Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Thu Aug 02 2007 - 15:21:41 EDT

This exchange, between you two Iain and Peter, represents conversations many
of us have with others who don't agree. If this could ever be resolved (and I
don't think it can to the satisfaction of both) then it would be a significant
breakthrough. I have similar interactions with some, who, like you Peter,
cannot fathom that anything factually fictitious could have lasting
significance or meaning -- in fact some to the extreme that they even think
the events in parables told by Jesus would have to be actual historical
occurences if we are to take them seriously. Most of these conversations
end just like Iain has here -- a throwing up of the hands and walking away.
Maybe that is the best ending hoped for, and the tent is hopefully large
enough to let both groups gather with their own underneath it.

Regarding Iain's concern, though, here is another actual historical event,
Peter. The world is taken to be flat because of a way of interpreting a
certain scripture. Martin Luther (I read recently -- but haven't verified --
so you Luther experts please correct if necessary) apparently was adament in
his view that the earth must be flat because if it wasn't then the return of
Christ could not be witnessed by everyone on the globe simultaneously. This
was, to him, a clear case of Scripture needing to prevail over "current
wisdom". Now -- what happens when the evidence becomes overwhelming? What a
tragedy if such a thing leads to loss of faith just because someone conflates
their own understanding with Scripture itself! Or if the above example is a
false about Luther, the point still stands -- just substitute the immoveable
earth (supported by an straightforward reading of some psalms). The world
does move -- so somebody either adjusts their understanding of Scripture or
their faith is shaken. YECs today refuse to see any parallel here when they
should. It's a dangerous road for faith. Peter, you will no doubt point out
that letting science determine all Truth is also dangerous to faith. And I
agree -- but that is only from science attempting to transcend its bounds to
become Science with a capital 'S'. To ignore or defy science, though, is to
court unnecessary danger, I think.

Enough on this -- I need to get back to work.

--Merv

Quoting Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>:

> 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 15:22:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 02 2007 - 15:22:00 EDT