ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: EENGELBRECHT on July 25, 2007, 08:13:13 AM

Title: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 25, 2007, 08:13:13 AM
Nova Science Now on PBS broadcast a story about a Dr. Schweitzer whose team discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone from the American west and is also making important discoveries of soft tissue structures from dinosaur bones in Madagascar. The T-Rex bones were considered to be 65 million years old. Possible preservation of soft tissue was immediately rejected. However . . .

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

I had read an article on this earlier in the year but was pleasantly surprised to see it broadcast on PBS. Unlike the article, PBS avoided any presentation of the Creation/Evolution debate that naturally sprang up because of the study/discovery. At this point paleontologists are saying that fossilization must occur in ways that they have never considered before (largely because their theories prevented other possibilities). Fascinating stuff.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 25, 2007, 12:00:52 PM
Nova Science Now on PBS broadcast a story about a Dr. Schweitzer whose team discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone from the American west and is also making important discoveries of soft tissue structures from dinosaur bones in Madagascar. The T-Rex bones were considered to be 65 million years old. Possible preservation of soft tissue was immediately rejected. However . . .

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

I had read an article on this earlier in the year but was pleasantly surprised to see it broadcast on PBS. Unlike the article, PBS avoided any presentation of the Creation/Evolution debate that naturally sprang up because of the study/discovery. At this point paleontologists are saying that fossilization must occur in ways that they have never considered before (largely because their theories prevented other possibilities). Fascinating stuff.

In Christ,
EE

This is old news... but it is indeed ground-breaking and timely as now, with the ability to map the human genome, the dinosaur's genetic record can be mapped and will fill in many blanks in the process of their evolution. This process, as posited by paleontologists like Jack Horner and Dr. Robert Bakker (who is also a Pentecostal preacher!), may well have been relatively quite rapid as with the horned dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous period. Most recently, the fossil record has unearthed evidence of Triassic dinosaurs co-existing with those in the Cretaceous period. This has changed the scientific view of the process dramatically and may shrink their distance in time from an evolutionary perspective. It still doesn't account for the process of Pre-mesozoic and Mesozoic fossilization versus the animals and hominids of the Pleistocene period. IOW, why is one type mineralized and the other in its organic state? Still a conundrum for "Young-Earth" proponents. But this "soft tissue" discovery has many paleontologists going to their saws and looking for more evidence of possibly overlooked samples.

I think the view that paleontologists are radical evolutionists is overplayed in the media. There is still so much they don't know... and by their own admission! It is like putting together an extremely complex puzzle with billions of pieces.  Most of the really ground-breaking discoveries and the subsequent revisions in taxonomies have only occurred in the last 25 years. Until recently, most paleontologists were schooled strictly in geology. Now, with the finding of "soft-tissue," a whole new world of paleo-biology is opening up.

The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation. A view I share with Dr. Bakker who my son and I hope to be digging with next summer in Wyoming. "O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all..."

Fr. Bob
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 25, 2007, 02:05:23 PM
The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation.

Do the Scriptures say nothing about the "how" of creation?

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: janielou13 on July 25, 2007, 02:43:43 PM
The Holy Trinity loved Creation into being, and continues to love it into being even in this very moment,,,,,,,,,,,, that's the "how" of the matter.  The Father, the Eternal Logos, the Eternal Enlivening Spirit in undivided Unity now and forever, age upon ages.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 25, 2007, 03:02:44 PM
The Creed and the Scriptures never demanded of us the "how" of creation, only the "Who" of creation.

Do the Scriptures say nothing about the "how" of creation?

In Christ,
EE

They do indeed! But as a record-writer of the events wasn't available until at least Day 6, it's hard to call it an "eyewitness" account.  Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc. As to the structure of mitochondria from which we might get the genome of the T-Rex... silence. I don't think we need to fall for the either/or demands of the radical evolutionists. The Orthodox have historically been somewhat ambivalent on the matter. Our general reaction to new discoveries is usually, "Of course, God is giving you new insight into what we already know about life--it's a fearful and wonderful mystery!"

"...all things were made through him [the Word], and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3)  Now my pajamas, it can be argued, are ultimately from God--through Whom all things were (and are) made--but they went through a few steps between the cotton plant in the field and my considerable frame. How that happened is of some interest; but if that happened without the gin, the mill, the sewers and the sellers it would be miraculous and unlikely and worthy of serious investigation. For me, that is what science is about and without the involvement of believing people like the monk Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics), we might only now being asking those serious questions worthy of investigation in the dust of others.  Although it is impossible to scientifically isolate the "first cause" in creation (God), we can observe the processes, test theories, come to conclusions and then start again. Good science left to the radical evolutionists is leaving the matter to a quasi-fundamentalist sect where there will be no room for alternate theories: because their faith compels them to refuse to believe what they see right in front of them. This kind of attitude explains the new "orthodoxy" concerning Global Warming.  We dare not assume the exact same posture on the other end of the spectrum.

Psalm 104 is a wonderful faith-filled scientific observation of the processes of life in the world. I commend it to you.

Fr. Bob
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 25, 2007, 03:49:37 PM
Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 25, 2007, 04:00:04 PM
Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.

In Christ,
EE

Ah, but take it from the world's worst gardener: you'd be surprised what can grow in the absence of sunlight! :)

Fr. Bob
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 25, 2007, 04:29:27 PM
Still, the progression of the story of creation is mirrored by the prevalent theories of the progression of life: sea creatures, creeping things, birds, cattle, etc.

Yes, I can see correspondence there. However, light is created first, then plants, then "lights" (sun, moon, and stars) come later. Genesis still seems out of step with modern theories about origins.
Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source?  The Fall corrupting creation doesn't explain this.  Where are Copernicus and Galileo when you need them?   ;)

I apologize if I sound persnickity, as I'm not really out to debunk anything.  Just my long-standing concern with confusing the Bible with a science textbook.  They're both given an account of the same thing from different perspectives.  I like Fr. Bob's Orthodox train of thought here.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 25, 2007, 05:00:26 PM
Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source? 

Genesis describes the creation in terms of environments (first three days) and then things that inhabit the environments (next three days).  So light/dark is an environment for the heavenly bodies, air/water is environment for birds/fish, and land/plants become the environment for land animals.

I wouldn't regard the account as a science textbook. I don't think its trying to be that (ancient writings don't fit with our literary genres). I would prefer to read Genesis and interpret it on its own terms rather than try to measure it by modern standards of literature or science.

The simplest reading seems to be that the text describes God, through His Word, creating all things over six days of time. After that one has to decide whether to take this account at face value.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 25, 2007, 08:28:05 PM
Never noticed this before, but ... how does a literal creationist explain the initial light source, then?  Earth was created first, illuminated by some unidentified light source, and then at some later point the sun?  Why bother creating the sun if you've already got a light source?  The Fall corrupting creation doesn't explain this.  Where are Copernicus and Galileo when you need them?   ;)
Although I'm not Copernicus or Galileo, the explanation I offer is that on those rare mornings when it's still dark when I get up in the morning, I see light before I see the sun. The sun appears later. The ancients were recording the universe as they experienced it. Similarly, the refer to the moon as the "lesser light." That is how they (and we) experience it, but scientifically, it gives no light, but only reflects the light from the sun.

There is also, I believe, an intentional inner structure of the six days. Day 1 is connected to Day 4; Day 2 to Day 5; and Day 3 to Day 6. While are six days of creation, there are eight times that God creates (both Day 3 and Day 6 contain two "God said" -- but eight days would mess up the seventh day rest).

A more scientific explanation I've heard is that the big bang or whatever it was that formed the sun, stars, and planets, probably produced a whole lot of light before the energies were collected into the different heavenly bodies. I don't think that this was part of the ancients' thinking when writing this creation poem.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: BeornBjornson on July 25, 2007, 10:29:15 PM
A Jewish rabbi with whom I and some other pastors were taking a seminar interpreted the Light of Day one as God's Light, coming from God Himself.  Seemed a short jump for me to go from that to John 1:4-5 "The life was the Light of men.  The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" and Jesus in John 9 "I am the Light of the world."
Ken Kimball
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JMOtterman on July 25, 2007, 11:17:21 PM
Do you believe that God is still creating?  Everyday a new species pops up even as an old one seems to go extinct except that a fish that is found in Africa was thought to be extinct these last 60 million years.

My torah reads Genesis just a little different than our Christian understanding of creation.  Most Christian Bibles start  "In the Beginning God Created..." NRS, NJB, NLB, NKJ, NIV, NRSV, RWB and many more say the same but the Torah starts in Genesis 1 "When God began to create the heaven and the earth."  The Jewish footnote is interesting "When God began to create...the earth being unformed and void.  Other translations render this, "In the beginning God created". Both translations are possible but we cannot be sure that this difference is more that stylistic.  Our translation follows Rashi, who said that the text would have been written if its primary purpose had been to teach the order in which creation took place.  Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem.

I believe in God, the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.

I also believe in stories as being true but not fact.  So, to believe that God created the earth in six day and the world is 6 but a thousand years old takes the faith found of those still living on the milk of Hebrews 5.  I don't subscribe to this belief but I believe you have the right to believe what you want, I still believe God created the heavens and the earth and that scientists are partly right other wise we wouldn't have disciples like Thomas who ask questions and seek answers through visual accuity.

So then I want you to comprehend and acknowledge the importance of Ockhams Razor "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."  By reason alone I would have to believe in evolution not as Darwin suggested but as a constant process of life and yet I also believe that God is the creator and that God is still creating, God is still involved. 

So then I was reading about Ockham's Razor and found that our dear Dr. Luther also has a Razor to his name what is it?  Is it Justification?  Theology of the Cross?  I know one of you probably know this...

