Herold Weiss is continuing his series on the doctrine of creation in the Bible with a discussion of sources and how this passage might enlighten our understanding. The entire series has been extremely interesting and has generated some serious (and some not so serious) discussion.
(Note: I am publisher of Herold Weiss’s new book Finding My Way in Christianity: Recollections of a Journey.)
From Allan Bevere:
… no human being is entitled to a risk free existence.
The entire article is worth a read.
Peter Kirk has written a post titled The Gospel is not incompatible with theistic evolution, in which he responds to an article by Dr. David Shackelford. Peter’s response covers most of the ground.
I wanted to add something here, however, regarding “continuous upward progress,” which Dr. Shackelford, as quoted by Peter, says is “demanded” by most “versions of evolution.” I’m in the dark about what he means by “versions,” unless he’s referring to popular conceptions, and especially social evolution.
For example, an evolutionary view of the early Christian church would have the church “progressing” toward greater order and organization, thus the pastoral epistles must be later than other writings because they refer to such greater organization. On the other hand, if the progress is not so steady, nor unidirectional. I’m no church historian, but I’ve often wondered if the progress toward greater structure was not faster amongst those coming from Judaism with synagogue traditions than for Gentile Christians. All this begs the question of what is “progress” and more particular what is “upward progress.”
But the biological theory of evolution teaches no such thing. Though there is, I believe, a general trend toward greater variety, simply because there are more creatures to be varied, even that trend is not inevitable, and one can question whether a trend toward greater variety would be “upward progress” in general.
The tendency of biological evolution is toward suitability for some ecological niche (stated loosely–I’m no biologist), and depending on how you look at it, the tendency could be distinctly downward, for example, when a population of fish living in a cave lose their eyesight. The tendency can be terminal when a population fails to adapt to environmental changes.
For certain periods of time and using certain defintions of “upward” (people who use this term usually mean upward as leading toward us humans), you will find “upward progress” in evolution, but there is nothing about the theory, nor is there general evidence in the record, to suggest that evolution demands upward progress.
From Brian McLaren: “We are suffering the consequences of our idolatry. Our motto ‘In God We Trust’ is printed right on the front of the God in which we trust.”
Tony Breeden has taken Joel Watts to task over his understanding of Genesis and origins. As if frequently the case with such discussions, Breeden has mistaken his own interpretation for “what the Bible actually says.” It’s “disagree with me, deny the Bible.” Joel responds rather well, I think, using some excellent scriptures.
I suggest that we need to derive our doctrine of inspiration more from observing it in action, as we can in Scripture, and less by trying to apply particular proof texts.
I’m glad to see this, though I do disagree with a few points.
First, I don’t agree that using a formal equivalence translation means you are closer to the original. You are closer in some ways–reflecting the words and structure of the original language–yet you are often further in other ways, including reflecting the thought.
Second “word for word” is not the best way to describe formal equivalence. I prefer “form for form” but even that misses it just a bit. In formal equivalence translators attempt to approach the words and structure of the source language as much as is possible in the receptor language.
Third, I would not use “sentence for sentence” as a description of dynamic (or functional) equivalence. It’s somewhat difficult to define the term “word” in a way that is transferable between languages. Similarly, sentences may change. Even in formal equivalence, one Greek sentence might be translated by multiple English sentences, for example. I would say “thought for thought” would be closer to the truth.
Nonetheless, I think this is generally a helpful and balanced presentation.
I wrote a blog post some time back with an outline I made from Psalm 51, along with links to a pamphlet that discusses repentance.
The whole passage (2 Cor. 5:20b-6:10) is great, but I’m just going to link to a few notes I’ve written on the key verse in 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The way you understand the phrase “righteousness of God” will color much of the rest of your understanding of Paul, I think.
This is just a very short note with a link. I’d like to tie the repentance described in Psalm 32 to Leviticus 6 (5 in Hebrew). I wrote about that previously on my Participatory Bible Study Blog. This passage describes the priestly doctrine of repentance.
