Denis wrote:
>>Being a mouth doctor, I'd hate to see my southern pal bite his tongue and
get some nasty infection (those mouth bugs can be quite mean). So out of
compassion of a doctor's heart, here is a little "treatment plan" for you:<<
I appreciate your compassion. Actually I think it is the biologist in you.
You want to pull another wing off this poor Drosophila. :-)
You wrote:
>>I'm up to page 106, <<
Are you reading this backwards? The other day in a private note you said you
were up to page 109! :-) Just checking.
You wrote:
>>According to your book Glenn, "the best explanation of verse 2" is that
"[i]t refers to a time long before the Earth existed but after matter had
been made." You also add that "before the coalescence of the
solar nebula the material of the Earth had no form." GRM, Foundation, Fall
and Flood, p. 106.
Well, we obviously have a problem with words, that is if words are
important and have any meaning whatsoever. The Bible clearly says:
(1) the earth was in place, but it was formless and empty. That is the
raison d'etre the 6 days of creation--3 form forming days and 3 filling days.
(2) the deep (ie, waters over the earth) was in place.
(3) the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Now, I'm no early earth geologist/cosmologist, but doesn't water appear well
after the appearance of the earth? So if, we have water in verse 2 with
the Spirit of God hovering over it, then we must have an earth . . . and
this verse cannot possibly mean "[i]t refers to a time long before the
Earth existed." If your exegesis is correct, you have to get rid of the
earth, the waters and the Spirit of God hoovering over the waters.<<
I view verse 1 as sort of an executive summary. I think I say so somewhere
in there. I know hermeneutically unclean.
But verse 2? This verse has always puzzled me from a scientific view. NO
planet is "formless". They all have a form--a sphere. Even a gas giant like
Jupiter is a sphere and is not formless. The sun is not formless. Only a
nebula can be said to be formless. So, scientifically I see only two ways to
deal with this verse from a scientific perspective. Either it is referring
to the pre-solar nebula or it is referring to the origin of the universe when
you had that sea of (here it comes get ready) eisegetical quarks. :-) What I
really mean by that is that whatever existed prior to the big bang the
substrate which the quantum fluctuation occurred in, that is what this part
refers to. That is certainly formless from our perspective. The only way to
have a truly formless earth is to have the current particles which constitute
the earth to be scattered throughout either a nebula or to be scattered in
the "whatever" that started the universe.
I will be accused of being a little inconsistent in thinking that the term
waters might refer to such a pre-universe or Pre-geometry (see Thornton,
Misener and Wheeler, _Gravitation_ Freeman, 1973, Chapter 44). Even to most
moderns, including me, those concepts are quite difficult.
Thus I contend that all current scientific explanations of genesis 1 having
the earth formless are not really formles! They are spherical! And thus
they are wrong.
You wrote:
>>Now, I'm no early earth geologist/cosmologist, but doesn't water appear
well after the appearance of the earth? So if, we have water in verse 2
with
the Spirit of God hovering over it, then we must have an earth . . . and
this verse cannot possibly mean "[i]t refers to a time long before the
Earth existed." If your exegesis is correct, you have to get rid of the
earth, the waters and the Spirit of God hoovering over the waters.<<
Nope. Water, itself, is found throughout the universe in other nebula,
galaxies etc. Water has existed in the universe prior to the Earth's
creation 5 billion years ago and has existed ever since a significant
quantity of oxygen was created and cooled to a temperature where the chemical
bond could hold.
You wrote:
>>Finally, during this very enjoyable debate you have fought long and hard
for VCR history in Gen 1. So don't respond to me with some sort of anti-VCR
historiographical hermeneutic. Bluntly, that would be inconsistent.<<
You would be correct, but I don't think I did just give you an anti-VCR
hermineutic here. I do go back and forth as to whether the proclamations
occurred immediately at and after the formation of the universe or whether
they must have been done prior to the big bang. I can't decide.
Now, back to last night's post.
You wrote:
>>1. Do you think for 1 second that the writer of Gen 1 thought in this
proclaimation/fulfilment category? Any proof in the ANE anyone thought
in this way?<<
No. As we discussed earlier, He thought like a YEC. So I could turn this
around and ask this of you. Do you think the writer thought there was NO
history in what he was writing, as you do? We know he wouldn't have. So on
this issue we are both having to deal with the fact that the YEC view is
wrong. You chose to posit no literal-history in the account; I chose to
look of another way to retain such history. But if you ask if there is any
proof that in the ANE anyone thought in this way, that condemns your own view
also. Respectfully, I would suggest that it is a bad idea to sink your own
ship. :-)
You wrote:
>>2. How many examples in the history of exegesis can you find of a church
scholar holding to this view? Which modern theologian (Biblical, OT) holds
this?<<
Sorry, but I do not think that truth requires that someone earlier held a
given view. We do not apply this to science because that would mean that
relativity was wrong- electromagnetism is wrong, heliocentricity was wrong
(even if you have to go back before Aristarchus). In a Biblical setting, the
Jews of Jesus' time were looking for a conquering Messiah and clearly did not
understand the correct view was that the suffering servant would come first.
I am not sure you can point to an example of a B.C. Jewish authority who
believed in the type of Messiah that actually came. If only views held
earlier can be considered true, then Jesus is not the Messiah. So, appeal to
old folks who previously held to a given idea is a very poor judge of
correctness.
Besides, once again, turn this question around. Can you cite authorities in
the early church who thought there was NO historicity in Genesis 1? It is
inconsistent of you to require from me what you can't supply for your view.
Secondly I could cite Basil who held something similar. I don't know quite
how to give a citation for this since I got it off the internet today. It is
in his Homily II.
