Print
Thinking Strategically about Scripture
In 1978 over two hundred leading Christian conservative luminaries convened in Chicago at the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1). One of the key points was that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, with the general idea being that God superintended the endeavor such that we have full assurance that no error exists in the original autographs (2). While this statement was likely drafted by sincere and honorable individuals, those aware of the some of the actual issues raised have little choice but to conclude that this statement represents a vast overreach in its assertions, elevating Scripture to a seemingly idolatrous pedestal (3).
Seventh-day Adventists officially reject such a narrow understanding of Scripture, and largely have Ellen White to thank for this outcome. In this regard, most will likely be familiar with her statements that “the Bible is written by inspired men,” but that it is not “God’s mode of thought and expression…God, as a writer, is not represented…God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen (4).”
It was a direct result of this perspective that has influenced Adventists to steer clear of an idea that otherwise pervades much of conservative Christianity. Yet, in the real world many Adventists practice inerrancy of a different sort—an inerrancy of interpretation, a resolute certitude of conviction, with minds firmly closed to evidence and alternative ways of thinking. No place is such epistemological arrogance more evident than in interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, where an inerrancy subtext seems to govern and shape much of the discussion, often accompanied by a tone that poisons the possibility of dialogue.
Over against all of this are those who face the issues that grow out of the general umbrella of documents that many perceive to be the very word of God, and in doing so have confronted the evidence of a reality that is far from immaculate—issues with contradictions, some being very minor, but others being quite significant (5). For some, such disclosures can be a faith shattering experience, particularly for those who put their faith in inerrancy. At a minimum some of these issues present a cautionary tale that points to the wisdom of humility both in terms of the claims made about the original autographs as well as the certitude we bring to the discussion.
The last article I authored for Spectrum was entitled, “On Certitude” with it pertaining to how we go about differentiating “knowledge” and “opinion,” concluding that most of what we think we know not being actual knowledge—but opinion. Once we understand that basic point, we open the possibility of being more receptive to genuine two-way conversation.
So, with this as sort of the backdrop, let’s give some thought to how we interact with “revelation” and consider a possible method for having a more productive experience. To start with we must acknowledge the variety of approaches that contribute to understanding, for certainly a great deal can be distilled from cultural, literary and other forms of analysis. While I have no direct criticism of such methods, I would propose that many of our problems could be resolved by charting a slightly different path.
Since some of my professional life grows out of organizational development and strategic planning, I tend to view things from the big picture perspective—the metaphorical 30,000-foot level—offered by mission statements, or statements of organizational purpose from which flow goals and objectives.
This has gotten me to thinking that perhaps it is the big picture of divine revelation that may be the best picture—offering up the key insights that might be hard to see if we are overly focused on the detail. This is not to suggest the detail is unimportant, but merely the practical acknowledgement that it is easy to get lost in the detail. It is the big picture that offers the most balanced input to our information grid, and is sort of a forest versus trees way of looking at things. Such a reading searches for the key overriding principles being articulated, and attempts to capture its fundamental essence.
So, what is the big picture of Scriptures that a strategic reading will provide, and how do we go about capturing it?
If we were to engage in a little exercise to summarize the entire content of Scripture in the space of a paragraph, what would we say? If we were to shorten it even further to a phrase, what would we say? If we can figure that out, we are thinking strategically. As we think about that, we certainly must take note of the trajectory in Scripture that centers on a God who meets humanity in person, providing a window into the nature and character of the divine. So thinking strategically, one possibility that comes to mind in summing up Scripture in a phrase is, “God is benevolent and loving.”
Readers may come up with slight variations but I would predict that the vast majority would likely come up with similar strategic interpretations. From here, we are positioned to reach discriminating conclusions about some of the detail of Scripture, particularly when it is at variance with our strategic understanding. It is possible, for example, to legitimately question God’s sponsorship of genocide even though some biblical writers apparently believed otherwise. By developing a mature concept of strategic essence we are kept focused on those points that are central to the overall narrative, verses those that are either peripheral in importance or distorting in some way.
Our distilling the essence of Scripture outlined above would represent the highest strategic level because of its broadness in scope. But this same method can be used to study topically as well, for these can act as mere strategic subcategories.
With this in mind, perhaps we should take a look at the topic of creation in connection with Genesis 1 & 2 because of its current importance to Adventism. Strategically, very different conclusions emerge than what would be the case if we proceeded to a tree level analysis. By reading Genesis strategically it is possible to find certain key points that intersect quite impressively with the sciences, where otherwise a great deal of conflict seems to govern. Perhaps the highest strategic level related to these two chapters would be a simple “In the beginning God created heaven and earth…” It is broad and it summarizes the first two Chapters of Genesis quite nicely. While this statement does not rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis, it is not contrary to science and that does carry some importance. But as we move to the next strategic level we find a clear intersection with science, including the following:
- The universe as we know it had a beginning (6).
- Inorganic matter preceded organic matter into existence.
- There was a progression to the emergence of life running from the simple to the complex: first plant life, then sea life, then land mammals, and finally hominids.
- No timeframe is offered for when this all began, so deep time is possible (7).
Strategically, there is no reason we need to go further and mire ourselves down in details that otherwise lead to division and back us into an anti-scientific corner.
All substantive literary works can be studied strategically in the same way, including the writings of Ellen White. To proceed strategically in this latter case, we are provided a method for reading her thoughts in a new way and if practiced consistently could act as a direct assault on the dysfunctionalism and cultic tendencies that some of the traditional interpretive methodologies seem to inspire.
If we think strategically for a moment about her advocacy of healthful living, we would quickly realize the unimportance of parsing her every word for how to eat and live. The reality is that some of the specific details she put forth have little scientific currency today—in particular the emphasis she sometimes provided. To the extent that we focus at the tree level, rather than the forest as a whole, it is possible to run astray in a variety of fanatical directions. But by focusing strategically—at the 30,000-foot level—it is possible to discover that she was actually pretty much on the mark in a big picture sense, and this is evidenced by a leading Adventist community now being among a small handful of communities worldwide designated as a “Blue Zone” due to the statistically high number of citizens achieving centenarian status (8).
Likewise, the argument can be made that much of the current troubles Adventists have with Genesis are traceable to reading Ellen White at the tree level, rather than the 30,000-foot level. While she made many statements that would have difficulty standing up to the actual data in hand today, there is a strategic perspective that is more defensible, namely her concern that God be given credit—that the reality of the physical universe is not just a mindless, undirected process. If such understandings become foundational to our thinking, it is possible to retain sensitivity to her perspective, yet gives room for actually taking science seriously.
While not specifically related to the Genesis controversy, it may be instructive to consider comments made by A.G. Daniels in the 1919 Bible Conference transcript where he reported an event of a missionary who attempted to live a rigid health reform diet in a part of the world where fruits and vegetables were in short supply. As a result, he was not getting proper nutrition and suffered negative health consequences. When this account was detailed back to Ellen White, she is reported (9) to have said, “Why don’t the people use common sense?”
Perhaps we should be asking,
- “What is the common sense we should have towards Genesis and other points of belief in the 21st century?”
- Should it be a rigid 19th century view that ignores the vast quantity of data that has since been acquired?
- Is it possible to be sensitive to Ellen White’s perspective, but do so with 21st century sensibilities?
- In places where belief and science overlap, is there wisdom in allowing science to continue doing its work without engaging a disconnecting “non-overlapping magisteria” view that would otherwise suggest that data has no meaning for theological conclusions or for statements of belief?
How we answer these questions will be critical in the years ahead. To the extent that we ignore reason, including the findings of science, and substitute in expressions of certitude as if our interpretations are inerrant, dialogue will be difficult. The solution to much of the discord will likely be found in learning to civilize our opinions for if we are interested in the reality of the matter—and not just defending long held ideas for the sake of it—we must remain open to all evidence, and recognize that the best strategic interpretations of that which we count as divine revelation just might be at the 30,000-foot level. From this lofty perspective we have general principles and such principles can be conversation starters particularly if they engage a sense of propriety and modesty. The question that remains for us, collectively, is whether we have enough common sense to continue the conversation? After all, it is only the collective, we, that can answer that question.
—Jan M. Long, J.D., M.H.A., works for the County of Riverside, California.
- Because this article is so significant to how we engage theology I asked my friend, Dr. David Larson Ph.D., to read an early draft for comment. He offered several suggestions and I wanted to thank him for his contribution in making this article a stronger end product.
- http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
- See generally for example Thom Stark, The Human Face of God (2011). Here he discusses in detail some of the problems of inerrancy.
- See Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 21
- See footnote 3; see also the numerous literary works of Bart Ehrman who transitioned away from fundamentalist Christianity to agnosticism due to the problems he discovered in Scripture.
- Most scientists and theologians now agree that the universe had a beginning. However, there is a minority who believe that the universe is ontologically dependent but not chronologically subsequent to God.
- This becomes a possible strategic theme due to a multitude of scientific indicators combined with the silence of Scripture.
- http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/11/mega-adventist-health-news-roundup-blue-hair-zone-edition
- See Spectrum Vol. 10, No.1, p. 40
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Oh dear.
This is not going to catch on in the SDA Church--ever.
(I suppose you can tell I am not into evolution too much.)
I do, however, appreciate the author's talk about "common sense".
This is difficult for traditionalists because we are also taught that we are not to trust in "human reasoning". That is not necessarily all bad advice either. Reason must be based on knowledge and we don't know everything; neither are we unbiased observers.
Lastly, I'd like for others to consider how difficult it is for traditionalists to think differently. I think it was Steve Moran who said that the root of this is superstition that God will be mad at them for thinking differently. I can relate to this personally.
Science should be allowed to do it work.
But Science is always tentative. It can never state a proposition as absolutely true, for not all is known. Even math is built on some deep assumptions. There may be mountains of evidence, and the paradigm might seem so firm that it could never be shattered, then some new evidence comes along and voila, everything goes tumbling down. So science seems too shifting a foundation on which to build a theology.
Besides, Creationism and Evolution are so far apart in so many ways that i cannot see any kind of reconciliation without someone having to really give up closely held belief.
Allen: I think it is quite rare these days to see "voila, everything goes tumbling down". Perhaps the last 'voila event' :-) was Einstein overthrowing Newton. And even then 'overthrow' is, practically speaking, a bit harsh. Theoretically yes, practically no. So it seems to me you make science seem way too fickle. "Shattered" is even harsher.
However, be that as it may, it is certainly true that science proceeds inductively which means you don't have certainty. There are just interpretations. But what seems to me under-appreciated in religious communities is that exegeting the Bible involves plenty of interpretation and our recovery of whatever universal meaning may be available is an inductive process also.
Miracles are the suspension or complete negation of "science." Creation certainly qualifies as a miracle. Yet even though one is completely contrary to the other some think they can define how creation happened by "science."
If anyone could have just done "Creation" anyone would, including Satan. It is like thinking there is a mechanism that can turn air into gold. How sad that the science creation group cant even realize that God doesnt even need "air" to transform Gold into. He can do it ex nihilo.
The problem is science says ex nihilo nihil fit.
This is a problem that wont be solved by strategic thinking. There is already a term for strategic thinking as it applies to creation. It is called rationalization.
Michael
"Ignore everything in Scripture that conflicts with mainstream science."
Jan, isn't this a fair, 30,000 foot level, strategic characterization of your article? If not, why not?
Michael: it is not correct to say 'Miracles are the suspension or complete negation of "science."'
Miracles are outside the boundaries of science and while there are a lot of scientists who do not believe in God there are plenty who do. And all recognize (when they are thinking dispassionately) that science is simply and strictly agnostic with respect to the miraculous. Check out any treatise on the Philosophy of Science to verify the accuracy of what I am saying. God is a primary cause. Science only deals with secondary causes. But this does not mean that a primary cause is ruled out. It is simply not investigatable via science. How could it be?
There certainly is value in looking at Scripture from the 30,000 foot level. But the "looking" can't end there. Just as the author used examples such as the Genesis one and two creation account and Ellen White's health message also from the 30,000 foot level, we will want to look at every part of what God has revealed (Scripture & Ellen White's writings) from the same height. We will want to look at the forest but inevitably, we will want to look at each tree. What an amazing God to graciously reveal so much to us. Here a little and there a little - as we look at each part of what God has revealed to us we will build as complete a picture as possible from our earthly perspective.
mir·a·cle/ˈmirikəl/
Noun:
A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
====================================================
Rich,
The very thing that makes something miraculous is that there IS NO natural or scientific explanation.
If a miracle is not the suspension or negation of science then how do you explain walking on water?
You say God (and I suppose his actions too?) are a primary cause and therefore outside the boundaries of science yet Jan wants to ride the science horse to explain and define this "primary cause.
A fools errand?
Michael
It does not appear to me that Mr. Long's 30,000-foot strategic approach to Scripture is well-grounded.
@ David Read
My consistent view has been that Scripture seeks to articulate the reality of the matter, as does science, albeit by different methodologies. Personally, I respect both enterprises and therefore am inclined to suspend judgment in the midst of conflict between them.
My argument is that we have good reasons for approaching “inspired texts” strategically. It solves a lot of problems that otherwise exist. In the case of Genesis, as I have argued, a strategic approach erases much of the conflict between it and the sciences. Considering the fact that Genesis was written probably around 2500 years ago, this actually should be seen as a stunning development.
To think strategically about Genesis provides a useful framework, or template by which we can work together towards a common goal of understanding the reality just a little bit better.
For some, science is an enemy and any attempt at reconciliation is seen as capitulation. However, I have enough respect for science that I could not conceive of embracing religious belief in a way that is dismissive of the data. To do so carries with it the feel of blasphemy.
Michael - Mon, 02/13/2012 - 19:59
Miracles are the suspension or complete negation of "science." Creation certainly qualifies as a miracle.
"A complete negation of 'science'. " - Science, at what point in time? Since science is progressive, changing our understanding of the natural world, is "miracle" also changing? What was a "miracle" just a hundred years ago may now have a scientific explanation. And if that's true, then what seemed an unexplainable "miracle" when Genesis was written, may, today, have scientific oversight.
Instead of placing religion and science in opposition, aren't they both a way of making sense of the world around us? Science probes the HOW, and religion deals with WHY. If God has guided the development of "His Word" (perhaps an unacknowledged perspective for Adventism, but in practice - nevertheless a reality ), why can't we say that He has also guided the path of science?
Man has used science to obliterate each other; but we have used religion in the same way. Neither science or religion are the "bad guys" - but the dogmatic way we use them.
You just won't stop pushing this evolution business, thinking that if you repeat it often enough it will catch on. Fortunately most Adventists are smarter than than. They actually trust the Bible and know what it says about origins. Oh how some people are blind....
I'll just touch on one of your points.
"4.No timeframe is offered for when this all began, so deep time is possible"
Are you serious? When was Adam created? Day 6 of course. And how long did he live? 930 years. Follow the genealogy all the way to Jesus and then to our time and what do you find? Imagine....about 6000 years!
It's not rocket science. Neither do you need a higher degree to fugure this out.
"Are you serious? When was Adam created? Day 6 of course. And how long did he live? 930 years. Follow the genealogy all the way to Jesus and then to our time and what do you find? Imagine....about 6000 years!" -- Pagophilus
--------------------
Yep, so simple - that's exactly what Bishop Ussher did. Made perfect sense.... in the 17th century!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Rich, a cleverly written and well articulated essay. And I was with you right till you tried to bring Ellen White into the mix. But if we're viewing creation from 30,000 feet, then (in the context of history) we're viewing Ellen from a mere 100 feet or so. And from there, the view ain't so pretty! :)
@Robert Sonter, and it still makes perfect sense today. We can tweak Ussher''s figures a tiny bit, but the bulk of it stands.
You cannot "honestly" read the Bible and "honestly" think the Bible is non-specific about chronology and that deep time is possible.
"You cannot "honestly" read the Bible and "honestly" think the Bible is non-specific about chronology and that deep time is possible." -- Pagophilus
-----------------------
Well Pagophilus, it depends entirely on one's definition of honesty.
If you tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe it. The pseudo science of evolution is a lie of that nature, and the "scientists" who bow to that idol have done their job well. What gives anyone the idea that "modern man" is any smarter than his ancestors? Modern technology is not an indication of superior wisdom.
Rich,
I was thinking of less dramatic "viola moments" than the one you mentioned, though I had it in mind as well. There is Semmilweis and his germ theory that was so discredited by the doctors of his day and then eventually adopted by science. Then Wegner's Continental drift theory that was finally embraced by the establishment. Both of these men led bitter fights that ended in their being discredited. But both their theories overturned previously "solid thinking."
What about dark matter and dark energy, something that could change our theories of the universe? And there is some pretty dramatic stuff going on in genetics, and DNA research.
We just do not know. But, perhaps I have painted too fickle a picture. My point was, though, that science does indeed have a shifting foundation. And to base a theology on it is, well, like we learned in Sabbath School: the foolish man built his house upon the sand.
How can we deal with the fact that walking on water is scientifically impossible (no big research needed here)? And that turning water into wine is scientifically impossible. How do you discern between the reported miracles throughout the entire Bible, which ones did take place and which didn't? I really struggle to apply an exact interpretative tool in order to understand this. Any suggestions?
If this 30,000-foot approach explains mistakes in inspiration then God seems to have difficulty communicating specifics. Is it true that Prophets with the best intent, in visions, have misunderstandings? Is it true that prophets are influenced by culture of their century, and shared ideas of friends and family?
If guided by fasting and prayer Prophets are inclined to follow impressions as the will of God, what are believers to do, whom can we trust? I wish we did not have to make excuses for imperfect inspiration, such as “Tea and coffee drinking is a sin…injures the soul” (CD 426). I wish EGW had never claimed and expected so much for her inspiration; it sure would make it easier for me today.
Pago
The Bible does not say that Adam was created on Day 6.It says on day six mamals were created including human types.
In chapter 2 of Genesis it says Adam was created for the purpose of tilling the land and certainly given the details connected with Adam before Eve was created if it took place on day 6 as you say then day six had to be a very long long day.
But it did not as the Bible plainly says and we have no idea how much time evolved between the creation of chapter 1 and Adam's creation in chapter 2.
It may be possible using Ussher's method to get a figure in earth's history since the creation of Adam but not on creation itself.For whatever reason God has not revealed us that information.
Jan, I agree:
If we read scripture from 30,000 feet, we find no conflicts. Up close, that's a different story.
If we read Ellen White from 30,000 feet, we find no conflicts. Up close, that's a different story.
If we view the SDA church from 30,000 feet, we find no conflicts. Up close, that's a different story.
The 30,000 foot "view" is great, but we don't live at 30,000 feet. We live up close.
tg
Science is no different. At 30,000 ft., it looks great, no conflict. Up close, a view we don't often get, conflict abounds.
But here, we live more at 30,000 ft. At least most do.
"Yep, so simple - that's exactly what Bishop Ussher did. Made perfect sense.... in the 17th century!" - Robert Sonter
Soon it will be 1,000 years that the Earth is still 6,000 years old...
________________________________
TG,
What happens when one wants to see the Bible "through" the so-called SOP? How "high" the person goes???
GT
Most popular approaches to reading sacred texts have some benefit and some detriment. Jan's approach values generalities and overviews. It undervalues "close reading" and diminishes the sense that, as Mies van der Rohe once said, "God is in the details." Is it useful approach? What are the limits? How can it be improved?
This is the level of meta-narrative, myth, theology, philosophy, etc. Now I never met Graham Maxwell, but his book-by-book approach to studying the Bible in the light of the great controversy theme worked fairly well for Adventists because it took an overview and supported it with both close and distant reading. "Progressive revelation" is another such strategy that covers a large mass of data with relative success. Reading the Bible from an evolutionary viewpoint also provides a certain kind of interpretive harvest. Or reading from a fundamentalist inerrant-in-the autographs viewpoint. Or from a Jungian standpoint. You get the idea.
And so from a methodological viewpoint, I would ask: How does one come up with a generality or large perspective to begin with, or as you say, the 30,000 foot view? You just do--there's lots of them out there. A new one gets invented about every decade or so. The key question is, what do you see from that viewpoint, what are its possible blind spots, and do you allow it to be tested?
So, what are the benefits? From far away, you can see further in time, distance, more material, etc. From up there, the long-distance look is pretty much in control; you can strategize and monitor your resources, your operations, your friends and enemies. Disconfirming detail can be ignored at will, or put off for another day.
But overviews can only function like a hypothesis, and need to be tested at some point. Most overviews eventually come crashing back to the ground. Why? because reality is ultimately in control, not people's constructions of reality.
So here's my solution: In writing a "big picture" you need to support your perspective with examples of the benefits and enough close detail to convince your readers that your overview is worthwhile (not infallible, just illuminating). Include some inductive data and show how it supports your generalization.
Let's say the field is the Bible. You might survey every book and see what's there, and then come up enough examples from different parts to show the generalization has some validity. If your field is history, then put in historical examples. If science, then scientific examples.
There is a lot of benefit in engaging in some inductive research first and then offer your overview, with some detail, as a solution to a problem, not as the ultimate truth.
Graeme
Graeme:
Allow me to condense what you just wrote:
All the girls at college look good from 30,000 feet. Up close... eh.
tg
;-)) Can I steal that and edit it into my post?
Graeme
Graeme:
You should know by now that in Adventism you don't need permission. :)
tg
TG, you are funny! :):) It's called "borrowing with no intention to return"....
GT
Sirje,
The miracles that confound science today confounded the science of yesterday too.
No one has mastered walking on water or even suggested a theory as to how it can be done.
That's why the miracles in the bible still carry the same weight today. They are scientifically impossible, hence using science to describe and define them will always end in failure.
Even these thousands of years later people would like to say, bringing someone back from the dead is easy, you just need a shot of adrenaline and some electric paddles and there you go! Back to life.
But its not that easy. Lets see you do it after they have been dead for 5 days.
Michael
Michael: I suspect we've had a semantic difference, not a substantive one. I objected to your putting miracles in the same sentence as science as I contend they are unrelated. But I think you are also saying that, just noting the contrast. Fair enough. When you say "suspension or negation of science" I believe you are just highlighting that contrast. I, instead, would highlight that they are unrelated by trying to keep reference to each separate.
