New Article: Honoring Scripture and Honestly Engaging Science

Christy, if you can’t give me a clear criterion other than we decide, then yeah, I find the methodology rather weak and subject to personal bias.

Hence the years of life work that Bible scholars have put into understanding the historical and cultural context. I don’t think it is as hard as you are pretending it is. You are basically saying it is not fair of God that you personally got the wrong impression of what God intended to communicate, and he should have done better. Well, get over it.

Well yeah, I think if God can’t communicate to us factual information, then he isn’t much of a God. Remember, it was GOD’s idea to communicate with us, not our idea to communicate with Him. If he is incapable or unable to communicate clearly to us, what does that say about his capabilities? Not much in my opinion.

I gotta go do other things today, Chemo tomorrow and as usual, we have just beaten our heads against the wall.

It was God’s idea to communicate Genesis to people from the ancient near east, not us. That might mean that Genesis is adapted to that audience, and that we might misread it if we try to read it as if it was written to a western, scientific audience.

3 Likes

Thanks for elaborating, and I think we really disagree on little of importance. My remarks did apply more to the AIG position, but your remark to “go be an atheist…” just hit a nerve. While there are beliefs that are central in my mind to the Christian faith, how Genesis is interpreted is not one of them. Your remark was in relation to the miracles of Jesus, of course, which is more difficult to explain away as the gospels are grounded in definite historical narratives and testimony, and central and essential to Christianity is the miracle of the resurrection.

And you learned that God didn’t have an intention to communicate with us today from precisely what source? I always thought God was communicating to all humans at all times. I guess I was wrong about that.

Once God starts adapting his message and leaving truth, the problem becomes, maybe the resurrection was foisted off on those gullible poor people in Judea and Gallilea who didn’t know men didn’t get up from the grave 3 days later, but we of course, know so much better than that!

My issue with all this lies in the question, Can a God you can’t communicate the real truth about creation actually be powerful enough raise a man from the grave after 3 days. Maybe I am just dense, but it seems to me that such an incompetent God would also be incompetent to fix a dead body after 3 days of rot. This is why the YECs are correct about this chain of logic, but grossly and dangerously wrong in selling their false science. But I feel the same about a position that merely agrees with the atheist criticism of the Bible, that it is utterly devoid of anything relating to the reality of this universe–which God supposedly created. If the creation account can’t be made to match reality, then can the resurrection be said to be firmly established when all we have to verify that event is the statements by maybe 12 or 13 people.who were not highly educated… (no we don’t have the statements of the 500 they didn’t write anything down)

Experiences are not a firm enough foundation upon which to base one’s metaphysical future. Humans have seen all sorts of vision throughout history, from spirit guides to the lords of the universe. With only experience, one can make any kind of argument one wishes to. and there are all kinds of experiences. One South American tribe believes this shows reality and what we live in is not reality. Remember, All of our perceptions of the external world are from firings of the nerves in our brains. What if such drugs, instead of giving a hallucination, actually enhance our perception?

These specialists called ‘shamans’ by anthropologists, are recognized by the Jivaro as being of two types: bewitching shamans or curing shamans. Both kinds take a hallucinogenic drink, whose Jivaro name is natema, in order to enter the supernatural world. This brew, commonly called Yage, or Yaje, in Colombia, Ayahuasca (Inca 'vine of the dead) in Ecuador and Peru, and caapi in Brazil, is prepared from segments of a species of the vine Banisteriopsis, a genus belonging to the Malpighiaceae. The Jivaro boil it with the leaves of a similar vine, which probably is also a species of Banisteriopsis, to produce a tea that contains the powerful hallucinogenic alkaloids harmaline, harmine, d-tetrahydroharmine, and quite possibly dimethyl-tryptamine (DMT). These compouds have chemical structures and effects similar, but not identical, to LSD, mescaline of the peyote cactus, and psilosybin of the psychotropic Mexican mushroom.
When I first undertook research among the Jivaro in 1956-57, I did not fully appreciate the psychological impact of the Banisteriopsis drink upon the native view of reality, but in 1961 I had occasion to drink the hallucinogen in the course of field work with another Upper Amazon Basin tribe. For several hours after drinking the brew, I found myself, although awake, in a world literally beyond my wildest dreams. I met bird-headed people, as well as dragon-like creatures who explained that they were the true gods of this world. I enlisted the services of other spirit helpers in attempting to fly through the far reaches of the Galaxy. Transported into a trance where the supernatural seemed natural, I realized that anthropologists, including myself, had profoundly underestimated the importance of the drug in affecting native ideology.” Michael J. Harner, “The Sound of Rushing Water,” Natural History (June-July 1968), pp 28-33, in David Hicks, editor, Ritual & Belief, Boston: Ritual and Belief, p. 143

Can one really say this experience is invalid? One can only do this by having a priori decided that it is invalid. There is no way to verify or refute the claim that the bird heads and dragons are not the real rulers of this universe. Experience is useless.

That brings to mind the Ethiopian eunuch who was puzzled by his reading of Isaiah. Phillip was able to give context to the scripture that was not apparent and obvious such that it spoke to him. It was a meaning he could not have gotten from the scroll alone. God uses scripture, but not scripture alone, to communicate.

So we are invoking divine revelation on this issue for Dennis? Does that mean I must believe whatever he says about Scripture?

You leave out the Holy Spirit and actually relating to God in all of your talk about how we know the message of the Bible is true. That is super problematic in my view, because that means that your faith does indeed rest on your own intellectual and rational abilities, what you can understand, what you can prove, what you can deduce. You can’t get to the reality of a risen Lord who loves you via logic and reason, you get there via relationship. God doesn’t communicate with us through our limited understanding of an ancient text alone, he communicates with us through his Spirit. It’s too bad you discount this experiential knowledge as not valid, because it is really the key to it all.

No, but he may well believe what he feels the Spirit had led him to believe through the scripture. And that may include wise counsel from past and present saints.

Of course, how then do we handle it when what you believe to be true and I believe to be true differ from what Dennis believes is true? I guess the usual way is to start a new church rather than be in conflict, but we have plenty of denominations already. Rather than that, I am fine with God having a different message for different people and for different times. Even in my own life, I find that scripture can mean something different in different seasons. God remains the same, but his message changes to address different times and situations, as I see it.

Not what is happening. I don’t think the passage means what you think it means. Actually, there isn’t much difference in our “methodology.” It is inherently subjective. You look at a passage like Genesis 1 and say, this seems to me like the intent is (or at least should be) to describe a factual reality using literal language, so I will take the intended meaning to be a description of factual reality and interpret the language literally. I look at the same passage and say, this seems to me like the intent is to describe theological truth using imagery that is not intended to be taken as recounting historical facts, so I will take the descriptions to be figurative and try to understand the theological truth they communicate. Neither of our interpretations are really based on logic, they are based on subjective judgments about what the text is intending to do informed by our experience with human communication.

All your ideas about “Well, if God is really God, he will mean what I think he means” is just your subjective opinion about God and how he should communicate according to your personal standards. Don’t pretend it’s logic.

I presume the Bible is true, because to me that is what trusting God is all about. I accept the Bible is his revelation, so the idea that it communicates true things is not a conclusion, it’s a premise. I don’t trust God because the Bible is factual, I trust the Bible because I believe God is trustworthy.

I feel like you cannot even comprehend this stance, so obviously you have trouble seeing where other people are coming from when they approach the meaning of a passage.

2 Likes

When you conflate truth with fact and then conflate fact with verifiable historical event, you run into all sorts of problems.

I believe it is true, as the Bible claims, that God is my father, I am his adopted child, and I will share in the inheritance of his children.

I would say, in some sense, those assertions are facts. But they are metaphorical facts about a spiritual reality. Understanding the meaning taps into my human concepts of parenting, biological reproduction, laws of adoption and inheritance, familial relationships, and even gender and I am able to understand the truth of those facts via the metaphor. There is no more basic literal meaning underneath the metaphor, the metaphor is the intended meaning. I know that God is not literally my relative, God is not literally a male, there are no literal laws or documents that grant me a literal adoption or literal inheritance.

