You wrote:
>>What I find so wonderful about this reflector toy is that
there are some very bright people on it like you who force me to clean
up my thoughts and present them as clearly as possible. Merci.<<
Alternatively, it might be that you need to talk slowly and simply to
theological novices like me. :-)
I am probably cutting your excellent argument in half here but let's do it
anyway. You wrote:
>> But physical and historical
realities
(with "historical" being used in the VCR sense) are all QUANTIFIABLE.
Metaphysical realities, truely and surely exist, but you can't measure
them in the way you can physical and historical (VCR) realities. For
example, you can't measure the amount of imago Dei in a person, for that
matter you can't even detect it. But it is real, as both you and I
"KNOW". But our ability to "KNOW", that is, this epistemological package
within us, is of a different ORDER than the epistemological package that
is used when we measure physical and historical (VCR) realities. So when
we consider the creation, we can measure it with "tools" that measure
physical and historical (VCR) reality. But there is no "tool" of this
latter epistemological genre that can measure "creationness". However,
we both "KNOW" that when we look at the heavens they very much declare the
handiwork of God (Ps 19, Rom 1). The "tool" that allows us to
perceive this is not of the same epistemological genre as that employed
to measure physical and historical (VCR) realities. The "creationess"
nature of the universe is measured by a METAPHYSICAL TOOL or metaphysical
epistemological package within us.<<
An observer at the creation of man, the animals or the plants should have
been able to see and measure many quantifiable quantities. I quite agree
that looking at creation NOW we can not measure "createdness quotient" what
ever that might be. It is as you say a metaphysical reality. If I
understand what you are saying here I think we can agree. So the question
really lies in what is Genesis 1 saying. Is it merely stating the
"createdness quotient" or is it saying something historical?
You write:
>> So, coming back to Genesis 1. Is the ANE writer composing this
wonderful Holy Spirit inspired literary piece within the context of the
epistemological package that measures both physical and historical
(VCR)? The answer is a resounding "YES". This is ANE cosmology (or
science) at its very best. For example, it is creation out of a dark
watery chaos (the creator of which is never mentionned, and thus it is
not creation ex nihilo), it is creation by separation (eg, the 1st 3
days; waters separated above from below), it is creation between opposites
(again, the 1st 3 days; light and darkness). But the Gen 1 passage is
also making a metaphysical statement--the universe is a creation, a
creation made by God. That's the chief REVELATION of the passage. The
revelation is obviously not the ANE physical and historical (VCR)
statements made about the universe, because we both know that such and
approach fails (ie, the YEC exegesis of Gen 1 does not come close to the
scientific record).<<
I agree that the writer was probably saying different things on different
levels. He was saying something that the VCR could pick up. He was also
saying things about the relationship of God to nature, which is metaphysical.
What I am most concerned about it the part of the package which the VCR can
pick up. We cannot measure God's relation to nature. I can measure the
order of the creation events, the timing of the creation events, etc.
I am not sure how one can say that the CHIEF revelation of the passage is
metaphysical. Why? What is the basis for this assertion? I would suggest
that it is probably assumptional in nature. If that is true, then you may be
correct that the chief revelation is metaphysical; on the other hand, my
assumption (that there should be as much VCR history as possible) may be the
correct one. (I admit that my view on this point is assumptional and can not
be proven. But I have not seen a disproof of the assumption yet.)
I can understand the both of us were severely burned by the YEC exegesis
which leads to many logical contradictions. But that does not mean that the
YEC's are wrong in their desire for the Scripture to represent history. For
too long the issue of Genesis has been tied to one of two viewpoints. Either
science is false (YECism) or the Bible is not true historically (liberalism
for want of a better term). In some sense this is similar to the dichotomy
that philosophy was in prior to Kant where there were empiricists and
rationalists. Kant united the two into a view which included synthetic a
priori knowledge. That is what I am trying to do here. Why can't the YEC's
be correct that the Scripture needs a historical basis and the "Liberals" be
correct that the science of the YEC stinks? If this is the case, then there
must be a union of the two points.
The reason I raised the issue with George Washington stupidly throwing
dollars across rivers was that since it is historically false, no one
believes it and no one believes that any actions should be based upon the
event. But with the Scripture if it is not historical, modern man is going
to largely have the same reaction. Why should we beleive our FALSE story of
creation and the relation of God to Nature rather than believe the Inca's
FALSE story or the Chinese FALSE story or the Nordic FALSE story? I see no
objective reason or basis then to differentiate between the TRUE FALSE story
and the FALSE FALSE stories. Truth must be objective.
