Children's ministries as easy targets or true outreach (re neo-orthodoxy)

[EarlyActs]

In the account of the L'Abri ministry, there is a summary of Schaeffer's children's ministries in the 50s and 60s in Europe after WW2. It has a significant statement which we may miss as we approach this.

He didn't see it as an easy target demographic where you could be sloppy and still get results. In fact, the reference to his work comes in a 1-page history of the Christian church, in which 'neo-orthodoxy' (called Barthianism in the account) is a difficult obstacle to faith because it contends that Bible material that is 'historically false can nonetheless be spiritually true.' It came into existence even before WW1, which rocked many people's faith as well.

What Schaeffer said was that children truly have no choice as they grow up. If their churches express the neo-orthodox view, they are not truly getting the Bible as is. They instead get the gamut of secular thinking about nature, and then 'faith' comes along out of nowhere with pleasing tones that most people 'want.' "Out of nowhere" means totally apart from reasonable fact. To be dogmatized that way was no procedural difference from being dogmatized that the Bible was true; neither are the demonstrated way of the apostles, who appealed to 'outside' reasons.

This is why it is so important to collect articles, etc, that show how fact-less modern science has become, how evolution reckless throws around millions of years as though a person could be precise but have a 50% margin with such numbers! We now know that 'sciences' (medical, political, geologic) are often very manipulated information.

Lewis also treated this subject, apart from children, but certainly about the doubtful modern person in his essay "Man or Rabbit" in GOD IN THE DOCK, from the same time period. He said that the modern person has adopted the mentality of the rabbit, and just bumps from place to place getting what is wanted. A real man, Lewis said, will not seek help first, but will seek truth first. If a teaching is not true, then a real man will refuse all of its (pastoral) help. But if a teaching is true, then it should be followed even if there is no 'help' at all.

 

[Sereni-tea]

This is why it is so important to collect articles, etc, that show how fact-less modern science has become, how evolution reckless throws around millions of years as though a person could be precise but have a 50% margin with such numbers! We now know that 'sciences' (medical, political, geologic) are often very manipulated information.

It is not uncommon in some parts of Christendom to hold this view but it is unfortunate, unnecessary and causing much damage to the youth and young adults in the church, resulting in some, perhaps many, to leave the church. What I am talking about is the understanding of Scripture that is reliant on modern science being false - perpetuating the myth that science and the Bible are enemies. So when they are challenged, this false dichotomy leads some, perhaps many, young people to abandon their faith.

However, before maligning science and the scientists you are claiming to be deliberately falsifying their evidence, it might be better to ensure that you are reading Scripture on its own terms, understanding it in its historical, grammatical and cultural background, instead of through the eyes of the modern 21st century. In doing so, you find that Scripture is not contingent on any particular understanding of science, which of course makes sense, as the role of the Bible is not that of a scientific textbook.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is not uncommon in some parts of Christendom to hold this view but it is unfortunate, unnecessary and causing much damage to the youth and young adults in the church, resulting in some, perhaps many, to leave the church. What I am talking about is the understanding of Scripture that is reliant on modern science being false - perpetuating the myth that science and the Bible are enemies. So when they are challenged, this false dichotomy leads some, perhaps many, young people to abandon their faith.

However, before maligning science and the scientists you are claiming to be deliberately falsifying their evidence, it might be better to ensure that you are reading Scripture on its own terms, understanding it in its historical, grammatical and cultural background, instead of through the eyes of the modern 21st century. In doing so, you find that Scripture is not contingent on any particular understanding of science, which of course makes sense, as the role of the Bible is not that of a scientific textbook.

That's good if they leave for that reason, because 'science' (AKA pet theories of BlackRock Inc) will soon be shown to be assemblages by goons. And the youth will leave it for that reason. (This is not to say anything about the age of things which is covered well by 2 Peter 3; and may be missed in Gen 1). I'm referring to the evolution process, to gradualism (that dismisses the cataclysm and a hundred other world narratives), to global warming, to covid, and to what used to be called political science (which you may now notice is no longer used because it is so specious, damaging the term 'science.')

You are on the same page as Lewis who said that 'if something is false, then we should not believe it, no matter how much help we get from it.' --"Man Or Rabbit?" in GOD IN THE DOCK. It is his way of saying like Schaeffer that we we will not fall off the edge of a flat earth as Christians; we can hold to what is claimed by the Bible, and it will finally be supported.

