Lesson 16/16: Through Ancient Eyes

[sillysox13]

Also, your videos suck. You should make them at least an inch more interesting because I hated watching this and it was nearly impossible to understand what you were saying. Take a breath every few years, hey?

[sillysox13]

haha watching this is crazy when ur stoned

[hugesinker]

Excellent series. Thank you very much for putting this together. This needs to be seen by many more people. It could very well save this country if put to good use.

[sillysox13]

@hugesinker that's bull shit

[hugesinker]

@sillysox13 Can you put together a single valid complaint against the content of this series or are you just a hating little bitch?

[fmanh]

This is where his reasoning breaks down. There is no difference in reality between the 'pagan' mythologies in relation to Hebrew mythology. Yes, the Hebrew mythology is slightly more advanced in the philosophy department, but only an evolutionary step away, as one could expect from a tribe trying to differentiate itself..

[RuinSonic]

His explanation seems all good, but it's basically saying it's ok for the bible to be factually wrong but have good utility and spiritual truths. Why isn't God have culturally relevant material for us and not just the ancients?

[pointyhead1]

GJGlover.

some good lessons there - but some odd thoughts arise; are you arguing that the Earth is old, that humans developed via the primordial soup to ape route, and that God essentially waited to give the scriptures to the most discerning species that emerged...and one tribe...a few crafty specimens...

[pointyhead1]

G,

I find a chasm between your appreciation of science and your turning an argument on how it "makes sense" that scriptures would reflect concepts of the appropriate era.

G, it makes sense that "MacBeth" is the same way. Humans would make it culturally and conceptually relevent to the listener.

How is this different from other myths...except for the refinements in reasoning...less worry about chaos if everyone policed and self policed/ Big Guy Watching little ol' you alla the time.

[pointyhead1]

G, I even wonder if you're actually arguing Intelligent Design - of Scripture.

I understand your point that If scriptures were divine word, we might not be entitled to expect to see references that were significant to us (but not others), and aimed at our culture, in particular.

I understand you offering rebuttal to that notion.

But how do you go from understanding science, to assuming that scripture is divine word.

albeit "with" references significant to the culture up till Jesus time.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

I feel this is important since you include the concept of God as an underlying agent to your science. However, you have yet to justify the base claim. While your efforts should be applauded for the use of science to educate the average misinformed YEC away from the mentality of Ray Comfort and other polluters of science, I can't help but see your series as a sort of "homeopathic creationism". Would it be so dishonest to lose God from your science until he/she/it is proven fact?

[glovergj]

@SupaShang Are you seriously trying to argue that everything we do, think or believe is 100% based on logical necessity? Please. That sort of life would be absolutely NOT exiting. There is no logical reason for me to go skydiving, or drive my sportscar at 100 mph in the middle of the night, or to give up my personal freedoms to marry and support a family, but I do them because I want to. And I want to becaue they bring me joy. I need no logic to justify them. So why single out religion?

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

Something that is comforting or exciting to you personally does not make it objectively true to others. (God)

Creating a series intended to educate using the scientific method as a good example of how knowledge is gained, then to dismiss that logic in favour for what is personally pleasing is a shallow response. I was hoping for a more intelligent response from you based on your reasoning in this series, sadly I fear I may have raised the bar a little too high.

[glovergj]

@SupaShang I never said it was true objectively. How could you ever prove such a thing? I'm dismissing the logic of science. I'm only sayting that nobody live their lives by applying objective criteria to every single descision. There are other factors involved in everyday descisions. Many of these factors are super-rational or non-rational (as opposed to irational). You need to get over your hatred of religion -- it borders on irrational. Live and let live.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

You misunderstand. And please let's not turn this debate into ad hominem attacks and assumptions on each other's characters just yet. I have not insulted your intelligence once, I tend to show curtsey where it is due. I merely question your proposition for God within science. You know, since this is a science vid?

If I thought of you as another "NephilimFree","THICKshades" or "Truthful Pine cone", I can assure you this thread would be a lot more entertaining for the anti-religious.

[glovergj]

@glovergj If somebody is forcing their brand of theism on you, then I will join you in opposing them. It's a choice. Your crusade against theists is unwarranted and irrational.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

Crusade? Dear oh dear! *Looks around my house at all the spears and blood soaked shields!

Seriously, are you unable to keep this debate on track? If so, let me know now and I will leave this thread. I can do without exaggerated scapegoating of my character.

My pursuit of knowledge (or crusade as you call it!) is rewarding to me. If you choose to go on the defensive after I simply question you, that is your problem not mine. Do you wish to respectfully debate me?

[glovergj]

@SupaShang There is nothing to debate. I'll read your pm and see if there is anything I can respond to.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

What is your justification for the existence of God? Knowledge is gained by comparing one's beliefs to the evidence shown. That knowledge is justified by the overlap of these two factors being the same. So I am interested how knowledge is gained by a belief alone? And how using the scientific method which is the closest thing we have to epistemological truth as we can get, how you can stretch that to justify a fallible concept such as a God; one lacking in comparable objectivity.

[glovergj]

@SupaShang The existence or non-existence of God is beside the point. How can anyone really know fore sure? I choose to accept the basic tenants of Christianity, and attempt to live within that context -- not because it is a logical necessity -- it's not. But there are many intangible reasons for living within a Christian context. However, some expression are destructive and contrary to an orderly and pluralistic soceity. I'm against that, obviously.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj "The existence or non-existence of God is besides the point..."

Er! I think you and I both know that when it comes to science education on YouTube, one only has to mention anything about cosmology or evolution... before some creationist troll injects God into the discussion turning what should be an educational discussion into a mud flinging match.

If you are a scientist, one thing you'd respect about science is its openness to constructive criticism. How else would we learn from it?

[SupaShang]

@glovergj There is nothing wrong with living a peaceful respectful life. However, having actually read the bible can you conclude that after it presents itself as the inherent word of God, is it up to you to choose which parts you can cherry pick out of it to fit a moral life? Do people need a psychological sense of fear, guilt and eternal punishment to do that? Moreover, how does that remotely apply to the utility/education of science? We don't leave ideas in science because they are pleasing!

[SupaShang]

Simply assuming that God is real, because some book was relevant to people two thousand years ago is a shallow argument. If we did that with science, we would not have progressed past the many wacky ideas like modern creatures appearing from spontaneous generation or the phlogiston theory! How can a dogmatic book ever be related to science, which is revised countless times during the course of understanding? Surely, science should be converging towards the words in the bible not away from it?

[glovergj]

@SupaShang Agree, but there are non-scientifict to accept Christianity -- and those are beyond the scope of this series.  Not eveything we do has to have a scientific basis. Good Lord -- can you image how dull life would be if everything descision one made had to be entirely rational? Lame.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

In your words then, people should be free to state that "the good luck of their football team winning at the weekend shows comparisons in science"? Or "because I read Harry Potter last night, I'll use magic instead of anaesthetic to put you under today sir if that's ok?!"

Are you joking? There is a level of professionalism when educating and applying science. This has nothing to do with your extracurricular activities or fun activities. I'd prefer to build a bridge with rope not hope!

[SupaShang]

@glovergj

Secondly, I feel that what you are really trying to say is that the bible is due for a rewrite since our modern minds will read it with too literal an interpretation. If the bible is indeed the word of an all knowing God, you have to concede that there should have been some kind of future proof insulation by God for us to accept it as true? Simply dismissing future proofing does not give any credibility to the bibles bizarre acceptance of rape, slavery and genocide...

[glovergj]

@SupaShang Gasp -- no rewriting of the bible! It's fine as is -- the problem is with people who don't understand its ancient context. Also, the bible was written by men -- and so contains the thoughts and ideas of man. It's holy because of its subject matter, not because of its authorship. Think of it more as an anothology of God's people from the ancient world up to the death and resurrection Christ.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj "It's fine as is -- the problem is with people"

Yeah, I am one of those people who has a hard time understanding the murder of children, raping of young virgins, slaughter of entire populations, incest, not to mention anything we could look with a scientific perspective like Noah's ark...!

Do explain how those things should remain in the bible? *waits for the response about rape and incest being allegorical... *facepalm!

[SupaShang]

@glovergj Firstly, I'd like to thank you for being honest in your use of science in this series. However, I have a few questions that I was hoping you can answer. You obviously have knowledge of science, but how do you use the same methodology to understand science, yet dismiss objective evidence for the existence of God and simply infer his existence? I do not understand the process of how you are using science facts as an allegory to fit the existence of a God. I do understand the motive.

[glovergj]

@SupaShang Proofs of God (or lack of proofs) are outside the scope of this series. For the purposes of whay I am trying to accomplish here, God is assumed.

[SupaShang]

@glovergj "God is assumed."

I can live with that excuse outside of the scientific arena for what may motivate you to learn about science. However, injecting personal beliefs into science and expecting those ideas to go unchallenged while at the same time expecting scientific hypothesis TO be challenged, should signal some sort of contradiction there.

One can "assume" black holes exist. However, we "observe" their gravitational effects. What have we observed to test a God against a prediction?

[rafikgl]

@glovergj Does this exclude that the bible writers had amazing scientific knowledge (even compared to their time ) that might be used to prove the Godly origin of the bible.

[Omnitrix12]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I appreciate the research you put into this, and I am sorry for how harshly I spoke to you in the message I sent not to long ago. I still think what I said was true, but I should have said it with more thought to building up instead of striking back.