Moving past this, I would also note the human difficulty of differentiating a miracle from the Argument from Ignorance. You say miracles are scientifically impossible. And so they are - by definition. Consequently it is not terribly interesting, per se, to say that. But lots of so-called miracles in history have proven to be either fraud or naturalistically grounded. There is enough pseudo-miracle out there to give ample fodder to the sceptically-minded.
Michael,
The miracles that confound science today confounded the science of yesterday too.
That may certainly be true; but do the miracles that confounded science yesterday, confound science today? No always. Today we have technology that detects life in more detail than is possible without it. Today we know that people have been brought back "from the dead" after drowning, or from cold exposure because we know that the body slows down at very low temperatures, and medicine declares people dead only if they are dead with normal body temperature.
Some cultures practice "wakes" where relatives gather around the dead person for hours (days ?). this was done to insure that the deceased was really dead, not to awaken after burial. I suppose that was necessitated by experience.
That's why the miracles in the bible still carry the same weight today. They are scientifically impossible, hence using science to describe and define them will always end in failure.
I'm not sure we know all about the natural world and the "scientific principles" it runs by. We can't forget that God, not only created the natural world, but also the laws we call "scientific laws" by which it operates. We certainly haven't discovered all of them yet. Quantum physics still holds a few surprises even for us. Who's to say that there is a "natural" way of walking on water; or turning water into some other substance.
Even if Jesus used some yet unknown "scientific principle" to make those miracles happen it doesn't matter. The fact that he could use them is in itself a miracle for any age.
Rich
You say historically lots of so-called miracles have proven to be either fraud or naturalistically grounded. I would say that is true but I hold that discussion outside of this one since the only miracles we are concerned with for the purposes of how they relate to creation or walking on water or bring the dead back to life are the ones Jesus/God did and are stipulated by all here as having happened and are true miracles.
Bringing in the element of human fraud in miracles doesnt further the discussion of how the miracles of Jesus/God consistently negate science and its most basic principals.
And on the separation of the miracles of God/Jesus and science, I find them inseparable because it is the essence of the discussion.
In fact the only way they would be separate was if one used science to identify the fraud in a human pseudo-miracle. Since there would be no true miracle science would be capable of exposing it.
So unless Jan contends creation was a human pseudo-miracle, science will not deconstruct it. That is why I find science incapable of defining it. Because it is a true miracle of God just like walking on water. If science was capable of anything as it pertains to miracles they might try solving simpler ones like walking on water before they try defining the nature of the universe.
The logical extension of the opposite way of conceiving it is that eventually through mans effort and the ever developing tools of science we will be able to do/understand everything that God does.
Science is a tool. It is as useful as a cubit is for describing and measuring subatomic principals just as science is trying to define creation.
That part is provable. The core of science is ex nihilo nihil fit. "Nothing comes from nothing."
Einsteins theorys are based on it. That is why Steven Hawkings theories have/did set the world on its ear, because his work on black holes disappearing called into question, if a black hole disappears what happens to all the stuff it sucked up?
Eventually Hawkings was forced to show mathematically how the "stuff" doesnt actually cease to exist. His current theory is that the black holes disappear into another dimension, thereby preserving the worlds bedrock philosophy of ex nihilo nihil fit.
So if creation was ever to be correctly understood it would by definition have to be in the context of ex nihilo since that is the currency God deals in. It is also why science that is predicated on ex nihilo nihil fit will never solve one based on ex nihilo.
Michael
A more basic question is how did Jan Long get to the 30,000 foot level? What makes him think he has reached it?
One reads Scripture with both feet on ground zero, enlightened by the same Spirit that prompted Holy Men of God to write. Must of Paul was written in a dungeon. But it shines forwth as a great light for all to see. Scripture was not only for those who have reached the 30,000 foot level. What a crass Idea.
Tom Z
Dear Dr Long,
By faith, may I ask for a little internet Pro bono legal advice..... and get it? ;) - kidding
I think I'm on topic with my question- if not, sorry. About 20 years ago, while on night hospital duty, an sda partner and I ended up discussing YEC and evolution. He was shocked I sided with Old life-Old earth-Old sun-Old galaxy-Old universe view of reality and that this view also put human history into a tens of thousands of years context with human views of the supernatural changing over time.
A day or so later he found me and rather urgently pressed me with Pascal's Wager. In discussing the problems with that reasoning, the subject of the judgment came up. I answered him with a question - What fallible human judge would convict me and give me a death penalty for not being able to believe with certainty in events some say happened 2000 years ago? And I am expected to believe an infinitely benevolent deity/judge would hold me to such a testimony?
In almost 20 years we've never discussed this again and I still have no response. I'm really serious and not meaning harm, sarcasm or ridicule.
Do you have an opinion? Thanks. Dave Langworthy
Dave, I wouldn't presume to answer for Jan but personally I wouldn't break a sweat worrying about my salvation based on an appeal to Pascal's Wager to leverage a need to believe in YEC.
I think Adventists, somewhat more than average Christians, are susceptible to the siren song of certainty and like to extend mandatory belief into exotic zones. Salvific belief in the core gospel is difficult enough in light of the Problem of Evil. To add YEC to St. Peter's gate checklist seems to me quite over-the-top. And whether YEC is true or false is beside the point.
I agree that we need to establish a systematic logical big picture view. However, in my mind, even a 30,000 foot view of scripture doesn't allow for the evolutionary viewpoint. If I were to summarize the Bible in one sentence it would be this: A loving God creates a perfect universe that's an expression of His love, sin brings suffering and death to this universe, the death of Christ provides atonement for the world, and in the end God uses His re-creative powers to once again establish a perfect universe, and by God's grace we can be connected to this redemptive restorative movement. The world coming about by vicious survival of the fittest and suffering and death, contradicts even this very very short summary.
John Mark: I'm not so sure. Consider this scenario.
God exiles Satan & followers to planet earth. Satan, being both bored and brilliant, uses some his idle time to experiment in evolution, directed by him but using material originated from God and having the internal design to allow for the potential of evolution. Satan cools his heels here for far longer than we all supposed, and the geologic record we find is a consequence of his activity - including natural selection via suffering - not God's.
Now is this scenario true? No idea. But, except for some problems of literalness in interpreting Genesis, most of what I've outlined is a narrative outside any source of information we have. But it could be true for all we know.
Now this story or its variants is not original with me. I bring it up because it is a counter-example, to some extent, for your assertion "The world coming about by vicious survival of the fittest and suffering and death, contradicts even this very very short summary". In my story God's character is exonerated to the extent that He is no longer the direct agent of evolution, Satan is.
My point here is that we all might unwittingly be reducing this conundrum to a false dilemma. My little scenario above is, at minimum, a third alternative.
Rich, Thanks.
Seems the 30,000 ft perspective may also be provincial. Imagine taking a look back at the Milky Way from Andromeda. You'd only see change per time.
John, your sentence is very familiar but sounding more melodramatic over time. Did this perfect universe you describe contain cosmic microwave background radiation, quasars, gamma ray bursts and galaxy collisions, all giving witness to extremely violent natural events way far from the [sinful] earth? You'll say, this sentence/story changed my life! I've seen an evangelist change a life with the swat of his suit coat.... and psychic surgeons, and mormons who get a thrill in their chest at hearing their message and proclaim it's certainty.