Since 'science' is knowledge, it is best not to use that term for wild and even dangerous theories. It got 'covidized'--but that had been happening in all these areas for years. In the same way, it is best not to use the term 'faith' for the neo-orthodox meaning of a doctrine that is useful or helpful but has no factual basis. (See Schaeffer's "Faith v 'Faith'" 1 page analogy, which has also been posted here a few times, because the fake 'faith' is neo-orthodox).

Let me know if you are not familiar with the proper disconnection between huge time periods and the Biblical narrative as expressed by Genesis and 2 P 3. There is an important difference between being a YE and an RCW (recent creation week-er).

 

[Sereni-tea]

Of course we can hold on to what the Bible teaches, but first we have to understand what that is.

Many have tried to make it teach about science but it does not. The Bible was written in a cultural context that knew nothing about science that we know today. Does that mean we can't trust the science of today? Does that mean we should abondon our understanding of the universe and go back to an ancient cosmology that believed the sun, moon and stars were lights on a solid dome above the earth and the earth itself was sitting on pillars on the water? Of course not. That would be foolish. Perhaps instead, we should read the Bible as it was intended and understand it is teaching us theology and not science. In doing so we will be being more faithful to God and His Word and allow science to go where it will without fear.

BTW
I have no idea what BlackRock Inc is.
I have a great deal of respect for Lewis but he was an expert in literature and philosophy and not in modern science, especially as he died 60 years ago. That doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute to the conversation, but you quote him as if his word over rules everything. Similarly with Schaeffer, who I also have a great deal of respect for.
Yes, I am familiar with the variety of different views about creation, including the difference between YEC and RWC. What I reject is any attempt to try to read science into the Bible or the Bible into science. Let them both speak on thier own terms.

 

[EarlyActs]

Of course we can hold on to what the Bible teaches, but first we have to understand what that is.

Many have tried to make it teach about science but it does not. The Bible was written in a cultural context that knew nothing about science that we know today. Does that mean we can't trust the science of today? Does that mean we should abondon our understanding of the universe and go back to an ancient cosmology that believed the sun, moon and stars were lights on a solid dome above the earth and the earth itself was sitting on pillars on the water? Of course not. That would be foolish. Perhaps instead, we should read the Bible as it was intended and understand it is teaching us theology and not science. In doing so we will be being more faithful to God and His Word and allow science to go where it will without fear.

BTW
I have no idea what BlackRock Inc is.
I have a great deal of respect for Lewis but he was an expert in literature and philosophy and not in modern science, especially as he died 60 years ago. That doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute to the conversation, but you quote him as if his word over rules everything. Similarly with Schaeffer, who I also have a great deal of respect for.
Yes, I am familiar with the variety of different views about creation, including the difference between YEC and RWC. What I reject is any attempt to try to read science into the Bible or the Bible into science. Let them both speak on thier own terms.

Blackrock is the largest private held investment account in the world. The subsidiaries are numerous. When you have 2T to work with, you can make a lot of fake 'reality' happen--like human-factor global warming, covid, elections and other sciences. You can make very polished productions to get the world to accept a belief against all sense. It's all a matter of business plan. Similarly, English thinkers and investors in the 1800s made sure few saw Pellegrini's plate tectonics, because it would have demolished gradualism, and I mentioned above that the Bretz suppression was not a friendly academic affair. They invested (in both sense, monetary and sociologically) in gradualism. Farellian odds say stop thinking at 50 zeroes. But uniformitarian gradualism is plenty far past that, like US deficits!

There is something too rigid about what you are saying. For one thing, for the sake of argument, there are people who have noticed the logic of necessary development in Gen 1, but then say 'yom' is Ms of years. That logic is that, for ex., there has to be dry land before land vegetation. They notice that three forms are created (we would say -spheres) and then they are filled, not the reverse. Because they believe in Ms of years, they conclude that there is something scientific here, but that it is skeletal.

You might be interested to know that the pre-Cataclysm world did not have a dome concept because the objects weren't visible til later. Those with Genesis also did not have the floating earth idea because the descriptions ran the other way around--the water was there first and the land was pushed up and out of it.

It would be hard to respect either Lewis or Schaeffer, I would think, because they did not make the either-or you have made. That is a view of things which FS called neo-orthodoxy.

What they were reporting is that the ancient Hebrew mind intended to join this in a unity. So I don't know how you would respect Schaeffer as he always pursued such a unity, saw that unity in early modern science (not modern modern science). Newton only diverged from historic Christianity on one thing--the divinity of Christ.

Notice the miracle in Mk 2 about the paralytic healing being connected to the claim of forgiveness. The healing is done, at-will, to prove the other. Do you see a disunity there? I do not. And the audience for this--why perform such an act if not meant to secure a unity of reality in their minds?.

There are many other topics, let me know.

Let me know where you have read about RCW (if it was in the setting of many years preceding--that's what I mean). I never have, except in 2 Peter 3 and find few comments that 'get it.' It is found in the contrast between 'from of old' and 'formed through water.'

As you may have noticed, there is a massive denial of the supernatural world today. That in itself could seriously undermine what "the text" is saying, because it smoothly involves the supernatural. Gen 1:2 has features that speak to it; obviously ch 3, and ch 6 (various entities), 6-9 (acts of God), 11 (acts by God again).

 

[Sereni-tea]

I am not sure I followed some of what you posted but there is one thing we agree on:

As you may have noticed, there is a massive denial of the supernatural world today.

This is so true.

I have spent a great deal of time over the years trying to understand the early chapters of Genesis the way that are meant to be understood. So rather than a 'neo-orthodox' view, I have been trying to discover the how the ancient Israelites/Jews understood the text. Fortunately, today, since the discovery of many ancient literature (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls), we are in a better position to discern that, than previous generations.

To make my position clear, I believe that Genesis was written to the ancient Israelites in a language they understood at the time. As a result, the cosmology mentioned, e.g the hebrew word 'raqia', the idea of the 'waters above', the idea of the 'lights' on the 'raqia', etc., are all consistent with what we know about ancient cosmology of the ancient near east. Very different to how we view things today. I do not hold to the idea that 'yom' means millions of years. I believe the text is talking about an ordering of the cosmos, and assigning functions and that it is a direct contrast or polemic agaist the accounts from other ancient near eastern cultures. I believe the the many literary devices used in the text including the deliberate structure around the number 7 speaks spoke to the original audience on multiple levels and taking the text at face-value (especially in English) removes to beauty and genius of the Hebrew text.

I accept the supernatural element evidence in Genesis (and indeed throughout the whole Bible). The ancient Israelites understood God to be invovlved in everything. And I believe that is still true today. While I believe that the Bible does not teach us anything about science, I do believe that the Word of God, and His world are in harmony but that they both speak about different things. For me, understanding how something works scientifically does not remove God from the process. In fact I see God's handiwork in the smallest sub-atomic particle as well as the largest galaxy.

I believe the earth is old because science shows it to be the case, and I see nothing in the Bible (properly understood) that contradicts this. However, if I found out the earth was young, it wouldn't change how I have come to understand Genesis as for me there is nothing there that makes a claim one way or the other.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am not sure I followed some of what you posted but there is one thing we agree on:

This is so true.

I have spent a great deal of time over the years trying to understand the early chapters of Genesis the way that are meant to be understood. So rather than a 'neo-orthodox' view, I have been trying to discover the how the ancient Israelites/Jews understood the text. Fortunately, today, since the discovery of many ancient literature (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls), we are in a better position to discern that, than previous generations.

To make my position clear, I believe that Genesis was written to the ancient Israelites in a language they understood at the time. As a result, the cosmology mentioned, e.g the hebrew word 'raqia', the idea of the 'waters above', the idea of the 'lights' on the 'raqia', etc., are all consistent with what we know about ancient cosmology of the ancient near east. Very different to how we view things today. I do not hold to the idea that 'yom' means millions of years. I believe the text is talking about an ordering of the cosmos, and assigning functions and that it is a direct contrast or polemic agaist the accounts from other ancient near eastern cultures. I believe the the many literary devices used in the text including the deliberate structure around the number 7 speaks spoke to the original audience on multiple levels and taking the text at face-value (especially in English) removes to beauty and genius of the Hebrew text.

I accept the supernatural element evidence in Genesis (and indeed throughout the whole Bible). The ancient Israelites understood God to be invovlved in everything. And I believe that is still true today. While I believe that the Bible does not teach us anything about science, I do believe that the Word of God, and His world are in harmony but that they both speak about different things. For me, understanding how something works scientifically does not remove God from the process. In fact I see God's handiwork in the smallest sub-atomic particle as well as the largest galaxy.