In conclusion, I think you have a knack for research and drawing conclusions. I also think you could use that knack better for explaining how to live out the Bibles teaching than defending atheistic "logic."

[glovergj]

Thanks for watching and for keeping an open mind. Just so you know, I have plans for an apologetics project and have been doing some research along those lines. I hope you'll come back when I start that.

[Omnitrix12]

I look forward to it.

[glovergj]

Thanks. I whish all YECs were as charitible and open minded as yourself. There is one user called "ikester7579" who is a complete flaming idiot. In addition to not having the foggiest idea of what science is or how science works, he pushes these rediculous arguments that legitimate creationist organization wont even touch with a 10-foot pole! And he accuses me of being an atheist posing as a Christian trying to cause people to lose their faith. However, I find most are nice like yourself.

[Omnitrix12]

Funny, ikester sounds exactly like most evolutionists I've run into. In high school I was constantly harassed by classmates, even one of my teachers (and he wasn't even a science teacher) about my beliefs on creationism and a number of other things. And trust me, you don't want to know what some of the clowns I've run into online have been like.

[glovergj]

Yeah, some of them comment here unfortunately.

[Omnitrix12]

Not surprising. And to be perfectly frank, I doubt it helps that for the most part you seem to reason like an atheist, or at best a deist. To a listener it sounds like you're saying, "God is important to science because He created it, even though He has no functional bearing on it in the laboratory."

[glovergj]

God, by definition, has no functional bearing on operational science -- because operational science assumes the continuity of natural law. But we give glory to God for authoring the laws and continually upholding and sustaining them. How does that sound like atheism or deism? Atheistm = no God. Deism = hands off God. I'm arguing for a God that created all things and continually sustains and upholds them according to laws that he ordained. Hence science is intelligible.

[Omnitrix12]

Yes, but you essentially present evidence for processes that allow scientists to discredit God entirely. Your arguments are for the most part no different than theirs except based on your own say-so.

[glovergj]

Not discredit God -- only discredit some bad interpretations of the Bible (ie: YEC).

[Omnitrix12]

So you say. But what is the outcome of it by and large in the secular world? Look, for example, at the words of Doctor D.N.S. Watson.

[Omnitrix12]

To be perfectly frank, I only watched this series through because neoaeonian talked me into watching it, and I found the overall attitude and thinking you presented both in comments and in most of the videos to be at best incinsistent and at worst anti-biblical.

In these last two videos, you at least have put forth sound principles for Biblical interpretation. But your concept still seems to survive chiefly by leaving out key evidence. In all fairness, theough, what explanation doesn't do that?

[Omnitrix12]

Query: How does this account for the fact that so many ancient cultures fit perfectly with Genesis? For example, the Chinese alphabet is loaded with symbols that only make sense when looked at through Genesis. e.g. the symbols for "dust" and "breath" combine to form the symbol for "man." And what about the extraordinary number of impossibly similar accounts of the flood in separate cultures? Toltec records even tell of the Tower of Babel.

[neoaeonian]

5 Stars!

Maybe now we can stop thowing out the babies with the bathwaters.

There is immense value in Christianity's unconditional love, of 1Cor13

There is immense value in Science's honest search for truth and understanding.

Science rightfully rejects superstistious lazy scholarship.

Christianity rightly rejects any "life is meaningless" world-view.

Mr. Glover, your scholarship speaks well for your faith, and for throwing out the bathwaters, while keeping the babies.

[glovergj]

Thanks for the kind words!

[mediusnacht]

Was with you for quite some time on this, but you lost me at around 8 min. Saying that someone writing in scientific ignorance according to the idiom of his time shows the "infinite wisdom of god" seems to be begging the question. What state of affairs could we not square with this type of rationale?

The rest of the video before that is very well thought out and works as an interesting anthropological thought experiment, but the little apologetic tossed in there does a lot to distract from it.

[glovergj]

It's just a way to understand why "bible science" doesn't match science as we know it today. It's the same reason why "parent science" doesn't always match reality -- because we must condescend to the ignorance of our children. If we always laid it out straight, they might not follow.

[mediusnacht]

GJ,

It seems to me that "parent" science is only necessary because the imperfect parent is unable to effectively bring their message across. No such inability should exist for an infinitely wise god

Further, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me why a god would create something wherein a falsehood would be necessary (for the genesis account is not just a simplification, but false in substantive details) for the understanding of humans. To say that it merely is this way again begs the question.

[glovergj]

Men wrote the bible. Even if you believe that God inspired it -- ordinary men still had to put it into words.

The Gensis story is compilation of common Ancient Near-Eastern origins myths. It would have made perfect sense to the ancient Hebrews. It was literally human and cosmic origins according to ancient "biology" and "cosmology".

[mediusnacht]

"Men wrote the bible."

