Kent apparently feels that I am not quoting Davidson accurately. What …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by BobRyan.

Kent apparently feels that I am not quoting Davidson accurately.

What a Joy to know that my quoting Davidson verbatim is spun as “mirepresenting him”.

Biblical Interpretation by Richard M. Davidson

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Hermeneutics,%20Biblical/biblical_interpretation.pdf

Page 1 (numbered as 58 in the doc) –
“The study of the basic principles and procedures for faithfully and accurately interpreting Scripture is called biblical hermeneutics”

Davidson also said –

Page 11 (numbered pg in doc 68) – Davidson introduces H-G

“The specific guidelines for interpreting biblical passages arise from and build upon the foundation principles thus far described. These guidelines encompass essentially the grammatico-historical method as dictated by common sense and Laws of Language to ascertain the meaning of ANY writing” [emphasis added]

Hmm – that last sentence is worth repeating – “as dictated by common sense and Laws of Language to ascertain the meaning of ANY writing”

This means an ATHEIST could use the H-G model to first show that the Bible actually does say that the world was made in 7 real days, and then try to use his own arguments from nature to destroy trust in the text.

Put simply, there is no need to conflate epistemology with hermeneutics, nor to ignore cases when others do it.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Meanwhile back to the actual point that Pauluc was making.

The argument is transparent to the reader. Matt 17 is being argued as somewhat “unsavory” in a representative fashion suggesting that we would no more want to believe Gen 1 for “what it say” than we might wish to believe Matt 17 “for what it says”.

Thus Pauluc provides the underlying view of the Bible itself at the root of this debate. A gap in the way we approach scripture that goes far beyond the issue of origins.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Pauluc at Spectrum addressed this question to me – but since Spectrum has kindly requested that I not reply on Spectrum when someone addresses a question to me – and since Pauluc’s question illustrates a key point on this thread — I am answering it here.

Pauluc makes the argument that it would be just as wrong to accept Gen 1 as it reads – as it would to accept Matt 17 as it reads because in his view Matt 17 says that miracles are the normative mode of healing, medical treatment is invalid, and all seizures are caused by demons.

I claim that the H-G model is valid for interpreting both Gen 1 and Matt 17 “just as they read”.

Pauluc said –
After considerable vebiage we finally got to the point that you in contrast to most adventists apply the same H-G to the Genesis 1 as the new testament texts such as Matt 17 on healing.
We can now move on to the supplementary questions in David Assherick style

Do you use modern medicine in any form? yes or no

If you had a car accident would you use a blood transfusion? yes or no

Would you accept care and life support in an ICU? yes or no

Would you accept a donor organ? yes or no

Do you think that these things are based on miracles? yes or no

Do you think that healing in the new testament was by natural mechanisms ? yes or no

Do you think that naturalistic moden medicine is consistent with the divine explanations of healing described in the new testament? yes or no

If you can answer no to all these questions then I do believe you are entirely consistent in you use of the HG througout the bible

” At no point did Matt 17 argue that no healing takes place outside of Christ or a disciple coming to your home to do a miracle.”

The key point is that those who use H-C to “bend the Bible” in Gen 1 are claiming that the Bible is a compilation of some rather backwoods unsavory texts – and it needs to be “dressed up” by some polite H-C bending before you can show it to your friends.

In this next round Pauluc argues that IF there is a both-and solution for Matt 17 (both miracles AND medical treatment or natural remedy) then the same holds for Genesis 1. Possibly there is BOTH a miraculous origins for some planets and for other planets – a natural origin.

pauluc said

on – Tue, 04/19/2011 – 06:49
BobRyan says

You are absolutely and entirely right. And that is I think the main point of comparing genesis 1 and Matt 17. Both Genesis 1 and Matt 17 give descriptions of events in terms of the supernatural. One the act of creation the other the divine act of healing. Both are rooted in supernatural explanations. As you indicate Matt 17 does not argue that healing cannot be based on a natural explanation but neither does Genesis 1.

A prescientific supernatural explanation is offered but at no point does it indicate there can be no other explanation, indeed as if to underscore this Gen 2 goes on to describe a second and different account of the same events.

Gen 2 does not provide a chronological time-boxed sequence, but Gen 1 does.

Gen 2 is a narrative providing details not present in Gen 1, details that have to be inserted in context into the timeline created in Gen 1:2-2:3.

But in any case – Gen 1 and 2 do not allow for life on two different planets being created, one via creationism and one via evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Brantley over at Spectrum –

Phil Brantley said

on – Mon, 04/18/2011 – 18:59

Dr. Pitman, trying to explain something to
you and Bob Ryan is frustrating. I strongly suspect that you both are being disingenous, that you have conceded the argument in your hearts but do not want to publicly capitulate for fear of embarrassing yourselves. Why the fear?

I would argue that “fear” would consist of blocking Brantley from speaking to this point on EducateTruth — something that has not been done.

I wonder if Spectrum itself will choose to demonstrate “fear” at this point. Time will tell.

But more specficially – Davidson’s material linked by Brantley shows the clear distinction “by defintion” between hermeneutics and epistemology. Brantley’s solution is to try ad hominem instead of addressing the issue of first principles (i.e. the definition that Davidson also affirms explicitly in his text).

David Read posts that he is violating the H-G purist principle when it comes to rendering the text — as follows.

David Read said:
To cite another example, one could argue from texts such as Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 19:6, and Joshua 10:12-14 that the sun orbits the earth. That would be a pretty straightforward inference from Scripture, but we don’t make that inference. Instead, bringing in outside scientific knowledge, we interpret these passages as reflecting the point of view of the casual earthbound observer, for whom the sun seems to rise in the east, travel across the sky, set in the west, and then hasten back around to rise in the east again. But few if any modern interpreters take these text to teach that the sun is orbiting the earth.

And Brantley compliments this claim

Phil Brantley said:

I compliment David Read for his candor in confronting the issue in an honest manner and opining that he believes that application of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in its purest form is not practical under these circumstances.

However – I believe David is technically incorrect and I believe Brantley is coopting David’s statements to some degree.

1. David is incorrect to assume that H-G is violated by observing in our epistemological arguments – the theory of relative motion. David’s argument assumes that the use of epistemology would violate H-G as if heremeneutics does not “Allow” you to also use epistemological argument to validate the trustworthy nature of the text.

2. To the degree that David is blending both epistemology and hermeneutics – and then claiming that this resultant blend is some new hermeneutic that is not pure H-G he is falling into Brantley’s proposed trap.

Simply put – there is no such thing as hermeneutics that does not allow for epistemology as an additional endeavor because they are two different (but closely related) disciplines and they each have their specific purpose and scope.

They are not mutually exclusive.

In the case above – the H-G rendering of the text requires that we admit that the text says “sun rise” — just as we use the term today. H-G requires that we not bend the text.

But epistemology can then be ADDED to explain WHY that statement is still valid given things like relative motion (theory of relativity described by Einstein) where it is scientifically valid to describe motion from the frame of reference of the observer.

At present – Spectrum appears to be be “fearful” of having this response posted over there… so I offer it here in an attempt to aleviate their “fears”.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind