Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 19, 2023Liked by Yoshi Matsumoto
I stopped worrying about reconciling the Bible with "science" when I finally came to grips with the fact that the Bible doesn't care about science; it's not a science book, and the people who wrote it didn't have anything close to a "scientific" worldview. So why should I try to read my "scientific" worldview into it? Now I ~try~ to read it with the mindset of the people who wrote it, whether that's a first century Greek-speaking Jew or a late bronze age shepherd-king.
Spending several years rubbing shoulders with tribal people from northwest Myanmar helped me shed some of my Western concepts and notions regarding the Unseen Realm. But I'm still working on it.
P.S. I just watched a "science" video yesterday that tried to show how what everyone knows about the Big Bang might not be so. If that's the case, and spacetime really isn't what the Einstein said it is, then a lot of those folks losing their religion because of "science" were probably losing it for the wrong reasons after all. But I think that losing something so valuable over something so petty is probably just an excuse. Maybe. Maybe not.
Thank you for this. Im reminded of what Jesus said "If the light that is in you is darkness how great is that darkness." The lens of science filters out God, beauty, angels, demons, evil, good, love, hate basically everything a normal human being would care about. The movie "They Live" is an inversion. We need to take the scientific sun glasses off.
The Church Fathers did not treat the Scriptures as a modern history or science textbook. You’re reading Scripture the same way a 19th century German liberal theologian would. Unfortunately, their view has infected most of us in the west.
No, it’s a mistake to say they didn’t mean what they said when they wrote it. *That’s* the liberal mistake. When they wrote “earth was created in six days”, that’s exactly what they meant.
Origen and St Isaac of Syria talk about the multiple meanings of scripture, ranging from literal to allegorical to eschatological. And they say that not every part of Scripture has a literal meaning. Those parts of scripture which don’t make sense at first are invitations to look for the deeper meaning beneath the surface. Curious about your thoughts on this.
My thoughts on this is that that is A) an extreme minority view historically (Some of Origin’s stuff was later deemed heretical) and B) the path to endless nonsense. If a text doesn’t mean what it says then you can just make up anything and claim it’s the “secret allegorical” meaning. It renders the entire text useless. Meanings *on top* of the literal, sure, definitely. But the literal meaning is always most fundamental. There are of course, obvious metaphorical passages, like Christ’s parables, but if you start applying that widely then the Bible doesn’t actually mean anything and can be safely tossed in the garbage.
What are you talking about?!?!?!?! Science is no big stumbling block, the existence of God and the truth of the bible is obvious... Its right in front of all our faces every single day.
Lord give me patience, science is (and always has been) the study of Gods creation. All this talk about how the devil uses half truths to deceive and he still got you...
When the devil uses science to "disprove" Gods existence take a step back and raise your perspective. Funny thing about using "complexity" to deceive others, its power is based in narrowing the perspective to whatever limitations support the devils argument. The big bang 100% matches the account of God speaking the world into existence in a single moment in time. He said let there be light and BANG! LIGHT!
I could go on but you have not replied to any of my comments and Im tired so if you really want to know... ask.
I hope the following comment isn't taken for the brazen self-promotion that it very obviously is.
I have just written an article very vaguely about stars and Giants, or Scripture and science, and how we can believe in it now. Unfortunately, most of my subscribers are for reasons of their own not very interested in the Bible; I only wondered what you would have made of it.
Evil surely exists, probably as demonic entities that try to influence us. Cain was the first to succumb to it, despite God's warning to him in Gn 4:7 "if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door". Sin here is portrayed as an active force, waiting nearby for us to give it an opportunity. But evil as a universal principle cannot actually exist, since who would have created it? Surely not God, who does not just choose to do good, but is, by nature, goodness itself. So He cannot be the author of evil. Evil exists because creatures misuse their own freewill, and choose to do what's right in their own eyes, and fall away from participation in God's goodness. Judges 21:25.
The Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite certainly thought that evil had no concrete existence, but was just the absence of good. Similar to darkness not being a "thing" but just an absence of light. St John Damascene says that even the fallen angels, and Satan himself, were good by nature, but willfully turned away from their created purpose. They became evil by their own acts, as being contrary to their nature. Jude 6
This may be the case. I’m not entirely sold though. I believe, for example, that I can feel darkness. In the midst of extreme darkness it has a quality all its own. I’m not sure how one can say darkness is just the absence of light without considering the opposite, that light may just be the absence of darkness.