I believe the earth is old because science shows it to be the case, and I see nothing in the Bible (properly understood) that contradicts this. However, if I found out the earth was young, it wouldn't change how I have come to understand Genesis as for me there is nothing there that makes a claim one way or the other.

More later, but I wondered if you were referring to sonons as the smallest particles? Ie, sound waves.

So then, do you know the supernatural side of 1:2, ch 6? What it is?

What is a 'different thing' when referring to gold, sex, river names, names of cities, murder, the great deep, chronologies? Just to name a few. The confusion of neo-orthodoxy, for starters, is that it can have such black and white lines between 'theology' and 'science' in Genesis. Why bother with meticulous counts if it wasn't to say that the creation week (not the earth) is datable in terms of such? If Peter was referring to the biosphere only, it still counts as scientific statement (some would say a more welcome one).

I hope you will read Lewis "Horrid Red Things" in GOD IN THE DOCK, to see what matters about being scientific; it is not the ability to put things in modern terms, as he shows very clearly even in the decade of his reference.

 

[Sereni-tea]

More later, but I wondered if you were referring to sonons as the smallest particles? Ie, sound waves.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, but yes, if you like, sound waves.

So then, do you know the supernatural side of 1:2, ch 6? What it is?

Genesis 1:2 is focusing on the disordered cosmos. The Spirit hovering gives a sense of God about to act.

Chapter 6 in Genesis - are we talking about sons of God - is clearly a reference to the sin of angels - those who are referred to in 1 Enoch (which is NOT inspired Scripture) as Watchers - who rebelled against God and married human women. Their offspring were the Nephilim. Many today try to make the sins of God to be the descendents of Seth, but this is really not sustainable.

If you are referring to the flood, this is clearly a return to the disordered state of Genesis 1 where the waters above and the waters below were not separated. The flood story is a recreation. If you look at the language there is so much that is similat to Genesis 1. Some hold that the flood was to rid the world of the Nephilim - a strong possibility in my opinion.

What is a 'different thing' when referring to gold, sex, river names, names of cities, murder, the great deep, chronologies? Just to name a few. The confusion of neo-orthodoxy, for starters, is that it can have such black and white lines between 'theology' and 'science' in Genesis. Why bother with meticulous counts if it wasn't to say that the creation week (not the earth) is datable in terms of such?

The numbers in Genesis should be regarded in their context. There is much debate as to their function and perhaps at this point a definitive answer is not possible. However other ancient near eastern accounts have a similar use of numbers, and perhaps again it is used as a polemic.

If Peter was referring to the biosphere only, it still counts as scientific statement (some would say a more welcome one).

What would Peter know of a bioshpere? Peter is clearly referencing Genesis. What's your point? This is not a scientific statement. Why are you trying to find scientific statements where there are none?

I hope you will read Lewis "Horrid Red Things" in GOD IN THE DOCK, to see what matters about being scientific; it is not the ability to put things in modern terms, as he shows very clearly even in the decade of his reference.

Really, Lewis is not my guide to how I should understand science. As a scientist, I know what matters to me about science - it is about seeing the remarkable way God has designed His Creation to function.

 

[EarlyActs]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, but yes, if you like, sound waves.


Genesis 1:2 is focusing on the disordered cosmos. The Spirit hovering gives a sense of God about to act.

Chapter 6 in Genesis - are we talking about sons of God - is clearly a reference to the sin of angels - those who are referred to in 1 Enoch (which is NOT inspired Scripture) as Watchers - who rebelled against God and married human women. Their offspring were the Nephilim. Many today try to make the sins of God to be the descendents of Seth, but this is really not sustainable.

If you are referring to the flood, this is clearly a return to the disordered state of Genesis 1 where the waters above and the waters below were not separated. The flood story is a recreation. If you look at the language there is so much that is similat to Genesis 1. Some hold that the flood was to rid the world of the Nephilim - a strong possibility in my opinion.


The numbers in Genesis should be regarded in their context. There is much debate as to their function and perhaps at this point a definitive answer is not possible. However other ancient near eastern accounts have a similar use of numbers, and perhaps again it is used as a polemic.


What would Peter know of a bioshpere? Peter is clearly referencing Genesis. What's your point? This is not a scientific statement. Why are you trying to find scientific statements where there are none?


