Theistic Evolutuonists

I was just speaking to a Logos rep and he told me that Tim Keller, BY Warfeild and Walter were all theistic evolutuonists. Blew me away. After some light digging it seems this is actually true. Got me wondering how many other theologians may be of the same persuasion. Anyone know others?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

GregW

I don't know about them but John Polkinghorne would be a good place to start if you wanted to investigate further. He is an Anglican priest who was previously a physicist and has written extensively on theistic evolution. Some of his work is available in Logos - see:

https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=polkinghorne&Author=8824%7cJohn+Polkinghorne&redirecttoauthor=true

Daniel Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583393#Comment_583393

See this: http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/b._b._warfield_on_creation_and_evolution or if you have recent Themelios Journal in Logos, then try this.

Basic gist - BB Warfield may not have been a theistic evolutionist as the term is commonly understood.

I would also open Logos and you might find more resources searching All Text in Entire Library for the phrase "theistic evolution". That brought up quite a few results for me. Or you could narrow it down by adding other search terms.

DMB

I was reading yesterday and a well known 'theologian' (he's a favorite, but in quotes since I don't agree with the term) was quoted with a very unusual conclusion. So unusual I wondered how he fit within his religious tradition.

I won't say who/what but I would say (1) it induces you to read the author more closely and (2) you wonder what exactly are the benefits of the labels we attach. I know we absolutely have to have them, but quite often they're no more than reassuringly vague.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583423#Comment_583423

Take a look at this book for more thoughts:

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Historical-Adam-Counterpoints-ebook/dp/B00BW2U54G/tag=fhj-20

I will be publishing my review either later tonight or tomorrow. It is one of two books that I will be reviewing this week.

Chris Myers

You won't find him in Logos, but someone I was fortunate to hear speak and teach many times over the past decade at my church (where he served on staff) is George L. Murphy. He's a theoretical physicist and priest who has a passion for exploring and writing about the interface of science and religion. I found a video of him here:

http://biologos.org/blog/scientists-tell-their-stories-george-murphy

About 3:00 in he touches on this topic. There are also a couple other videos of George on that website, which, I believe, would be a good place to get general information on the compatibility of science and religion.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583442#Comment_583442

I was shocked that two of my professors of OT are theistic guys. They argue there is a gap in the genealogies sufficient to allow as much time as evolution might need.

Their hypothesis as to the engine? Big Bang & String theory. Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from. Last I knew he was putting forward directed panspermia as the most likely source of life on earth, ie aliens or another civilization seeded life here on earth to resemble their own on some distant (or not) planet.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583447#Comment_583447

I was shocked that two of my professors of OT are theistic guys. They argue there is a gap in the genealogies sufficient to allow as much time as evolution might need.

Their hypothesis as to the engine? Big Bang & String theory. Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from. Last I knew he was putting forward directed panspermia as the most likely source of life on earth, ie aliens or another civilization seeded life here on earth to resemble their own on some distant (or not) planet.

If one attributes the origin of life on earth to alien life, doesn't that just back the problem of the origin of life back a step, rather than solving it? Doesn't seem to make a non-theistic solution any more probable in my mind.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583451#Comment_583451

Big-bang just got another boost just last week. I agree with Michael 'process' not 'origin'. But I'm also fascinated as I study geology and thense astronomy that the concepts are so closely aligned (with Gen 1). Of course the sticking point is 'days' without a sun to work with. Reading my present volume of the franciscans in the 1600s southwest (US), apparently the church argued earth-centric by virtue of the Gen 1 verse sequence (which matched the pueblo views going back potentially to the Anasazi and Chaco).

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583467#Comment_583467

I came across an interesting quote from Cardinal Bellarmine, the cleric who “forced” Galileo to recant his Copernican conviction that the Earth orbited the Sun.

This quote shows that far from holding that Science should be subservient to theology the Cardinal took a thoroughly enlightened view that if there was a clear clash between science and theology it is the theology that must change. Like Warfield however he differentiates between proof and speculation.

“...I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.”

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583451#Comment_583451

I was shocked that two of my professors of OT are theistic guys. They argue there is a gap in the genealogies sufficient to allow as much time as evolution might need.

Their hypothesis as to the engine? Big Bang & String theory. Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from. Last I knew he was putting forward directed panspermia as the most likely source of life on earth, ie aliens or another civilization seeded life here on earth to resemble their own on some distant (or not) planet.

If one attributes the origin of life on earth to alien life, doesn't that just back the problem of the origin of life back a step, rather than solving it? Doesn't seem to make a non-theistic solution any more probable in my mind.

Agreed - in fact and on a technicality I think this may have unwittingly slid him into the Intelligent Design camp.

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583501#Comment_583501

Hawking hasn't distanced himself from the Big Bang at all (in fact, he is still widely influential in fleshing out and adjusting its details). Keep in mind that theories of the origin of the universe (e.g. the big bang), theories of the origin of life (e.g. panspermia) and theories of the development of life (e.g. evolution) all deal with separate questions. Hawking can (and does) toy with the idea of panspermia without rejecting either the big bang or evolution.

As for the original question, there are tons of theologians who are theistic evolutionists! BioLogos is a great resource on this, with articles and talks from Peter Enns, N.T. Wright, Greg Boyd, and many other well-respected theologians and biblical scholars.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583507#Comment_583507

Another approach is to check whether we understand the creation story correctly. Sailhamer takes that approach in "Genesis unbound". I assume I did not understand him fully and I may not buy his theory anyway. But reading the creation story in Hebrew is quite interesting, the current translations are impregnated with an interpretation already!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583490#Comment_583490

Some people are young earthers; some allow for much greater age. I used to be firmly in the latter camp (with reservation allowing that I could be wrong), but I have moved back to the former perspective while still holding the same reservation. Some folks will say it doesn't really matter...once things get rolling, it really isn't a big deal one way or the other. Some think that God is robbed if "young earth" isn't promoted, but that is a rather small-minded view that has more to do with the individual person's perception than it does God's ontology. What does matter and is significantly affected, though, is YHWH's psychology and the psychology of Satan as well. The motivations of both are affected in rather significant ways by the variations inherent in these two scenarios. The big difference has to do with what Satan knew and when he knew it, which affects YHWH's response/plan.

This will make the third time I've said it here, I think, but I think YHWH created creation with physical and mathematical characteristics that are essentially apparitions. By "apparition" I mean that they have a seeming history that in fact never existed or took place. Dinosaurs never existed except as fossils. The Big Bang with the subsequent cosmic inflation just found to be supported by measurements made by the BICEP2 radio telescope? Never happened, even though the physical evidence and math support the idea. To me, this is a far more plausible and far less ludicrous idea than the typical young earther attempts to tweak the existing physical evidence, which supports billions of years of existence, in order to force it to support a ~6000 year old creation out of nothing.

Of course, if a Christian has spent his or her entire career trying to prove that there were dinosaurs on the ark, or any number of less absurd but equally far-fetched ideas of similar nature, my suggestion will appear to be nothing less than sheer blasphemous madness and heretical chutzpah. What such people don't comprehend even in the slightest is that their certainty is actually flaming idolatry. Most Christians read the Book, draw conclusions, and then assume (typical timebomb included) that their understanding is flawless. They trot out books and hold conferences and whatnot to support their conclusions that they are quite sure must be true because God said so...when He really said no such thing. They are, in effect, insisting that YHWH be what they have erroneously envisioned. Trying to make the existing evidence support an almost 6000 year old universe & planet is just plain silly.

YHWH wants people to believe because He spoke to them...and He fully expects them to respond appropriately. Too many people think that simply proving God exists solves something. It solves nothing. Neither evidence nor hyper-evidence (miracles) solves anything. Yeishuu`a healed and fed many thousands...and 120 showed up for Shaabhu`ohtth (Pentecost). Millions walked between walls of water and had a massive pillar of fire for a nightlight for 40 years, waking to gather bread from the ground that wasn't there when they went to sleep...yet Hebrews 3 says they all died in the desert because of unbelief. People need to wrap their heads around the fact that YHWH is capable of FAR, FAR, FAR more than they have ever contemplated...some of it would shock them out of their shoes. Deliberately creating a world that doesn't have seams and edges...what is so "wrong" with that? The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Again, that old question arises, but with a Creator's spin: "So, folks, are you going to believe Me and what I say, or your eyes and what they see?" Contrary to popular belief, He isn't looking for reasons to make eternal life "easy" for people to lay hold of...any more than he is apt to throw pearls before swine. His entire plan is predicated on people doing what is practically impossible to do...simply because He spoke to them.

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583451#Comment_583451

If one attributes the origin of life on earth to alien life, doesn't that just back the problem of the origin of life back a step, rather than solving it?

One of the mysteries that scientists are trying to explain is the origin of life on earth. Even if we find a planet that is similar to earth, it does not provide the answer(s), but it furthers the long time belief in the scientific community that there are many planets that harbor life.

I tell people who bring up the subject not to be surprised about alien life because it's a very biblical concept. We already know we are not alone; no need for SETI funds to answer that question. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583447#Comment_583447

Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from

Have a reference for this? I'd be interested in it.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583522#Comment_583522

I tell people who bring up the subject not to be surprised about alien life because it's a very biblical concept. We already know we are not alone; no need for SETI funds to answer that question.

I do think it is erroneous to equate spirit beings with extraterrestrial beings. The angels and demons are not aliens...at least not in the way the word is used in common American parlance.

While this planet does seem like small potatoes in consideration of the seemingly infinite power YHWH has, the character Q from Star Trek (STNG) is an interesting figure to contemplate. He was of a race that essentially had god-powers--they could warp and shape the fabric of time and space at will. Yet Q often chose to piddle and fiddle with Captain Jean Luc Picard because he found him interesting. We, whose lives are constantly beset with constraints, tend to think grandiose ideas when contemplating infinite, omnipotent power. Interestingly, Q often lamented along the lines of a jaded teen--when you can do absolutely anything you want, absolutely everything seems boring. I can therefore easily contemplate YHWH choosing to settle His attention and focus. Though the Bible doesn't exactly say it in so many words, it does indicate at times that the scope of the Book is THE scope.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583532#Comment_583532

Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from

Have a reference for this? I'd be interested in it.

