Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

I hoped to avoid further involvement with this but since my statement has
been misinterpreted I have to clarify a point. What Bernie understands to
be an admission that a geocentric frame "won't work" was in fact a statement
that stating the issue in terms of "centricity" is at best an anachronism.
Of course the earth, unlike the sun, is not at the approximate geometric
center of the other planetary orbiits. The real question, as I tried to
make clear in that correspondence, is whether or not a stationary earth
frame is as good, in principle, as a stationary sun one.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

> Denis said:
> "Bernie, don't you ever question George on physics"
>
> Denis- that's like saying don't ever question you on theology.
>
> And for the record, I think if an impartial person went over the history
> of the communication with George and I, you would see that in the end I
> fully agreed with him on all physics... including the line that he
> eventually acknowledged that there are some cases where a geocentric frame
> of reference won't work.
>
> If people want to respond, I hope they do so without the 'attitude.' And
> there was plenty of attitude in George's last comment on this.
>
> Remember- Christians are supposed to be able to give a reason for their
> belief with gentleness and respect... if they believe in using the Bible
> for devotion (written to all readers; no one specifically).
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:23 PM
> To: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; asa; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>
> Dear Bernie,
> Gonna give you a little free advice and story about George.
>
> About 10 years ago I was at an ASA meeting sitting behind
> him in a lecture. It was not a good lecture. At the end of the
> lecture I leaned forward and George had written out a physics
> formula that had filled an entire page. And yes, being a biologist,
> my level of physics envy redlined.
>
> Bernie, don't you ever question George on physics . . . unless of
> course you want to change your name to Phillip E. Johnson . . .
>
> Denis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>
>
>> The idea that physical death did not exist before humanity came on the
>> scene is an historical & scientific assertion. Paul, of course,
>> accepting
>> this idea along as part of this Jewish tradition (though such ideas are
>> not limited to that tradition) gave it a theological interpretation. But
>> it has to be admitted that the categories of history & theology are not
>> easily disentangled.
>>
>> I think those who are inclined to continue to discuss matters with Bernie
>> here could take a salutary lesson from my exchange with him a few weeks
>> ago on the question of whether or not general relativity puts a
>> geocentric
>> reference frame on the same level as a heliocentric one. (Briefly, it
>> does.) In spite of the fact that Bernie is not a specialist in
>> relativity
>> theory as I am, he refused to recognize the validity of my explanations.
>> He is following the same pattern here with Denis, failing to acknowledge
>> the misinterpretations he put on the statements of an OT scholar &
>> instead
>> demanding "pithy answers" to his own questions. A word to the wise -
>> which I intend to follow myself after this post.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>>> Denis said:
>>> "Re-read my post. I gave you the answer."
>>>
>>> I disagree, Denis. You mentioned 'sin entering the world' and I
>>> mentioned 'physical death entering the world.' I'm trying to give an
>>> obvious example of 'ancient theology.'
>>>
>>> I think all TE's know that Adam did not bring physical death into the
>>> world, and you made the point in your book that the Bible (Apostle Paul)
>>> teaches explicitly that Adam brought physical death into the world
>>> because of Adam's sin. So what prevents you from identifying that as an
>>> "ancient theology?"
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:41 PM
>>> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>
>>> Dear Bernie,
>>> Want a "short" and "pithy answer"?
>>> Re-read my post. I gave you the
>>> answer.
>>> Regards,
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
>>> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>>>
>>>
>>> > Hi Denis- just a short comment and note before I reply to the rest. A
>>> > short answer would also be appreciated.
>>> >
>>> > First, as I see it, in your book "Evolutionary Creationism," you say
>>> > concordism should be evaluated on three levels: science, history, and
>>> > theology. You then use and define terms, with examples, for 'ancient
>>> > science' and 'ancient history.' You don't do that for 'theology.'
>>> > Why
>>> > is
>>> > that? Why not also use the term 'ancient theology' and use and define
>>> > it
>>> > like the other two?
>>> >
>>> > If you ask "what would be an example of 'ancient theology'" I would
>>> > say
>>> > one example is the notion that death entered the world through the sin
>>> > of
>>> > Adam (we both reject a literal Adam; and you laid out the case that
>>> > the
>>> > Apostle Paul specifically taught that physical death entered by way of
>>> > Adam).
>>> >
>>> > My point: you imply 'ancient theology' (whether intentional or not)
>>> > but
>>> > don't explicitly state it.
>>> >
>>> > Pithy answers appreciated, pal ;-)
>>> >
>>> > And just to be clear on the big picture, I think your two books are
>>> > the
>>> > only ones that I can think of to recommend to other Christians who
>>> > want
>>> > to
>>> > integrate evolution into theology. They are the best I've seen.
>>> >
>>> > ...Bernie
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
>>> > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:01 AM
>>> > To: Dehler, Bernie
>>> > Cc: asa
>>> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
>>> >
>>> > Dear Bernie,
>>> >
>>> > A few folks on the listserv have contacted me to share of your recent
>>> > shift
>>> > away from Christianity. Since my name and work have come up in your
>>> > posts,
>>> > they thought that I should comment. After reading some of your
>>> > arguments,
>>> > I
>>> > am sorry to say that you misrepresent my views, and quite badly. Of
>>> > course,
>>> > it runs through my mind whether you actually read my material with any
>>> > care.
>>> > Let me give you a couple examples.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri Sep 18 2009, Bernie writes:
>>> >
>>> > "I can explain how it ended my faith in Christ. Once accepting
>>> > evolution,
>>> > I
>>> > had to figure out how to integrate it into theology. Lamoureux helped
>>> > here.
>>> > There is theology, science, and history in the Bible; and the last two
>>> > are
>>> > ancient and they are wrong. But now that I was on that road, I could
>>> > go
>>> > further, and say "Ah ha- it is the same case for theology- there is
>>> > also
>>> > an
>>> > 'ancient theology' in the Bible that is also wrong." Of course, no
>>> > theologian will use the term 'ancient theology' even though they
>>> > believe
>>> > it,
>>> > because it will make them a heretic. So what is "ancient theology?"
>>> > For
>>> > one,
>>> > the sin of Adam brought death into the world. Ancient, and wrong
>>> > (according
>>> > to TE's and YEC's). (Your quoted paragraph above mentions 'ancient'
>>> > and
>>> > wrong ideas related to theology, only they aren't labeled as such.)"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bernie, you've completely missed the entire point of my book, and
>>> > you've
>>> > committed the error that I attack throughout the book-CONFLATION.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In the example you cite, you've conflated:
>>> >
>>> > (1) the ancient science (the de novo of Adam, which is an ancient
>>> > phenomenological perspective on how life arose) and
>>> >
>>> > (2) the Divine Theology (the reality of human sin and the fact that
>>> > sin
>>> > entered the world because of humans).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I give scores of examples of the ancient science being used as an
>>> > incidental
>>> > vessel to deliver the Holy Spirit inspired Messages of Faith (ie, the
>>> > Message-Incident Principle which I repeat ad nauseam), but somehow you
>>> > are
>>> > oblivious to this categorical distinction. In this example, my
>>> > conclusion
>>> > is
>>> > that "sin entered the world, but not with Adam" (p. 329).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Your comment regarding the integrity of theologians ("even though they
>>> > believe it") is shameful and crosses the line. And it simply is not
>>> > true.
>>> > I
>>> > believe the theology in Scripture is inerrant/infallible, and I use
>>> > these
>>> > terms in my book Evolutionary Creation (2008) 153 times in 386
>>> > pages-about
>>> > once every 2.5 pages.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Another of your misrepresentations and CONFLATIONS regards the history
>>> > in
>>> > Scripture. You write: "There is theology, science, and history in the
>>> > Bible;
>>> > and the last two are ancient and they are wrong." You fail to
>>> > distinguish
>>> > the ancient history in Gen 1-11 from the historical statements in the
>>> > rest
>>> > of the Bible. Remember, the focus of my book is on Gen 1-11. However,
>>> > I
>>> > did
>>> > make a critical qualification right at the beginning of the first
>>> > chapter
>>> > where I deal with Gen 1-11. In the second paragraph of this chapter I
>>> > made
>>> > my views very clear regarding the history in Scripture:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "It has long been acknowledged that Scripture describes actual
>>> > historical
>>> >
>>> > events. The scientific discipline of biblical archaeology explores
>>> >
>>> > the history of ancient Palestine and the surrounding regions. Evidence
>>> >
>>> > collected from sites in the Middle East confirms the existence of many
>>> >
>>> > customs, places, and peoples referred to in the Bible. To mention a
>>> > few
>>> >
>>> > examples, the Old Testament record is consistent with archaeological
>>> > data
>>> >
>>> > regarding religious practices (stone altars, blood sacrifices, holy
>>> > mounts),
>>> >
>>> > nomadic life (tenting, herding, hospitality), cities (Rameses,
>>> > Babylon,
>>> >
>>> > Jerusalem), nations (Egyptians, Assyrians, Canaanites), and kings
>>> > (Sennacherib,
>>> >
>>> > Nebuchadnezzar, David). The New Testament also presents accurate
>>> >
>>> > history of first-century Palestine in regards to the Jewish religion
>>> >
>>> > (Pharisees, temples, sacrifices) and the Roman occupation (Pontius
>>> > Pilate,
>>> >
>>> > centurions, crucifixion). And solid evidence supports the historical
>>> > reality
>>> >
>>> > of a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" and the beginning of the Church.
>>> >
>>> > However, some Christians do not accept the historicity of Gen 1-11."
>>> > p.
>>> > 177
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > So, don't assume that because the history in Gen 1-11 is ancient, that
>>> > the
>>> > rest of the Bible features a similar ancient understanding of history.
>>> > This
>>> > is an injudicious extrapolation.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mon Sep 21 2009 Bernie writes:
>>> >
>>> > "The idea of a firmament is wrong. Same with the idea of the Earth
>>> > being
>>> > stationary and unmoveable (it is moving 67,000 mph around the Sun),
>>> > and
>>> > the
>>> > universe being geocentric. Lamoureux identifies ancient (and wrong)
>>> > science
>>> > and history. But he never identifies theology in the same way,
>>> > explicitly,
>>> > that it can be likewise "ancient and wrong" (but he does implicitly
>>> > state
>>> > it). Example of ancient theology that is wrong: A literal Adam brought
>>> > sin
>>> > and death into the world... something most TE's would say is
>>> > theologically
>>> > wrong (all those who don't accept a literal Adam)."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bernie, your rhetoric (use of the term "wrong") is irritating. The
>>> > ancient
>>> > science was the best science of the day, and it's what we would have
>>> > accepted had we lived then.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > But more irritating is your comment that I "implicitly state" that the
>>> > theology is "ancient and wrong." UTTER NONSENSE. Here is the first
>>> > paragraph of the chapter that begins my hermeneutical thesis in
>>> > Evolutionary
>>> > Creation:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "The Bible is a precious gift that has been given to us in order to
>>> > reveal
>>> >
>>> > God and His will. Contained within its pages are the foundations of
>>> >
>>> > the Christian Faith-the creation of the world, the fall of humanity
>>> > into
>>> >
>>> > sin, the offer of redemption through the Blood shed on the Cross, and
>>> >
>>> > the promise of eternal life. The Scriptures are also an everlasting
>>> > source
>>> >
>>> > of spiritual nourishment for our soul. Through the power of the Holy
>>> >
>>> > Spirit, the Bible assures and encourages, challenges and admonishes,
>>> > and
>>> >
>>> > equips men and women for a faithful life of good works. In particular,
>>> >
>>> > the primary purpose of God's Word is to reveal Jesus and the Father's
>>> >
>>> > unconditional love for all of us." p. 105
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Are you telling me that I believe the theology is "ancient and wrong"?
>>> > As
>>> > noted above, I refer to the theology as inerrant/infallible once every
>>> > 2.5
>>> > pages. So don't give me this NONSENSE that I "implicitly state" that
>>> > the
>>> > theology is "ancient and wrong," because I do not at all believe the
>>> > theology is "wrong."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It is clear to me that you only read what you wanted out of my book to
>>> > serve
>>> > your agenda, which is clearly just an attempt to justify your
>>> > rejection
>>> > of
>>> > Christianity.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [The next paragraph has got Bernie's approval to be posted because the
>>> > contents came in a private e-mail]
>>> >
>>> > But let's get personal, because faith is not just an academic
>>> > exercise.