Really, Lewis is not my guide to how I should understand science. As a scientist, I know what matters to me about science - it is about seeing the remarkable way God has designed His Creation to function.

re Lewis
Because he was dealing precisely with a person--a child--saying something worthwhile even if they didn't know it wasn't science. Then finding out as an adult there is another way to put it. His example is about danger. A person can address danger "unscientifically," but still usefully. It is very arrogant to say the child cannot say anything useful about danger. And that is what matters. But Genesis is much closer than that, if you are willing to see his extended example.

He knew that Ptolemy already knew that we were a very remote place in a huge universe, and that the apostles would have known that. I hope that helps. "Religion and Science" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

He may not be the stupid that you think.

 

[EarlyActs]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, but yes, if you like, sound waves.


Genesis 1:2 is focusing on the disordered cosmos. The Spirit hovering gives a sense of God about to act.

Chapter 6 in Genesis - are we talking about sons of God - is clearly a reference to the sin of angels - those who are referred to in 1 Enoch (which is NOT inspired Scripture) as Watchers - who rebelled against God and married human women. Their offspring were the Nephilim. Many today try to make the sins of God to be the descendents of Seth, but this is really not sustainable.

If you are referring to the flood, this is clearly a return to the disordered state of Genesis 1 where the waters above and the waters below were not separated. The flood story is a recreation. If you look at the language there is so much that is similat to Genesis 1. Some hold that the flood was to rid the world of the Nephilim - a strong possibility in my opinion.


The numbers in Genesis should be regarded in their context. There is much debate as to their function and perhaps at this point a definitive answer is not possible. However other ancient near eastern accounts have a similar use of numbers, and perhaps again it is used as a polemic.


What would Peter know of a bioshpere? Peter is clearly referencing Genesis. What's your point? This is not a scientific statement. Why are you trying to find scientific statements where there are none?


Really, Lewis is not my guide to how I should understand science. As a scientist, I know what matters to me about science - it is about seeing the remarkable way God has designed His Creation to function.

biosphere and Peter:
He knew the entire planet was not replaced in the cataclysm but the level of it on which humans lived. He seems to apply this to creation, not sure. I'm a bit confused at your comment, but any category at all is a knowledge, a science. The level or sphere that allowed humans a place to live is the one that is restructured in the cataclysm. He is clear that this is not the case with the end of the world, that it is reduced by incineration to elements, and that maybe they are also done away with.

Speaking of the 'stoicheia' they had four. Does this not compare to the above comment about the child's science. Even if they did not have our terms, they dealt with four fundamental 'elements' usefully, even using a term we would later call 'elements.' If they did not have a notion of science at all, wouldn't they have dealt with spirits? Fantasy? The gods?

 

[EarlyActs]

biosphere and Peter:
He knew the entire planet was not replaced in the cataclysm but the level of it on which humans lived. He seems to apply this to creation, not sure. I'm a bit confused at your comment, but any category at all is a knowledge, a science. The level or sphere that allowed humans a place to live is the one that is restructured in the cataclysm. He is clear that this is not the case with the end of the world, that it is reduced by incineration to elements, and that maybe they are also done away with.

Speaking of the 'stoicheia' they had four. Does this not compare to the above comment about the child's science. Even if they did not have our terms, they dealt with four fundamental 'elements' usefully, even using a term we would later call 'elements.' If they did not have a notion of science at all, wouldn't they have dealt with spirits? Fantasy? The gods?

While I don't have the pertinent section of "Horrid Red Things" handy, here's a segment of "Religion and Science." I can't imagine what the dismissiveness is about when you see what things he had a grip on.







“Religion and Science”
C.S. Lewis (Literature, Oxford, d.1955) in GOD IN THE DOCK, #7 abridged

“Miracles,” said my friend, “Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that. We know that Nature is governed by fixed laws.”

“But, don't you see,” said I, “that science never could show that anything [was beyond Nature]?”

“Why on earth not?”

“Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists—anything “outside.” How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'

“Look here,” he said “Could this 'something outside' that you talk about make two and two five?”

“Well, no,” said I.

“All right. The idea of their being altered is as absurd as the idea of altering the laws of math.”

“Half a moment. Suppose you put a nickel into a drawer today and another in the same drawer tomorrow. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain that you'll find 15 cents there the next day?”

