Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Aug 02 2007 - 14:13:24 EDT

Iain said: *And as I said, but can't cite the source except that it was an
industrial chaplain, in the Jewish way of thinking the important question is
not "did it happen?" but "what does it mean?". *
*
*Peter said: *Iain – I find that all so post-modern. It is an irrelevant
question to ask what something means if that event did not take place.
*
Iain said: * I see. So the traditional Jewish way of looking at things is
"too post-modern".
*
I add: For a particular Biblical example, the book of Jude is an excellent
illustration of Iain's point. In Jude 9, the author cites a story from the
apocryphal book Testimony of Moses, in which the Archangel Michael and the
Devil argue over Moses' body. I don't think most expositors take from this
that we should affirm the literal truth of the story recounted in Testimony
of Moses, nor is it clear that the original recipients of Jude would have
thought so. Jude can be seen as a form of midrash on the apocryphal source
material, in which the important thing is the interpretation and not the
historiography.

On 8/2/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Peter, but you seem to have gone into "deliberately not listening"
mode again. I don't think it's worth pursuing the question much further,
I'll respond and then let you have the last word.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Going back to the computer world "Hit the Enter key or click on OK"
adds up perfectly. But the Enter key is a literal physical key on the
keyboard, and the OK button is a metaphor - an illusion created by the
computer.
> >
> > That still adds up fine to me and I'm sure it does to you. Iain – I'm
totally blank here – I don't see any relevance to my original question about
parallelism Adam-Christ.
>
>
> I would have thought that was obvious. One is literal (the key) one is
metaphorical ( the illusion of a button on the screen). The parallelism is
not broken in any sense, and it still makes sense. If you're still "totally
blank" there you are either deliberately not attempting to listen, or my
powers of explanation are insufficient to get through.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And as I said, but can't cite the source except that it was an
industrial chaplain, in the Jewish way of thinking the important question is
not "did it happen?" but "what does it mean?". Iain – I find that all so
post-modern. It is an irrelevant question to ask what something means if
that event did not take place.
>
>
> I see. So the traditional Jewish way of looking at things is "too
post-modern". If it's going to be glib one-liner dismissals then there is
no point in continuing. In any case, the Parables were intended as stories
- there is no indication they were historical accounts. Are you saying it's
irrelevant to ask what they mean because they didn't take place?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You may ask why I go on about it so much. It's because the cause of the
gospel is damaged. How can I be an effective witness to atheist colleagues
when they dig up laughable things like where all the poo went on the ark, or
the fact that they had to take baby dinosaurs on the ark to make room for
all of them? We're giving the scoffers plenty to scoff about, which isn't
even biblical. Then there's the RATE project that asserts that 90% of all
radioactive decay happened during day 3 of creation week - leaving unsolved
the simple fact that it would have raised the temperature to 22,000 C -
sufficient to vapourise the planet. I have to ask myself "what on earth has
all this bad science got to do with the gospel?"
> >
> > Iain – I have never raised any of the material you cite – I am simply
discussing the Biblical revelation concerning the nature of Man and the Fall
of Man. However on your general point as I deduce them, isn't the Cross
itself an offence? Man has laughed at the Lord for most of recorded history.
If they'll kill the Lord Himself then that shows the nature of man.
Discussing things like poo on the Ark etc is quite irrelevant. So mocking
and scoffing of 'men' is really part of the tragic world we live in.
>
>
> I am not ashamed of the Cross, and well aware that it is an "offence" and
considered foolishness. I expect that to be scoffed at.
>
> What I can do without is having to see people scoffing at the ludicrous
ideas that Creationists come up with, because those ideas DESERVE to be
scoffed at, and I have no defence. But they are the sort of distortions of
science that you have to come up with in order to justify a literalist
interpretation. Whether there were baby dinosaurs on the ark, or whether
the earth miraculously survived temperatures of 22,000 C have NOTHING to do
with the Gospel, and they detract from it.
