I’d say that you don’t know if it was sufficient or not by that definition.
Perhaps not, but to date the natural operation of the universe seems to me, and many other Christians, the best explanation for what we know re cosmological and evolutionary history. That’s why I say sufficient.
Best explanation I agree with, but I don’t think we could know from a human perspective if it was sufficient.
1 Like
Well, we make our best judgement. Some same sufficient, other claim it’s insufficient, and then still others are agnostic.
Sure. I’m fine with this. Just don’t represent your opinion (which may or may not be right in this case) for the stable meaning of scientific findings. If we keep that distinction straight, it makes space for meaningful disagreement and diversity.
Yes, but… that’s the point of contention behind all of this, isn’t it? ID vs Modern Evolutionary theory, YECs vs OECs vs Theological Evolutionists — it’s all about our judgement regarding what is sufficient according to Scripture and Science.
No.
The contention is about evidential claims. Maybe evolution is not sufficient but we don’t have evidence to demonstrate it is not sufficient. This is a position acceptable to many people (see: @DaleCutler and @jongarvey) even though it is outside ID, which requires evidential demonstration.
Can “can we demonstrate it sufficient or not?” is a more important distinction to make than “is it sufficient or not?”
1 Like
I’m fine with your distinction.
1 Like
The only way one can truly justify the existence of right, justifiable wrath on the part of God is to point to His perfect goodness, holiness and righteousness in His nature the same. If God is perfectly good, then He will administer perfect justice upon everything that misses the mark of this perfect goodness and this is exactly the sentence Adam and Eve received: death. They were designed to be similar to God as in His image where they could love. Love cannot exist under compulsion so they were given the ability of choice to love God and each other by obeying or to not love by disobeying and if you read the paper this am, you can recognize their choice. Through this disobedience all of creation was subjected to futility and all human kind is now born into sin.
So God is also a loving and even a patient God. In the case of the history of Noah, His patience wore out as He recognized that the baffling enormity of evil in the world at the time that might make ISIS blush would result in the demise of the human race. So God wiped it clean in His justifiable wrath. God is also defined as “love” where in His perfect love and justice chose to absorb His wrath upon Himself so giving us a path of reconcilation through Jesus death on the cross. I have been reconciled to God by grace and i know God to be a good, kind hearted yet still just God. His presence brings me great joy.
On the other hand, if God created and imposed vengence, calamity, forms of suffering upon subjects out of the fabric of His nature and not as a response to evil choices resulting from free will volition in those, this makes God evil. This is why i cannot accept an old earth evolutionary perspective- it defines God as akin to cinderellas evil step mother and less akin to the just judge whom He really is. Without taking the Genesis account as written, i see no escape from utter confusion of remaining Biblical content and a tarnishing of Gods good nature. Do i have questions on how God created quickly yet radiometric dating seems to point contrary? Of course! To me, this means that science either has some catching up to do that it is all together inept for defining our history accurately and i am satisfied with this.
I also see that @AllenWitmerMiller suggests that the English words “without form” and “void” in Genesuis 1 suggest that the Judeo Christian perspective of creationism suggest a matching form to that of other ancient myths. So i looked up these Hebrew words for myself.
without form:
תּהוּ
tôhû
to’-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
and Void:
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo’-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
Of course the text goes on to tell of God creating by speaking followed by the adjective “good.” Theres no strife, calamity, stress, natural evil, survival of the fitest. God speaks, creation forms and He declares it to be good, good, good, and ultimately very good.
Ps 33:6 agrees with this, and the apostle Paul says in 2Cor 4:6 “For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
In other words, out of void and darkness and formlessness, God speaks and creates light and calls this good. And out of deadness in the human heart stained by sin as a result of the fall, God forgives by the cross, then speaks and creates life that illuminates His glory.
Evolutionary perspectives made up by godless men like Darwin have nothing to offer as fitting into this creatiinist view. I read another 5 commentaries by Hebrew scholars on the sentence @AllenWitmerMiller brings to our attention and only one suggests the extra biblical view (which it denies as legitimate) of there having been a chaotic event between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 that caused the choatic event leading to void and formlessless from which God created. Since i dont feel comfortable filling in the blanks between these verses, i choose not to and nor should any.
That’s a pretty weaksauce excuse for an omnipotent Deity committing mass murder including the butchering of little children and pregnant women. Why not just POOF and wipe their memories clean like the red light flash stick in MIB? It also doesn’t explain why all the animals living at that needed to die a horrible death by drowning too. But I’m sure all those innocent animals had it coming.
No. I did not. Read more carefully.
1 Like
So i reread. You gave a definition of “myth” and in rebuttle to my claim that God creates in a way that runs contrary to creation myths where calamity and chaos are markers within the process of creation, you stated that “formless and void” equate to a result of chaos. You were, again, providing a counter argument to my suggestion that God speaking, creation occurring and a declaration of goodness was depicting a peace filled and beautiful process and not one defined by survival of the fitest natural evil laden evolutionism. I know not how to interpret you differently.
And by the way, i agree w you that a myth is a story used to explain how something was accomplished in the past. This means that the gospel itself would be described as a “myth.” I was not there and i cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead to forgive me of my sins. So this gospel is a myth, a story about God reconciling His people. Where you and i may disagree is that i believe that some of these myths or stories about what occurred in the past are actually true! This is exactly what Biblical faith is all about.
And a second reading brought you no closer to adequate reading comprehension.
I don’t think I can provide much meaningful assistance to you at this point.
2 Likes
Thanks. Enjoy your evening. Peace
I guess the same wind turned up when the Jordon was split too?
And what about Elijah and Elisha parting the Jordan? Maybe he should have said, where is the wind and topography of Elijah! Instead of asking where the the God of Elijah is.
This is the problem with using hermeneutics based on providentialism…
If you were consistent in this, you would have to look for a “natural” explanation for the ressurrection too.
If you were familiar with the reality of God’s providence, as apparently you are not, you wouldn’t be saying things like that. Were there miracles in the Rich Stearns account that broke any natural laws?
I asked you a simple question. If the parting of the red sea can be explained by the wind, topography and timing, then what about the parting of the Jordan.
Both events are theologically connected as a display of God’s approval of his annointed leader/prophet.
The resurrection also serves a similar purpose in showing to the world that Jesus is the Messiah.
I think I may have posted this here before:
Then what about the parting of the Jordan?
It may have broken natural laws or it may not have. Comparing it (and almost implicitly questioning my faith by innuendo) to the resurrection is a category error.
It’s not. You are creating artificial distinction which is not there in the bible.
This is just bowing down to naturalism and choosing to go for a naturalistic explanation wherever possible.
It’s definitely not good hermeneutics.