I stopped worrying about reconciling the Bible with "science" when I finally came to grips with the fact that the Bible doesn't care about science; it's not a science book, and the people who wrote it didn't have anything close to a "scientific" worldview. So why should I try to read my "scientific" worldview into it? Now I ~try~ to read it with the mindset of the people who wrote it, whether that's a first century Greek-speaking Jew or a late bronze age shepherd-king.
Spending several years rubbing shoulders with tribal people from northwest Myanmar helped me shed some of my Western concepts and notions regarding the Unseen Realm. But I'm still working on it.
P.S. I just watched a "science" video yesterday that tried to show how what everyone knows about the Big Bang might not be so. If that's the case, and spacetime really isn't what the Einstein said it is, then a lot of those folks losing their religion because of "science" were probably losing it for the wrong reasons after all. But I think that losing something so valuable over something so petty is probably just an excuse. Maybe. Maybe not.
Thank you for this. Im reminded of what Jesus said "If the light that is in you is darkness how great is that darkness." The lens of science filters out God, beauty, angels, demons, evil, good, love, hate basically everything a normal human being would care about. The movie "They Live" is an inversion. We need to take the scientific sun glasses off.
The Church Fathers did not treat the Scriptures as a modern history or science textbook. You’re reading Scripture the same way a 19th century German liberal theologian would. Unfortunately, their view has infected most of us in the west.
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits
This podcast does a great job discussing the Scriptures as they were read in their original context.
No, it’s a mistake to say they didn’t mean what they said when they wrote it. *That’s* the liberal mistake. When they wrote “earth was created in six days”, that’s exactly what they meant.
How do you measure a day before the creation of the sun?
By the transition from light to dark and back again, as it says in the text. The sun was created to fit that day, it doesn’t cause a day.
Origen and St Isaac of Syria talk about the multiple meanings of scripture, ranging from literal to allegorical to eschatological. And they say that not every part of Scripture has a literal meaning. Those parts of scripture which don’t make sense at first are invitations to look for the deeper meaning beneath the surface. Curious about your thoughts on this.
My thoughts on this is that that is A) an extreme minority view historically (Some of Origin’s stuff was later deemed heretical) and B) the path to endless nonsense. If a text doesn’t mean what it says then you can just make up anything and claim it’s the “secret allegorical” meaning. It renders the entire text useless. Meanings *on top* of the literal, sure, definitely. But the literal meaning is always most fundamental. There are of course, obvious metaphorical passages, like Christ’s parables, but if you start applying that widely then the Bible doesn’t actually mean anything and can be safely tossed in the garbage.
What are you talking about?!?!?!?! Science is no big stumbling block, the existence of God and the truth of the bible is obvious... Its right in front of all our faces every single day.
Lord give me patience, science is (and always has been) the study of Gods creation. All this talk about how the devil uses half truths to deceive and he still got you...
When the devil uses science to "disprove" Gods existence take a step back and raise your perspective. Funny thing about using "complexity" to deceive others, its power is based in narrowing the perspective to whatever limitations support the devils argument. The big bang 100% matches the account of God speaking the world into existence in a single moment in time. He said let there be light and BANG! LIGHT!
I could go on but you have not replied to any of my comments and Im tired so if you really want to know... ask.
I hope the following comment isn't taken for the brazen self-promotion that it very obviously is.
I have just written an article very vaguely about stars and Giants, or Scripture and science, and how we can believe in it now. Unfortunately, most of my subscribers are for reasons of their own not very interested in the Bible; I only wondered what you would have made of it.
https://haydnharries.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/135228824?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
Evil surely exists, probably as demonic entities that try to influence us. Cain was the first to succumb to it, despite God's warning to him in Gn 4:7 "if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door". Sin here is portrayed as an active force, waiting nearby for us to give it an opportunity. But evil as a universal principle cannot actually exist, since who would have created it? Surely not God, who does not just choose to do good, but is, by nature, goodness itself. So He cannot be the author of evil. Evil exists because creatures misuse their own freewill, and choose to do what's right in their own eyes, and fall away from participation in God's goodness. Judges 21:25.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7.
Just offered for consideration.
The Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite certainly thought that evil had no concrete existence, but was just the absence of good. Similar to darkness not being a "thing" but just an absence of light. St John Damascene says that even the fallen angels, and Satan himself, were good by nature, but willfully turned away from their created purpose. They became evil by their own acts, as being contrary to their nature. Jude 6
This may be the case. I’m not entirely sold though. I believe, for example, that I can feel darkness. In the midst of extreme darkness it has a quality all its own. I’m not sure how one can say darkness is just the absence of light without considering the opposite, that light may just be the absence of darkness.