PJ

     
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 26, 2007, 07:10:10 AM
Do you believe that God is still creating?  Everyday a new species pops up even as an old one seems to go extinct except that a fish that is found in Africa was thought to be extinct these last 60 million years.

My torah reads Genesis just a little different than our Christian understanding of creation.  Most Christian Bibles start  "In the Beginning God Created..." NRS, NJB, NLB, NKJ, NIV, NRSV, RWB and many more say the same but the Torah starts in Genesis 1 "When God began to create the heaven and the earth."  The Jewish footnote is interesting "When God began to create...the earth being unformed and void.  Other translations render this, "In the beginning God created". Both translations are possible but we cannot be sure that this difference is more that stylistic.  Our translation follows Rashi, who said that the text would have been written if its primary purpose had been to teach the order in which creation took place.  Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem.

Interesting reflections.

The Psalms emphasize God's sustaining of creation and intimate involvement with it (cf Ps 139 re: human beings). I think new variations of species certainly appear all the time as a result of selective breeding and perhaps also because of God's intimate care. But speciation is a real scientific problem, since an animal of a different color may be called a separate species when, in fact, it breeds perfectly well with other "species." Genesis emphasizes that plants and animals would reproduce after their "kinds," a much broader category than "species" as biologists use the term. I don't think new "kinds" appear, in the Genesis sense.

On translating the opening of Genesis, I think the linguistic move goes like this: "In beginning [to] create" = "When God began to create." It is grammatically possible but less probable than what appears in traditional translations. In fact, I think the translation you're seeing in the Jewish Bible reflects modern philosophical presuppositions that traditional Jewish interpreters would reject (e.g., matter is eternal). I believe that only God is described as eternal in Scripture, which would accord well with the traditional interpretation also, and provide the context for Gn 1.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 26, 2007, 07:12:49 AM
A Jewish rabbi with whom I and some other pastors were taking a seminar interpreted the Light of Day one as God's Light, coming from God Himself.  Seemed a short jump for me to go from that to John 1:4-5 "The life was the Light of men.  The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" and Jesus in John 9 "I am the Light of the world."
Ken Kimball

Certainly Rv reflects this idea as well, since the new creation will need neither sun nor moon. There are also descriptions of God's Word as light (cf "and God said").

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 26, 2007, 11:43:54 AM
The idea that Genesis was written as the ancients experienced it does not hold up. The false presupposition is that Gen. 1-2 is a description of the world as the ancients saw it. Manifestly it is not. The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)? The flood (which was not merely 40 days of rain, but the heavens being opened and the waters of the deep bursting forth) essentially undoes some of the separating in Gen. 1. No Creationist I know of discusses Creation without reference to the flood, because it makes the distinction-- when you're reading Gen. 1 you're NOT reading a description of the world as we (or the ancients) see and experience it. That assumption one way ro the other makes a huge difference. We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.   
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JMOtterman on July 26, 2007, 11:47:52 AM
The idea that Genesis was written as the ancients experienced it does not hold up. The false presupposition is that Gen. 1-2 is a description of the world as the ancients saw it. Manifestly it is not. The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)? The flood (which was not merely 40 days of rain, but the heavens being opened and the waters of the deep bursting forth) essentially undoes some of the separating in Gen. 1. No Creationist I know of discusses Creation without reference to the flood, because it makes the distinction-- when you're reading Gen. 1 you're NOT reading a description of the world as we (or the ancients) see and experience it. That assumption one way ro the other makes a huge difference. We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.

Peter,

Please continue if you are willing I am curious as to where you are going...

PJ
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 26, 2007, 11:57:55 AM
The water was separated and the in-between was called "sky". How would that make sense to an ancient any more than someone of today (unless it was always cloudy)?
That was precisely their experience/understanding of Sky. It was a firmament, essentially a big blue bowl that separated the waters above it from the oceans and seas below it. Within the bowl there were doors that could be opened to let water (or snow or hail) rain down on the earth.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 26, 2007, 02:36:30 PM
We see and experience the world as the deluge left it. There may be all kinds of arguments for or against a literal reading of Genesis, but the discussion can't even really engage until we begin with admitting that what Genesis 1 describes is not the world as we see it or the world as the ancients saw it. It is a world that no longer exists. Knowing what we're examining affects greatly how we exmaine it.   

Peter, you're reading the text of Genesis as a narrative that has internal integrity and invites the reader to understand the text in light of itself (a.k.a., narrative criticism). So, you're saying that the writer who recorded the creation in Gn 1 did so after the flood had taken place in Gn 6. The writer would not have seen the pre-flood world but would have recorded what God revealed to him about that world.

If we take the approach that we should interpret Genesis 1 in light of our experience or in light of other ancient literature (which I believe is the approach that Brian is proposing), we may miss an important point that the writer of Genesis makes---in Gn 1 he's writing about something he did not directly experience.

