Incredulous Logic

[thesummerqueen]

Never had reason to comment on it before.

[Napoléon]

Hmmm, let's let the big boys carry on playing

[thesummerqueen]

Indeed. Come cheer me up in chat while I rest from my run?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have to ask, does the bible mention stolen cars? Chapter and verse?
(because that would be compelling)

[Napoléon]

Indeed. Come cheer me up in chat while I rest from my run?

I shall try, but tinternet is pissing up.

[Ryft]

I understand that interpreting verses such as Jer 33:25 ... as somehow related to our current understanding of the cosmos is a common thread in apologetics. ... I understand that you have interpreted this in some general sort of way that would appear to be in concordance (or at least "not contradictory") with the physics and cosmology of today ...

I think this probably reveals more about your lack of familiarity with Christian apologetics than it does about the interpretation of this passage, because it is only certain schools of apologetics that are guilty of identifying scientific facts or theories with phrases or passages in Scripture (the term for which is 'concordism', incidentally). Your experiences with young-earth creationists notwithstanding, it is simply illegitimate to broad-brush all of apologetics like this. Having said that, I am certainly not myself guilty of concordist practice; I follow the works of such biblical scholars as Gregory K. Beale (Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary) and John H. Walton (Professor of Old Testament Studies at Wheaton College), particularly the latter who has written extensively on biblical cosmology in the Old Testament and explicitly repudiates and refutes concordism.

I am afraid your criticism is better targeted at Statler than at me.

... specifically from a point of strong faith (and an apparent need to make it reasonable) ...

There is no need to make reasonable that which already is reasonable. Again, I think you have in view a caricature of biblical theology and apologetics, one that is probably a composite of your experiences with a particular class of fundamentalists (whom I also have to deal with).

The verse you've quoted is literally drawing authority ... from laws which we now understand to be incorrect.

Which laws are those, that we now understand to be incorrect?

Jeremiah specifically would have had access to this information ...

The cosmology Jeremiah would be writing in regard to would be that of the Israelites of the ancient Near East, as informed by their covenant relationship to the God of their holy texts. Here are three texts that were instructive and educational on biblical cosmology in the Old Testament (all of them by John H. Walton):

– "Ancient Near Eastern background studies," in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Ed.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 40-45.

– Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker Academic, 2006).

– "Interpreting the Bible as an ancient Near Eastern document," in Daniel I. Block (Ed.) Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention (Broadman & Holman, 2008), pp. 298-327.

I'm of the opinion that this amounts to little more than quote mining.

And I think we are getting vague hints at just how informed your opinion is.

What do you imagine those laws that the verse is describing are?

God's covenant relationship with the heavens and the earth as the sovereign Creator who sustains all things by the power of his word. Some relevant example texts would be Jer 31:35–36, Gen 8:22, Psa 74:16–17, and so forth.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you didn't want this brush applied to you, then you shouldn't have offered the verse as justification for the notion that such a thing as "fixed laws of heaven" existed and could be discovered. I simply pointed out to you that those laws would have been the laws postulated by the Babylonians, and specifically the Chaldeans. The Chaldeans cosmology was flawed due in large part to their reliance on a mythic structure as a mechanism or agent that produced effects. They were much more concerned with collecting data and predicting events than postulating the cause of said events, and the default was then (as it is for some today) goddidit. These are borrowed notions. The Jews never invented their own cosmology, through the revelation of god or otherwise. The fixed law of the heavens and earth that are being referred to in that verse is the law that states that god is physically pushing the cosmos around. No other mechanism needs be proposed. And of course no other mechanism IS proposed within the text. It is not a justification for the notion of fixed laws that could be discovered or understood, it is merely a way to stress gods power to back a promise he is said to have made. In Babylonian cosmology, the Earth was seen as a flat surface, and the heavens and Earth are seen as one round whole. This body revolved around the house or temple of a deity that was personally charged with organizing the entire affair himself. The Babylonians also believed that there was more than one universe, more than one earth. We see analogs to each of these in the Jewish tradition, though you may not be familiar with all of them as you have most likely focused on the Christian canon. The Jewish people of course had other sources for their cosmologies which is pretty much a who's who of the near east, and in fact gives us great evidence as to who the Jews had contact with, and when. This is by no means a comprehensive list. While the influence of Babylonian mythical cosmology is relaxed in some verses, in others it is very strong.

Isa. 27: 1; 30: 7; 51: 9-10; Hab. 3: 8; Ps. 74: 13-14; 89: 10-11; 93; Job 3:8; 9:13

The point is this, the cosmology of the Isrealites, is an amalgam of the cosmologies they borrowed from neighboring and conquering cultures. Not a revelation from god, unless god decided to reveal these things first through those cultures and then engineer their way into what you would one day call the Bible. Hardly something you can substantiate. Even if it were so you would be in the position of having to describe why the babylonian "revealed" cosmologies contained within them the "prerequisites for knowledge" that you claim so arrogantly as your own. I assume you're linking Walton because you believe that I have a literal interpretation of Genesis? Or that I believe that the bibles purpose is supposed to have been a science text? I do not. Your fellow "brothers in christ" like to indulge themselves in that notion. Criticize a YEC, not me. Nothing but a myth to me. You'll end this with a thinly veiled insult and more quote mining? Whatever floats your boat.