I think he may be confusing Big Bang with black holes, which Hawking did distance himself from...but not as much as was reported when the story broke. I don't think he says they don't exist, but just that they don't exist in the way scientists (he being one of the foremost) had popularized them as existing, particularly with regard to the concept of an "event horizon". Hawking, who used to play up that concept quite a bit, now says there may not be an event horizon as such. Because that feature was such an integral part of what black holes were in his mind, he seems to feel like they don't exist anymore...even though there is still "something" there that has an impact on its neighborhood.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583507#Comment_583507

there are tons of theologians who are theistic evolutionists!

Assuming 160 pounds as an average that makes for 12.5 theologians per ton. Given that the majority of theologians are theistic evoutionists, you are probably "under estimating" the number by implication. I would suggest Tielhard de Chardin as an interesting historical starting point. He's not in Logos but he should be.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583536#Comment_583536

I think he may be confusing Big Bang with black holes,

Thanks - that makes a bit more sense.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583447#Comment_583447

Their hypothesis as to the engine? Big Bang & String theory. Big Bang you'll remember is a theory even Steven Hawking is distancing himself from. Last I knew he was putting forward directed panspermia as the most likely source of life on earth, ie aliens or another civilization seeded life here on earth to resemble their own on some distant (or not) planet.

Yes, but where did alien life originate? They seem to think that by pushing the question off planet they have answered the question.

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583537#Comment_583537

there are tons of theologians who are theistic evolutionists!

Assuming 160 pounds as an average that makes for 12.5 theologians per ton. Given that the majority of theologians are theistic evoutionists, you are probably "under estimating" the number by implication. I would suggest Tielhard de Chardin as an interesting historical starting point. He's not in Logos but he should be.

Ah, but my statement provides no upper limit, only a lower. "Tons" = "at least 2 tons." 5,000,000 tons is still "tons." I was trained as a logician, implication doesn't enter into it.

On the internet, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Bill Anderson

I was just speaking to a Logos rep and he told me that Tim Keller, BY Warfeild and Walter were all theistic evolutuonists.

I don't know if this sermon is the only place where Tim Keller discusses his view, but here's a quote from a sermon entitled "Creation and Rest":

"If you would like to know my view on things, I’m very, very skeptical about the theory of evolution as a macro theory, as a theory that says everything evolved from the tiniest life forms. On the other hand, I am very concerned about creation science, which says the earth is 8,000 years old and anybody who doesn’t believe in six 24-hour day creation is undermining the Bible."

From the same sermon, here's Keller's view on Genesis 1:

"On days one, two, and three, God is creating realms, and on days four, five, and six, we see, in perfect parallelism, he creates rulers for the realms. On the first day he creates the realm of light and darkness. Look down on the fourth day. It says in verse 16, “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern [to rule] the day and the lesser light to govern [rule] the night. He also made the stars.” On the second day he creates two more realms: the realms of the water and the sky. On the fifth day he creates two sets of rulers again, in a sense. He creates the fish and he creates the fowl. On the third day he creates the realm of land, and on the sixth day he creates the rulers of the realm, first animals, but then finally us. On the seventh day he sits down. What we’re being told here is that there is a kingly structure to creation. It is realms, and rulers over the realms, and rulers over the rulers of the realms, and finally God is Lord of Lords and God of Gods."

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583566#Comment_583566

On the internet, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

[:D][Y]

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583537#Comment_583537

I would suggest Tielhard de Chardin as an interesting historical starting point. He's not in Logos but he should be.

Isn't he the guy who helped Dawson promote the Piltdown Man hoax? A devoted Darwinist? We REALLY need that trash in Logos?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583591#Comment_583591

Beijing Man. Let's not whack Pierre too hard.

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583594#Comment_583594

Beijing Man. Let's not whack Pierre too hard.

From Wikipedia:

Identity of the forger[edit]

The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown, but suspects have included Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle.^[12]^[13]

Teilhard had travelled to regions of Africa where one of the anomalous finds originated, and resided in the Wealden area from the date of the earliest finds. Hinton left a trunk in storage at the Natural History Museum in London that in 1970 was found to contain animal bones and teeth carved and stained in a manner similar to the carving and staining on the Piltdown finds. Phillip Tobias implicated Arthur Keith by detailing the history of the investigation of the hoax, dismissing other theories, and listing inconsistencies in Keith's statements and actions.^[14] Other investigations suggest the hoax involved accomplices rather than a single forger.^[15]

The focus on Charles Dawson as the main forger is supported by the accumulation of evidence regarding other archaeological hoaxes he perpetrated in the decade or two prior to the Piltdown discovery. Archaeologist Miles Russell of Bournemouth University analyzed Dawson's antiquarian collection and determined at least 38 were fakes.^[16]^[17] Among these were the teeth of a reptile/mammal hybrid, Plagiaulax dawsoni, "found" in 1891 (and whose teeth had been filed down in the same way that the teeth of Piltdown man would be some 20 years later),

Bottom Line: He was a man of the cloth promoting (Darwinistic) evolution. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583591#Comment_583591

Isn't he the guy who helped Dawson promote the Piltdown Man hoax? A devoted Darwinist? We REALLY need that trash in Logos?