>>> > A
>>> > month or so ago I asked you if you read the Bible DEVOTIONALLY. Your
>>> > answer
>>> > was a terse 'no'. Bernie, you're missing the point of God's Word
>>> > completely. Scripture leads to a spiritual encounter. It is here to
>>> > convict
>>> > you and also to bless you. Reading the Bible entails having a set of
>>> > ears
>>> > that "hear." And though I don't for second believe in the historical
>>> > reality
>>> > of Adam and Eve, the account in Scripture about them is foundational
>>> > to
>>> > Christian Faith, because it reveals the inerrant and eternal truth of
>>> > the
>>> > human condition-we don't listen to God. And your non-devotional
>>> > reading
>>> > of
>>> > the Bible is just like Adam and Eve's treatment of the words that God
>>> > gives
>>> > them in the garden. Like them, you just don't want to listen to His
>>> > Word.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It is my 30 year experience with hearing a "voice" in the Bible that
>>> > leads
>>> > me to reject the idea that Scripture has ancient theology. It
>>> > contains
>>> > a
>>> > living theology that changes lives forever. I don't see the same
>>> > impact
>>> > of
>>> > other ancient theologies (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) on
>>> > people
>>> > today. But for most on this listserv, the "voice" in the Scripture is
>>> > real,
>>> > and it talks to them everyday. And that "voice" has got people praying
>>> > for
>>> > you, and concerned enough to challenge you.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Now in your defense, I can empathize with you regarding the challenges
>>> > of
>>> > modern biblical criticism. It certainly shook the core of my being
>>> > when
>>> > I
>>> > was exposed to it in seminary. In EC (pp. 348-350), I write about a
>>> > moment
>>> > at the end of Regent College when I was ready to toss the faith
>>> > because
>>> > I
>>> > saw an ancient feature in Scripture (the pre-creative state of Gen
>>> > 1:2).
>>> > But
>>> > at the same time that "voice" arose and put things in perspective. The
>>> > Bible
>>> > has an ancient vessel that carries the life-changing Words of God. But
>>> > you
>>> > need "ears" to hear that "voice."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > And I will also empathize with your tendency of focusing on the
>>> > literature
>>> > of the Bible. I'll confess that this has been an issue in my faith
>>> > walk
>>> > at
>>> > times. As a theologian, I am always analyzing the Text critically, and
>>> > it's
>>> > easy to think that because I'm reading Scripture 8 hours a day that
>>> > I'm
>>> > in
>>> > the Word all the time. NOT TRUE. I need devotional time in Scripture.
>>> > Biblical criticism is great, but it's only a tool that serves us to
>>> > get
>>> > at
>>> > the Message of Faith, and to understand the Holy Spirit's revelatory
>>> > process. The Word was intended to be read DEVOTIONALLY. And that's the
>>> > best
>>> > part of reading the Bible-it results in a mystical encounter with God.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To use an earthy example: People like you who focus just on the
>>> > literature
>>> > of Scripture through biblical criticism are like to those who limit
>>> > sex
>>> > with
>>> > their spouse to just the anatomical and physiological facts of the
>>> > act.
>>> > They
>>> > know all the physical details of sex, and when they are in bed with
>>> > their
>>> > spouse they keep their mind focused on the physical reality, missing
>>> > completely the transcendent/spiritual/mystical character of the
>>> > event/encounter. Those who only read the Bible critically are like
>>> > those
>>> > who
>>> > fail to realize that there is something more to sex . . . it's called
>>> > making
>>> > love.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > So what's the bottom line: your arguments regarding Scripture are
>>> > based
>>> > on
>>> > a
>>> > misrepresentation and proof-texting of my work. Your so-called "ah
>>> > ha"
>>> > moment is an injudicious extrapolation of my views. It's rooted in
>>> > simplistic conflations.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bernie, have more integrity than Adam and Eve as they attempted to
>>> > justify
>>> > themselves with silly excuses before the Lord (eg, Eve to God: It's
>>> > the
>>> > snake that made me do it, or Adam to God: It's the woman YOU put here
>>> > with
>>> > me that made me do it [!]). Bernie, just be honest, toss the excuses,
>>> > the
>>> > rationalizations, and the justifications aside, and just say you
>>> > simply
>>> > don't
>>> > want to believe. You just don't want to listen to God.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Over the last two years and two ASA meetings I have really enjoyed
>>> > connecting with you and I quite appreciate your intensity in trying to
>>> > make
>>> > sense of things. You'll always be a pal.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes in your future,
>>> >
>>> > Denis
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 28 21:06:46 2009