“Of course, provided no one's been tampering with your drawer.”

“Ah, but that's the whole point,” I said. “The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer of course you'll get a different result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of math—only the laws of the land. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?...The laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way—but only provided no one interferes. If they do, you won't get what the scientist predicted.”

“No, of course not. He can't allow for monkey tricks like that.”

“Quite. And in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered—then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle. In one sense it wouldn't break the laws of Nature...But they can't tell you if something is going to interfere. I mean, it is not the expert at math who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the pennies in my drawer. A detective, or a psychologist, or a metaphysician would be better.”

 

[EarlyActs]

Everyone has a philosophy of science. Some are not aware of theirs, some very aware. In "Horrid Red Things" Lewis was doing that, which is should heard because he integrated (was multi-disciplinary.) For regular conversation, he had the best minds of Oxford at the pub.

 

[Sereni-tea]

While I don't have the pertinent section of "Horrid Red Things" handy, here's a segment of "Religion and Science." I can't imagine what the dismissiveness is about when you see what things he had a grip on.







“Religion and Science”
C.S. Lewis (Literature, Oxford, d.1955) in GOD IN THE DOCK, #7 abridged

“Miracles,” said my friend, “Oh, come. Science has knocked the bottom out of all that. We know that Nature is governed by fixed laws.”

“But, don't you see,” said I, “that science never could show that anything [was beyond Nature]?”

“Why on earth not?”

“Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists—anything “outside.” How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'

“Look here,” he said “Could this 'something outside' that you talk about make two and two five?”

“Well, no,” said I.

“All right. The idea of their being altered is as absurd as the idea of altering the laws of math.”

“Half a moment. Suppose you put a nickel into a drawer today and another in the same drawer tomorrow. Do the laws of arithmetic make it certain that you'll find 15 cents there the next day?”

“Of course, provided no one's been tampering with your drawer.”

“Ah, but that's the whole point,” I said. “The laws of arithmetic can tell you what you'll find, with absolute certainty, provided that there's no interference. If a thief has been at the drawer of course you'll get a different result. But the thief won't have broken the laws of math—only the laws of the land. Now, aren't the laws of Nature much in the same boat? Don't they all tell you what will happen provided there's no interference?...The laws will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way—but only provided no one interferes. If they do, you won't get what the scientist predicted.”

“No, of course not. He can't allow for monkey tricks like that.”

“Quite. And in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered—then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow. That would be what we call a miracle. In one sense it wouldn't break the laws of Nature...But they can't tell you if something is going to interfere. I mean, it is not the expert at math who can tell you how likely someone is to interfere with the pennies in my drawer. A detective, or a psychologist, or a metaphysician would be better.”

I am very familiar with this arguement, and agree with it. But I am not really sure what you think it adds to the discussion.

 

[Sereni-tea]

re Lewis
Because he was dealing precisely with a person--a child--saying something worthwhile even if they didn't know it wasn't science. Then finding out as an adult there is another way to put it. His example is about danger. A person can address danger "unscientifically," but still usefully. It is very arrogant to say the child cannot say anything useful about danger. And that is what matters. But Genesis is much closer than that, if you are willing to see his extended example.

He knew that Ptolemy already knew that we were a very remote place in a huge universe, and that the apostles would have known that. I hope that helps. "Religion and Science" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

He may not be the stupid that you think.

I don't think him stupid at all, quite the contrary. And I agree that a person can address something usefully even if they don't understand it. But the question we need to ask, if that what the author of Genesis is doing? What is the message he is trying to convey to his audience? What were their concerns he was trying to address?

 

[Sereni-tea]

biosphere and Peter:
He knew the entire planet was not replaced in the cataclysm but the level of it on which humans lived. He seems to apply this to creation, not sure. I'm a bit confused at your comment, but any category at all is a knowledge, a science. The level or sphere that allowed humans a place to live is the one that is restructured in the cataclysm. He is clear that this is not the case with the end of the world, that it is reduced by incineration to elements, and that maybe they are also done away with.

If you are going to define any knowledge at all as science, then this discussion is pointless because of course it is presenting us with knowledge - theological knowledge. But that isn't really what we are talking about.

Speaking of the 'stoicheia' they had four. Does this not compare to the above comment about the child's science. Even if they did not have our terms, they dealt with four fundamental 'elements' usefully, even using a term we would later call 'elements.'

