Pages

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Thoughtless free-thinkers

EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

Steve, Whether the story is about a person taken up to heaven in the spirit in a vision or in a physical body, the point is that they are taken UP. (While Paul tells us that he believed in beings that exist "under the earth.") That's three-tiers.

i) Yeah. Three “visionary” tiers, rather than three actual tiers. The upward motion doesn’t depict real space. So how does that somehow falsify Scripture?

ii) Paul is using picture language. It trades on the imagery of burial.

Try not to be quite so dense.

As for the earth's shape,

and its immobility ("it shall not be moved") that God ensures by His power,

and the earth's movement depicted only as having been "shaken" directly by God as in an earthquake (shaken, not stirred, not whirled round), a God who not only holds the flat earth firmly in place so that it cannot be moved, but who also shakes it from time to time via an earthquake, both being praised as direct applications of His power to make immobile and to shake,


i) You haven’t shown that God holds the “flat” earth firmly. Rather, the absence of seismic activity is picture-language for the stability of life on earth–while the presence of seismic activity is picture-language for divine judgment.

ii) Likewise, earthly “immobility” isn’t immobile in reference to other celestial bodies. The contrast is not between the mobility of the sun and the immobility of the earth, but between stable ground and earthquakes.

Try not to be quite so dense.

and add to that the verses that assume the relative nearness of God's heavenly abode above the earth,

That’s part of the same picturesque metaphor, Ed. Sometimes Scripture portrays God nearby, but at other times far away. Read the Psalms.

and the creation of the earth prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars which are secondarily made and set in the firmament above it, in order to light the earth below, and placed there to set up periods of time between religious ceremonies/festivals,

i) Well, Ed, don’t the sun, moon, and stars shine down on us from the viewpoint an earthbound observer? Isn’t that something we customarily see what we…you know…look up? How does that select for flat-earth perspective rather than a spherical earth perspective? Isn’t the phenomenology the same in either case? Or do you think Aussies walk around their continent upside down?

ii) As for the order in which things were made, how is that relevant to the shape of the earth? That’s a question of temporal relations rather than spatial relations.

and the power of God in moving many objects above the earth, from clouds to lightning bolts to constellations…

Is it your position that clouds and lightning bolts are actually static? That Bible writers were wrong to describe these phenomena in dynamic terms?

Do you think clouds are actually glued to the sky, like papier-mâché? Is that your idea of a truly scientific description–unlike the "primitive" viewpoint of Scripture, what with its moving clouds and all?

…and also praising God for being able to "stop the sun" if He so wishes. . .

i) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Joshua was a geocentrist. How would that falsify Scripture, exactly? Inerrancy doesn’t entail the truth of whatever a recorded speaker says. It is first and foremost the book of Joshua, and not the person of Joshua, that is inerrant.

The book inerrantly records what he said, which doesn’t mean what he said is ipso facto inerrant.

ii) Incidentally, back when I was a boy, I used to notice that the sun didn’t rise or set in the same place along the horizon throughout the year. During winter, sunrise and sunset were closer together, not just in time, but in space. During summer, sunrise and sunset were further apart, not just in time, but in space.

Notice that this didn’t take any scientific instrumentation to register. Just attentive naked-eye observation, plus a decent memory.

But if the earth were flat, how would we account for that seasonable variation? Do you imagine that folks who rose with the dawn didn’t ever stop to ask themselves these elementary questions?

how do you put all of that information together from my chapter and conclude that so many Bible scholars who are experts on ANE cosmology, along with several respectable Evangelical Christian OT scholars who are likewise learned in ANE cosmology, are all missing out by not adopting your lame excuses?

i) Well, since I already wrote a lengthy critique of your precious chapter, that question answers itself.

ii) Expert opinions are only as good as the supporting arguments they adduce.

iii) But since you bring it up, let’s take John Walton. You cite five of his books.

Yet Walton draws a firm distinction between “material ontology” and “functional ontology.” He regards the cosmography of Scripture as “functional” rather than “material.”

But if that’s the case, then even if Scripture did depict a flat-earth or triple-decker world, that would merely be a “functional” flat-earth or “functional” triple-decker” world rather than a real flat-earth or a real triple-decker world.

So even if we did accept his “expert” opinion on the issue at hand, how does that falsify Scripture?

But thanks all the same. We can always count on you to keep reminding us that there’s absolutely no correlation between infidelity and high IQ.

6 comments:

  1. Steve, If it's all ONLY a metaphor then the Bible begins and ends with mere metaphors, Genesis 1 in the beginning, and the book of Revelation at the end. That's fine with me. Now you can move on to questions concerning Genesis 2-11 and continue asking whether or not those are metaphorical as well.