I certainly agree. However, your video clearly credits god's "infinite wisdom" with certain elements of composition. It was this comment that I was addressing. This seems to be wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

[glovergj]

The traditional understanding is that the Bible is inspired literature -- God's ideas written by men. If that is the doctrine we start with, then you have to look to the nature of the literature to find out how this process might have worked. And when you do this objectively, you find that a lot of lattitue was given to the human authors. This views allows the bible to remain authoritative without having to take apply everything verbatim.

[mediusnacht]

GJ,

I guess what I'm wondering then is: Is there any reason for that belief aside from "it's the doctrine I happen to follow."

What reason to we have to believe that the bible was inspired by anything supernatural if, as we see when we actually read it, it shows us nothing that couldn't have been authored by the people of its time, working "uninspired?"

[htoontube]

Whar an utter load of crock!

[MTbucket1]

Hi Gordon

Thank you so much for posting these videos!

I wish I could have heard them 20 years ago, it would have cleared up a lot of agonizing confusion and doubt I have had on my journey of faith! Oh well, better now than never! I owe you big time!

I am going to get your book, learn it, and tell my friends!

God bless,

Michael

[glovergj]

Thanks for getting the word out! I'm working on a new series that specifically deals with the theological problems of evolution (ie: original sin, the fall, etc...). Check back in few months.

[MTbucket1]

Hi 4570sharps, check out all the comments on this video, you will find a very interesting discussion on Adam and original sin.

[4570sharps]

Mr. Glover,

Just so I feel better about all this, can I ask you some "non-scientific" questions? Are you PCA or OPC reformed? (I'm a Reformed Baptist). Do you see these issues only impacting the modern Christian's understandings of the first 2 chapters and flood of Genesis?

Do you still affirm a literal Adam, original sin and The Fall?

Feel free to answer through a personal message if you think your responses compromise your goals here?

[glovergj]

Hi, I am PCA. I think modern Christians need to take a fresh look at the first 11 chapters of Genesis. For too long, it's been assumed that these chapters fit into the genre of historical/scientific fact. Of course, such a literary of genre didn't exist in ancient times. I think there are much deeper themes here then who, what, where, when.

[geeseaplenty]

I agree with Derek. Gordo is a breath of fresh air in a culture of stagnant Christian epistemology. I'd much rather go toe-to-toe with Gordon on the issue of Christian evidences because I'd at least be confident the dude has a consistent epistemology. Respect is important in a debate, and he establishes that respect in spades.

[ubi2002]

Thank you so much for your videos! You are very good at explaining your views (which are very in line with mine). I hope more Christians will watch your series.

[glovergj]

Thanks! You help me out by spreading the word to your friends.

[derek24hudson]

I am atheist, and have just watched this entire series of progammes. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Mr Glover, although I obviously diasgree with the 'god bits'! Why the admiration? This man does not need to lie, deceive, misquote scientisits, evade awkward questions, champion anti-intellectualism over knowledge, perform verbal gymnastics or ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence. And he displays both knowledge and deep understanding. EVERY CREATIONIST NEEDS TO SEE THESE VIDS!

[Lacocacolaman]

oh come on, im going to barf!

[neoaeonian]

Derek, I too just watched the series, and I applaud and echo your sentiments..

[RTyp06]

From a design perspective we might predict order, logic, simplicity, economy and a whole host of other traits we find within known design. These ideas may lead us into new areas of research perhaps not considered before. (oh and no not too familiar with astronaut theory)

[glovergj]

I hear what you're saying, but this hasn't happened yet. Standard naturalistic biology is making discoveries left and right. To this date, I am still not aware of any discovery based on approaching the data using "desgin theory". If you know of an example, I'd love to hear it.

[glovergj]

Ancient Astronaut Theory: There are many gaps on the historical records of ancient civilizations, and many artifacts that reflect an intellgence (in both design and construction) that far exceed the technological acumen of ancient man.

Ergo: Aliens must have visit ancient man pretending to be gods and gave them advanced techonology. There is no other way to explain these "gaps" in our knowledge of the past.

It's the ID philosophy applied to archaeology -- and is reject by the mainstream.

[RTyp06]

Oh ok, I guess I do know a little about Ancient Astronaut Theory (albeit very little) and although mildy interesting, scientifically pointless imo. That is, barring new discovery of course.

[glovergj]

Of course. ;)

[RTyp06]

Yes standard naturalistic biology is making discoveries left and right yet I would contend that many of these discoveries would be made regardless of the theoretical framework surrounding biology (evolutionary theory). We might have discovered say, DNA homology long before evolutionary theory. Naturalistic science is indeed important for us to measure and test physical properties. After all we are physical beings within a physical universe...