You wrote:
>>The only epistemologically congruent answer you can get would be that of
what the ANE had to say at that same epistemological level which is that
the physical and historical (VCR) answer is a six day de novo
creation--an answer we would have accepted as YECs 7-8 years ago, but not
today. <<
But if I am not mistaken, a couple of days ago you said that the ANE writer
did view it as historical. Indeed, I think you said that here in this post
when you wrote: [Is the ANE writer composing this
wonderful Holy Spirit inspired literary piece within the context of the
epistemological package that measures both physical and historical
(VCR)? The answer is a resounding "YES". ].
So if the ANE writer views it both as history and metaphysics, how do we
objectively determine which is which?
You write:
>>I totally and completely agree. But the literary nature of the NT is
very, very different from that of Gen 1. The physical and "historical"
(VCR) record presented by Biblical Archeology and Classical studies
confirm that we should approach and read the NT with the physical and
historical (VCR) epistemological package. However, with Gen 1 we both know
(because we are both evolutionists) that the physical and "historical" (VCR)
record presented there is not consistent with that actually known.
Therefore, your concern with regard to the NT is very real, and it also
happens to be mine. But the key is knowing "HOW" to read a piece of
literature. The Bible is not a COOKBOOK. It has a number of literary
genres, and as a result it behooves us to select the proper "reading
package" for the proper passage.<<
I knew we agreed on the importance of the NT. That is why I raised the issue
[like a good lawyer try never to ask a question you don't know the answer to
:-) ] My problem is the nature of how to choose what the literature
intended. Every two weeks I get with a group of guys here in Dallas and we
choose a topic and discuss it The topics have ranged from the relation of
the many-worlds hypothesis and Christianity to relativity, evolution,
hermeneutics etc. We had a guy who was quite knowledgeable in hermeneutics
in the group at one time. He could never objectively tell me how to choose
what type of literature we should view a given Biblical text as. For
instance, Luke might be viewed as a piece of sober history by the
conservative Christian. This would lead to one set of conclusions about the
content of the book. On the other hand, an atheist might view Luke as a
piece of religious propaganda designed to sell a new wierd religion to the
Roman Empire. As such the miracles surrounding Jesus' birth might be nothing
more than political propaganda. Needless to say, these two views will differ
quite drastically in the intended meaning. I simply can not figure out how
to objectively tell which "is the proper reading package.". That is why I
really don't like the hermeneutical approach a lot of my theologician friends
engage in. I agree that if something is a piece of poetry, you might not
want to look at it for info on nuclear science. But even poetry can have
true statements of history and fact.
You wrote:
>> Hey, we both were YECs once upon a time! So as
far as my hermeneutics, I could be very wrong, and that is why I NEVER
attach any creedal importance to it. I'll fall on a sword for assertions
like "Jesus loves me this I know because the Bible told me so" . . . but
never for my hermeneutics.<<
Well, I too may be very very wrong here. I may be doing nothing short of
perpetuating the major YEC problem of insistence on some form of VCR history.
But the questions I have about how to objectively determine what should be
the reading package have never been answered to my satisfaction. It may be
that I am too dim-witted for such stuff.
You wrote:
>>Regarding "that hermeneutic", you Mr. Glenn have already used it! Yes,
my hermeneutically "unclean" friend, you have your very own "Glenn Morton
Demythologizing Program", and you use it in "demythologizing" Gen 1.
Proof of this is you do not take Gen 1 as the text stands, as the
original writer had intented it to be read. You have to do some
hermeneutical "dancing" to get around the plain meaning of the text. If
there was one thing both of us had going for us as YECs it was we read
the text as ANE (mind you, we didn't know much about science).<<
You forgot the TM o the "Glenn Morton Demythologizing Program (TM)" My
lawyers will be contacting you about this oversight. :-)
Seriously, you are correct we all do a dance on this issue. But the dance
which removes history from Genesis 1-11 seems to do more harm than good. But
the dance the YEC's do may actually do even more harm. They make one refuse
to believe every single scientific observation in the universe. We live in a
"virtual reality", because we can trust no observation.
I wrote:
>> If it is not historical in the common
> notion of that word, then I see no point to believing any of it.<<
You replied:
>>Baby/bath water problem in the making ;-)<<
I am trying to evolve babies that can fly. A few more generations and I
think we will have something. :-)
You wrote:
>>That's my point!!! The imago Dei is not QUANTIFIABLE (your term:
"prov[able] in any objective fashion"). And neither is the
"creationness" nature of the physical world. And as a result, you cannot
talk about is historicity (VCR sense).<<
I agree with you entirely here. But the "creationness" is not equivalent to
the ACT of creation or the EVENT of creation.
I too have found this exchange thoroughly enjoyable.
glenn, the hermeneutically unclean :-)