7:24, 26 (NIV 2011)

The parable is about obedience being a mark of a true disciple. It says nothing about secular science nor trusting in a codex of documents that was yet to be compiled (The Bible).

4 Likes

Like much else, you are distorting my words and meaning. The position you expressed was a strictly literal materialistic methodology of God creating Adam by physically blowing breath into a lifeless body. My point is that is doesn;t work that way. Even you have to admit that the breath was not literal but spiritual and metaphorical in nature (I think). Miracles are fine, In fact, to create a body from dust would require miraculous alchemy as the elements of dust and the body are far different. So, you invoke miracles in Adam’s creation de novo creation, yet present the breath of God to be a physical literal breath. Seems rather arbitrary.

6 Likes

Moses did not witness the creation events or what happened to Adam and Eve, nor did he write down a narrative that was given to him by somebody who was a witness.

What TEism does is point to the mountains of evidence for an old Earth, the lack of a recent global flood, and the evidence for the evolution of species. The evidence matters.

Your interpretation of the Bible is contradicted by the physical evidence around us.

1 Like

You do not appear to have answered.

according to what law does it not work that way? Secular Science? How do you figure this exactly when that world view excludes miracles and God creating man?

I struggle with the idea that cosmology can be intermixed with theology, just seems to confuse the theology such that Christians are not really Christians.

BTW I do not consider Genesis explanation of exactly how God brought Adam to life as a spiritual (non literal) event. There is nothing in that passage of scripture that gives any indication of a non literal interpretation…in fact most of the other passages of the Bible related to creation support the literal event…how could it be considered spiritual?

Where do you get support for that theology from exactly?

Reading a story about a land of utopia somewhere in the east from which the rivers of the earth flow, with magic trees, and talking animals as literal is a bit difficult for me. If it is not for you, go for it. I prefer to think it has a non-literal message.

3 Likes

Do you know what does change with time? Culture. For example, if you decided to write a book about 80s pop culture, you would have the pre-existing image of disco parties, glam metal, wild fashion, and of movies from that time period. The format and context and motifs that are in it will be wildly different from that of the ANE. Therefore, how a culture interprets a text will change with it. That doesn’t mean the general message of God’s love for humanity in Genesis will change, but that does mean certain expository elements may go unnoticed at first glance.

No, they are saying modern readers do not understand the message those authors were intending to communicate in their ancient context. It’s we who don’t understand what they have written about. No biblical author was writing about evolutionary biology or earth science, so evolutionary biology and earth science aren’t going to correct them.

Don’t conflate humanism and evolutionary biology. Humanism is a philosophy. Evolutionary biology is a scientific discipline. Some evolutionary biologists are humanists, and some are Christians and some are Buddhists and some are fill in the blank. The scientific method allows practitioners from any philosophical worldview to do evolutionary biology and come to consensus on conclusions, because the conclusions are scientific not philosophical.

All those passages must be interpreted and a meaning must be proposed. It is the interpretation that “conflicts” with science, not the “passage.” Not every Christian shares Dr. Wise’s interpretations of said passages, so some of us have Bibles that are completely intact even after embracing what science says about science.

BioLogos is not a religion or a denomination. It’s an organization that promotes education and dialogue about faith and science. This is an open forum and just because you post here, doesn’t mean you are a Christian or that you agree with the organization BioLogos’ belief statement which pretty clearly states “We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation. We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.” What We Believe - BioLogos

This is just a complete misrepresentation. I think you know that too, because I have been involved in conversations with you where what Christians who accept evolution believe has been clearly explained. That means you are bearing false witness to keep repeating these lies about Christians who accept evolution.

This is nonsense and no one says this.

It’s not a matter of “not understanding” it’s a matter of rejecting a literal Genesis account as the best interpretation. You can do this without referring to science at all, using only the tools of biblical interpretation as most current Bible scholars do. The vast majority of Bible scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying the Old Testament do not promote AIG interpretations. They just don’t. And many are not “evolutionists” either, they are simply interested in responsible exegesis.

Nobody is doing this.

So God had a physical body with hands and lungs and breathed air? Or is there some figurative language going on in this text?

It’s not possible to reconcile with your literal interpretation of the Genesis account, which clearly not all Christians share. Why is that so hard to understand. Your views are not “the Bible,” your views are an opinion about what the Bible means.

I do not believe the idea of God literally bending down and breathing air into Adam can be reconciled with the Christian doctrine that God is spirit and did not take on a physical form of a man until the Incarnation.

8 Likes