I believe that part of the reason the "material framework" remains unquestioned with the "why" is because we are afraid to find out there is a real God who creates and destroys at will overriding ours.
The maximally efficient search for intelligence is by beginning with what is known and knowable, and pairing down the Search Space by the binary principle of 'general and special'. For example, consider the cosmos as the general thing, and the Earth as the special thing about the cosmos. Thus: 1. the general cosmos and the special Earth (Genesis 1:2). 2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2). 3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10); 4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12); 5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25); 6. Animal biology and its special category, human (vs. 26-28); 7. The man and the woman (Genesis 2:21-23). This seven-fold recursion is not had by an aloof, indifferently 'objective', Platonic view of things. It is had only by the most personally intimate sensibilities of the goodness of an idealized Creator of an ideally good initial Creation. So Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned to affirm the Biblical idea that, since the Living God designed and created us, we not only are not insignificant, we are the central value of the entire account, and of the entire cosmos. Even more, this recursion fits the fact that the Bible's general account of origins, Genesis 1, conspicuously lacks mention of any material origin only for humans. This uniquely human lack of such mention at once (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) as implying that such mention is to be anticipated, as a completion to the account. Per 7, this anticipation is fulfilled in the special account of origins, Genesis 2.
God commanded and the earth etc was created . It didn't take " chronological " time . I can say this with assurance , because when God heals. It doesn't take time . We take " our time" to notice . Thank you
organizations such as Answers, in Genesis exist, for this reason....to stress the importance of taking Genesis...Chapter 1 - 11 literally....and these so PhD individuals trying to change the straight forward message, for something convoluted, and confusing....
I would like to know - why- you would believe God didn't create the world in 6 24 hour days? If he made the stars to separate day and night, to be signs for seasons, days and years... Are these analogical seasons, days and years? And at what point did God change the analogical days into 24 hour days if He finished creation on the 6th day and rested on the 7th thereafter? It does become a little bit of a slippery slope taking on the analogical approach, with no actual exegetical basis except an argument from silence, so I'm keen to understand why and how you come to this conclusion?
And were the Israelites allowed the diverse subjective hermeneutic which evangelicals of today are, and if so, would that give reasonable basis for a person to determine their own, analogical sabbath day (since God makes His appeal for the sabbath day rest on the 7th day of a literal week by stating in deuteronomy that He made the earth in 6 days) since Genesis, as we in modern days purport, is so wide open to interpretation?
I'm a bit confused why this discussion exists. What is there to exegete? The scripture speaks very plainly. Either you believe God or you don't. What is "contemporary scientific study"? I am aware of some contemporary scientists' claims that conflict with the Word of God. When I have to choose, I believe God over men.
I’m sorry to say but I find the host to be a little too pedantic. I mean could you please allow the guest to speak a little more? I thought this was supposed to be an interview/conversation, but I find the host taking more than his guest. 😢
Poythress's red line on evolution seems irrational and tied to his personal dogmatic rather than honest exegesis. Scholars in the reformed space have put forth faithful hermeneutical approaches that permit an acceptance of modern biology. See, e.g., Jack Collins' work.
Because we don’t abandon the great minds God has given us through church history . We don’t need to start over each generation with fresh interpretations and biblicism
I believe that Dr. Poythress' books should be mandatory reading in all seminaries.
Thank you, gentlemen, for another mentally invigorating episode.
Vern Poythress Redeeming Science is such a great book.
@@Fact_Checker04 I’m glad it’s fact checked 🤣
I believe that part of the reason the "material framework" remains unquestioned with the "why" is because we are afraid to find out there is a real God who creates and destroys at will overriding ours.
Excellent discussion! Thank you.
The maximally efficient search for intelligence is by beginning with what is known and knowable, and pairing down the Search Space by the binary principle of 'general and special'. For example, consider the cosmos as the general thing, and the Earth as the special thing about the cosmos. Thus:
1. the general cosmos and the special Earth (Genesis 1:2).
2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (Genesis 1:2).
3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (vs. 3-10);
4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12);
5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-22, 24-25);
6. Animal biology and its special category, human (vs. 26-28);
7. The man and the woman (Genesis 2:21-23).
This seven-fold recursion is not had by an aloof, indifferently 'objective', Platonic view of things. It is had only by the most personally intimate sensibilities of the goodness of an idealized Creator of an ideally good initial Creation. So Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned to affirm the Biblical idea that, since the Living God designed and created us, we not only are not insignificant, we are the central value of the entire account, and of the entire cosmos.
Even more, this recursion fits the fact that the Bible's general account of origins, Genesis 1, conspicuously lacks mention of any material origin only for humans. This uniquely human lack of such mention at once (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) as implying that such mention is to be anticipated, as a completion to the account. Per 7, this anticipation is fulfilled in the special account of origins, Genesis 2.
Could someone provide mi with Plantinga's original citation that is quoted in 56:20?
The presuppositional method is great for perceiving all conversations legally, i.e, ascertaining what is "form" and what is "substance."
Thomism would be the best starting point
Almost halfway through this and haven't learned anything about genesis
Did Dr. pothrys know john nash at harvard?
“Nothing has substituted for saying ‘God did it’”, and therein lies the problem.
God commanded and the earth etc was created . It didn't take " chronological " time . I can say this with assurance , because when God heals. It doesn't take time . We take " our time" to notice . Thank you
True God works outside time
@@richardndossi8492 - The Bible tells us that God created in six days.
- The Bible tells us that God created in six days.
Yet He formed man from the earth and breathed into him.
Although God is outside time, He still operates within time.
organizations such as Answers, in Genesis exist, for this reason....to stress the importance of taking Genesis...Chapter 1 - 11 literally....and these so PhD individuals trying to change the straight forward message, for something convoluted, and confusing....
Nice 9.28.23
I would like to know - why- you would believe God didn't create the world in 6 24 hour days?
If he made the stars to separate day and night, to be signs for seasons, days and years... Are these analogical seasons, days and years? And at what point did God change the analogical days into 24 hour days if He finished creation on the 6th day and rested on the 7th thereafter?
It does become a little bit of a slippery slope taking on the analogical approach, with no actual exegetical basis except an argument from silence, so I'm keen to understand why and how you come to this conclusion?
And were the Israelites allowed the diverse subjective hermeneutic which evangelicals of today are, and if so, would that give reasonable basis for a person to determine their own, analogical sabbath day (since God makes His appeal for the sabbath day rest on the 7th day of a literal week by stating in deuteronomy that He made the earth in 6 days) since Genesis, as we in modern days purport, is so wide open to interpretation?
Genesis 2:4
Pls explain the existence of lions that eat baby zebras.
I'm a bit confused why this discussion exists. What is there to exegete? The scripture speaks very plainly. Either you believe God or you don't.
What is "contemporary scientific study"? I am aware of some contemporary scientists' claims that conflict with the Word of God. When I have to choose, I believe God over men.
I’m sorry to say but I find the host to be a little too pedantic. I mean could you please allow the guest to speak a little more? I thought this was supposed to be an interview/conversation, but I find the host taking more than his guest. 😢
Poythress's red line on evolution seems irrational and tied to his personal dogmatic rather than honest exegesis. Scholars in the reformed space have put forth faithful hermeneutical approaches that permit an acceptance of modern biology. See, e.g., Jack Collins' work.
Why you guys talk so much people people people not God? Until last you never touched the Word!
True.
Because we don’t abandon the great minds God has given us through church history . We don’t need to start over each generation with fresh interpretations and biblicism