    By the way, Walton's functional ontology interpretation of Genesis 1 is one that he believes parallels ancient Near Eastern, and does not deny its flat earth assumptions. You can read Walton's summary papers that he wrote for his church online:

    http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/sermon_resources/walton.pdf

    Note Walton's discussion of "Passages Evidencing 'Old World' Science" in his above papers.

    Also note this quotation from Walton's recently published book on Genesis 1:

    "The Israelites [like the nations around them] did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the clouds or high-flying birds. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of the deity as well as hold back waters." [John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), p. 16.]

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't say Gen 1 was only a metaphor. Try again.

    BTW, the question of what "Israelites" in general allegedly believe is irrelevant to what inspired writers taught.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, You are merely attempting to define your way out of questions and difficulties. One way is via "metaphor." And you are not even giving yourself kudos for being the one who is doing the interpreting, picking and choosing which lines are purely metaphorical, which are based on ancient Near Eastern views of the cosmos, and which are at odds with scientifically supported evidence. In fact you don't even have a means to TELL the difference. You just accept a little bit of science and a little bit of Scripture and use your imagination to try and accommodate both, instead of letting science be science and ancient Near Eastern writings be ancient Near Eastern writings.

    Same goes for your lame attempt to draw a strict distinction between what the writers of the Bible most likely appear to have believed (as evidenced by their very words in the Bible, and via a study of ANE cosmologies), in distinction to what YOU say "inspired writers taught." Every conservative Christian thinks they know what the Bible "teaches," on such subjects, from ancient flat earth intertestamental writers to early rabbis (who argued for a flat earth and/or a solid firmament) to some early flat earth Christian Church Fathers to the Reformers who rejected Copernicanism via citing "what Scripture teaches" (Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon) to 19th-early 20th century flat earth Christians in Britain and the U.S. to today's geocentrist Christians. The all know what the Bible "teaches."

    ReplyDelete
  4. EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

    "Steve, You are merely attempting to define your way out of questions and difficulties. One way is via 'metaphor.' And you are not even giving yourself kudos for being the one who is doing the interpreting, picking and choosing which lines are purely metaphorical, which are based on ancient Near Eastern views of the cosmos, and which are at odds with scientifically supported evidence. In fact you don't even have a means to TELL the difference."

    To the contrary, I've been *arguing* for my interpretations. You, by contrast, have no counterargument. So you just get huffy and puffy.

    "You just accept a little bit of science and a little bit of Scripture and use your imagination to try and accommodate both, instead of letting science be science and ancient Near Eastern writings be ancient Near Eastern writings."

    That would be more impressive if you could actually turn your accusation into an argument. But, as usual, you only know how to quote, not how to reason.

    "Same goes for your lame attempt to draw a strict distinction between what the writers of the Bible most likely appear to have believed (as evidenced by their very words in the Bible, and via a study of ANE cosmologies), in distinction to what YOU say 'inspired writers taught.'"

    i) Calling it a "lame distinction" is not an argument, Ed. Where's the argument?

    ii) And your assertion concerning what they "most likely appear to have believed" is just that–another assertion in search of an argument. You're nothing if not consistent–consistently out of your depth.

    "Every conservative Christian thinks they know what the Bible 'teaches,' on such subjects, from ancient flat earth intertestamental writers to early rabbis (who argued for a flat earth and/or a solid firmament) to some early flat earth Christian Church Fathers to the Reformers who rejected Copernicanism via citing 'what Scripture teaches' (Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon) to 19th-early 20th century flat earth Christians in Britain and the U.S. to today's geocentrist Christians. The all know what the Bible 'teaches.'"

    Well that's self-defeating. If you're going to say the interpretation of Scripture is all subjective and person-relative, then you can't prove that Scripture *really* teaches a triple-decker cosmography. You can't prove that Scripture is *really* errant, unscientific, &c.

    Thanks for your exercise in unilateral disarmament.

    ReplyDelete
  5. EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

    "By the way, Walton's functional ontology interpretation of Genesis 1 is one that he believes parallels ancient Near Eastern, and does not deny its flat earth assumptions."

    In the very paper you refer to, him offers the following disclaimers:

    "In the ancient world, to cause something to exist involves giving it a function and a role," in contrast to "giving something material properties."

    "Function is a consequence of purpose (of the gods) rather than as a consequence of structure (which is largely indiscernible)."

    Yet the (alleged) flatness of the earth would be a material, structural property, "which is largely indiscernible."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    Walton's disclaimers and purely functional approach is not endorsed by all OT scholars, nor even by all Evangelical OT scholars.

    Walton also admits in that paper that the Hebrew firmament was firmer than what we'd think of the sky today.

    I've also composed a reply to your point about "burial language."

    Evidence of a Belief in a Three-Tier Cosmos, Or Purely Metaphorical "Burial Language?"

    ReplyDelete