Am I in the ballpark?

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 30, 2007, 09:01:55 AM
I still believe God created the heavens and the earth and that scientists are partly right other wise we wouldn't have disciples like Thomas who ask questions and seek answers through visual accuity.

So then I want you to comprehend and acknowledge the importance of Ockhams Razor "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."  By reason alone I would have to believe in evolution not as Darwin suggested but as a constant process of life and yet I also believe that God is the creator and that God is still creating, God is still involved. 

So then I was reading about Ockham's Razor and found that our dear Dr. Luther also has a Razor to his name what is it?  Is it Justification?  Theology of the Cross?  I know one of you probably know this...

For Lutherans there's this doctrine called sola scriptura, which says we judge doctrine by Scripture alone. I think this is where many folks find trouble in Genesis. They want to satisfy their reason yet also hold to Scripture and then end of with a mixture of modern philosophy and Scripture. In some traditions this is not problem, even expected. But for Lutheran's this is a real problem, since we do not give reason or tradition the same billing as Scripture in matters of doctrine.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 30, 2007, 10:03:38 AM
Graffiti from the physics department of a prestigious university:

And God said,
“div D = ρ
div B = 0
curl E = -dB/dt
curl H = dD/dt + J,”
and there was light.

These four equations are Maxwell's equations that, together, form a complete description of the production and interrelation of electric and magnetic fields.  Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.  Perhaps what God did on the first day of creation was design and define what light would be.  Light sources came later.

Dan
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 10:13:04 AM
EENGELBRECHT writes:
But for Lutheran's this is a real problem, since we do not give reason or tradition the same billing as Scripture in matters of doctrine.

I comment:
But neither do we give scripture authority over physics, since it is not intended to be a science text, nor do we elevate its form of "history" over more "historical" approaches to understanding time, events and the world.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 30, 2007, 10:24:27 AM
In other words, we will accept the Bible's claims unless and until we don't want to believe the Scripture's testimony.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 10:32:29 AM
We accept the Bible's claims in teaching us how we are saved. I do not accept the Bible's description of the physical universe or the details on how it was created. This is not a matter of not "wanting" to accept the scripture's "testimony."
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 30, 2007, 11:59:53 AM
Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: hansen on July 30, 2007, 12:04:21 PM
We accept the Bible's claims in teaching us how we are saved. I do not accept the Bible's description of the physical universe or the details on how it was created. This is not a matter of not "wanting" to accept the scripture's "testimony."

Why accept even that at face value?  Why not presume that the Truth-claims regarding salvation were tainted by the writers' cultural biases, and therefore we should put our own present-day spin on it, dismissing what doesn't fit with what we want to believe (given how doggone suphisticated we is tuday)?
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 30, 2007, 12:14:22 PM
Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?
Exactly!!  How can one say that Jesus (who while truly man, was and is truly God, the Second PErson of the Holy Trinity through whom all things were made, was wrong about the Mosaic Authorship of Genesis, and about Adam and Eve being real, historic people, without either denying his Divinity or putting limits on it?  I agree with ptmccain on this one.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 03:27:12 PM
Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Mike Bennett on July 30, 2007, 03:32:14 PM
Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?

Well, Mr. Hansen, the archbishop, Jesus Christ and St. Paul.  I think the latter two add significant luster to the group (no offense intended to Don or the archbishop).

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 30, 2007, 04:29:32 PM
Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?
You bet!   :)
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 04:35:08 PM
Good. Then the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is up for discussion among fellow members of the body of Christ.

CMA
Signing off soon to go to the 40th reunion of my seminary class and work at the ELCA assembly in Chicago.
I returned from South America to the death of the patriarch of our parish and a week of Vacation Bible School - 160 kids! Yikes!
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 30, 2007, 04:57:21 PM
I note that the question was not answered:

Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?


Still waiting for a response to that question.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 05:15:04 PM
Pastor McCain writes:
I note that the question was not answered:
Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?
Still waiting for a response to that question.

I comment:
Here's the answer. I don't know. (I wonder if we know that Jesus was speaking of them as real persons or in some other fashion? )
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 30, 2007, 05:17:24 PM
Here's the answer. I don't know. (I wonder if we know that Jesus was speaking of them as real persons or in some other fashion? )

I believe it would be in the best interest of the body of Christ to come to a firm conclusion on this key question before we toss out as "not historical" what the Lord Jesus Christ and his blessed Apostles regarded to be historically and factually true.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 05:35:58 PM
Pastor McCain writes:
believe it would be in the best interest of the body of Christ to come to a firm conclusion on this key question before we toss out as "not historical" what the Lord Jesus Christ and his blessed Apostles regarded to be historically and factually true.