Did they? In the same way you think about them?

If they did not have a notion of science at all, wouldn't they have dealt with spirits? Fantasy? The gods?

There are a lot of supernatural elements in the Bible, many of which we don't recognise today. Does that mean what is written is fantasy? Many today would say so, but it's not what I think.

What I am trying to say is that we need to be really careful not to read into the text what we want to see. Today's Christians are so wrapped up in trying to work out the mechanisms of Creation, and adding up numbers to get to particular dates. These are our modern day concerns and not necessarily the concerns of the ancient Israelites. In fact their concerns and their culture were in many way very different to our own. So we need to let the text speak to us. We need to understand it in its ancient context. And we need to do that before we think anything about science.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am very familiar with this arguement, and agree with it. But I am not really sure what you think it adds to the discussion.

That there are things in Genesis that are as technically accurate as could be at the time, ie science. Twice it references the world dividing. Today we call it plate tectonics. Why should we therefore call 'the world dividing' unscientific? It is clearly intended to describe actual space-time events in the clearest language possible at the time, lacking GPS or high altitude flight.

You fortify the neo-orthodox view of Scripture when you say they were not doing so. Neo-orthodoxy is from the German theologian K Barth who tried to preserve the useful, practical part of Scripture but accept what his literary critics were saying on their uniformitarian, gradualist basis. Even Lyell did the same thing in a generation earlier. Anything to virtue-signal while denying the supernatural basis, which you somehow accept.

 

[Sereni-tea]

That there are things in Genesis that are as technically accurate as could be at the time, ie science. Twice it references the world dividing. Today we call it plate tectonics. Why should we therefore call 'the world dividing' unscientific? It is clearly intended to describe actual space-time events in the clearest language possible at the time, lacking GPS or high altitude flight.

This is reading into Scripture what you want to see. You are making assumptions that words in the text mean what you think they mean today. The word dividing is used multiple times throughout Genesis 1 - dividing light and darkness, water above from water below, land and water. This repetition of 'dividing' is a literary device, highlighting God's creative acts and his ordering of the world. Viewing it as describing actual space-time events is missing the point and distorts the meaning of the text.

You fortify the neo-orthodox view of Scripture when you say they were not doing so. Neo-orthodoxy is from the German theologian K Barth who tried to preserve the useful, practical part of Scripture but accept what his literary critics were saying on their uniformitarian, gradualist basis. Even Lyell did the same thing in a generation earlier. Anything to virtue-signal while denying the supernatural basis, which you somehow accept.

Yes, I accept the supernatural basis. But my understanding of Scripture is not to conform my views to uniformitarian, gradualist views. Nor is it to conform with evolution (which I am undecided about) or any other modern Scientific view. My aim is purely to read the text as it was originally meant to be understood. We are in a much better position to do that today than Christians have been for many centuries due to the large amount of ancient texts that have been discovered - especially in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery. If you want to call that neo-orthodoxy, then go ahead.

 

[EarlyActs]

A son of mine is in pilot training…

This is reading into Scripture what you want to see. You are making assumptions that words in the text mean what you think they mean today. The word dividing is used multiple times throughout Genesis 1 - dividing light and darkness, water above from water below, land and water. This repetition of 'dividing' is a literary device, highlighting God's creative acts and his ordering of the world. Viewing it as describing actual space-time events is missing the point and distorts the meaning of the text.


Yes, I accept the supernatural basis. But my understanding of Scripture is not to conform my views to uniformitarian, gradualist views. Nor is it to conform with evolution (which I am undecided about) or any other modern Scientific view. My aim is purely to read the text as it was originally meant to be understood. We are in a much better position to do that today than Christians have been for many centuries due to the large amount of ancient texts that have been discovered - especially in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery. If you want to call that neo-orthodoxy, then go ahead.

Well, you are speaking double and I don't know why. You deny the description of space-time and then you say you are not to confirm to the gradualist view. Are there really any other options?

Let me provide an extended analogy. My son is in commercial pilot training. I'm near an Alaska airport that lands 737s. At the west end is a 200 ft hill within a mile. There are 1500 ft mountains 2-3 miles the other way. But it is the short west hill that prompted the FAA to create a 7.5 degree turn immediately west of the runway, in the approach lighting, for both take off and landing. So there is all this high tech to do that, and my son sent me the technical document with all its codes etc.