>
> Furthermore you can't get out of it that easily by saying that you never
raised those issues I raised. As Michael found out by Googling you, you
assisted Andrew Snelling with his UK tour, and as Michael pointed out - he
is appalled that someone with a PhD can come out with the sort of arguments
he is giving (massively accelerated decay, etc).
>
> Please, please stop. Just consider how many people are going to go to
hell because they read this kind of stuff and concluded that the whole of
Christianity was bunk, and never even got as far as considering the Gospel
and what it means.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Iain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bringing forward leaves the problem precisely where it always is for a
non-literal, figurative Adam. It is "Mythical Adam, literal Christ – doesn't
add up". Or to put it another way, the phrase is a mismatch and thus seems
to be devoid of significant meaning.
> >
> >
> >
> > Blessings
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________

> >
> > From: dopderbeck@gmail.com [mailto: dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:00 PM
> > To: Peter Loose
> > Cc: Michael Roberts; Iain Strachan; asa@calvin.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter said: I'm hoping for something Biblical that illuminates my
question!
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter, I think one of the problems is that you are using, and asking
for, proof texts. Before using proof texts, there are a bundle of
theological and hermeneutical questions that have to be answered -- and
there are no proof texts by which those questions can be answered! You
can't skip the prolegomena and go right to the proof texts. Really, the use
of proof texts assumes a very particular prolegomena without argument.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think your position is a coherent one based on the prolegomena you
assume. But I think it's very unfair to then suggest that no other position
could be "Biblical" without engaging the underlying assumptions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, you aggregate quotes from Luke, Timothy, and Jude. It
doesn't seem that you've considered, though, the particular nature and
purposes of those very different parts of scripture and the particular
nature and purposes of the quotations you give within those different parts
of scripture. Jude, for example, is a fascinating study because the author
draws heavily on apocryphal works (particularly 1 Enoch) that include some
fanciful stories most Christians today don't accept as canonical. How is it
possible to string together a quote from a book like Jude with a quote in a
pastoral letter of encouragement (Timothy) and another quote from a highly
stylized geneology (Luke) -- all of which serve different purposes through
very different literary forms? It seems very possible that you're
systematizing something that isn't there based on an a priori decision about
what the phenomena of scripture must look like.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, not to suggest the "literal Adam" view is entirely wrong at the
end of the day -- I've said before that I still feel compelled to find some
essential historicity in Adam. But it just isn't so simple as stringing
together proof texts.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/2/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Michael:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I do understand what you're saying – but it reads to me like just
another opinion and isn't dealing with the focus I've sought to bring from a
consideration of the Biblical text. I've asked some specific questions about
the parallelism between Adam and the Lord Jesus Christ as exemplified by the
Apostle Paul's treatment of that. All that you say I am well aware of and
have heard often. As you'd expect, I find it evidentially unconvincing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > While I agree with much of your general thesis that the Bible is
neither literal nor figurative but a varying mixture of both, with respect
Michael that's not the matter in hand. The matter in hand is simply what
Paul says about Adam and Christ. What has to be shown for your thesis to
have weight is that on the specific question of Adam and Christ, a
figurative understanding is what the Apostle has in mind. This requires IMO
an evidential response not a blanket assertion to the contrary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm hoping for something Biblical that illuminates my question!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blessings
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> >
> > >
> > > From: michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk [mailto:
michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk ]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:49 PM
> > > To: Peter Loose; 'Iain Strachan'
> > > Cc: dopderbeck@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You so over-polarise figurative vs literal that you do not allow any
other position. Yours is a good debating tactic to the uninformed - either A
or B but you ignore the possibility that Genesis may not be a totally
literal narrative which means your simple either/or is invalid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In fact the whole of the bible is neither literal nor figurative but a
varying mixture of both. even the Gospels are not literal accounts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As literal historical is meaningless, so is a literal historical Fall.