[RTyp06]

Also, I agree, and am not aware of any major scientific discoveries that have been made using a design perspective, but if SETI ever finds what they're looking for, that might change. ;) Anyway that was kind of outside the point I was trying to make and naturalistic scientists infer design within biology all the time, albeit unconciously. An unknown organ or bone found within a fossil is often assumed to have had function and contribute to the whole of the organisim would it not?

[glovergj]

Yes, if you watch the Discovery channel, they say "design" all the time when talking about different animals. That design is present in nature is obvious, but my point is that we still can only study the *assembly* of biological structure when using the tequniques of science. And that design of living things suggests that *assembly* was evolutionary in nature (regardless of the design behind it).

[glovergj]

I don't hink SETI qualifies as design inference. I hear this all the time, but SETI is not looking for information per se, only narrow bandwidth x-missions -- which don't occur naturally. It's the equivalent of looking for a lost hiker by searching in the woods for a man-made shelter. It's a given that the shelter is designed, so trying to determine that is not the point of the search. It's the desginer we're interested in -- which, ironically, is of no concern to the ID party line.

[RTyp06]

Fair enough. From a design perspective we might predict that say ,psuedo-genes should either be non existant or be realitively few, yet for years non- protien coding DNA was thought of as "junk" DNA comprising the vast majority of most species' genomes. An evolutionary graveyard of little interest outside of common descent. The more we study these vast non-coding and repeated sections of DNA, the more function we are finding. Latent and reglatory function being common...

[glovergj]

This is true for some DNA, but not for all. There is a lot of junk that is still junk because it is redundant and degraded (pseudogenes) or was inserted by virus (retroviral DNA). But you're correct about regulatory functions. In fact, this is one of the hottest areas of research right now in molecular genetics -- especially in evo-devo.

[RTyp06]

I completely agree intelligent design offers little to the scientific establishment in it's current form but thinking from the design perspective does make scientific predictions that can be tested in the lab. btw I'm not trying to incite a debate and the hurricane analogy does make your point well, but is perhaps one of the weaker parts of your fantastic series of lessons imo.

[glovergj]

Perhaps, but I'm more interested in how ID makes scientific predictions that can be tested. I have not heard this. If you get a chance, please show me where I can find this on-line.  Thanks!

[RTyp06]

I watched them all. Nicely done. I differ with some of your philosophy in the last video and the hurricane being a IC "machine" with the hallmarks of intelligent design. A hurricane is the result of a handful of naturally occuring phenomena and nowhere near the interlocking complex machinery and mechanical specificity found within biology.

[glovergj]

Thanks. I agree that hurricane complexity does not equal cellular complexity -- but the principle of IC only need two parts that do not function on their own. If any such parts can be shown to be self-organizing (ie: evolutionary via natural causes) then it should cause to ask questions about where is the "complexity threshold" for IC systems? I submit that the the threshold is arbitrary, and has more to with what we can/can't explain than with any inherent physical properties of the system.

[RTyp06]

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe 1996, DBB: 39)"

..And although removal of the constituant phenomena that drive a hurricane does stop the hurricane from existing, they do function on their own. So how does say, a ribosome for example, function on it's own? Cont..

[glovergj]

So let's say no evolutionary pathway for a robiosome can be shown -- then we conclude that there was no evolutionary pathway? So either (1) aliens built it and sent it to earth or (2) an immaterial being constructed via divine fiat. Given the problems of having an immaterial cause produce material effects, you'd have more reason to accept the alien theory.

Have you ever heard of ancient astronaut theory?

[terryrozmus]

I'm not saying they are wrong as I haven't looked deeply enough into their views yet. However, if we can pick and choose which verses we understand as being factual in what they say and which ones have 'mythic' elements tied to them, then aren't we at risk of wish-washy theology? We may even venture (dare I say it) into the realm of liberal theology. Could we say Jesus' resurrection was a mythical understanding of God's interaction with the world which we moderns reject as being unscientific?

[glovergj]

Yes, we are absolutely at risk of sliding down a slippery-slope -- but we are already on the slope! As sooon as the church rejected biblical cosmology for a more scientifically up-to-date cosmology (nephillimfree notwithstanding), Christianity started down that road. So there will always be that risk of "taking it too far" -- which requires descernment and humility, as opposed to certainty. It's much easier to take an all-or-nothing approach, but we now simply know too much about the world.

[terryrozmus]

I'd be interested in hearing your view on the traditional Christian concept of original sin. It is the question I am currently working through. Romans 5 appears to support sin originating with one individual who is traditionally thought to be Adam and passed to the rest of the human race from there. A mythic view of the first chapters of Genesis and a belief in Evolution makes it difficult to believe that any one individual was responsible for sins entry into the world.