Applying your Genesis hermeneutic, it seems like you would say that because I don’t take what the Bible says about God’s relationship to me as one of literal male parentage and my adoption as literal legal status, because I understand that truth to be metaphorical and that language to be inherently figurative, not describing a verifiable historical event, that I therefore must believe that the Bible is saying something false and embarrassing that I need to explain away with an appeal to metaphor.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Almost everything we understand about our spiritual condition from the Bible is understood through truths that are communicated in metaphor with figurative language. Why is it such a stretch to say that spiritual truths about God as Creator, the image of God and human rebellion are also communicated as metaphorical facts. Why do you insist that the only thing we can rate as true is information that describes a verifiable historical event?

Even with something as key to Christian faith as “Jesus rose from the dead,” the major earth shattering truth is not in the verifiable historical fact of the event. It’s in the spiritual reality of what the Bible claims it accomplishes, truths we can only begin to grasp through metaphors like sacrifice, pardon, ransom, enslavement and freedom, purchase. That Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished these things are metaphorical facts that are not tied to any literal historical acts of doing those things. Proving without a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead was a true historical fact would not prove anything about the claims the Bible makes about what that historical fact accomplishes for us spiritually.

1 Like

[quote=“jpm, post:65, topic:41686, full:true”]

No, but he may well believe what he feels the Spirit had led him to believe through the scripture. And that may include wise counsel from past and present saints.

Of course, and I don’t doubt that. But we all feel that way and all come to completely diametrically opposed and logically contradictory views of what God is saying. I remember doing some historical study on an early US preacher, whose friend became a preacher and wrote an autobiography. In that autobiography he believed that it was God’s will for him to divorce his wife and remarry (this was the mid 1800s.by now). He was sure God was leading him to be happy. Because of this, I have serious doubts about the ability of sinful humans to distinguish revelation from self fulfillment.

Of course, how then do we handle it when what you believe to be true and I believe to be true differ from what Dennis believes is true? I guess the usual way is to start a new church rather than be in conflict, but we have plenty of denominations already. Rather than that, I am fine with God having a different message for different people and for different times.

I am fine having God tell me to work in one ministry and you another. I would be appalled if God told me that we are saved by faith and another that we are saved via works. I know that some hold to works salvation, but logically one of us is wrong if we have a God who is consistent. If God is inconsistent in what the plan of salvation is, then we have big problems.

I have no problem with the concept that some of my theology is wrong and some of your theology is wrong when the views are diametrically opposed. I do have problems if God is causing that diametrical opposition. That would be a huge theological problem.

There is no DNA test or other scientific test you can run to determine if we are God’s children. The problem with early Genesis is that we can run tests to see if the account matches up with science. That makes Genesis a much different item than claims of God’s fatherhood.

Applying your Genesis hermeneutic, it seems like you would say that because I don’t take what the Bible says about God’s relationship to me as one of literal male parentage and my adoption as literal legal status, because I understand that truth to be metaphorical and that language to be inherently figurative, not describing a verifiable historical event, that I therefore must believe that the Bible is saying something false and embarrassing that I need to explain away with an appeal to metaphor.

I think now you are conflating and overreaching. Many of my examples above talk about verifiability, yet you ignore it. Spiritual parentage is not an objective item. Did a flood as described in the Bible happen, IS a verifiable item, making it a question subject to scientific scrutiny–Big difference which should be kept firmly in mind. I would remind you of my comment above somewhere that we can’t prove whether or not we ae saved by faith–science can’t answer that question

Even Genesis 1 can be verified or refuted in part depending upon what interpretation one places on certain words. If one insists on 24 hour normal days in normal time, then Genesis 1 is refutable. Day age is equally scientifically untenable. But there is a very old interpretation of the days (4th century) which can made it fit science.

Even with something as key to Christian faith as “Jesus rose from the dead,” the major earth shattering truth is not in the verifiable historical fact of the event. It’s in the spiritual reality of what the Bible claims it accomplishes,

I strongly disagree here. If a dead body didn’t arise and live again, then death is NOT conquered. We are dead in our sins. Nothing figurative or spiritual will suffice to maintain the logic of Christianity. Shoot even Buddhists believe the spirit lives after death. It was the physical resurrection that was the proof that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. If the resurrection is merely spiritual, we have no really earth shaking difference from any other religion. At the risk of offending JPM, we might as well become Buddhists or Muslims (who specifically deny the physical resurrection in the Koran). It is the fact that the dead actually rose that makes Christianity so unique–(no 1st century mystery religions dont’ compare cause they were concerned with Spring and Fall). Again, I went over the evidence for Jesus having a physical body after the resurrection above, maybe you missed it.

You miss my point. What IS logic is that if God doesn’t say what he means in one part of the Bible raises the risk that he doesn’t say what he means elsewhere. Again, I will point out that in a court of law, if you perjure yourself on one tiny thing, your entire testimony is tossed out. Seems to me that you don’t hold God to the low standard we hold witnesses to in a courtroom. Before you say that He is god and this isn’t a court room, That would be correct. This is far more important than anything that happens in a courtroom. Is God truthful or not?

Just for clarity, Truthful has the definition: “corresponding with reality

Is this Bible verse true or false?

"a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time

It says God does not lie. True or False. Remember, Truthful means corresponding with reality, not corresponding with unreality.

Yeah, neither is the image of God, eternal life, or fallen humanity.

But verifying a historical basis in something that was always intended to first and foremost communicate a theological truth could just be an exercise in missing the point. You just assume it as a given that if there is a historical event that could be verified, that is then simply recounting the historical facts about it is the default intended message of any communication about the event. You need to establish that. What if a flood could be historically verified, but the intended message of the narrative was still to teach theological truths about repentance and salvation and grace, not to recount historical events? We’re still back to our subjective determinations about intent. I flatly reject the idea that because something could be describing a historical event, that is all it is doing, and that is the the default main message that is intended, especially when we are talking about texts we know were given to us to teach us about spiritual realities we don’t have access to.

Incidentally, I just got an article published in PSCF so I would not have to bang my head against the wall every time someone hinges some interpretation of Genesis on the semantics of yom. :slight_smile: The semantics of yom are irrelevant to whether the passage overall has an intended figurative meaning. I won’t re-argue that thesis here, but that is my (well-supported elsewhere) position.

You misunderstand. That the historical fact is true is essential. I agree that if Jesus did not rise from the dead we are dead in our sins. But the Bible claims a whole lot more about the theological meaning of the resurrection than just “it happened” and those claims are in no way proven true by proving the historical fact. Proving the historical fact does not prove we aren’t dead in our sins. We need to believe revelation for that, revelation expressed in figurative terms, not just believe verification of a historical account of an event.

But don’t you see the hubris inherent in this statement? You are conflating God saying what he means with you understanding what God means. You really like conflating things that should not be conflated. God did say what he meant. Whether you or I get God’s intended meaning is a separate issue, and yes, it’s messy and there is nothing objective or absolute about it, which I know is very disturbing to a certain kind of person.

So maybe what you are really saying is that you are bothered by the realities that postmodernism has demonstrated with the failure of code model of language to accurately picture what happens in communication and the demonstrable fact that meaning is constructed between communicators, not transmitted. Again, that’s something you need to get over, don’t make it God’s problem that hermeneutics is more complicated than you naiively believed most of your life.

So you are going to hold God to your Western 20th century legal metaphor of what constitutes truth? Nice. And here I thought God gets to define truth, not you, not Western legal systems.

This is just more conflating and it reduces the Bible to something it is not. Do you actually think all the revelation in the Bible works like legal testimony? How do you apply that standard to a lament? Or a worship song? Or a an apocalyptic prophesy? Or advice to unmarried women in times of persecution?

And some realities have nothing to do with historical events. And some realities can only be described via metaphors. Just for clarity.

I already told you I believe the whole Bible is true and the reason I believe that is because I believe God is truthful. That affirmation does not get you to intended meaning of a given passage. It also does not in any way contest the points I have made over and over that figurative language and metaphorical fact does not in anyway imply “unreality.”

aa4867ce9bf1738dfcf10454b03a45c1

Figurative language!

3 Likes

If all we had was Peter’s commentary about how Judas died, it would be a point of orthodoxy for some to believe it happened “just like Peter said”.