Now let's say the airport would let you launch your VW powered wing, which you could do even from the parking lot. You head west. There is a 200 ft hill a mile away and it generally is a bad idea to get too close, right? So you bank right or left because you can see this. You have no complicated system that sends cryptic codes back and forth and makes beeps on your dashboard; you have no dashboard.

Are you going to say that the VW wing pilot's observation is not scientific? Are you going to say that only people using the FAA document are scientific? This I believe is where the modern conversation has got to. It is ridiculous.

That is what "Horrid Red Things" is saying about ancient man. That you don't have to have modern medicine's specifics of biological danger to know that there is danger. You can look at creation (which is actually looking at creation-remodeled-by-cataclysm) and see creation; that you don't "imagine" it; that it is not a matter of imagination, but is "clearly visible from what is made.". You would have to be pressured and "educated-out-of-it" not to see it. That the verbal tradition handed down this kind of simple description, which even people like Hugh Ross (who distorts the meaning of several words to mix creation and gradualism) know have a logic to them--the ground is lifted into place just prior to the sun, which makes it "swarm" with vegetation. The ground is not in place first, then put under water.

The secular thinkers are so fundamentalist about it that they do things like you find in Siccar, Scotland's, national coast park: no literature or posters or mention about Genesis can be made within 1 mile! It is such a clear example of a major and recent cataclysm of tectonic scale, that's why. There may be some exceptions, but most of the time I find persuasion, not state law, used by those who believe Genesis/Psalms/Job/Romans 1/2 Peter 3.

"When we realize that the Bible is true to what is there, we may have our revolution (toward Christian truth)." --Schaeffer, HITHINS, 1971.

'True to what is there' is the opposite epistemology to 'they have nothing to do with space-time reality,' which may as well be neo-orthodox.

Here's a 1 page church history that shows what impact neo-orthodoxy has had.






F. Schaeffer’s 1-page Church History

“Fran would give a history of the Christian church, from the early church, in the Book of Acts in the Bible, down to the present day, in an outline form, of course. He would show how simple the early Church worship was, and how Roman Catholicism arose at the time of Constantine, and then give a summary of the Reformation and its going back to the two ‘pillars”:

1, a non-humanist authority, which the Bible gives—and authority outside of man’s relativistic thinking; and

2, a non-humanist approach to the absolute Holy God, upon the basis of the finished, absolute work of Christ upon the cross in space, and time and history.

“Then he would show how German Higher Criticism came into the Protestant church about two hundred years ago, and would explain how this destroyed the faith o f many theological leaders and pastors in the inerrancy of the Bible, setting forth also the teaching that Jesus was not virgin-born and so forth, and was only a great example. He would then go on and show how [neo-orthodoxy]—the more modern and more subtle deviation from the Bible—arose , and something of its basic division of truth, as it states that there can be something that is “spiritually true but historically false” at the same time.

“…This gave a background upon which he could speak of the confusion of our present day, and the need for clear understanding and teaching on the part of those who really do believe there is an absolute to teach, and a certainty to share in unfolding the Bible as the Word of the living God.

“…Then he would speak of the fact that the children are the ones who really have no opportunity to decide for themselves what truth is because the majority of them are not reading, or being taught the Bible at all; certainly not having it presented by anyone who believes it to be true. The teaching that the Bible is myth, is just as dogmatic, after all, as the dogmatic teaching of it as history!”



--E. Schaeffer, L’ABRI, 1992 edition, p33-34

 

[EarlyActs]

Corr:
You said that you were were not conforming to the gradualist view...

I'm not suggesting a simplistic polarity about these things, but it does seem clear to me (by comparative reading with truly metaphoric, fantasy, mythical material) that they were not writing that; that they gave a space-time description. You could start a camera with a chronograph and their description in primitive language would match the chronograph and visuals when done.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Corr:
You said that you were were not conforming to the gradualist view...

I'm not suggesting a simplistic polarity about these things, but it does seem clear to me (by comparative reading with truly metaphoric, fantasy, mythical material) that they were not writing that; that they gave a space-time description. You could start a camera with a chronograph and their description in primitive language would match the chronograph and visuals when done.

Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. That's the point. The author was writing to an ancient culture in terms and language they understood. We can't just take that and try to fit it into our 21st century modern thinking. It doesn't work and it creates distortions and misses the points the author is making.