I comment:
And how might we know that precisely and without doubt or misinterpretation? From accounts passed through many human hands for decades before they were written down? From which manuscript, which century, which redaction, which translation? And I don't recall reading any poll or survey of the 12 about the historicity of Adam and Eve. And I'm not "tossing out" anything, except the view that the Bible is a history book or the transcription of a tape recording of what the Lord said.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 30, 2007, 06:31:58 PM
Graffiti from the physics department of a prestigious university:

And God said,
“div D = ρ
div B = 0
curl E = -dB/dt
curl H = dD/dt + J,”
and there was light.

These four equations are Maxwell's equations that, together, form a complete description of the production and interrelation of electric and magnetic fields.  Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.  Perhaps what God did on the first day of creation was design and define what light would be.  Light sources came later.

Dan

It's all very essential and yet also mysterious, isn't it.

In Genesis light is linked with time, since the changing of the light is how we come to measure time ("evening and morning"; passing months and years also gaged by the light of the stars/seven visible planets). This connection appears again in the Sabbath day and yet again in the lampstand of the tabernacle with the seven lights (cf seven days of the week). The connections between creation, observation, and Israel's worship were seamless.

God's order is wonderous.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 30, 2007, 06:42:09 PM
But neither do we give scripture authority over physics, since it is not intended to be a science text

Charles, I think this is a good point. Genesis certainly is not a science text. And yet it is not "unscientific" or necessarily in conflict with science. Folks report on what they observe, which is the essence of scientific method. For example, Genesis 1 classifies animals on the basis of locomotion and environment. Our modern standard of classification (from Linneus [sp?], who happened to be a nice Swedish Lutheran boy) is based on anatomy. Though the approaches are different, they come about in the same ways: observe and report.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 30, 2007, 06:50:34 PM
Yes, indeed. And our observation shows that the Genesis account tain't "history" as we understand history.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 30, 2007, 06:54:35 PM
I note that the question was not answered:

Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?


Still waiting for a response to that question.

Below is what I pulled on reports of Moses being cited by Jesus in one Gospel. Sometimes the conversation is prompted by other Jewish teachers. But sometimes the Evangelist presents Jesus just quoting Moses (seems like a good Rabbinic thing to do) or even talking with Moses!:

Mark 1:44
and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
Mark 7:10
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
Mark 9:4
And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
Mark 9:5
And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi,[1] it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
Mark 10:3
He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”
Mark 10:4
They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.”
Mark 12:19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man
Mark 12:26
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

Seems to be a common theme in this shortest Evangel, which is regarded as one of the earliest reports of Jesus' life. Could we say, as is demonstrated by contemporary Jewish literature, that Jesus believed in Mosaic authorship and taught it much like the other Rabbis? That would fit the first century context well.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 30, 2007, 07:20:45 PM
Yes, indeed. And our observation shows that the Genesis account tain't "history" as we understand history.

I would agree that Genesis 1 is certainly not history as we would report it today but that is a matter of genre. It also appears to be, as pointed out earlier, a matter of revelation (the writer did not observed the events but reports about them based on sources available to him). But neither of these factors makes Genesis 1 ahistorical, just as the differences in ideals/standards of science do not make Genesis 1 unscientific.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 31, 2007, 12:19:15 AM
Yes, indeed. And our observation shows that the Genesis account tain't "history" as we understand history.
How do we observe that?
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: janielou13 on July 31, 2007, 09:05:36 AM
"Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?


Still waiting for a response to that question.",,,,,,,,,,,,, St Augustine had no problem answering the question,,, check him out.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JEdwards on July 31, 2007, 09:15:21 AM
I note that the question was not answered:

Our Lord Christ accepted the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and regarded Adam and Eve as real, historic personages, similarly the Apostle St. Paul. How do we work our way past these realities, I wonder?


Still waiting for a response to that question.

Below is what I pulled on reports of Moses being cited by Jesus in one Gospel. Sometimes the conversation is prompted by other Jewish teachers. But sometimes the Evangelist presents Jesus just quoting Moses (seems like a good Rabbinic thing to do) or even talking with Moses!:

Mark 1:44
and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
Mark 7:10
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
Mark 9:4
And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
Mark 9:5
And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi,[1] it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
Mark 10:3
He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”
Mark 10:4
They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.”
Mark 12:19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man
Mark 12:26
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

Seems to be a common theme in this shortest Evangel, which is regarded as one of the earliest reports of Jesus' life. Could we say, as is demonstrated by contemporary Jewish literature, that Jesus believed in Mosaic authorship and taught it much like the other Rabbis? That would fit the first century context well.

In Christ,
EE


Of course, none of these citations refers to the Book of Genesis, let alone the first chapter of Genesis.  Much of the text of Exodus through Deuteronomy is explicitly attributed to Moses in the text itself.  I am not aware of any Scriptural text attributing to Moses anything written in the Book of Genesis.

Jon Edwards
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 31, 2007, 11:11:36 AM
Could we say, as is demonstrated by contemporary Jewish literature, that Jesus believed in Mosaic authorship and taught it much like the other Rabbis? That would fit the first century context well.

In Christ,
EE


Of course, none of these citations refers to the Book of Genesis, let alone the first chapter of Genesis.  Much of the text of Exodus through Deuteronomy is explicitly attributed to Moses in the text itself.  I am not aware of any Scriptural text attributing to Moses anything written in the Book of Genesis.

Jon Edwards

As noted, the Rabbis attributed Genesis to Moses along with Ex through Dt (persistently called "the Law of Moses"; this tradition is actually well rooted centuries earlier in the OT). Jesus stood in this tradition as the statements attributed to Him show. The following includes explicit mention of "the Law of Moses" in teaching attributed to Jesus:

Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
John 7:22
Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
John 7:23
If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

Every Jewish school boy, including Jesus, knew and believed that the first books of Scripture were attributed to Moses.
In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 31, 2007, 11:15:14 AM
Still waiting for a response to that question.",,,,,,,,,,,,, St Augustine had no problem answering the question,,, check him out.

Citation please.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: janielou13 on July 31, 2007, 01:30:47 PM
"Citation please."

St. Augustine is not Pieper and not amenable to proof texting,,,,,, start with the Confessions, then go on to City of God and then his OT commentaries on Genesis and the Creation narritives in Psalms.  I've contract typed enough papers to know this material is covered in Sem, it's not really obtuse.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 31, 2007, 03:30:19 PM
"Citation please."

St. Augustine is not Pieper and not amenable to proof texting,,,,,, start with the Confessions, then go on to City of God and then his OT commentaries on Genesis and the Creation narritives in Psalms.  I've contract typed enough papers to know this material is covered in Sem, it's not really obtuse.

Augustine was not opposed to citing other authors in order to make his points. Surely, you can't oppose the practice of quoting someone since you're doing just that in responding to others in this forum. I would be pleased to see your insights from Augustine on the doctrine of creation.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on July 31, 2007, 03:35:18 PM
Janielou, if you refer us to a specific point, and claim it is "covered" by Augustine, then asking you to provide a specific citation is not inappropriate. I'll be pleased to check whatever specific citation you provide, otherwise your remark is somewhat useless for this conversation.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 31, 2007, 06:08:10 PM
To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Mike Bennett on July 31, 2007, 06:12:21 PM
To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+

Still being in business, I'm better at following exam instructions than Steven, so I picked six days as the best answer available.

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 31, 2007, 06:14:24 PM
To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+

Thanks for your note, Steven. I had hoped there would be a box in the poll design screen to allow comment for those who wanted to offer a variant from the list. The poll design screen does not have that as an option, so weighing in here is good. Would you like to share more about your position/thoughts?

Mike, I see you had a similar dilemma.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JMOtterman on July 31, 2007, 09:28:57 PM
EE,

The poll is just to simple.  I find the creation issue much more complex and very complicated with too many agendas and misconstrued arguments that lack sense or tact.  Let's see if I can add to the misery.

Do I find both creation stories in Genesis to be true and that the life on this planet has evolved and continues to evolve?  Yes.

Do I find truth both with the two stories in Genesis and some of the ideas of evolution to be as a matter of fact or as a matter of faith? It is all a matter of faith for all involved even if I sound like I want it be as a matter of fact.  You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Creation isn't for those that want facts, creation is about imagination and for that matter God's Imago Dei.

I have faith that God did indeed create everything but my faith given me by God isn't a reality by which fact is created even if I believe that it is a fact, it still is an issue of faith.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ  

 
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on July 31, 2007, 10:36:55 PM
EE,

The poll is just to simple. 

You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ  

Dear PJ, I agree that the poll is a simplification of the issue. Any attempt to measure such an issue would certainly involve some simplification. From other posts it seems others recognized that as well.

I do not intend to force anyone's belief. I'm simply inviting people to weigh in on some of the ideas and possibilities that are proposed from "traditional" and from "progressive" views. Since the doctrine of creation occupies an entire article of the Creed, I regard it as an important issue, worthy of consideration. I believe it also has profound implications for how we think about other doctrines as well.

I'm not sure I understand your closing question. Do you mean that having firm beliefs about the doctrine of creation undermines faith in Christ?

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JMOtterman on July 31, 2007, 11:01:07 PM
EE,

The poll is just to simple. 

You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ 

Dear PJ, I agree that the poll is a simplification of the issue. Any attempt to measure such an issue would certainly involve some simplification. From other posts it seems others recognized that as well.

I do not intend to force anyone's belief. I'm simply inviting people to weigh in on some of the ideas and possibilities that are proposed from "traditional" and from "progressive" views. Since the doctrine of creation occupies an entire article of the Creed, I regard it as an important issue, worthy of consideration. I believe it also has profound implications for how we think about other doctrines as well.

I'm not sure I understand your closing question. Do you mean that having firm beliefs about the doctrine of creation undermines faith in Christ?