There is no evidence for your story. Evolution is true. It will still be true in 500 years... 1000. People will have to adjust. I'm curious to see what the culture of my roots will do.
Hi i have a question, how many people have the ability of viewing scripture from such lofty heights? If not what then?
From Africa Zimbabwe
This discussion about miracles is interesting, but I think we run into difficulties trying to apply it to questions of Creation. Creation is in a different category compared to other miracles like Jesus walking on water, the virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, etc. This is because we're surrounded by gobs of data which relate to the history of life on Earth. whereas we don't expect those other miracles to have left their own audit trails.
In this context, [for the believing Christian], there is no scientific basis on which to deny the miracles of Jesus, for example. Just because no scientific explanation exists does not mean it couldn't happen--that is the essence of the miraculous. (Of course, we could quibble about whether God actually breaks his own laws, or whether the supernatural is really just "natural" but at a higher level we do not yet understand. Or perhaps God has "root access" to the computer known as the Universe: there could be special laws designed in yet inaccessible to anyone except the system Designer. Whatever.)
But, I do not think we can lump YEC into this bin. The difference is Data. No one is going to find data contradicting the virgin birth, but we can indeed find data, and lots of it, contradicting certain theories of origins.
(You can, of course, make an end-run around this problem by lumping the data into the miracle, i.e. by claiming that we cannot trust the evidence because it has been supernaturally manipulated to support a theory that is untrue. I don't find this philosophically tenable, but I'd be interested to hear contrary opinions.)
I have a simple question - why is a "violent" beginning to the universe unacceptable? Cosmic collisions and solar storms are what this universe is about. Without them we couldn't exist. Just because religion likes angelic choir music and cloistered silence doesn't make turbulence and collisions a product of sin. There are constant storms on Jupiter and other planets; comets burn their way across the Milky Way; and even the molecules within our framework collide and move about. That's how we're made.
To presume to know how God made it all is the antithesis of faith. We can't possibly describe creation. TAPIWA has a point. We can't rise above minutia to view it all from God's vantage point. But then, I don't think this is what Jan meant. It's about gleaning principles out of the specifics. It's about being able to extrapolate eternal truths written long ago into a modern life. We don't have to walk around in sheets and sandals to gain an understanding of what God wants from us. Neither do we have to set aside modern progress in the science that cures us and makes our lives easier; and ignore the progress that comes out of our science labs in order to stay faithful to God's explanations written by ancient cultures.
All this conversation about miracles is based on a premise that the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses; which cannot be substantiated; especially when at least one of the writers begins his Gospel as based on what he has heard and been told.
"Miracles" such as described in the NT were quite commonplace in that era and were reported by many so they are not at all unusual. Miracles are always dependent upon the beliefs of those who recount them which is why miracles are few and far between in today's society.
Reading the Bible as though it were a contemporary book is the greatest fallacy in discussing its contents and failure to consider both the context and beliefs of people at that time has caused much of the problems faced by Christianity today.
Elaine
'Just an engineer', you write: "But, I do not think we can lump YEC into this bin. The difference is Data. No one is going to find data contradicting the virgin birth, but we can indeed find data, and lots of it, contradicting certain theories of origins."
Agreed. Totally. A YEC adherent can argue that the external evidence does indeed support that viewpoint, and then there there are grounds for a discussion. Others can argue (usually implicitly) that naturalistically grounded data is unimportant because the Bible is a more trustworthy source (because it is God speaking), and then there isn't much common ground for a discussion. Of course this second route begs the issue that the Bible too must be interpreted, as well as why the Bible shouldn't also itself need some validation before being accepted - uncritically - as God's word. This would be a legitimate question for, at minimum, a Hindu / atheist / etc. to ask. In other words, acceptance of the Bible as normative is a conclusion, not a premise.
Another other point you make: "we cannot trust the evidence because it has been supernaturally manipulated to support a theory that is untrue", I also agree with and think it is very important to raise. If the data currently does not align with YEC (which I contend from my personal investigation it does not) then if we cover that data by making it part of the miracle it seems to me to be a moral problem for God if we allege He did that, as he would be misleading the investigator.
But hey, I'm 'just an engineer' also, and we never were taught to think clearly anyway :-).
With all due respect, Elaine, that's a bunch of hogwash. And true believers are not taken in by your skeptical assertions.
"all due respect", Horatio?
Lang,
The principle that you are arguing for is very well appreciated and needed in today's analysis of the text. However, the way you are trying to suggest that it can be applied to Genesis 1 & 2 and cosmology, is inappropriate. Evolution, as modern science currently argues for, is not compatible with sound exegesis of the biblical text. Thus, Adventists can't accept it as it is.
http://clearerperspective.wordpress.com/
Elaine,
"...which is why miracles are few and far between in today's society."
So what then, do miracles exist or not?
Also, Paul was an NT writer and I believe Paul was pretty much a solid eyewitness to everything miraculous that happened to him personally.
>>> the geologic record we find is a consequence of his activity - including natural selection via suffering - not God's
The YEC have to explain
1) Why it looks like humans and oysters share a common ancestor
2) Why it looks like humans have been here for much more than 20,000 years
3) Why there is no evidence for a planet-wide flood around 4,000 years ago
Satan playing genetic engineer for millions of years does not explain any of these.
/Bevin
Rich Hannon - Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:38
"all due respect", Horatio?
Sorry, sometimes I get carried away, especially when a comment is so far out of touch with reality. It's a matter of faith or no faith. I have faith in the Bible, there being no evidence that would negate its veracity, and plenty of evidence that it is what it claims to be. Elaine (and many others here on Spectrum) treat the Bible as another piece of ancient literature. We will never agree as long as that dichotomy exists.
On the other side, others on Spectrum treat a piece of literature as the Bible.
Sure, "We will never agree as long as that dichotomy exists."
Well, here we go again. Bevin, it's all a matter of who you want to believe; the Bible or scientists. Ove the centuries the Bible has proven to be much more reliable.
It does not look like humans and oysters share a common ancestor. It does look like they share a common Creator. I don't expect you to agree with me because I believe in the Bible account of origins and you do not. But your proof on origins is lacking. It is abundant in speculation, and short on hard data. No evidence for a flood about 4000 years ago? You've got to be kidding. It's everywhere. Fossil graveyards where the deposition was obviously produced by water , No erosion between layers that are supposesd to be milions of years old. Marine fossils at the tops of mountains. You don't see it because you don't want to see it. And, the question that no one will answer: where are all the transitional fossils? Strangely absent.
When we get over the need to harmonies the Bible with everything or everything with the bible, mental gymnastics can cease.
Different hypotheses and theories illuminate different aspects. Our choice of belief to work by is outcome dependent. What I need I find a way to get.
By the way, from 30,000 ft up I can't see any women. They don't exist from that perspective - unless I have one with me or am one!
David Read - Mon, 02/13/2012 - 20:04
"Ignore everything in Scripture that conflicts with mainstream science."
answer: not necessary.... just reinterpret. some things were not meant to be literal
do you really believe the sun went sdrawkcab for Ezekial?
that our loving God wagered with ye olde debil and stood by watching while Jobs kids, servants, and animals were slaughtered?
do you really believe our Heavenly Father personally killed Davids innocent baby to punish David?