I would prefer that you not insult an excellent reference - the thread is about theistic evolutionists. I'm sorry you don't appreciate his work. Know any other seminal works to recommend?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583597#Comment_583597

A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Scarcely - I suspect that you have pre-judged him without having actually read his works. When someone refers to the omega point, I'll grant their views on Chardin some credence. But since the topic of this thread is "theistic evolutionists", do you have a better seminal work to recommend?

Kent

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583625#Comment_583625

Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583624#Comment_583624

I would prefer that you not insult an excellent reference - the thread is about theistic evolutionists. I'm sorry you don't appreciate his work. Know any other seminal works to recommend?

In this case, My convictions overrule your preferences. I have a right to share my views. Attacking creationism with theories is one thing. Corrupting archaeological evidence to promote false theories is something else, altogether.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583632#Comment_583632

My convictions overrule your preferences.

Not on the forums - be glad I was polite and referred to preferences rather than what I was actually thinking. There is lots of utter garbage in Logos which it why we concentrate on the software we share rather than the theology that we do not. It is also important to know what you are talking about before judging it - how much of Teilhard de Charin have you actually read? If none, then you are unqualified to comment on the suggestion.

Corrupting archaeological evidence to promote false theories is something else, altogether.

Irrelevant unless you have a secret stash of knowledge that the world doesn't.

From Wikipedia:

From 1912 to 1914, Teilhard worked in the paleontology laboratory of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, in Paris, studying the mammals of the middle Tertiary period. Later he studied elsewhere in Europe. In June 1912 he formed part of the original digging team, with Arthur Smith Woodward and Charles Dawson, to perform follow-up investigations at the Piltdown site, after the discovery of the first fragments of the (fraudulent) "Piltdown Man", with some even suggesting he participated in the hoax.^[2] Professor Marcellin Boule (specialist in Neanderthal studies), who so early as 1915 astutely recognised the non-hominid origins of the Piltdown finds, gradually guided Teilhard towards human paleontology. At the museum's Institute of Human Paleontology, he became a friend of Henri Breuil and took part with him, in 1913, in excavations in the prehistoric painted caves in the northwest of Spain, at the Cave of Castillo.

"Some" is primarily Stephen Gould whose evidence is weak not conclusive if you care to read his essays.

Bill Coley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583520#Comment_583520

I think YHWH created creation with physical and mathematical characteristics that are essentially apparitions. By "apparition" I mean that they have a seeming history that in fact never existed or took place. Dinosaurs never existed except as fossils. The Big Bang with the subsequent cosmic inflation just found to be supported by measurements made by the BICEP2 radio telescope? Never happened, even though the physical evidence and math support the idea. To me, this is a far more plausible and far less ludicrous idea than the typical young earther attempts to tweak the existing physical evidence, which supports billions of years of existence, in order to force it to support a ~6000 year old creation out of nothing.

David,

First, from what I know of Stephen Hawking's recent change of mind, your reply earlier in this thread specifying black holes, not the Big Bang, as the focus of his concerns was spot on. Very well done!

Second, while your defense of a young earth explains how it could be that every bit of available scientific evidence suggests the planet to be billions of years old, it suffers from a profound weakness. Why would a God who is both the source and inspiration for truth create such a fundamentally deceptive world? Why would God give us curious, perceptive, investigative minds, then surround us with evidence whose central intent is to mislead? More, how could a God responsible for a creation of such fraudulent identity expect us to believe anything else that God ever said? If you lie to me about the price you paid for your bubble gum, I'm likely to deem it an inconsequential minor offense. But if for as long as I have known you, you have lied to me about who you are, where you came from, and why you're in my life, your credibility with me will suffer precipitously, and for good reason.

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583667#Comment_583667

Bringing this back to to my OP, being a seminary grad and what I think is well read, I was surprised to hear this from consevative theologians. I was wonderng if anyone had any suggestions for further reading. (My intent wasnt to start a debate.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583670#Comment_583670

Keller: The Reason for God (2008) and Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583667#Comment_583667

I think YHWH created creation with physical and mathematical characteristics that are essentially apparitions. By "apparition" I mean that they have a seeming history that in fact never existed or took place. Dinosaurs never existed except as fossils. The Big Bang with the subsequent cosmic inflation just found to be supported by measurements made by the BICEP2 radio telescope? Never happened, even though the physical evidence and math support the idea. To me, this is a far more plausible and far less ludicrous idea than the typical young earther attempts to tweak the existing physical evidence, which supports billions of years of existence, in order to force it to support a ~6000 year old creation out of nothing.

David,

First, from what I know of Stephen Hawking's recent change of mind, your reply earlier in this thread specifying black holes, not the Big Bang, as the focus of his concerns was spot on. Very well done!

Second, while your defense of a young earth explains how it could be that every bit of available scientific evidence suggests the planet to be billions of years old, it suffers from a profound weakness. Why would a God who is both the source and inspiration for truth create such a fundamentally deceptive world? Why would God give us curious, perceptive, investigative minds, then surround us with evidence whose central intent is to mislead? More, how could a God responsible for a creation of such fraudulent identity expect us to believe anything else that God ever said? If you lie to me about the price you paid for your bubble gum, I'm likely to deem it an inconsequential minor offense. But if for as long as I have known you, you have lied to me about who you are, where you came from, and why you're in my life, your credibility with me will suffer precipitously, and for good reason.

