Quote of the Day, by Dan Parks in Defending the Hebrew View of the Universe With Discussion

Dan Parks:
I’ve found it interesting that it is very similar to that of ancient native Americans, thousands of years before the time of Abraham. It was the old world “science” of that time of the writings of the ancient Hebrews. Now, if Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a protohistorical-polemical-calendrical-liturgical composition of old world scientific non-revelatory conceptions of origins (received by the learned men), infused with revelatory conceptions (received by supernatural modes), then the Bible could reasonably be considered by faith to be trustworthy concerning creation because: (a) the divinely-revealed revelatory conceptions (that God created the cosmos, humans, animals and vegetation) have not been debunked by science, as it is not inconsistent with God to create over a vast amount of time or create humans that evolve from less complex animals (and I’ve built an argument that God is more likely create an OEC world versus a YEC world); and (b) such a view of Scripture (infusion of the human and the divine) is consistent with plenary-verbal inspiration and a qualified inerrancy (2 Tim. 3:16) that takes into account the divine objectives of progressive revelation, divine hiddenness in order to bring about a greater good.

John W. Loftus
Dan Parks, that's some mighty fine word salad ya got going there. Shall I translate it? "The Bible says it, so there must be something it says that's true despite the rise of modern science and despite the fact that what it literally says is not true." My guess is that you could exegete anything to make it fit, if you believed it came from God. You are making the text fit into modern science, when it could have either 1) accurately told us the truth about the universe, or 2) simply said "God created the heavens and the earth" without any description after that.

Dan Parks
Yes, there are different interpretations of the creation text, but the standard for a methodology for interpretation should be the one that is the most comprehensive-and-in-depth in literary, cultural-historical, and theological analyses. The literal, narrative prose interpretation you mention is has serious problems by virtue of its shallow analyses. So if a person’s goal is the best exegesis, irrespective of modern science, or what various churches believe, then the superior methodology I mentioned should be considered the most credible (see Conrad Hyers, John H. Walton, Gordan Wenham, etc.). And modern science helps us rule out the shallow one (the YEC, literal, narrative prose interpretation). So this is not a matter of exegetical gymnastics to grasp at straws of faith. Regarding your sentence about imagination, humankind doesn’t have (and won’t have) the supercomputer needed to develop a model of a world that is different than the present world and which also accomplishes the greatest possible good. The “I can conceive of a better built house even though I am not a construction contractor” is fallacious as it is relates to a situation that is far too different than the situation under discussion. All in all, I answered your question by saying that a person of faith in God could reasonably consider the Bible’s insights on creation to be trustworthy.

John W. Loftus
I happen to agree with Hyers, Walton, Wehnam and others. Only I claim this helps undermine the belief that the Bible is inspired by God. He had other options. I can imagine them. It's your faith that denies he had these other options. Your mind can clearly see he did have them. Faith gets no traction with me.

John W. Loftus
Of course, your imagination is stunted because rather than imagining what an all-knowing all-powerful God could've done, instead you assume this ancient pre-scientific text told us the best God could have done.

Dan Parks
Humankind doesn’t have (and won’t have) the supercomputer needed to develop a model of a world that is different than the present world and which also accomplishes the greatest possible good. The “I can conceive of a better built house even though I am not a construction contractor” is fallacious as it is relates to a situation that is far too different than the situation under discussion.

John W. Loftus
So you say we can't know what world is best for God to create precisely because you take by faith what an ancient superstitious text said? Right! What can't an omnipotent all-knowing God do, besides the obvious of doing the logically impossible? Presumably, since he created the universe out of nothing, he can create anything. And even if not, any all-powerful God worthy of the name could do a perpetual miracle. Or are you in the business of saying what God cannot do based on your need to believe? Only if the theist expects very little from their God can s/he defend what God has done!

Dan Parks
Dan Parks No, the Christian is in a position to trust that the present world is the best of all possible worlds, because of prevailing theodicy and apologetics, purported evidence for God’s existence, and because constructing a model of a better world with even a reasonable degree of probability is beyond our observational and mental and technical ability.

John W. Loftus
*Sigh*

0 comments: