>Larry Martin writes;
>
>> To pretend that the writers of scripture intended to live
>>up to twentieth century norms and agreements about proper scholarly ways of
>>writing science and history (or even journalism) is as silly as insisting
>>that Hebrew poetry follow English rhyming schemes in order to be held in
>>high regard. To so radically misrepresent the intentions and meanings of
>>the authors of scriptures is tantamount to any other form of willful
>>disobedience to the Author of Scriptures and is properly understood as yet
>>another form of phariseeism.
>>
Glenn Morton writes:
>Since Matthew Mark, Luke and John are "writers of Scripture", does this apply
>to them also? Do they not live up to twentieth century standards of history?
>The reason I am asking is that several of my atheist friends tell me that
>stories about stars appearing and virgin births, even resurrections were
>common tales told about great leaders. Is all that stuff, in the Gospel,
>merely the lack of twentieth century standards? What IS historical in the
>scripture and why is it different from other things?
I would give a qualified 'yes' to applying my comments to the gospel
writers. For example, present historians would not recognize the gospels
as 20th century history since it does not follow the norms and expectations
of modern reporting. In fact, the gospels are recognized as having their
own genre most similar to the Greek form which recorded the deeds of a
conquering general. To recognize this says nothing about the reliability of
the witnesses, but their choice of genre says a lot about their intentions
to communicate to their contemporaries the importance of Christ. The fact
that some moderns disdain the gospels because they are "incomplete" or
"partisan" (taboos among historians) says more about modernist hubris than
about the gospel writers' integrity.
>>May I suggest a term which I've grown fond of: "picture". (Yes, I've stolen
>>this from Howard Van Till, or perhaps others...) Genesis 1 is one of many
>>creation _pictures_ in the Bible.
>
>
>Forget Genesis 1. Go to Genesis 6-9. Is it a picture? Is the late (and
>miraculous birth of Isaac a picture? What distinguishes a picture from actual
>history?
I'm not willing to comment yet on Geneis 6-9; I don't know that I would or
would not prefer "picture" there. It's taken me a dozen years just to gain
a semi-coherent understanding of Genesis 1-3! Genesis 6-9 is not a
_creation_ picture, as you well know. (Try Ps. 104) Remember, I am trying
to find a metaphor which conveys my confidence in the truth of scripture
without overstating (lying) to my culture and telling it "this is a science
text." Misidentifying the genre of Genesis 1 has serious apologetic
consequences.
Your real question seems to be "What does Larry affirm to be 'true' in
scripture?" My answer: What the writer's of scripture (including God)
intended the original readers to understand -- that is true and reliable
and to be acted upon in obedience to God. The fact that it can (now) take
me years to figure out (in some cases) is not to be taken to mean it is
unimportant or untrue! Quite the contrary. The fact that it took years to
understand relativity or quantum mechanics does not lessen their import.
If you have a complaint to make about my choice of "picture" for Genesis 1,
make it. But don't try to apply the term willy-nilly FOR ME to anything
that pops into your head.
As for "What distinguishes a picture from actual history?", I ask you,
"What distinguishes your email from you? I'm simply saying that "history"
and "science" are literary genres far removed from the scriptures. I may
be unsure about identifying the genre of some scriptures, but I'm sure they
should not be misidentified with modern forms; that can only mislead
people.
>> The evidence from Biblical scholarship
>>is overwhelming that none of these pictures were intended to teach
>>chronology (especially since the clear message of God's ownership and our
>>obligations is not ever tied to sequence). The use of "picture" to
>>describe this has several advantages. The connotations are much more
>>positive and realistic about what evangelicals wish to affirm about
>>scriptures. Everyone knows that "a picture cannot lie" and "a picture is
>>worth a thousand words." Pictures are chosen to present a particular
>>viewpoint and are selective in the scope and detail. No one would ever
>>complain that TV news footage "lied" about a press conference because the
>>picture didn't show enough detail as to show whether Clinton had unruly
>>nose hairs! The picture chosen and presented by reporters is supposedly
>>adequate to the task. It is generally accepted as trustworthy but
>>understood by all to be selective. That is exactly what the Biblical
>>writers were trying to do. To pretend otherwise is like a journalist
>>pretending that modern news coverage intends to cover everything in the
>>school library in thirty minutes of evening news.