That does not mean that there has not been a Fall and that we are not
fallen.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further early Genesis does not state that animals did not die before
humans appear.Too much reading into the Bible of notions like an alleged
curse affecting all of creation with suffering sickness and death coming to
the animals is just not justified.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lastly I believe in the fall but not the curse as the latter is not
scriptural.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Peter Loose
> > >
> > >
> > > To: 'Iain Strachan'
> > >
> > >
> > > Cc: dopderbeck@gmail.com ; 'Michael Roberts' ; asa@calvin.edu
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:28 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually Iain, I did not mean what you appear to think I mean. I
apologise for not being clear in the first place.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you read again what I said, it was your "stance in respect of bad
things being literally due to…" that is cause for sadness on my part. That's
why I went on and raised the perspective from Paul in I Corinthians - 'as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive'.
> > >
> > > This is what I said Sat 28/07/2007 10:54
> > >
> > > A challenge to the figurative interpretation of the origin of 'bad
things' would be the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:22 (NIV) "For as in Adam all
die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
> > >
> > > Would those who adopt a figurative interpretation of Genesis 3 in
respect of the cause of bad things, please explain why Paul didn't take that
same view – apparently? Do they propose a mythical Adam and a literal
Christ? Or are they proposing that 'all will be made alive' is also
figurative? Figurative of what may I ask?
> > >
> > > You are free of course to reject your YEC friend's view of The Fall.
But in so doing you raise absolutely huge questions about the entire record
of redemption. Are you seriously suggesting that one can have a mythical
Adam and a literal Christ? The parallelism fails. I think this Genesis 3
'myth' or 'figurative' interpretation needs some careful discussion and
explaining. Indeed, I find it impossible to understand the flow of reasoning
in 1 Corinthians 15 in any other way than demands a literal historical Fall
as recorded in Genesis 3. A further sample of that account in 1 Cor. 15:21
(NIV) "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead
comes also through a man." is in harmony with 15:22.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do we understand something in this matter that Paul didn't?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blessings
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> >
> > >
> > > From: dopderbeck@gmail.com [mailto: dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:35 PM
> > > To: Iain Strachan
> > > Cc: Peter Loose; Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But Iain, though I agree with you on the need for a broader
hermeneutical perspective, and though I agree with you that it's too pat and
simple to attribute carnivorous animals and such to a recent historical
fall, I'm really struggling with the way in which, it seems to me, you're
dismissing a central narrative of the Christian faith. The picture
scripture gives us of human rebellion against God is, in fact, the picture
of a man and woman eating fruit God told them not to eat. And scripture
does, in fact, suggest that this somehow messes up everything. It seems to
me that we need to appropriate this picture and interpret it in the context
of what we know about the physical world, but not to dismiss it.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/1/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/28/07, Peter Loose < peterwloose@compuserve.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Iain and Friends:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I find this stance in respect of 'bad things being literally due to
one historical woman and her husband eating a piece of fruit' to be very
sad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that is exactly what my YEC friends tell me. That the fall
is a literal historical event, tied precisely to Adam and Eve eating the
fruit, literally on a given day. As direct result of this God put the curse
on the whole of creation, and from thenceforth all the bad things happened.
"Carnivory" started up (I've even seen articles on this on the AiG website),
animals started eating each other.
> > >
> > > The logical extension to this is that to answer Michael's pointed
question as to why God "designed" the Ebola virus is that Adam's specific
act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit was the direct reason that
God made this happen.
> > >
> > > My creationist friends tell me that the whole Gospel falls apart if
you don't accept this.
> > >
> > > I agree - the whole stance is very sad indeed, and I feel honour bound
as a Christian to continue to point out its absurdity - an absurdity that
keeps people away from Christianity because most people think you must be a
nutter to believe such things.
> > >
> > > As I have said elsewhere, we must think about what the Fall narrative
_means_ rather than being stuck on whether it happened literally as
described. (Man+woman+fruit).
> > >
> > > Iain
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/929 - Release Date:
31/07/2007 17:26
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date:
01/08/2007 16:53
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date:
01/08/2007 16:53
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date:
01/08/2007 16:53
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------
> > After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
> >
> > - Italian Proverb
> > -----------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/931 - Release Date:
01/08/2007 16:53
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 2 14:13:59 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 02 2007 - 14:13:59 EDT