|
|
|
Regular Joe
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/19/2008 7:38 AM
Posts: 447,
Visits: 1,408
|
|
| Something else concerning the intended audience of the piece: Progressive revelation is the idea that information is doled out on the basis that one is able to understand it. For instance, my 2 year old doesn't understand how TV works; he just knows that it does. To try and explain to him how a signal gets converted and then received and displayed wouldn't be prudent. So when something is working with our TV, we just say that it's broken. We don't tell him that the clouds are interfering with the reception or that we're in a valley and only get PBS. In Matthew 6:22, Jesus goes on a little speech about eyes and light and how good eyes equal good light and so forth. Back then, the people of the era with all their scientific knowledge believed that light actually eminated from the eyeball. We know now that it doesn't, but that's what they thought. SO, was Jesus an ass for lying to them? No, he was talking to them in a way that they would understand. Very important. Maybe, just maybe, the people of Moses era weren't equipped to handle things like planets or galaxies or nebula. Maybe, the idea that their world was really, really old would make their brains hurt. I mean after all, their main scientific discoveries were that olive oil burned and that round things, i.e. wheels, helped make mobility a whole lot easier. Maybe they just needed a back story to let them know that God was in charge. BIG PICTURE: The bible won't make much sense to us who are at least 2 millenia away from the intended audience in much the same way that someone reading these posts 100 years from now won't be able to decifer what we were discussing without doing some research. Otherwise, they would assume that everyone who ever served in the military was a paratrooper who hated democrats and liked half-naked chicks.
I lack people-skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:14 PM
Posts: 2,209,
Visits: 3,006
|
|
| I just thought I'd jump in here quickly and throw some thoughts out on this one. I truly believe that when we look at the creation/evolution debate we tend to look the wrong way at some things. First of all I think that when we go to Genesis 1 and ask how the world was created we are asking the wrong question. The question that is addressed in the creation story is "who?" not "how". The language can just as easily mean 6 creative epochs as it can mean 6 24 hour days. However the name of God that is used is consistently the one that speaks primarily of His power and authority and not the personal name that is used later in Genesis. I'm a strong believer in both General Revelation and Special Revelation. General revelation being that which is seen and obvious to anyone who is looking, God's creativity and His beauty and order. Special revelation being those things that are intended specifically for the church--scripture. Now, if I read two books written by the same author I expect to find that they have similarities in their style and language and presentation. In the same way I expect that God's creation and his special revelation will be consistent if we look for the consistencies. I get frustrated when the church doesn't want to see the validity of science and when scientists don't want to see the validity of faith. I'm not convinced that we have to stick to a 6-10,000 year old earth, but neither can I be convinced of cross species evolution. The answer is somewhere in between and it is found in applying both faith in God and honest use of science to come to a conclusion that speaks to God's glory

"...my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me." He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: "That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave" General "Stonewall" Jackson
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:56 PM
Posts: 1,550,
Visits: 5,817
|
|
| Very interesting comments. It amazes me that each group (science and religion) will rule out the other almost completely if it doesn't fall in line with their way of thinking. If science could only realize that God's glory is also about science and the universe around us with emphasis on mankind and where we belong in the grand scheme of his creation. And as Skypilot says, the church sometimes doesn't want to see the validity of science. To stray in one extreme will lead you in the direction that will probably change over time, like all the different theories that have come about over the years about our origin of existence. They are all being revealed as old theories get ruled out over new ones! But God's spoken words in the Bible have remained consistent throughout the years. His everyday miracles are evidence enough for me to know there is a God. We may never really know "how" he did it. Knowing he did can be enough for me! But I will always want to ask how, just keeping it inline with my faith that he did! I love a good mystery!
"Let's Go Downtown" - Flight of the Intruder 
http://www.327infantry.org/second/c_co Same Mud Same Blood - NBC documentary filmed 1967 RVN, chronicle Frank McGee IMOFSGT Nelson P. Henry101st 2nd/327th -NO SLACKKIA October 28, 1967 in QuangTin Province RVN
|
|
|
|