Bill, I have an answer for your question, but I'm not sure you are prepared to accept it. I'm not saying that out of condescension. It's more a matter of prophecy. The reasons why I don't have any problem with the issues you have raised and consider troublesome are tied very closely to YHWH's prophetic purposes. For that reason, they are not easily comprehended, because He made prophecy deliberately difficult to understand. Not only that, but virtually every hermeneutics book you could purchase from Logos or elsewhere will give you "rules" for Bible interpretation that absolutely exclude the methodology by which comprehending prophecy is possible. That is by Design. It is precisely how (among other considerations) YHWH has been able to "seal" the Book until the time of the end.

To get a bit closer to your concerns, prophecy outlines a God that is radically different than what Christians perceive. Call that absurd, but something has to account for people who call Yeishuu`a "Lord" and engage is churchianity only to have Him say, "I never knew you." Mt. 7:23. Something has to account for Hab. 1:5. Prophecy does account for those anomalies in a clear fashion. Numerous Christian axioms, however, make seeing and accepting such things nearly impossible. That said, YHWH is not who you think He is. That's not a put down. It's a prophetic reality that neither you nor anyone else can really do anything about. That universal condition, the famine of the hearing of the word of YHWH (Amos 8:11) is what He has established as part of His plan. The good news is that if you eat your Wheaties and don't wander out into traffic, you may well get to experience the "wake up call" when the lights get turned back on.

See the part of your question I bolded? Read Job 12:16, then Job 12:24, 25 (Read that whole section from vv. 12-25 for the full context). The book of Job has very little to do with Job and the other four dudes with him. It is a sardine can of prophecy covering a multitude of concerns. In some ways it is the most important book of the Bible because it includes a significant part of the "set up", by which I mean Job 1 & 2. By "set up", I mean the whole driving concept that underlies and defines what is motivating YHWH's actions. These issues and concerns are generally totally overlooked, but they tie into Genesis 3 in dovetail fashion. YHWH isn't primarily concerned with you or me, shocking as that may seem. There is a deep sense in which we are merely a by-product of other concerns that YHWH has. I'm not saying "afterthought"--there is no such thing where YHWH is concerned. But the lack of concern He shows in explaining anything to Job is sufficiently indicative of my assertion. Consider this: effectively, because Job never is told the "why" or "how" concerning his Satanic attack, YHWH has deceived Job. He isn't the only one. Ask Jeremiah...Jer. 20:7. People talk often of YHWH's mysterious ways. They are mysterious only if you don't understand what He is trying to accomplish and why...but He has deliberately and purposefully "hidden" those purposes and motivations up to this point in time. How? As shocking as it will be to hear...deception is one of those ways. [Why? Essentially, for the shock value. He intends on turning virtually everyone's sense of stability upside down, primarily because that stability isn't grounded in His will.] I imagine you won't believe that, which is why I was quite happy to find this book available on Amazon. Having someone else also articulating this concept will take some of the pressure off of me. Even though Anderson's focus is terribly narrow, he at least sees a portion of what is overlooked, ignored, or explained away by virtually everyone else.

Why...How...is this possible? It is actually incredibly simple. It must be so. The principle of Godly justice demands it. Mt. 7:2, Lev. 24:20. If someone is a deceiver, Godly justice requires they receive their comeuppance by way of deception. If someone lays a trap or snare, he will fall into it or be taken by it whether he likes it or not. Job 18:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Check out Psa. 18:26, and look at it in the NET Bible. That isn't the same God that almost anyone thinks they know...but it is the God of the Bible. Am I saying YHWH lies? No, I'm saying He actively gets others to do it for Him. 1 Kgs. 22:19, 20, 21, 22, 23. " Why? Simple...those He deceives deserve it.

The typical response to what I'm saying is a fulfillment of the aforementioned Hab. 1:5, usually peppered with scoffing and requisite mentions of tin foil hats. So be it. Also common is a mix of anger, fear, resentment, and dismissal grounded in pride. No one...NO ONE...can accept that they don't adequately see God if they presume to have a relationship with Him. When they read His words to the disciples in Mt. 13:16, virtually EVERY person who reads those words personalizes the message and responds, "See! He said, "YOUR eyes see"...that means ME!! He said I SEE!!!" And they continue on, oblivious to the cold truth that the words He spoke that are really intended for them are Mt. 7:21, 22, 23. People assume so much where YHWH is concerned it is staggering...but not unexpected. Prophecy details it all with amazing clarity. Not to be too personal, Bill (I promise that you are not alone), but you really don't know YHWH. Your questions illustrate that. That might be scary to hear (or anger inducing), but if you can say that you would do what YHWH says, no matter the cost, no matter how much it may conflict with what you have come to think He expects of you, then you probably are okay. Give time a chance to catch up to prophecy and it will work itself out. Unfortunately, many people simply won't like the God of the Bible. It is precisely why they have constructed and concocted a God that would never do anything to ruffle their tender sensibilities. Isa. 30:10, 11.

But wait, all of those verses are talking about the wicked! His enemies, right? Not about God's people! Mic.2:8 Unfortunately, for those who consider themselves His people, (the Mt. 7:21, 22, 23 crowd, for instance), He doesn't have the same rose-colored glasses on. His expectations are simply not the ones His people profess to be His. That may be unbelievable, but prophecy insists in hundreds upon hundreds of places that it is precisely how it is.

So, dinos never lived? Possible? Considering 'Elohhiym, the One who employs the Deceiver Satan to accomplish His purposes (it's precisely why he wasn't killed on the spot when he sinned, people)...absolutely.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583667#Comment_583667

More, how could a God responsible for a creation of such fraudulent identity expect us to believe anything else that God ever said? If you lie to me about the price you paid for your bubble gum, I'm likely to deem it an inconsequential minor offense. But if for as long as I have known you, you have lied to me about who you are, where you came from, and why you're in my life, your credibility with me will suffer precipitously, and for good reason.

One other point regarding your statements above...well, maybe a couple of points. Do you notice what you are saying, Bill? You are equating what YHWH did in creation with what He said...except...YHWH never said anything about trying to figure out the age of the universe by using "evidence" found in creation. That is just something people have taken upon themselves. On the other hand, what did He say? Deut. 4:12, 13. He said do My will. I repeat: "Are you going to trust your eyes, or are you going to trust what I SAY?"

So...where does YHWH say that the universe is billions of years old and earth is millions? Nowhere. If it isn't that old, even though it may appear otherwise, then there really isn't a problem, right? How has he lied? Has he told anyone to judge anything by the physical evidence of geology and cosmology and quantum mechanics?

That answer is obviously "no". However, that doesn't mean that the heavens (cosmology) and the earth (geology) aren't called upon to be witnesses. They most certainly are. The question, though, is how? Deut. 30:19, 20, Deut. 4:26. It's pretty clear...they will witness to the failure to comply with what He said--not to a failure to respond to what the attributes of creation may say, especially if that "evidence" goes against His word. Also, supporting this point, there are numerous places where YHWH denigrates creation as compared to Himself, even though He was its author. Giving the kind of weight to creation that both Creationists and scientists have granted it is flagrant idolatry. It equates the creation with the Creator when they simply are not the same. Also, Isa. 47:13, 14, 15 could easily be applied to those in the scientific community, to astronomers rather than astrologers. What is their prophecy? Why, the earth is 13.7...er, 13.8 billion years old, don'tcha know, contrary to what YHWH said.

So then, what has He required? That people keep His word. Deut. 10:12, Mic. 6:8. Any conclusions based on things He has not said might mislead...but if so, it is only because folks have presumed more than He has directly and expressly revealed in His Word. Why would anyone do that?

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583693#Comment_583693

If I can interject in this lively debate, I'd like to remind everyone that this forum does have rules against theological discussion. This place is for discussing Logos software and the resources in it. I know it's not enforced particularly strictly, and the line between a discussion of resources and a discussion of the ideas therein gets blurry at times, but it seems to me that this conversation has crossed over that line. I have plenty that I would like to say on this topic, but here is not the place.

Schezic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583701#Comment_583701

Keep up the good work. You'll have a star by your name in no time. [:P]

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583709#Comment_583709

Even though he is not really a theistic evolutionist, John Walton's view does allow for theistic evolution, and his works are fascinating. His temple inauguration view is detailed in a few works available in Logos:

The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis

Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

I have learned a lot from reading his works. He also has two courses on Logos Mobile Ed.

He also has the following book dealing with how the ancients thought about gods and science (or how they didn't think about science):

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Batman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583591#Comment_583591

I would suggest Tielhard de Chardin as an interesting historical starting point. He's not in Logos but he should be.
Isn't he the guy who helped Dawson promote the Piltdown Man hoax? A devoted Darwinist? We REALLY need that trash in Logos?

Why not? Apparently Logos Bible Software no longer means Bible Software. Apparently now, it means Oscar Wilder, Bram Stroker's Dracula.
I was feeling guilty about my sentiments towards Logos; now I'm once again returning to my original sentiments.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/584433#Comment_584433

Has Wilde gotten Wilder since he passed? [:O]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/584433#Comment_584433

Oscar's probably been reading the Continental Commentary in his 'spare' time. Time that's in addition to normal time.

But Libronix went pretty far afield subject-wise, so Logos Inc. isn't covering particularly new ground.

I think people are getting confused by 're-badging' for marketing purposes. I remember a ways back, the holy writings were re-badged as 'the Bible'. One could even say for marketing purposes as well. Of course the Logos software is probably not holy. But being 'Bible Software' makes it look more Bible-ish.

Schezic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/584433#Comment_584433

I would suggest Tielhard de Chardin as an interesting historical starting point. He's not in Logos but he should be.
Isn't he the guy who helped Dawson promote the Piltdown Man hoax? A devoted Darwinist? We REALLY need that trash in Logos?

Why not? Apparently Logos Bible Software no longer means Bible Software. Apparently now, it means Oscar Wilder, Bram Stroker's Dracula.
I was feeling guilty about my sentiments towards Logos; now I'm once again returning to my original sentiments.

I can see no reason that I would need Dracula, ETC indexed and searchable. These fiction/fantasy/secular titles could just as easily be marketed in Vyrso, for a lot less. But the more disturbing issue is the conspiracy to corrupt scientific evidence to forward an evolutionary agenda, Under the guise of Bible commentary.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/584640#Comment_584640

When I get back to NC (home in fl for break) I will see if I can find the reference I read. Till then, I'm spending much of my time with my nephew, and staying outdoors

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/585009#Comment_585009

I agree that there's probably more 'danger' in some of the 'biblical' books than in classic fiction -- because it's labeled fiction, where bad theology is not!

From This Thread. >>> http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83477.aspx

Willard Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/585220#Comment_585220

I agree that there's probably more 'danger' in some of the 'biblical' books than in classic fiction -- because it's labeled fiction, where bad theology is not!
From This Thread. >>> http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83477.aspx

Possibly that provides hope that he will see the danger in The writings of Tielhard de Chardin and his ilk, And leave them out of Logos.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/585777#Comment_585777

Possibly that provides hope that he will see the danger in The writings of Tielhard de Chardin and his ilk,

I would be very surprised if you have actually read Tielhard and actually know his theology as opposed to the regurgitations of those who dislike his position. Given that he consistently appears on lists of important theologians of the last century, he belongs in Logos as an essential figure whether or not you personally care to know anything about him. There are a number of authors in Logos that I suspect will be long forgotten in a century - I see the danger as residing primarily in their works. I've found a very convenient way of handling them- once I discover the valuelessness of their writings, I cease to purchase additional works by them. I don't happen to agree with Tielhard de Chardin but I do consider it important to understand him and to have him available for verifying my memory or fill in the gaps.

If it has been translated, perhaps we need Wieland Zademach (ed.): Reich Gottes für diese Welt – Theologie gegen den Strich. Erbe der Väter (L. Ragaz/M. Buber/H. J. Iwand/J. L. Hromadka/H. Gollwitzer/P. Teilhard de Chardin).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/585777#Comment_585777

I agree that there's probably more 'danger' in some of the 'biblical' books than in classic fiction -- because it's labeled fiction, where bad theology is not!
From This Thread. >>> http://community.logos.com/forums/t/83477.aspx
Possibly that provides hope that he will see the danger in The writings of Tielhard de Chardin and his ilk, And leave them out of Logos.

I'm not looking to pick a fight, Willard, but I bet I could take your favorite top 5 authors, even your top 50, and demonstrate blasphemy and heresy in every one of them. 'Elohhiym Himself calls it slander. Where the Bible is concerned, a book ghost-authored by a God who explicitly states His intention to hide both Himself and His intentions, getting cocky about which humans are right or wrong is fraught with danger...because in such disputes the correct answer is nearly always "neither".

On the other hand, the only legitimate way to demonstrate an author's error is to engage the author's words. That can only be done if one has access to them. I support the inclusion of whatever Logos can find a market for, and much besides.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/585800#Comment_585800

David ... ilk hunting's only allowed during ilk season.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/583689#Comment_583689

I think YHWH created creation with physical and mathematical characteristics that are essentially apparitions. By "apparition" I mean that they have a seeming history that in fact never existed or took place. Dinosaurs never existed except as fossils. The Big Bang with the subsequent cosmic inflation just found to be supported by measurements made by the BICEP2 radio telescope? Never happened, even though the physical evidence and math support the idea. To me, this is a far more plausible and far less ludicrous idea than the typical young earther attempts to tweak the existing physical evidence, which supports billions of years of existence, in order to force it to support a ~6000 year old creation out of nothing.

David,

First, from what I know of Stephen Hawking's recent change of mind, your reply earlier in this thread specifying black holes, not the Big Bang, as the focus of his concerns was spot on. Very well done!

Second, while your defense of a young earth explains how it could be that every bit of available scientific evidence suggests the planet to be billions of years old, it suffers from a profound weakness. Why would a God who is both the source and inspiration for truth create such a fundamentally deceptive world? Why would God give us curious, perceptive, investigative minds, then surround us with evidence whose central intent is to mislead? More, how could a God responsible for a creation of such fraudulent identity expect us to believe anything else that God ever said? If you lie to me about the price you paid for your bubble gum, I'm likely to deem it an inconsequential minor offense. But if for as long as I have known you, you have lied to me about who you are, where you came from, and why you're in my life, your credibility with me will suffer precipitously, and for good reason.

Bill, I have an answer for your question, but I'm not sure you are prepared to accept it. I'm not saying that out of condescension. It's more a matter of prophecy. The reasons why I don't have any problem with the issues you have raised and consider troublesome are tied very closely to YHWH's prophetic purposes. For that reason, they are not easily comprehended, because He made prophecy deliberately difficult to understand. Not only that, but virtually every hermeneutics book you could purchase from Logos or elsewhere will give you "rules" for Bible interpretation that absolutely exclude the methodology by which comprehending prophecy is possible. That is by Design. It is precisely how (among other considerations) YHWH has been able to "seal" the Book until the time of the end.

To get a bit closer to your concerns, prophecy outlines a God that is radically different than what Christians perceive. Call that absurd, but something has to account for people who call Yeishuu`a "Lord" and engage is churchianity only to have Him say, "I never knew you." Mt. 7:23. Something has to account for Hab. 1:5. Prophecy does account for those anomalies in a clear fashion. Numerous Christian axioms, however, make seeing and accepting such things nearly impossible. That said, YHWH is not who you think He is. That's not a put down. It's a prophetic reality that neither you nor anyone else can really do anything about. That universal condition, the famine of the hearing of the word of YHWH (Amos 8:11) is what He has established as part of His plan. The good news is that if you eat your Wheaties and don't wander out into traffic, you may well get to experience the "wake up call" when the lights get turned back on.

See the part of your question I bolded? Read Job 12:16, then Job 12:24, 25 (Read that whole section from vv. 12-25 for the full context). The book of Job has very little to do with Job and the other four dudes with him. It is a sardine can of prophecy covering a multitude of concerns. In some ways it is the most important book of the Bible because it includes a significant part of the "set up", by which I mean Job 1 & 2. By "set up", I mean the whole driving concept that underlies and defines what is motivating YHWH's actions. These issues and concerns are generally totally overlooked, but they tie into Genesis 3 in dovetail fashion. YHWH isn't primarily concerned with you or me, shocking as that may seem. There is a deep sense in which we are merely a by-product of other concerns that YHWH has. I'm not saying "afterthought"--there is no such thing where YHWH is concerned. But the lack of concern He shows in explaining anything to Job is sufficiently indicative of my assertion. Consider this: effectively, because Job never is told the "why" or "how" concerning his Satanic attack, YHWH has deceived Job. He isn't the only one. Ask Jeremiah...Jer. 20:7. People talk often of YHWH's mysterious ways. They are mysterious only if you don't understand what He is trying to accomplish and why...but He has deliberately and purposefully "hidden" those purposes and motivations up to this point in time. How? As shocking as it will be to hear...deception is one of those ways. [Why? Essentially, for the shock value. He intends on turning virtually everyone's sense of stability upside down, primarily because that stability isn't grounded in His will.] I imagine you won't believe that, which is why I was quite happy to find this book available on Amazon. Having someone else also articulating this concept will take some of the pressure off of me. Even though Anderson's focus is terribly narrow, he at least sees a portion of what is overlooked, ignored, or explained away by virtually everyone else.

Why...How...is this possible? It is actually incredibly simple. It must be so. The principle of Godly justice demands it. Mt. 7:2, Lev. 24:20. If someone is a deceiver, Godly justice requires they receive their comeuppance by way of deception. If someone lays a trap or snare, he will fall into it or be taken by it whether he likes it or not. Job 18:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Check out Psa. 18:26, and look at it in the NET Bible. That isn't the same God that almost anyone thinks they know...but it is the God of the Bible. Am I saying YHWH lies? No, I'm saying He actively gets others to do it for Him. 1 Kgs. 22:19, 20, 21, 22, 23. " Why? Simple...those He deceives deserve it.

The typical response to what I'm saying is a fulfillment of the aforementioned Hab. 1:5, usually peppered with scoffing and requisite mentions of tin foil hats. So be it. Also common is a mix of anger, fear, resentment, and dismissal grounded in pride. No one...NO ONE...can accept that they don't adequately see God if they presume to have a relationship with Him. When they read His words to the disciples in Mt. 13:16, virtually EVERY person who reads those words personalizes the message and responds, "See! He said, "YOUR eyes see"...that means ME!! He said I SEE!!!" And they continue on, oblivious to the cold truth that the words He spoke that are really intended for them are Mt. 7:21, 22, 23. People assume so much where YHWH is concerned it is staggering...but not unexpected. Prophecy details it all with amazing clarity. Not to be too personal, Bill (I promise that you are not alone), but you really don't know YHWH. Your questions illustrate that. That might be scary to hear (or anger inducing), but if you can say that you would do what YHWH says, no matter the cost, no matter how much it may conflict with what you have come to think He expects of you, then you probably are okay. Give time a chance to catch up to prophecy and it will work itself out. Unfortunately, many people simply won't like the God of the Bible. It is precisely why they have constructed and concocted a God that would never do anything to ruffle their tender sensibilities. Isa. 30:10, 11.

But wait, all of those verses are talking about the wicked! His enemies, right? Not about God's people! Mic.2:8 Unfortunately, for those who consider themselves His people, (the Mt. 7:21, 22, 23 crowd, for instance), He doesn't have the same rose-colored glasses on. His expectations are simply not the ones His people profess to be His. That may be unbelievable, but prophecy insists in hundreds upon hundreds of places that it is precisely how it is.

So, dinos never lived? Possible? Considering 'Elohhiym, the One who employs the Deceiver Satan to accomplish His purposes (it's precisely why he wasn't killed on the spot when he sinned, people)...absolutely.

In further response to the bolded question above to which I responded (especially with Job 12:16), I add for additional consideration Isa. 30:27, 28 (which is a continuation of Isa. 30:10 above). Since the tendency of English Bibles is to gloss over that which is particularly uncomfortable to consider, I include the NASB's version of verse 28 (which assigns the cold, hard truth to a marginal note...but at least it is there):

Isaiah 30: ²⁸ His breath is like an overflowing torrent, which reaches to the neck, to shake the nations back and forth in a ¹sieve, and to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which ²leads to ruin.

¹Lit sifting of the worthless ²Lit misleads

[C]