[glovergj]

Since ancient origins accounts were not intended to communicate scientific truth (ie: natural history was not the focus), we have to understand them theological. The Garden of Eden is the narrative God gave us to understand sin, so I believe we must use this framework when doing theological reflection. But when we studying natural history, a model that assumes all of humanity has descended from 1 neolithic couple doesn't work.

[glovergj]

Is light a wave or a particle? It depends... Does QED describe reality or does Relativity? It depends.... Scientists can live with cognitive dissonance, why can't theologians?

I don't think there is any historical narrative that could withstand emperical scrutiny sufficient to explain how a spiritual condition like sin entered the world, and how mankind is born under its domain, and how Christ came to undo its effect -- especially for the original ancient audience. That's my $0.02.

[terryrozmus]

They live with it because current theory is useful in explaining certain observed phenomena in particular situations. They recognise however that there must be a deeper theory, as yet undiscovered, which can explain all observations and they continue looking for it. Surely the same approach to theology must be taken?

[glovergj]

I understand your concern, but by the time God's' people left Egypt, sin was obviously present. All creation mythologies had some sort of explanation of why things were not perfect - and all were theologically bankrupt. It's really not that suprising that the Hebrews should have a theologically-correct narrative of their own.

[terryrozmus]

My question plays into other questions about how we view Biblical authority. If we allow that Paul may have been wrong about Sin entering the world through one man, then what else could he have been wrong about that he has passed down to us in his writing?

[glovergj]

So when Paul needed a reference point to explain the work of Christ, he obviously reverts back to the Jewish origins accounts, just as other NT authors refer to the flood. Paul also makes many references to the "ends of the earth" and the "third heaven" -- which all elements of the ANE cosmos and have no physical significance today. But like you said, someday all will made clear (wee currently see through a glass darkly) -- and I'm not just talking about grand unified theories!

[glovergj]

I really need to type slower -- no spellcheck with YouTube?

[terryrozmus]

Okay fair comment, but then I read of otherwise conservative theologians now reinterpreting the entry of sin into the world as hangover from early man's instinctive survival response. Selfishness increases an individuals chance of passing on their genes to later generations, so it is argued. That sounds very different from "Just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, so sin spread to all, for all have sinned."

[glovergj]

Yes, I don't like these "theories" either. And I don't think they are necessary at all. God already provided us a narrative that explains our condition and why we need Christ -- why try to invent something new? I understand the motivation to understand exactly how it happened since all men apparently did not descend from a single human couple, but we're talking about sin - an immaterial concept. There is probably no materially-based narrative that can do justice to both science and theology.

[terryrozmus]

They argue it is not breaking with the essence of Biblical faith because as God revealed himself to humanity it *became* sinful to act in those ways. Sin then was rebellion against God's reveled will. A little like how kids grow up. They are naturally naughty when young, but their parents teach them that it is wrong to do certain things and then as they learn these things they become responsible for their own behaviour.

[glovergj]

Well, I can certainly see that. If we believe the archeaological evidence, as soon as man became spiritually aware he started building alters and making sacrifices for his "sins". These date back well before any Hebrew ever lived. I can imagine, similar to C.S. Lewis' theory, that eventually God began to reveal himself to these people and they became accountable for their actions slowly over time. I have a video on my website that portrays this. It's called, "A Natural Hisory of Creation".

[terryrozmus]

Still, it doesn't allow for sin entering the world by "one man" as Paul said in Romans. If these theologians are right then Paul appears to have got it wrong. And this is not just an incidental reference to something he regarded as historical, but was inaccurate. It means his theology appears to be wrong as well. We have to substantially change an important Christian doctrine as there is no room for "fall" as such in their viewpoint. I'm not saying Paul was wrong, only that it appears so.

[terryrozmus]

..unless (it just occurred to me) there actually was a man who *was* the first one to who God revealed his special will for human for morality (the pattern we loosely see in Gen 2) and was also the first to fall short of the vision. The pattern in Scripture is after all of people with special visions and callings as representatives of the people - Abraham, Moses, Jesus being the most notable example along with others.

[glovergj]

Indeed. In the last chapter of "Perspectives of an Evolving Creation" a few of the contributors put forth this exact theory. I don't have a problem with it -- it would definitely explain where Cane got his wife and who all of the people were he feared would aveng Able's death. I haven't yet taken a position on this, but this one is at the top of the list.

[glovergj]

I think Paul was just referring verbatim to the Garden because there was no other story. That was it. But I don't think that is sufficient to establish the historicity of Adam and Eve over the other lines of physical evidnece. Clearly, humans date back prior to Neolithic times. If Paul was 100% accurate in all of his statements about science or history, then we would have to accept the "third heaven" or the "corners of the earth" and other things he speaks of.