Horatio - Tue, 02/14/2012 - 03:20
"If you tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe it"
ya..so true......jog on over to the Happy Birthday, Universe thread, here
http://spectrummagazine.org/comment/reply/3490/122941
and read all the web sites which are now copy catting ICR's web page which purports to say that the recent drilling in the Dead sea PROVES that Genesis is correct!!! (while they all hide the link to the science which shows that drill cores establish that the Dead Sea dried out 120,000 yrs ago!!!! which not only does not prove Genesis, it DEBUNKS most YEC claims based on Gen 1+2.
george-tichy to Michael - Tue, 02/14/2012 - 07:45 to Sirje,
"The miracles that confound science today confounded the science of yesterday too.
No one has mastered walking on water or even suggested a theory as to how it can be done."
answer: I just did that this morning with my schnauzers...out on the Lake...tho not far from shore since we've had a global warming winter here on the Righteous Coast just like Al Gore threatened... if we didn't buy his carbon credit scheme. Tho northerners around the world hve frozen everywhere else!!! and everybody here is still happy to get electricity from Al's pappys coal business.
Horatio: " It's a matter of faith or no faith."
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismCantHearYou.jpg
and the "view from 30,000 feet"
here's what 27,000 feet up in the Himal looks like
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismEverest.jpg
a three thousand foot layer of fossilized marine life thrust up to the roof of the world by, ah,
what?....by this? http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
and probably older than Ussher knew, and maybe even older than EGW was (NOT) shown.
could that be part of what this thread is all about?
you don't stop having fun because you get old..... you get old because you stop having fun.
>>> So what then, do miracles exist or not?
The Bible records lots of miracles during only three short periods
.During the Exodus - about 50 years
.Elijah/Elisha - about 20 years
.Jesus/Peter - about 10 years
That's it.
Outside those periods miracles are really hard to find.
The concept that God is working frequent detectable miracles for His people is a 'feel nice' story that Christian's tell each other, with insufficient evidence for the specific instances. it is NOT a Biblical concept.
/Bevin
Those who believe as Bevin does will be the most susceptible to the devil's delusions in the near future. The mission field is full of stories of miracles, some by demons and some by God. But I suppose they were all invented by Adventists to "prove" that they have the truth. Those who refuse to believe in anything miraculous, especially at this time in history, are akin to those who don't believe man walked on the moon.
Horatio,
Why won't god heal amputees?
whydoesgodhateamputees.com
Jan's article provides an excellent starting point. Some ask how many people can view the Bible using such a big picture prespective. Yes, it is possible. Some do it already, including Quakers and Unitarian Universalists. If you reject the "big picture" approach, you get what Christianity now represents - thousands of different denominations. They are separate, because each interprets a particular bit of the Bible differently. And no-one, including the Adventists, is able to prove that their interpretation is correct.
In addition, viewing EGW from a big picture perspective is the only way to preserve her high position in the church. The White Estate do it already - just see how they explain EGW's condemnation of football, tennis and cycling, for example. Unless the whole church accepts this approach, there is no future for the SDA church. Roman Catholics were only able to oppose Copernicanism for so long - but eventually his book was taken off the index of prohibited books and his views accepted. How long do we have to wait until Adventist leaders apologise to Darwin?
Elaine "The Skeptic" Nelson said: "All this conversation about miracles is based on a premise that the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses; which cannot be substantiated; especially when at least one of the writers begins his Gospel as based on what he has heard and been told."
**********************
Elaine, what do you do of the testimonies of the disciples who said that they were eyewitnesses? Do you think that they were liars?
"So what then, do miracles exist or not?"
Miracles are always, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Doesn't anyone question why "miracles" were much more common in ancient times than today? An audience receptive to the idea of miracles, takes little convincing. Recall that not only the dead being reported brought to life in the NT, there were similar miracles in the OT. Up to Medieval times and later, miracles were not seen as so unusual.
For those who believe in miracles: do you believe all the healing miracles performed by such preachers as Benny Hinn? Oral Roberts? How many miracles have you seen which can be objectively substantiated by more than one witness, particularly medical evidence? I have known many physians who have practiced more than half a century and not one has ever reported or witnessed a miracle. Could their standards be much more explicit?
Since faith is required for belief in miracles, why try to convince others if faith is very personal and cannot be given to another?
Elaine
Since faith is required for belief in miracles, why try to convince others if faith is very personal and cannot be given to another? Elaine
Why try and convince others of the opposite? I know its your specialty, but other than that?
Michael
Jaq
Unitarian Universalists are about the weakest and worst example of any type of belief. Its the one religion that you can invent your own God.
Michael
Michael, misrepresentation of the facts doesn't suit you.
You've obviously not understood the UU style, positions, philosophy or traditions.
My two most profound church experiences took place at UU churches. To be around UU has been very liberating, deeply spiritual, highly relevant and deeply meaningful.
I am a little behind--have had Internet connectivity issues, so am providing brief responses to some of the discussion
Graeme
Thanks for you comments. I, along with you, recognize there is an important role for reductionism—in science as well as theology—however my experience has been that many Adventists are so reductionistic that that they fail to see the larger picture.
_____
Michael
You said: “The very thing that makes something miraculous is that there IS NO natural or scientific explanation.”
Is God, a being of magic who operates on whims, or does he govern his universe by a set of laws? Most thoughtful Adventists, I assume, would argue for the latter. Perhaps there is a way to understand miracle in the context of law—law that science has yet to discover. This might be the strategic way of understanding "miracle."
________
Dave Langworthy
Some are all to ready to dispense with glib answers to difficult problems, yet the real world is full of dilemmas as you have pointed out.
________
Tapiwa Mushaninga
You ask, “How many people have the ability of viewing scripture from such lofty heights? If not what then?” A strategic reading is an acquired skill, but perhaps the best way to learn is to read Scripture in its entirety, then step back from that reading and attempt to summarize your impressions.
S Styrra
There is no misrepresentation.
My least profound experiences have been in UU, so whos right?
UU is based in the most general philosophies which by definition contradict each other at least when practiced on any but a superficial level.
Read for yourselves
Principles, not creed, guide members.
Unitarian Universalists do not have to profess a belief. However, there is a set of seven principles that guide members.
Here are the seven affirmations of Unitarian Universalists:
1.The inherent worth and dignity of every person
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
2.Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
3.Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in congregations
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
4.A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
5.The rights of conscience and the use of the democratic process within congregations and in society at large
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
6.The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all
(which Christian denomination disagrees?)
7.Respect for the interdependent web of all existence
(A little new age verbage but which Christian denomination says you shouldnt respect the environment since God created it?)
Many sources guide inspiration.
Unitarian Universalists draw inspiration from the following sources as formulated by the Unitarian Universalist Association:
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men
Wisdom from the world's religions
Jewish and Christian teachings
Humanist teachings
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions
Perhaps a girl banging on a Native American drum (who isnt Native American) and speaking in what sounds like Indian language but she says isnt because she doesnt know one, its just her version of speaking in tongues to a room of people who arent Native American and dont speak Indian either, followed by other eastern wannabe's of various shades doing the same thing culminating in a speech about the environment with the word "like" interspersed between every one to 3 words constitutes a meaningful liberating deeply spiritual event for you. Me no.
However since its Universal, the content of your experience would probably be completely different and likely so since the concept is to add whatever appeals to you into the mix.
A white girl speaking in tongues Native american style who runs her life on the phases of I Ching and astrology who carries on conversations with trees is a completely valid worship system in UU.
The fact that there is only 1 person in the world with that philosophy doesnt even register or raise an eyebrow. I have often thought Elaine Nelson would be at home there.
Michael
Jan, I don't really care that much about the creation story in Genesis for its own sake. I'm really more interested in the part about Christ dying for my sins and making salvation possible for me. The reason I will not compromise on the creation issue (and the larger SDA Church will not compromise on it) is that if the creation story isn't true, the rest of it is nonsense, too.