"But God, before all those things which now attract our notice existed, after
casting about in His mind and determining to bring into being time which had
no being, imagined the world such as it ought to be, and created matter in
harmony with the form which He wished to give it.(1) He assigned to the
heavens the nature adapted for the heavens, and gave to the earth
an essence in accordance with its form. He formed, as He wished, fire, air
and water, and gave to each the essence which the object of its existence
required. Finally, He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links
of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a
fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance,
appeared united in one universal sympathy. Let those men therefore renounce
their fabulous imaginations, who, in spite of the weakness of their argument,
pretend to measure a power as incomprehensible to man's reason as it is
unutterable by man's voice."
This concept that God pre-conceived the universe before actually engaging in
its construction (which is what the days of proclamation is) was indeed held
by an early church father. Not that that really has much to do with the truth
or falsity of the view. But you asked so I answered.
But why must a modern theologian hold a view in order for it to be true? Are
they the new priesthood? I know a whole lot of modern theologians who hold
to YEC. Does that make YEC correct? If your question is to be taken
seriously, I think it does. So when are you going to become a YEC again.
:-)
You asked
>>3. Any hint elsewhere in the Scripture this theory is correct?<<
There is obviously some type of planning that went on prior to the creation.
Eph. 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holey
and blameless in his sight. NIV
Hebrews 4:3 "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the
world." NIV
I looked and the word "world" is "Kosmos" Which can mean world, universe or
harmonious order. If God's work has been finished since the creation, and
the creation was at the Big Bang, then it logically requires that the work
was in the PLANNING of what was about to happen! Logically He would have had
to have finished work at the Big Bang. You asked if there were hints. And
this is a pretty good hint that my view is supportable.
1Pet 1:20 "He [Jesus-grm] was chosen before the creation of the world, but
was revealed in these last times for your sake." NIV
Once again, the planning was done at the beginning.
And of course Rev 13:8 "the lamb that was slain from the creation of the
world." NIV
Jesus, and us, were no after thoughts. We were preplanned. I believe God
pre-planned evolution and rigged the protein phase spaces so that life could
arise and evolve into us.
You wrote:
>>4. Now, I accused you earlier of loading the dice. I don't apologize,
because I can't imagine how you could possibly FALSIFIED this framework
of yours. At least with PC and YEC we can catch them on their exegesis
and whether indeed it matches the scientific record.
But with your theory there is no way of testing for either its falsity or
veracity . . . everything and anything goes. Bluntly, there is no
predictive value. <<
I didn't ask for an apology. None needed. A good argument needs straight
talk. But as I mentioned earlier, I did not load the dice. There are only 4
possiblities. If I loaded the dice I would be hiding other possibilities
from you. God either gives us a true message or he doesn't. If he doesn't
then God is either unwilling, unable or both unwilling and unable to give us
the true message. Tell me what option I am missing please.
Can the view be falsified? Of course it can. There is an implicit assumption
in this argument. It is that God is Good. You can get out of this argument
by one of several strategems. Reject the inspiration of the Bible. Reject
the goodness of God. Or reject God's existence. Then if God does not exist,
it matters not a whit how willing or able God is. What you squirm against is
a very air-tight argument about God's character.
I am unsure of what exactly you think is not falsifiable. So I will go
through several possibilities.
You ask for predictive value I presume in the 4 point argument, we are
discussing. This argument is not designed to give predictions. This is an
example of what I have to do all the time when I look for oil. I lay out all
the possibilities I can think of, ask friends what other possiblities there
might be that I am to dumb to see. Then I begin deriving consequences from
all the possiblities. Those possiblities with bad consequences or
contradictory consequences are rejected. This helps narrow down what I
should do.
If you are saying that my scientific framework has no predictive value look
at the last chapter and I give predictions which would confirm my overall
theory. What other book on Creation/evolution is willing to do that? Most
authors run as fast as they can from saying what would be a disproof or a
proof of their view. I think they are not very confident that they have
something which might work. I am willing to risk falsification for the
possibility that I might get confirmation. If I am wrong. I promise to take
my lumps.
If you are saying that my exegesis of Genesis 1 can not be falsified, I think
that applies to all exegesis'. Yours, that there is no historicity, is also
unfalsifiable. How do I prove to you that there IS historicity? I have been
trying for days (rather unsuccessfully). Thus your view appears
unfalsifiable also.
I disagree that you can catch the YEC in his exegesis. You admitted a few
days ago that the original intent of Genesis 1 was exactly what the YEC
believes. Thus I would contend that exegetically, the YEC has something on
both of us. He can claim that he is adhering to original intent. Neither of
us can do that.
You wrote:
>>5. Doesn't the assymetry between the fulfilments relative to the
proclaimations seem unusual?<<
No, should it? God proclaimed to Abraham that 1) he would have a son and 2)
that his heir would bless all nations. There was a lot of asymmetry in the
fulfillment of those two proclamations which were made at nearly the same
time! Is God required to be symmetric? What verse is that in?
You wrote:
>>To close, you accuse me of thinking like a YEC. I wonder between the
two of us who's harboring YEC categories tacitly.<<
Here we agree. I will freely confess that I prefer that there is a
historical content to Genesis 1-11. In that I am much more like a YEC than
you. So you got me here.
The problem I see is that you offer a Bible that has no historical content.
The YEC's offer a science with no reality. Both views seem to require the
Christians to choose between what they see and and God's word. While as
Loren put it, we are supposed to have faith in God, it is very difficult for
modern men to have faith in things they do not believe are REAL. What I hope
I am offering is a way to have the Biblical account be REAL.
But I am aware, that you disagree. I respect your knowledge and opinions
greatly and you make me DIG to support my view and that is very good. Thank
you
zai nan beiban ni de Pengyou. (parallel to your "ton ami du nord")
glenn