Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

Since we hear so much about ANE texts; how many of you have read any of them?

Over the last year I've read snippets, and have read a little more over the last week.

What is your opinion of what you read in them?

Tags: ancient, eastern, near, texts

Views: 236

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jason -

 

I don't think that I said that. I'm saying that you're minimizing those things, though I don't think I've argued about omniscience.

 

No, but I have had other T-friends accuse me of such.

 

1. Glad we agree.

 

God, have mercy. LOL!

 

2. I don't think I use that argument. I say that God is true and speaks truly, therefore His Word is true.

 

My memory fails if anything came forth from you like that. But I have read it from 2 others here in recent discussions. But I would ask if you think that argument is good?

 

3. What about salvation, redemption, justification, sanctification, and glorification? Does God trump human sin throughout the process? Yes. Furthermore, the work of God in Scripture is also one of creation. God did a perfect job then; though I guess we'd disagree on that, too. What I'm saying is that God does indeed enable men to overcome their shortcomings. That happened in the process of inscripturation.

 

I knew that was coming. Maybe a word of knowledge. :) My main thought is the difference between giving revelation and overriding a particular framework. It seems laughable to some, like my focus on the difference between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation, hence why revelation can still be given by God today that is not needed to be canonical. I have not given a ton of thought on this one point, so cannot articulate it. It might show a hole. But I am willing to admit it that, as we think through theology, and we sense change needs to come, it causes us to keep thinking wider on the ramifications. Same thing happened when I had a specific personal encounter with the Holy Spirit in the autumn of 1997, 9 months after I was born again.

 

But back to giving revelation and overriding a framework. Christ was the given revelation of the Father, but his real-life framework was not overrode. He remained a full Jewish male embedded in the first century.

 

4. The problem with the incarnational model of Scripture is that it is not a very good analogy. Check Pastoral Musings (search) for Warfield's comment on the issue.

 

Of course, this is one of personal opinion. I would argue a proper analogy of the incarnation is good because a) we have a Christ-centred faith if we have anything, so we have a lot to learn about how the incarnation worked in the living word to consider the written word and b) Jesus was THE given revelation of the Father, the exact representation of who he is but stayed a real male Jew in his particular framework.

 

I think, too, that your term "team project" has no biblical foundation. God worked through men. God worked in men. To some degree God worked with men. In the end, He is not a teammate: He is Lord and God. Men are servants sanctified to do His work.

 

It is semantics, terminology. Of course, it 2 partners work together, I suppose there is a team. I mean, did not man pen Scripture? Was not Christ both human and divine? Of course He is Lord and God. That's what makes it so scandalous and glorious. What God would do this? It is ABSURD - both the living and written word!! We are mocked for such. But it is exactly what he did.

We're so close, yet so far...

I'm truly gone, now.

ScottL said:

Jason -

 

I don't think that I said that. I'm saying that you're minimizing those things, though I don't think I've argued about omniscience.

 

No, but I have had other T-friends accuse me of such.

 

1. Glad we agree.

 

God, have mercy. LOL!

 

2. I don't think I use that argument. I say that God is true and speaks truly, therefore His Word is true.

 

My memory fails if anything came forth from you like that. But I have read it from 2 others here in recent discussions. But I would ask if you think that argument is good?

 

3. What about salvation, redemption, justification, sanctification, and glorification? Does God trump human sin throughout the process? Yes. Furthermore, the work of God in Scripture is also one of creation. God did a perfect job then; though I guess we'd disagree on that, too. What I'm saying is that God does indeed enable men to overcome their shortcomings. That happened in the process of inscripturation.

 

I knew that was coming. Maybe a word of knowledge. :) My main thought is the difference between giving revelation and overriding a particular framework. It seems laughable to some, like my focus on the difference between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation, hence why revelation can still be given by God today that is not needed to be canonical. I have not given a ton of thought on this one point, so cannot articulate it. It might show a hole. But I am willing to admit it that, as we think through theology, and we sense change needs to come, it causes us to keep thinking wider on the ramifications. Same thing happened when I had a specific personal encounter with the Holy Spirit in the autumn of 1997, 9 months after I was born again.

 

But back to giving revelation and overriding a framework. Christ was the given revelation of the Father, but his real-life framework was not overrode. He remained a full Jewish male embedded in the first century.

 

4. The problem with the incarnational model of Scripture is that it is not a very good analogy. Check Pastoral Musings (search) for Warfield's comment on the issue.

 

Of course, this is one of personal opinion. I would argue a proper analogy of the incarnation is good because a) we have a Christ-centred faith if we have anything, so we have a lot to learn about how the incarnation worked in the living word to consider the written word and b) Jesus was THE given revelation of the Father, the exact representation of who he is but stayed a real male Jew in his particular framework.

 

I think, too, that your term "team project" has no biblical foundation. God worked through men. God worked in men. To some degree God worked with men. In the end, He is not a teammate: He is Lord and God. Men are servants sanctified to do His work.

 

It is semantics, terminology. Of course, it 2 partners work together, I suppose there is a team. I mean, did not man pen Scripture? Was not Christ both human and divine? Of course He is Lord and God. That's what makes it so scandalous and glorious. What God would do this? It is ABSURD - both the living and written word!! We are mocked for such. But it is exactly what he did.

Sorry, forgot to include with regards to #3 - I would also say that I am not convinced Scripture was given to pass along "inerrant" cosmology, biology, archaeology, etc. That is why I would say God is not going to "micro-manage" Scripture and make sure every little detail on these "peripheral" areas (peripheral to the intent and purpose of Scripture) is perfect and "inerrant". God is giving "theological" revelation about himself, his world, humanity, his plan, his purpose, his ways of living, etc, within an actual historical framework. But I am not convinced he is trying to give detailed cosmology, biology, archaeology, etc.

 

What is its purpose? What is its intent? What does God-breathed mean?

Yes.  That IS what I mean.  What I assume may lead to a discovery.  But the legitimacy of the discovery is not tied to the accuracy of my assumptions.  They are different things that should be judged on their own merits.  Say I believe that animals can withstand microwaves better than humans.  I stick my cat in the microwave.  I'm proven wrong.  Both the assumptions AND the actions are wrong, but for different reasons.  My actions are not wrong just because my assumption was.  Say that I assume CORRECTLY that cats ARE killed by microwaves.  Doesn't make my putting the cat in the microwave to prove my point a good thing.  I can't justify my actions because of the accuracy of my intent.  But it goes a step further.  My assumptions may be right or wrong.  My actions to prove it may be right or wrong.  But there is no morality to the statement of fact that microwaves kill living animals.  It's just a fact.  It's true.  We can't discount it because of what bad people might choose to do with that knowledge.  We can't discount it because we don't like the person that came up with it.  And we can't ignore it just because someone whose morality and worldview we approve of says it isn't true.  Ideas do have consequences.  If Darwin rejected God, there will be a consequence for that.  But the accuracy of that belief and the consequences of that belief should be separate from any other actions and beliefs.  

Let me put it another way.  Since you are a pastor, let me use that as an analogy. If I preach for the wrong motives, can it still not bear good fruit?  If my theology is bad in one area, cannot someone still come to a saving knowledge of Christ?  Say I'm a pastor and it turns out that I am a closet homosexual or adulterer or something.  Does that negate any good I might have done?  Are those saving decisions made by people now somehow illegitimate?  I don't think so.  The offspring of something isn't tainted by the motivations behind the source.

The thing about Darwin is that his ideas have largely been accepted - as long as you don't credit him with them.  His writings focused on genetic biologic change and unique genetic biologic characteristics in isolated animals such as those on the Galapagos Islands.  The genetics, and other things, came along later and verified that.  But while TONS of stuff is painted as "Darwinian" and dismissed with prejudice, AIG and others propose the exact same thing.  They just say the separation of different groups of living things was caused by supernatural activity.  

Jason said:

Daniel,

Presuppositions matter. That's the essence of this part of the discussion.

What motivates us matters.

Ideas have consequences.

What you are presenting is the idea that none of the above is true. It's a back door approach that you're taking, but that's what it boils down to.

Are you sure that's what you mean?

Are you sure that's what you intend?

Daniel said:

Jason said:

I think you're missing the point that Darwin believed things evolved because he couldn't believe that God would allow evil. He did not arrive at his conclusions scientifically. He arrived at them by interpreting what he saw through the philosophical/presuppositional lens that he adopted.

That's very different from what you're saying, I believe.

Why he went looking though doesn't matter.  And I don't see him as MAKING scientific conclusions, but rather offering an hypothesis.  He did have philosophical conclusions, as we all do, but the scientific hypothesis either can stand up to testing or not regardless of Darwin's beliefs - many of which have been updated and expanded.  The question has an answer regardless of why it was asked.  Whether the answer is "yes" or "no", we can't dismiss the evidence for it just because we don't like the reason why it was asked.  And it doesn't matter if some other belief in something else is supported or falsified by the finding.  Something is true or not regardless of it's implications.  We can't just accept whatever data fits our beliefs or doesn't have unpleasant consequences.

Lets move it to the realm of politics, for example.  Obama can do good things for bad reasons or bad things with nothing but the best of intentions.  And if he makes a decision that bad people benefit from as much more more than good people, it doesn't mean that it was a bad decision.  In other words, the truth should not be determined by which side, us versus them, benefits the most from it.  Neither should it be determined based on the motives of the person asking the question or reporting the answer.  

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================