Take away the creation and the every other doctrine falls, like dominoes. Darwinism makes nonsense of the core Gospel teaching. No creation, no fall; no fall, no explanation for sin, suffering and death; no fall, no need of a redeemer; no literal Adam, no need for a second Adam to succeed where the first failed. The Biblical view of redemption as reconciliation and ransom from the consequences of Adam’s fall has to be jettisoned. In the place of the story of a ‘Fall’ has come the story of an ascent. Why do we need a redeemer if there's nothing to be redeemed from; if "sin" is just an outmoded explanatory concept that has been replaced by sociobiology?
Darwinism also makes nonsense of the Eschaton. No God who created the world in six days, no God capable of resurrecting the dead of all the ages and remaking the world; no Eden, no Eden restored. As Jan Paulsen said of the Eschaton, in the 2009 sermon recently posted at this site:
"All of these belong to the world of miracles. They are displays of God's unfathomable creative power. Those who have problems with the creative powers of God, or a God of creation, they have a problem so huge they don't know what to do with it, because they have no future, they have no --- everything that lies in God's future is miraculous."
Beyond the problems caused to core Gospel and Eschaton issues, Darwinism specifically destroys the raison d'etre of the SDA Church. No creation in six days, no rationale for the Sabbath; no Sabbath, no Three Angels' Messages, no Three Angels Messages, no need for a patently ridiculous Seventh-day Adventist Church, (if it matters to anyone on this forum).
Taking away the doctrine of creation utterly destroys Christianity as an internally coherent system of doctrines and beliefs. If Seventh-day Adventists compromise on this issue, not only have we destroyed the only universal rationale for our signature doctrine of Sabbath-keeping, we've given away everything else, as well, every advance in biblical understanding that we've made over the denominations that preceded us. We will coast for a few generations on tradition and habit, but we'll be gone within a century. When you call for compromise with Darwinism, you're really calling for the conscious and willing suicide of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Just so you know.
David: I totally agree with you. But if what you say were true (and I think it is) it would eventually do away with my SDA pastor widow/my mom's retirement $$$ hopefully not before she passes. And most SDA employees, too. Probably not with yours however. Altho if I were you, I would not rely on book sales.....
Horatio
What proof do you have that man actually walked on the moon. You were not there so for all you know the whole thing was staged on a movie lot somewhere.
It wouldn't be the first time that the American taxpayer has been lied to by government nor the last either.
Do you not realize that the so called problems on Appollo 13 were just a little too staged to be real. But it made for lots of drama
If you don't believe in what you see, how can you pretend you believe in what you don't see?
David: You posit a false dilemma when you talk in term of, "if the creation story isn't true..." for I accept the proposition that "in the beginning God created..." It is the detail level that presents challenges, and I am certainly aware of problems--both the problems your paradigm presents and the problems my paradigm presents. Neither paradigm is problem free, and it therefore becomes an issue of navigating troubled waters.
How should we respond when a vested paradigm is challenged? You make abundantly clear that at least one response is to dig in your heels.
Mr Jan Long you make it abundantly clear that one respose is to buckle to the challenge and make wholesale changes. I wanted you specifically to help me. how many people have the ability to view scripture from such Lofty heights? what ever happened to Isaiah 28 v 10
"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little"
from Africa Zimbabwe
Tapiwa Farai Mushanginga
If you will go back and reread the article you will note that it specifically states that a strategic reading "is not to suggest the detail is unimportant...." The fact is, even if the detail is inaccurate in certain particulars, it is still important, because it is the detail that paints the overall picture, just as the trees make the forest. What we are discussing is "perspective," and when fundamental disagreements emerge, it is generally the strategic vision that offers the possibility of unity.
,
Jan, it is not a false dilemma with regard to the Adventist Church; we cannot compromise by adopting theistic evolution, because the literal six-day creation is the universal rationale and justification of the Sabbath, which is our signature doctrine. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11) Also, our founding prophet is committed to a literal creation week (see, e.g., "The Literal Week" in Patriarchs & Prophets, pp. 111-116) and called theistic evolution "the worst kind of infidelity" and an impeachment of God’s wisdom. 3 SG, p. 91.
Other Christian denominations think they can avoid the dilemma by the compromise of theistic evolution, but the ones that have done this have sealed their irrelevance, and their membership is imploding. Once you've admitted that divine revelation is not as useful for getting at truth as atheistic science--that the former must bow to the latter--do not be surprised when people carry that admission to its logical conclusion.
Once you've admitted that divine revelation is not as useful for getting at truth as atheistic science--that the former must bow to the latter--do not be surprised when people carry that admission to its logical conclusion.......David
heres a (former) divine revelation:
the best and divinely mandated (so we are told) way to get rid of mold is to kill a bird or two and sprinkle their blood on the affected parts, then call in a priest/witch doctor to perform incantations.
today's science offers bleach....and airing things out. no need for the witch doctor or offing the innocent birds.
so does that mean all religion must now go since science's method is superior?
isn't there some midway happy landing? is it always all or nothing?
is it not possible to believe that information is increasing? maybe "revelation" is progressive? and some ideas could benefit from "updating"?
you don't stop having fun because you get old..... you get old because you stop having fun.
John Alfke ggg are we still on the same page???? I think so. You started it. gggg :))))
or, actuaaally I did. Way back when. Keep on brotha.
David, for the record I do not favor "theistic evolution." Perhaps you should go back and review my previous articles...
Michael: "miracles are a complete negation of science..."
No the aren't. Without any trust in regularities of nature you wouldn't be able to recognize a miracle. So in a sense, without science nothing can be called a miracle.
(C.S. Lewis)
..."I don't really care that much about the creation story in Genesis for its own sake. I'm really more interested in the part about Christ dying for my sins and making salvation possible for..........ME!!!
...............David
isn't that somewhat self centered...even bordering on selfish? you want it to be right just for you? Isn't it said that jesus died for OTHERS? wasn't His whole message to "do for others"?
..."The reason I will not compromise on the creation issue (and the larger SDA Church will not compromise on it) is that if the creation story isn't true, the rest of it is.......NONSENSE, too."
so all that "nonsense" about healing the sick, ministering to the unfortunate, opening the eyes of the blind, (present company excepted, of course)...... DOING FOR OTHERS in the NT way, instead of the OT way of DOING TO OTHERS. that's all 'NONSENSE"??????
Is the Christian ethic insufficient to justify remaining a Christian follower, if the reward of your personal eternal life is not there?
you don't stop having fun because you get old..... you get old because you stop having fun.
Marianne,
When a miracle by God/Christ/Elijah etc. occurs it negates science. When a miracle is not occurring, the laws of science/physics apply.
If your point is only that we wouldn't know one without the other I think that's obvious and I agree.
Michael
I thought in 1978 we worked out our Churches TheolOgy was a jOke, and then we realized the Church was actually a Cult the way they starting firing and shunning anyone who had their eyes open to the truth?
any Spectrumites in So Cal interested in attending this? and giving us a report?
http://www.skeptic.com/upcoming-lectures/
The Great Debate: “Has Science Refuted Religion?”