[glovergj]

If I told somebody that "just as the lowly Frodo Baggins was called to destroy the ring of power, sometimes the most insignificant among us are called to perform the greatest feats" -- they would get my point without arguing over the historicity of Frodo. And neither would questions of historicy invalidate my analogy, because my point is not about Frodo, but about the least among us. It think Pauls point is about Jesus, not Adam.

[terryrozmus]

Fair comment. I have read on the Net (again something I need to do more research on) that the 'Doctrine' of Original Sin as we have it today comes largely from Augustine, rather than directly and unaltered from the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox Church, who don't count Augustine as one of their early church Fathers have taken a view which tolerates more mystery in their undertanding of where sin comes from than we are accustomed to in the 'Western Church' (those who lean more on the Latin Fathers)

[glovergj]

True, sometimes these doctrines can take on a life of their own.

Case in point: Last year I held a mock debate with a Christian highschool apologetics class where I took the medieval geocentric position. When I argued how heliocentric theory destroyed the Christian doctrine of the immutability of the heavens and the great chain of being (from inert clay to angels), they couldn't understand why I was so committed to this Aristotilean view. They searched their bibles, but didn't see it.

[glovergj]

And yet, medieval Chrisians had completely conflated this view with Christian theology (thanks to Aquinas). It's not that the bible explicitly teaches it, but if that is your understanding of how things work, it's easy to see how you can start to build your theology around this concept -- to the point where it hard to distinguish what the bible says from what we think it says. I think we have done this with original sin (re: the antipodes controversey in Lesson 5).

[terryrozmus]

Thankyou - this discussion has been helpful to me. I still need to do a bit more research though. Right now I see the possible answer, but don't feel I know enough yet to be sure it is correct.

[terryrozmus]

I've finally made the necessary paradigm shift which makes me realise 'Original Sin' is an unnecessary theological idea. The reality of sin as I think you said before, is self-evident so exactly how it began is somewhat irrelevent. If God is Love as we believe, then he would want to provide us with a solution to the self-destructive tendencies of the human race.

[terryrozmus]

In other words we don't need the following scenario:

original righteousness >leads to> original sin >> all have sinned: redeemer needed >> redeemer comes >> redeemed sinners.

this works just as well:

animal behaviour >> realisation or revelation of sinful nature >> need for a redeemer >> redeemer comes >> redeemed sinners.

1st = rebellion against our status as the image of God.

2nd = realising we have status as the yet imperfect image of God.

[glovergj]

Excellent point, I'll have to remember that.

[terryrozmus]

Besides which, in the story of the Garden of Eden it seems as though they weren't really perfect prior to eating the fruit anyway: Even though they had the clear command of God not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, they did so anyway. They trusted their own desires over and above the clear command of God. In other words, even though *acting* sinfully for the first time happened when they ate the fruit, *thinking* sinfully proceeded the act.

[busyretto]

I'm not on a crusade against the Flying Spaghetti Monster because its followers don't shove their beliefs down everyone's throats. I'm not on a crusade against God either. Any intelligent Deist will tell you that they can't prove their god exists. I respect them for their humility. But unlike them, you have no humility. Arrogant human garbage like you "know" the truth and will not cede the slightest ground to agnosticism. That's why I despise you.

[equalsexes]

"literal interpretation of Genesis 1"

The Hebrew can be interpreted where "evening and morning" can be plural, day can mean epoch, and "let there be light" is the dust and clouds clearing to allow light on earth, etc.

[equalsexes]

The "firmament" (Hebrew word raqiya`) means expanse, not necessarily a solid dome. Still true today.

If God's creation story was widely known before Moses, then other ancient cultures could have taken a word like raqiya` the wrong way.

But, it doesn't matter how ancient cultures defined cosmology. God did not use any wrong, ancient science to write the Bible. However, he may have accommodated it by using the vague Hebrew term raqiya` that would work yesterday and today.

[glovergj]

Actually, he word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning beaten out. In ancient times, a good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)? There is a reason why the word is translated into "firmament" or "vault" -- imagine the roof of a planetarium. That is how the ancients viewed the sky, as an upsidedown bowl.

[equalsexes]

"raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning beaten out"

No. It can mean to make broad, or to spread abroad, or stretch out (maybe even like an expanding universe).

"There is a reason why the word is translated into "firmament" or "vault""

Oh really? Right after Job 37:18 where Elihu talked about the "vault of the skies...hard as a mirror of cast metal", God said in Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?"

Elihu and his hard vaulted sky argument gets pwned.

[glovergj]

The cultural context of the Bible always matters! Understanding what views the original audience may have held is a very important part of understanding Scripture. And how exactly does raqiya work today if this expanse (and the heavenly bodies therein) separate the oceans from the waters above? No matter how hard you try to force this to fit modern cosmology, it only makes sense in terms of ancient cosmology.

[equalsexes]

"The cultural context of the Bible always matters!"