In Christ,
EE

Anything, that is human formed i.e. last weeks texts, philosophy, traditions etc that impedes the Gospel Jesus Christ is sin.  You, me, our arguments, our agreements could be an impediment to the Gospel.  So yes a firm belief in Creation as a literal fact rather than faith based story or vice versa, could do damage to folks hearing the Gospel and rejecting the Gospel according to human tradition based on faith built on imperfect human traditions such as our Confessions which I tend to live with daily  :o gasp the horror the institution of the church and its people might be on the wrong side, probably in our deepest anxieties we dine with the devil believing the devil to be God and not knowing the difference.

The edge of the iron cuts both ways and so I need to be careful as do you about what is most important, although Luther did say to sin boldly.  I would rather we could agree to disagree and have a drink on me, now where do you live?

Does it really shake your faith to believe that God didn't create the world in 6 days and rest on the 7 day.  I believe God created the world in one millisecond not 6 twenty four hour days like we have currently and somehow we need to rest.  God created this life and I believe God created it, just not with a literal Adam or Eve.  Adamah means dirt that I do believe.

It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber?

PJ         
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: ptmccain on August 01, 2007, 07:31:05 AM
PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories." If you deny the historicity of Adam and Eve you must regard Christ Himself as a liar, or a fool.
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 01, 2007, 07:33:03 AM
Pastor McCain persists in admonishing:
PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories."

I ask, again:
And where in scripture does it say that about the 12?
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on August 01, 2007, 08:13:25 AM
It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber?  

Dear PJ, thanks for your note, which raises a number of issues. I live west of St. Louis. I'd surely have a beer with you, if possible.

I'd like to tell a story. A few years back I was at a Society of Biblical Literature conference and sat in on a session led by a fellow Lutheran. I was curious to hear what he had to say. I knew he was more "progressive" than I was but I wanted to be supportive of my colleague nonetheless. (Incidentily, for those who assume there are no liberals in the LCMS, I testify that you are dead wrong. I've met them and have even had lunch with them  :)). As the brother's presentation unfolded, the room went dead silent. When he finished, a few folks hesitantly asked questions and were even more surprised by the presenter's answers.

You see, his presentation was thoroughly Bultmannian in its assumptions and goals. Fifty years ago, when this fellow went through sem, Bultmann was hot stuff. Older theologians have told me everyone was convinced that Bultmann would be regarded historically as the most important theologian of the twentieth century. Today he is completely passe among exegetes, even scorned.

A similar thing is happening with JEDP (documentary hypothesis) though it is dieing a slower death than Bultmann's ideas. In the 1800s and 1900s JEDP was cutting edge and all the rage. Then in the mid 1900s a number of discoveries came to light: The Cairo Geniza, the Damascus Document, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars of the 1800s and 1900s had assumed that subsequent discoveries of texts would prove that biblical books were threaded together by editors at a late date. However, the mss discovered demonstrated instead the stability of the biblical texts over two thousand years. Today exegetes are looking at the JEDP theory and asking themselves, "How could we have believed that we could pick through ancient texts and sift out who wrote/edited what?" They are acknowledging that the JEDP theory said much more about its practicioners than the texts themselves.

Ardent disciples of the JEDP theory are now saying, "Yes, well, we had our dates too late. The texts as we have them are older than we thought. But if we find texts from centuries earlier, then we'll see the theory was right!" As a student of the history of interpretation, I find this all fascinating to watch. In the meantime, I'm hanging with traditional approaches to the texts, which focus on the texts. Perhaps this will help you understand me better. Though I am simple, I am perhaps not as simple as you supposed.  :)

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: JMOtterman on August 01, 2007, 10:07:48 AM
EE,

Thanks for hangin' out with this cracker pastor in South Dakota.

It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber? 

Dear PJ, thanks for your note, which raises a number of issues. I live west of St. Louis. I'd surely have a beer with you, if possible.

I'd like to tell a story. A few years back I was at a Society of Biblical Literature conference and sat in on a session led by a fellow Lutheran. I was curious to hear what he had to say. I knew he was more "progressive" than I was but I wanted to be supportive of my colleague nonetheless. (Incidentily, for those who assume there are no liberals in the LCMS, I testify that you are dead wrong. I've met them and have even had lunch with them  :)). As the brother's presentation unfolded, the room went dead silent. When he finished, a few folks hesitantly asked questions and were even more surprised by the presenter's answers.

You see, his presentation was thoroughly Bultmannian in its assumptions and goals. Fifty years ago, when this fellow went through sem, Bultmann was hot stuff. Older theologians have told me everyone was convinced that Bultmann would be regarded historically as the most important theologian of the twentieth century. Today he is completely passe among exegetes, even scorned.