>
>As I mentioned earlier, I am not asking for infinite detail from the
>Scripture. If I see two cars collide and I describe it as "The red car hit
>the blue car" I have described it in true terms but not in scientific terms.
>If I wanted a scientific description I would describe it as "The front bumper
>of the red car impacted the left rear wheel well of the blue car. The
>compressional strength of the metal body of the blue car was not sufficient to
>withstand the impulsive forces estimated to be X Newtons. The impulsive force
>created a torque which spun the blue car around making the driver dizzy."
>That is a scientific explanation. But both explanations are true.
>
>My point is this. God didn't need a "scientific explanation" or even a 20th
>century journalism degree to simply tell the truth!
My point also.
>> As a Christian, I attest
>>that scripture has told me what I need to know. As a scientist, I'm far
>>too busy using my God-given skills in understanding the physical world with
>>the tools of a physicist to bother trying to squeeze scripture into telling
>>me an answer it clearly had no interest in. As a Biblical scholar, I'm far
>>too busy trying to clean up the messes made by ignorant scientists who
>>evaluate everything based on whether it "helps" them do better science.
>>How narrow...
>>
>
>I don't recall saying that this helps anyone do better science.
I doubt that you would. Don't take everything under your subject headings
personally; I'm poor at constraining my thoughts to the topic given.
I was simply recalling the frustration of evangelizing among pig-headed
scientists who made their career into their God. They looked upon the
study of scripture as a quaint custom for those with nothing better to do
with their time. I've had far more atheists than Christians tell me that
Genesis 1 intended teach sudden and recent miraculous creation of
everything. (Though the Christians are catching up now that I'm teaching
in a Christian College! ;-)
>>It is irresponsible and/or ignorant of Christians to continue to lie to our
>>culture and pretend that the purpose of God in Scripture was to give a
>>scientifically competitive account ready to show twentieth century
>>scientists how wrong they are. Meanwhile, we continually disobey the plain
>>intent and meaning of the whole passage.
>
>Unfortunately, the YECs make a great case that the "plain intent and meaning
>of the whole passage" is the way they interpret it. But if the words written
>on the Hebrew document are to be understood to convey any possible message at
>all, regardless of the written words, in what sense is communication even
>involved? This is like saying that the above paragraph is about baking cakes.
I was far from saying "any message at all." Unless you've already taken
the post-modernist perversion and deconstructed my words to mean that, in
which case, this paragraph _is_ about baking bread.
I agree that the YEC's have co-opted the debate. The fact that they ignore
the plain meaning (as I understand it) of the text will be held fully to
their account, as my sins of omission are held to mine.
>> It is as irresponsible of
>>atheistic scientists to pretend they know what the Bible teaches and that
>>they know "better." The church must wake up and realize that it is
>>contributing to the polarization of the debate as well as the feeling of
>>many scientists that they are unwelcome in the church. These are people for
>>whom Christ died!
>>
>
>I agree with you here whole heartedly. While I will argue strongly for one
>single standard of truth, I would in no way countenance the exclusion of
>someone who disagreed with a given set of beliefs. Shoot, without someone who
>disagrees, there can't be any great debates.
Amen. The problem is not the standard of "truth", but how to convey that
truth to people in all ages and cultures. To insist (as do YECs) that
Genesis 1 (at face value with no understanding of ancient near eastern
culture) is the best vehicle for convincing modern scientists of the
reliability of scripture is tantamount to lying, or at best, poorly chosen
propaganda.
>>As scientists, we are trained to "check the literature" before proposing
>>new theories. When will Biblical scholarship receive the same respectful
>>treatment from the church and society?
>>
>
>I have read a few of the modern theologians. Frankly it sounds like the
>emperor's clothes. There is no factuality in the scriptural account but it is
>a good book. Sounds like, "There are no clothes on the emperor but they sure
>are pretty."
So read some more. Use your God-given, scientifically trained, BS-detector
to sniff out when someone brings evidence rather than speculation to the
table. Just because some call themselves scientists, doesn't mean we
accept everything they say. Why should theologians be any different?
>>Sorry to have gone on so long (and so disjointedly). Let me return to my
>>point. The Bible has several pictures of creation. Each is different and
>>crafted by the Holy Spirit so as to speak to the original
>>viewers/hearers/readers. If God had been speaking in twentieth century
>>scientific norms, He would have been misunderstood, and, indeed, been lying
>>to those ancients. He did not lie.
>
>No, He would have told them the truth. No matter how much I try to avoid the
>fact, when I told my children that there was a Santa Claus, I did not tell
>them the truth. Now I have no problem with Santa, but the fact is you can in
>no way construe that as a true statement. There is no elf that lives at the
>North Pole. If I tell them about the sandman, or the boogyman or the Easter
>Bunny or the tooth fairy, lets face it, I have told them nothing containing
>truth. But they are great pictures.
I would call those "cartoons" not "pictures." Even then, I'd say cartoons
may convey truth or falsehoods equally well. I have even proposed
understanding Revelation as a series of political cartoons. Again, I'm
trying to speak to my culture, in a way they can understand, about the
reliability of scripture _when it is properly interpreted_!
>> As children should respect their
>>elders, we moderns have the ability and responsibility to learn what was
>>communicated back then.
>
>There are 4 parts of communication. What I say; what I think I said; what you
>hear; and what you understand me to say. I do not think that a Hebrew
>understanding of what God was saying is necessary for God to have told the
>truth. There are lots of things we today do not understand about what God has
>said. And just because the Hebrews understood it one way, does not at all
>mean that that is what God intended.
Here we differ. I think that God intended to communicate to the original
readers. Insofar as I can discern what they would have understood, I hold
myself to have heard from God. That's why I would bother learning Hebrew
and history.
>> Our spiritual ancestors to whom and through whom
>>God spoke had no ability nor responsibility to learn what we would have
>>understood.
>
>And I have no responsibility to minister to their contemporaries. I do have a
>responsibility to minister to those alive today. How can I tell people to
>believe the Bible when it is so factually wrong? Would you suggest that
>someone believe in N-rays because they make a good picture of reality? If you
>wouldn't, why are you wanting to do that with the Bible? Why the difference
>in the standard of truth?
>
>glenn
And before I minister to _my_ contemporaries, I tried to learn what God
_said_. I do not hold that the Bible is "factually wrong." I hold that
YECs are factually wrong about the "plain meaning" of scripture.
I would suggest someone believe in X-rays, since the models we have are
good _pictures_ of reality. N-rays have obviously been shown to be lacking
for evidence. You seem to be holding that using "picture" is inadequate to
express the truth of Genesis 1. I was choosing the term for its very
ability to convey my belief in the truth of scripture, while at the same
time demanding that people take seriously the fact that they are _always_
making an interpretation.
I have always tried my best to convey my intention to take scripture
seriously and respectfully. How have I failed? What "hot buttons" have I
pushed that made me come across as a sneering "liberal scholar who make the
scipture say what it plainly doesn't say" (in the words of St. Phil)?
What specifically is your complaint?
-Larry Martin, PhD, Associate Professor of Physics
martin@npcts.edu http://www.npcts.edu/~martin/
(312) 244-5668 fax (312) 244-4952 home: (312) 478-0679
North Park College, box 30, 3225 W. Foster Ave., Chicago, IL 60625