Event Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 2 pm
Location: Beckman Auditorium
Speakers: Sean Carroll & Michael Shermer v. Dinesh D’Souza & Ian Hutchinson
Tickets: $10 Skeptics Society members/Caltech
CALTECH COSMOLOGIST AND PHYSICIST Sean Carroll teams up with Skeptic magazine publisher and science historian Michael Shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and King’s College President Dinesh D’Souza and MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age. As science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as Why there is something rather than nothing?, Where did the universe come from?, How did life arise?, What was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them. Don’t miss this great debate and come with your questions for the audience participation portion of the day!
you don't stop having fun because you get old..... you get old because you stop having fun.
For the crypto-atheists. Two articles and a new book from the Dutch philosopher Herman Philipse:
The Irrationality of Religion. A Plea for Atheism (2000)
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ph/2005-0622-184545/6362.pdf
The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. An Argument for Atheism (2001)
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ph/2005-0622-184540/6360.pdf
God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason (2012)
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/?view=usa&ci=97...
''As Pascal said, it was the malheur du siècle (misfortune of his age) that theologians tried to modify Christian doctrines, whereas scientists followed authorities instead of thinking for themselves. Yet the Christian churches have not been able to pay heed to Pascal's warning. In order to survice, they have had to develop a strategy for conflict avoidance, so that in fact there has been an intellectual co-evolution of science and Christianity. As soon as an inconsistency between sound scientific results and religious beliefs had been detected, theologians began, albeit reluctantly, to re-interpret or even reject the relevant beliefs.''
The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. An Argument for Atheism (2001), p. 4.
How can the proposed strategic re-interpretation of Genesis in the last instance be differentiated from merely ''a strategy for conflict avoidance''?
On the surface the blog's idea of an overview of Genesis sounds very good, and I could go along with it since the ancient's worldview was so totally different than what we now know about the planet earth. And unlike others I don't see "deep time" takiing away Sabbathkeeping because this was part of the story--a rest period. It is the meaning of the story and not that every detail be accurate to 21st-century ears. To expect more is Bible worship.
BUT we have the T-Rex in the room that isn't discussed here--a very big one! It would seem totally at odds with the Christian religion to have death before sin. The sacrifice of Christ depends on this and christology as we understand it. Macro-evolution cannot coexist with salvation and redemption. No overview can explain this detail as far as I can see.
In fact the idea that we are more excited about the demise of Sabbath by evolution says something about our SDA religion. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath and would not exist without Him. He is the Sabbath rest. He has provided the rest from our works through His life, death, and resurrection.
And what can be more unscientific that resurrection from the dead?
Ellamae, thank you for your thoughts.
First off, let me say that this article was more about providing thoughtful Adventists who respect both Scripture and empirical data a method for reconciling problems that otherwise arise. The article was not primarily about evolution, though obviously it did mention that a strategic approach represents a possible way of reconciling some of our problems in this area.
That said, since evolution was on the periphery of discussion, I will respond briefly to your comments. I am very well aware of the issue you raise. I have discussed some of this in prior articles, as have others. There are people thinking about this issue, and there are a number of ideas being kicked around. As to your categorical statement that, “Macro-evolution cannot coexist with salvation and redemption,” I would simply propose that we give both theologians and scientists room to do their work. It is a very easy thing to say reality can’t be this way or that way, but sometimes our instincts are simply wrong. We probably would be wise just to let this process play.
I should have added: as we understand them at the current time.
The theory that there was no death before sin requires a definition of "death." Did Adam eat the fruit Eve gave him? If so, somehing died--fruit from the tree. Did they ever step on an insect? Were there rattle snakes and predators who depend on other life forms for their very survival?
Also, we cannot know the time from Adam's creation until they were cast out of the garden. The Genesis story is so sparse that it has given man thousands of years to make all sorts of conjectures, none of which are certain. In view of that, we should be much more cautious in stating things as factual when we cannot know.
"Sin" and death was viewed by the writer as evil; yet work is a blessing, a life of ease (as was presumed) would have been a far worse curse. Death is a part of the life cycle: Leaves must fall and die to replenish the earth. Man was told to replenish and multiply the earth, but had there been no death there would now be now standing room on this earth! There has always been speculation and much fictional writing about a few verses in Genesis. Why not leave it as the writers left it for us?
Elaine
When one loses faith in the inspired word and abandons it, confusion is the inevitable result. It is clear that the balance of nature was different before sin. There were no predators. Snakes were not poisonous. Those situations came about partly because of degenerative mutations, although there are many things we don't understand about how things changed. There is no indication that the life in Eden was a "life of ease." Adam and Eve had work to do, but it was of a pleasant nature, in keeping with God's "very good" creation.
If there had been no death, it does not follow that the earth would have become overpopulated. God, the omniscient One, had a plan for this potential problem, but we'll never know what it was because of the fall.
"It is clear that the balance of nature was different before sin. There were no predators"........Horatio
so after EVe was tricked into biting into the forbidden fig, by a talking snake that nobody had warned her about, God got really mad at the world, and went to work and changed half the animals in the entire world..... took out all their molars and replaced them with sharp canines. so that Great White sharks which used to eat seaweed, God deliberately made them into carnivores...predators.... designed as fish and seal eating machines.
doncha wonder why nobody has ever found fossils of lions with molars designed to eat grass instead of other animals? these fossils would only be some 6ky old....and probably well preserved.
and why did He change some of the mushrooms from being edible into being poisonous, while they still looked like the edible ones? purposely done to trick ignorant people into poisoning themselves?
you don't stop having fun because you get old..... you get old because you stop having fun.
That was rather juvenile. Pandas have teeth "designed" for predation; but they used them to eat bamboo. The Bible says the animals ate plants. I accept that. Is there anything in the Bible that you and your cronies here believe?
What some scientist thinks animals used teeth for, is not conclusive proof that they did as in the case of Pandas as Horatio says.
The biggest flaw in science is that it wants to make concrete generalizations on the flimsiest of proof yet completely ignores issues much simpler and more obvious like Pandas teeth when it conflicts with their favored suppositions.
Here is one they make based on one bone and 2 teeth.
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/the-timeline-of-britain/boxgrove.htm
First they claim the bones are from a male when they have done no DNA studies and they say the ends of the bone were chewed off by a wolf possibly but make no accounting for the damage on the exposed bone ends on account of the gravel at the same time claiming how destructive and flowing the gravel was as it was moved from place to place.
Michael
Jan, if you start with, "God is benevolent and loving," and then proceed to embrace evolution, you've eliminated that handiest of foils, the devil, to explain the mess we're in.
Then you've got a bloody mess of a god on your hands, it seems to me.
True, all the gore is less visible from 30,000 feet....
(Double post)
And I agree that giving scientists and theologians time to work is a good strategy, but meanwhile we can hardly expect people to live with irreconcilable theodicy problems, can we?
At least the bloody God of Scripture can be appeased by Sacrifice.
Maggie as you have pointed out we are faced with a conundrum, and I don't pretend to have the answer for some of this.
We have no choice but to live with ambiguity, and if this is a defining issue I am sure God will provide us with additional light so that we are not forced to choose between sense data and superstition.
Some of us have no choice but to live with ambiguity, I agree, Jan.
Others of us (emphasis on us), are sent "round the bend," to borrow Sirje's colorful phrase, by ambiguity, as is abundantly evident on this forum, it seems to me.
I have two questions:
What are the social/ethical issues involved in forcing others to "live with ambiguity," when they are not ready, willing and able to do so, assuming that we could succeed in forcing the issue?
Are we able to tolerate the ambiguity of living in a social group with disparate beliefs?
Thanks.
Bump for David Read.
See...no coherent worldview. Nada. Zilcho.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/03/22/southeastern-california-conf...
Time to bite de bullet....