Sure, but pagan culture and its errors does not define what is written in the Bible. Actually the Bible perfectly matches current cosmology.

"And how exactly does raqiya [expanse]work today"

Simple. Water has more than one state. There is an expanse between the water in the clouds and the surface water.

There is an expanse between the moon and earth. There is an expanse between earth and the farthest stars and maybe beyond.

[glovergj]

So where are the waters that exist ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars? What's more probable: that the ancient biblical authors made incidental reference to their contemporary understanding of cosmology, or that they wrote about a future cosmology using coded language? Just think about it!

[equalsexes]

"So where are the waters that exist ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars?"

Nothing says the stars are between the upper water and the lower water. You need to get away from the false or pagan idea that "firmament " means a particular object in one location. Firmament means expanse.

Genesis 1:16-17 "God set them in the expanse of the sky..." - NIV

This expance was obviously above the clouds in addition to the expanse below the clouds.

It works both ways for ancient and modern cosmology.

[glovergj]

I've got news for you: unless the bible changes the definition of firmament, which it doesn't, the Hebrews would have no way to know that God changed it's meaning. There are other words for "expanse" and for "mist/cloud/vapor" but those words are not used. There is water below, water above, and the heaven in between. That's what it says, and that's what all ANE cultures believed. If God really wanted to give his people a new science, he would have been more specific than this.

[glovergj]

You are stretching the plain and literal meaning of the text to fit your modern understanding of the atmosphere and the heavens. You are trying to fit the biblical account into a modern understanding, but for thousands of years, Christians interpreted Genesis 1 just as it reads. Only modern Christians who accept modern science bend and twist the words of Moses into what they want him to say.

[busyretto]

"Only modern Christians who accept modern science bend and twist the words of Moses into what they want him to say."

You don't have to worry about that with equalsexes. This dufus rejects evolution and believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. (Yet ironically, he re-interprets the Bible to support modern sciences which unquestionably proven within a 5-year-old's comprehension ability! Go figure!) The best thing to do with equalsexes is laugh at him and call him a moron.

[equalsexes]

"unless the bible changes the definition of firmament,"

Most translators DO define "firmament" as "expanse" (NIV, DBY, ESV, NAS, WEB, YLT, Amplified Bible, etc.). The KJV says that birds fly "in the open firmament" proving that it's an expanse, not a solid vault.

[equalsexes]

'other words for "expanse"'

The firmament expanse is more descriptive being also in the shape that one sees in the sky.

[equalsexes]

"the heaven in between."

No. Again, nothing says this, except for your and some ancient peoples interpretation. It can also be interpreted the modern way.

"and that's what all ANE cultures believed."

That does not negate the translation that agrees with modern science.

"If God really wanted to give his people a new science, he would have been more specific than this."

Why? Why shouldn't God be vague enough to accomomodate erroneous and correct science? That was ingenious.

[glovergj]

These are all modern translation, since we've know that no solid dome exists, so translators take liberties. The KJV translates it correctly as it is older. Moreover, raqyia appears in other places besides Genesis and it is translated as a solid. And the KJV says that birds fly "on the face of the firmament" no on the firmament.

[stango141]

I read the light shining through the firmament. Not actually in firament. It you look through a prism it could appear the light is in the prism not generate from outside of it. You are total correct it's unclear if you didn't live in the itme of the story. If you were alive when the firmament was there it be clear. Maybe it is still from adam what god told him but it sure seems like the author lived when there was a firmament.

[glovergj]

Possibly, but for 1000's of years the heavenly bodies were understood to be IN the firmament, between the waters. One thing that helped the Bible translators come to that conclusion was the near-universal belief of ancient Near-Eastern civilization. In the absence of any new teaching that clearly breaks with the common understanding, it was assumed that the Hebrew conception of the cosmos was similar to that of their neighbors. But you're right, we should all be humble when reading Genesis!

[stango141]

Good stuff. The bible will reveal itself onto oneself. I don't get why we try to figure every scientific break through by the bible. It has a few bits in there about the nature of the universe, but not near enough to make it a science book.

[glovergj]

Very good observation!

[Daytimeofnight]

As always, great stuff. This video series is definitely one of the best resources I've come across. I have a couple questions. You refer to Moses as the author of the creation account. Is there a reason for that? My understanding of modern scholarship on that subject is that Genesis likely had multiple authors, none of whom were Moses. And that the time of its writing was much later than the exodus, possibly as late as the exile. Perhaps the authors were recording what had been an oral tradition

[glovergj]

You are correct about the authorship of Genesis. However, since Moses is generally understood to be the traditional author, I chose not open up that can of worms here. Thanks again for watching!

[zzz03246]

Excellent series, sir.

[glovergj]

Thanks! I spent over a year writing, shooting, and editing these.