Lesson 15/16: Concordism vs. Accommodation

[updownleftrightinout]

So God wrote the bible for Jesus' time - not ours? That is what you are saying?

I wonder when we will get our own version. The updated 2010 bible version - and not the hokey poor translations we see today but a real humdinger that can give us a Theory of Everything and a way to manage a world full of diverse people. Hopefully that one will mesh with scientific principles. But for some reason I can't see that happening.

I can't see a god knocking on the door offering such insight.

[Omnitrix12]

Finally you're making some sense, at least on a logical level. But there are still some problems with this, like the special place man holds in god's creation.

[arnizach]

Here's how I see it: Man's is special because God has revealed himself to us, both in our religious sense in general, but specifically, and more importantly, by becoming man himself in Jesus. This has nothing to do with biology really (though we had to be sufficiently evolved for it to take place). It's a religious event.

[Omnitrix12]

But then where is the line? At what point did we cease to be animals and begin to be what we are? And what is to stop those who sin from saying that they are genetically predisposed to do so? If we evolved, then such an argument makes sense.

[arnizach]

Does there need to be a clear cut line? I ask honestly. There are many similarities between humans and animals. It just so happens to be the case that we have reached a point where we can enter into communion with the divine. Animals may reach this point in the future. Just read an article yesterday that said whales might have some form of religion. Why not? And some aliens, if they exist, are most likely there too. God loves all his creation.

[Omnitrix12]

If such is the case, that other species do have religion, then one of two things must be the case. Either these creatures never sinned, or else they would need a redemptive sacrifice as we do. You would need, for example, a whale Messiah, an alien Messiah (or potentially billions), etc. But the plain fact is, many alien encounters make it clear that there is some kind of sin going on amongst them, if in fact they exist. And if whales do not in, why did God make us masters of the earth?

[Omnitrix12]

On the other hand, the notion of a Messiah for every race denies key Biblical statements about sin and redemption, such as that Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:18). Jesus would have been reincarnated as various species throughout the cosmos, and each time would have had to die. And how does a whale die a substitutionary death?

[arnizach]

Must there be sin in order for there to be religion? Don't see why.

Re: masters of the earth. Stewardship (the real meaning of Genesis "dominion") means taking care of the earth. We are sufficiently well evolved to handle that responsibility. That's why God calls us to it.

We're going beyond the Bible (firmament? :) ) here, that's obvious. The Bible knows nothing of other worlds, so obviously doesn't address them or their possibility. I don't think that's a problem.

[Omnitrix12]

Let's put aside whales for a moment and look at aliens. There is a range of accounts of reported alien behavior even within particular "species" such as the well-known greys. Aliens have been reported to do things to people far beyond the usual needles and probing. Things like, to put it bluntly, intercourse (whether the abductees liked it or not). And some people who were abducted have even reported the aliens verbally abusing their (the abductees') faith in God. Is that not sin?

[arnizach]

I think there are genetic predispositions to sin, just like there are psychological and cultural ones. Our survival instinct, for example, clearly genetic, makes us self-centred and potentially violent, when Jesus tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves, putting others ahead of ourselves in loving service. Our Christian calling then is to transcend our genes. Just because something is in our genes doesn't make it right. Nor does it mean that we're incapable of resisting. Know what I mean?

[Omnitrix12]

Ah, but there's the tricky part. Sin, at its most basic form, is the corruption of that which is good. For example, it is good to enjoy our food; God gave it to us. But to enjoy it too much is gluttony. It is good to love beautiful things, or else Heaven would be a mud wallow. Yet the Bible repeatedly speaks out against "the lust of the eyes." And so on. If evolution is indeed how we came about, why do the commands of its creator run contrary to it?

[arnizach]

The commands of the Creator don't run contrary to evolution. It runs contrary to some of the excessive behaviours and tendencies that the evolutionary drive produces. Survival is good, of course. But subduing perceived enemies by slaughtering them is not. It's part of the same continuum, yet one is good and one is bad. As you say, "too much" is sinful. In principle we agree here, I think.

[Omnitrix12]

The fundamental notion of evolution lies in the constant upgrading of the gene pool; i.e. the strong progress, the weak are left behind to fend for themselves. This is contrary in every way to the mandate to "love your neighbor as yourself."

[glovergj]

And some mothers intentionally kill the weakest of their litters so that the strongest will survive. This is a fact of nature, just like evolution is a fact of naturel. But in neither case does it mean that we should pattern our behavior from the facts of nature. Nature is what it is. We follow Christ.

[Omnitrix12]

Ah, but evolution is not really documented; only the evidence used to support it is. Allow me to illustrate the difference: A house is broken into, and a glass is found there to bear the fingerprints of a particular man (specifically, a glass that wasn't there before). Evidence, yes, and documentable. But unless there was, say, a security camera, you cannot document that the suspect himself was there. Evolution, being an interpretation, is in your own words "fallible."

[Omnitrix12]

It seems rather flimsy on a reasoning level to suppose that God brought us into existence, along with all other life on earth, via processes which He then declared sinfu. Especially when He said of these processes and their fruits afterwards, "It is good."

[RuinSonic]

@glovergj So basically he denies inspiration or the bible merely contains the word of God? Because clearly he's admitting understandings in the bible to be wrong.

[ShalomYal]

I find your approach so refreshing! thanks

[GPLeague]

How does the principle of accommodation relate to the framework hypothesis of interpreting Genesis? I think I need to look into that.

[glovergj]

Dr. John Walton, professor of OT studies as Wheaton, is coming out with a book called: "The Lost World of Genesis One" that I think will contain what you are looking for.

[GPLeague]

Thanks for the recommendation, I've been looking into your book on Amazon as well; looks like some great material!

[glovergj]

Thanks. You probably noticed that the formatting and design of this lesson was different than the others. That's because I've tweaked all the lessons and YouTube now allows for High Quality uploads.  Because of this, I'll be removing Lessons 1-14 and reposting the final HQ versions. Stay tuned for that.

[4570sharps]

Its very sad too see only 255 views and 3 comments at this point in your presentation (the previous videos show much higher view counts). That means that people (Christians mostly, I assume) are "turning you off" before they give you a chance to resolve the apparent tension created up to this point between scripture and science. Just as you begin to resolve the tension and put forth a biblical model you've lost a lot of your audience. Sad...

[4570sharps]

...You have a MONSTROUS amount of courage for putting together all this hard work and being so active in answering so many questions.  I'm still not convinced of all this but you have me thinking hard about a lot of issues. I'm going back over the ESV Study Bible's "Genesis and Science" article and James Montgomery Boice's "Genesis" commentary.