Faithlife anti-young Creation?

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

I am very disappointed in “Faithlife Study Bible”.
I noticed the picture on the Home page of Logos 4 (7/21/12) and its depiction
of the ("Faithlife Study Bible inforgraphics") "Ancient Hebrew
Conception of the Universe". It states it as a fact and not as a belief,
theory, concept or scheme held by some. To get a better feel for what is here
check this same picture and description on the web and see who promotes it and
who does not (a good web search is: Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe).

Find more posts tagged with

Resources

Comments

Ben

An awful lot of scholars from a variety of backgrounds promote it (Peter Enns and John Walton among Evangelicals, for example), and recognize it as how Israelites conceived of the universe.

This is one reason why I like the FSB, as it takes advantage of widely-accepted scholarship.

George T. Kelley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383426#Comment_383426

When reading after someone for the first time, of whom I know very little about, it is often in the Prologue that their doctrinal leaning is revealed. I guess that FSB has revealed where its "widely-accepted scholarship" stands.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383452#Comment_383452

Look, putting it in scare quotes doesn't make it any less widely-accepted. Moreover, I don't see why one couldn't simultaneously believe in a Young Earth and also recognize that the ancient Israelites didn't speak in modern scientific terms. That's not my view, but they're not mutually exclusive to the degree that you seem to think.

Genesis of the FSB was written my Michael Heiser, who is Evangelical. He's a Logos employee with a PhD from UWisconsin, and does good work. Google him.

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383452#Comment_383452

George,

If you only accept scholarship you already agree with, how can you ever hope to grow in God's Word intellectually or find out if your previous view was incorrect?

I was very happy to see this graphic in the FBS because it reflects what scholars are discovering about the views of the ancient Israelites, as found in both scripture and archeology. This was the context scripture was written in. Should we ignore that just because it offends "our" thoughts on what scripture should look like? That's not honoring God's Word at all, but only our own.

If you were to take the "Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe" graphic and study it, you would find that every feature illustrated in it is found in scripture. Much of it very plainly and literally.

Have you done this yet? I would recommend it. For example, just in Genesis 1 we find that there are waters placed above the sun, moon, and stars. A Psalm of David later on reaffirms those waters as still existing.

No need to go liberal here. It's plainly in the Word of God if one takes the time to notice it.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383459#Comment_383459

I don't think the graphic per se is the issue (since it matches the hebrew text in multiple places). The problem is the text vs reality and it's relation to the concept of inspiration (eg interpretation).

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383462#Comment_383462

Before this thread turns into a debate on Creation and Hebrew worldview, take it to faithlife.com and start a group to discuss it. We requested a forum for theological discussion and Logos complied with faithlife.com. You can use Logos to view the texts, paste your comments on various passages and books.

Please include me in the group, there is so much that I do not know.

Cheers.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383466#Comment_383466

Before this thread turns into a debate on Creation and Hebrew worldview, take it to faithlife.com and start a group to discuss it. We requested a forum for theological discussion and Logos complied with faithlife.com. You can use Logos to view the texts, paste your comments on various passages and books.

Please include me in the group, there is so much that I do not know.

Cheers.

I started a group for theological discussion a while back, welcome to join,,

https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383468#Comment_383468

Joined the group https://faithlife.com/christian-debate/activity

Bob Pritchett

We tried very hard in the FSB to not take positions, but rather to present multiple positions fairly when touching on passages where there is significant disagreement among evangelicals.

The Level 2 notes, sidebars, and links to other resources in Genesis 1 present multiple interpretations; individual linked resources may espouse one particular view or another, but overall the FSB doesn't take positions on these large disagreements.

In the case of infographics like this one, the goal is to visualize information -- from the text, from archaeology, etc.

This graphic represents what we can take straight from the text as the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe, as reflected in the poetry and prose of the OT. (Job 38:22, Ps 104:2, etc.) I don't see it as a challenge to inerrancy or any particular view of creation. In the same way, the graphic of the seven days of creation simply visualizes the text without weighing in on interpretive questions.

As a silly example, the following graphic represents "A Modern New Yorker's Conception of the Universe", as evidenced in their speech, writing, and behavior. But it probably doesn't reflect their, the editor's, or anyone's actual view of the world -- let alone actual geography.

http://www.joblessandless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/new-yorker-cartoon1.jpg

:-)

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383532#Comment_383532

As a silly example, the following graphic represents "A Modern New Yorker's Conception of the Universe"

Nice [;)]

Bob Clancy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/383532#Comment_383532

Actually, the graphic is not original. Here is the prior art:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_ancient_Hebrew_conception_of_the_Universe.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/The_ancient_Hebrew_conception_of_the_Universe.JPG

Eddie Habte Mekasha

Norma

Thank you for this eye opener comment and I do believe our scripture reading is by faith more than fact searching.

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954658#Comment_954658

There is nothing in this graphic, as Bob and others have shown, that dictates a certain theological or even historical standpoint.

This is the equivalent of making a graphic of the Middle Ages understanding of the universe and having a flat earth that you could fall off of. That wouldn't challenge a conservative young-earth position at all, but would be an accurate reflection of the understanding of that time. Let's just step back and take a breath.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1001475#Comment_1001475

... Let's just step back and take a breath.

[Y]

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1001475#Comment_1001475

the Middle Ages understanding of the universe... having a flat earth that you could fall off of.... would be an accurate reflection of the understanding of that time.

This is actually a myth promoted by anti-religious polemics. It was popularized by, for example, John Draper in the late 1800s, who claimed that Catholicism had held back scientific progress. Draper (and White) are largely responsible for the dominance of the "conflict" or "warfare" model of science and religion that dominates popular thought today. (See here for a short video and this new book. Note the frustrated subtitle )

Ronald Numbers is a prominent historian of science and religion, has edited a book with a chapter addressing the flat earth myth, where it came from, and hte religious polemics it gets put to.

[quote]Very few people throughout the Middle Ages believed that the world was flat. Thinkers on both sides of the question were Christians (Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox), and for them, the shape of the earth did not equate with progressive or traditionalist views. It is true that most clerics were more concerned with salvation than the shape of the earth—that was their job, after all. But God’s works in nature were important to them as well. Columbus could not have proved that the world was round because this fact was already known. Nor was he a rebellious modern; rather, he was a good Catholic who undertook his voyage believing he was doing God’s work. A transformation was taking place in fifteenth- century views of the earth, but it had more to do with a new way of mapping than with a move from flat earth to sphere.