A similar thing is happening with JEDP (documentary hypothesis) though it is dieing a slower death than Bultmann's ideas. In the 1800s and 1900s JEDP was cutting edge and all the rage. Then in the mid 1900s a number of discoveries came to light: The Cairo Geniza, the Damascus Document, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars of the 1800s and 1900s had assumed that subsequent discoveries of texts would prove that biblical books were threaded together by editors at a late date. However, the mss discovered demonstrated instead the stability of the biblical texts over two thousand years. Today exegetes are looking at the JEDP theory and asking themselves, "How could we have believed that we could pick through ancient texts and sift out who wrote/edited what?" They are acknowledging that the JEDP theory said much more about its practicioners than the texts themselves.

Ardent disciples of the JEDP theory are now saying, "Yes, well, we had our dates too late. The texts as we have them are older than we thought. But if we find texts from centuries earlier, then we'll see the theory was right!" As a student of the history of interpretation, I find this all fascinating to watch. In the meantime, I'm hanging with traditional approaches to the texts, which focus on the texts. Perhaps this will help you understand me better. Though I am simple, I am perhaps not as simple as you supposed.  :)

In Christ,
EE

EE are you a professor of theology?  Do you hold a Ph:D in theology it is possible that you might have the clout and alas I am not a Ph:D but just a lowly M. Div..  Though your argument about JEDP seems to be from a school of thought that is clearly in the minority opinion amongst most Ph:D's around the country and in the world dealing with scripture and text, I know that such minor opinions exist.

I cut my teeth on Bultmann and though some of his ideas were wrong, he still may be the most brilliant theologian of his time, even as I might disagree with him more than I agree with him.  It is easy to dismiss those you don't understand as a lunatic than to sit and figure out what he was trying to say.  I wrote my best theological treatise being critical of Bultmann but I appreciate him more than not.  He didn't get everything right but many of his lingustic inventions are helpful in textual studies of scripture.  You might like the Catholic Theologian Raymond Brown (I think that is right) he seemed to hold Bultmann in highest esteem mentions him in many of his books.

As I know that you know that many LCMS folks can be quite liberal on some points and conservative on others that is what being a Lutheran in America is all about.  That is why those terms should probably be banned because I am something of all of the above.  Conservative on many points, Liberal on some as well, I am a by product of the ELCA which means I am well seasoned for a Heresy Roast.

You never know the next time I will be in St. Louis, my mother lived a good chunk of her life in St. Louis.  Great city.  I would track you down to have a cold drink.

Peace,

PJ   
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on August 01, 2007, 10:12:24 AM
Pastor McCain persists in admonishing:
PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories."

I ask, again:
And where in scripture does it say that about the 12?

Charles, you raise a good point.

We do have Matthew, James, John, and Peter recording or recorded as supportive of this idea, as Early Christian texts attribute/associate the idea of Mosaic authorship with them. A similar situation holds for late comers like Stephen, Paul, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews. Belief in Mosaic authorship continues to show up throughout the Early Church Fathers and does not seem to be questioned among early Christians generally (are you aware of any Fathers dissenting?).

Perhaps the most helpful passage is Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, which records James speaking of Moses being read everywhere---a pretty clear reference to the Law of Moses. He is recorded as making these matter-of-fact statements in a meeting of the apostles and elders.  So, as is the case with Jesus, earliest Christian documents describe apostles, like other first century Jews, holding to Mosaic authorship of Gn through Dt.

Paul's point was perhaps too terse but, all in all, appears quite reasonable based on the early documents.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc
Post by: EENGELBRECHT on August 01, 2007, 02:15:06 PM
EE are you a professor of theology?  Do you hold a Ph:D in theology it is possible that you might have the clout and alas I am not a Ph:D but just a lowly M. Div..  Though your argument about JEDP seems to be from a school of thought that is clearly in the minority opinion amongst most Ph:D's around the country and in the world dealing with scripture and text, I know that such minor opinions exist.

Dear PJ, I'm not a prof or PhD but I edit them regularly, which helps me stay up on what's happening in academic theology.

Please do not refer to yourself as a "lowly M. Div." since Christ has entrusted souls to your care. Your calling is at the heart of what the Church is and does.  :) That cannot always be said of the PhDs.

Gunkel sowed the seeds for the demise of JEDP early in the twenthieth century. Older scholars still hold on to the theory and teach it. The younger ones have given up trying to decide who wrote what in the books of Moses and tend to look at the texts "wholistically" (cf Narrative Criticism). This is because JEDP turned out to be thoroughly subjective, based on the scholar's criteria for who each editor/author was. The more they chopped up the text the more obvious their subjectivity became.

On Bultmann: exegetes rarely become theologians of lasting importance because modern exegetical theories/approaches tend to shift with the wind. Important dogmaticians usually get read for centuries (e.g., folks still read Thomas Aquinas; Nicholas of Lyra, not so much). Among the Germans I think Barth will go down as top-dog in the twentieth century. He has the NeoOrthodox movement on his side. Bonhoeffer has a chance at continuing importance, mostly because of his great story/example.

In Christ,
EE