The passage of time, seasons, days and nights, the sun and the stars needed no revelation from god, human beings had been aware of these things for well over 180,000 years before the first breath of Yahweh ever escaped a human mouth. By the time your scriptures were cobbled together people were already forming an actual understanding of the world around them, without the aid of your particular fairy. Its just a case of claiming for yourself what is the labor of others, all the while showing nothing but contempt for the very people who developed the things you cherish so much.

[Ryft]

If you didn't want this brush applied to you, then you shouldn't have offered the verse as justification for the notion that such a thing as "fixed laws of heaven" existed and could be discovered.

You generalized Christian apologetics as possessing a common thread of concordist approaches to interpretation, a broad-brushing attempt which faceplants against those schools of apologetics that repudiate concordism as anachronistic and indefensible. It is concordist approaches that fall prey to your criticism regarding the Jeremiah passage—that the "fixed laws" mentioned therein correspond to empirical laws—a criticism that fails to find its mark when aimed at me. It has nothing to do with whether or not I want that brush applied to me; it simply does not apply to me, regardless of my feelings about it. As my answer to you indicated, the "fixed laws" pertain to covenant theology, not material cosmology.

I simply pointed out to you that those laws would have been the laws postulated by the Babylonians, and specifically the Chaldeans.

Thus we have your claim. Now we need your demonstration. Provide the exegesis showing that those are the laws Jeremiah was talking about.

The cosmology of the Isrealites is ... not a revelation from God ...

Of course not. The object of revelation is God. Scripture is his self-revelation; that is, God revealing information about himself, who he is and what he is doing. While the subject or context varies, the object is always God and his self-disclosure. It is concordists who think otherwise. It is they who would tell you that the Jeremiah passage reveals something about the universe, whereas I told you it reveals something about the covenant God of creation and of Israel.

I assume you're linking Walton because you believe that I have a literal interpretation of Genesis, or that I believe the Bible's purpose is supposed to have been a science text?

Your assumption is incorrect. I referenced Walton because I believe you are unfamiliar with non-concordist approaches to biblical exegesis. For example, you are elaborating upon ancient Near East cosmologies as if that might somehow be new to me, as if I am not already familiar with things like the Egyptian Memphite Theology, the Babylonian Enuma Elish, the Hittite Kumarbi Cycle and so on. My Walton reading list was intended to not only indicate that you are not dealing with someone ignorant of these issues but also to introduce you to Christian biblical scholarship that is not concordist.

... without the aid of your particular fairy. ...[snip additional personal insults]

Such rational integrity from an atheist. Always so refreshing.

Where are you, Adrian? You never stooped to these levels. Get active here again. Please.

[The Grand Nudger]

As for the "direct or implied promise of the mechanism" upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature, consider God's assurance to the people of Israel: "But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.

You offered the verse. The verse does refer to what they believed to be their covenant with god, stressing his ability to make such a covenant (and that he would keep it) by reference to material cosmology.
http://bible.cc/jeremiah/33-25.htm

Exegesis, lol. Ryft I try to avoid using the Bible as evidence for anything because it is unreliable. I'm a bit confused as to why you would even ask this, as you and I are both aware of where the Israelites got their cosmology. What other cosmology would they be referring to at this time? Are you suggesting that the writers in this case specifically were referring to a different cosmology? Do you have evidence of some other cosmology that was known to them and referenced here in this verse? I'm siding with the cosmology we know to have existed, which has been shown to have heavily influenced the OT, Babylonian cosmology (the reasons for which I feel are made abundantly clear in my last post).

Again, you offered the verse, the context of our discussion was a biblical justification for the concept of the fixed laws of material cosmology and the mechanisms thereof. I don't think it's a justification for such a thing, and apparently neither do you. Perhaps you shouldn't have offered it up as such.

I'm not interested in any exegesis over another. I'm honestly not. Until you can provide evidence that your god even exists whatever he's rumored to have said (and how we should translate it so it makes any sense whatsoever) is fairly meaningless to me unless it conflicts with reality and some believer jumps up to offer it as a sage wisdom. There are hundreds of these works (not counting each believers own personal views) and while they can't all be right, they can all be wrong. I don't think you're ignorant Ryft. Many things, but ignorant, no.

[Ryft]

It is sweet and delicious irony, Rhythm, that immediately after quoting me directly you could still manage to straw man my argument. "The context of our discussion," you said, "was a biblical justification for the concept of the fixed laws of material cosmology and the mechanisms thereof." Really? See, that is very strange because I was pretty sure the context of our discussion was "the direct or implied promise of the mechanism upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature" (Msg. 102). You even quoted me directly. It was sitting right there in front of you. That is what the verse supplied. The covenant God of creation and of Israel is the promised mechanism upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature. That covenant God is what gives us the reason "to assume that the laws of physics will remain the same" (Msg. 101). So no, his covenantal promise was not predicated on material cosmology. That is in fact precisely backwards. Your assumption of that uniformity, on the other hand, is constituted by the vicious circularity of induction. (As Statler was pointing out, you cannot justify induction except inductively).

"I try to avoid using the Bible as evidence for anything," you said. I see. So you will tell us what was going on in the text (i.e., that the fixed laws Jeremiah referred to were Chaldean) without bothering to interact with the text at all. We are supposed to just take your word for it. I find it interesting that you would not allow others to get away with ipse dixit conclusions, and feel no twinge of hypocrisy when you do it. "What other cosmology would they be referring to at this time?" you asked, seeming to hedge your ipse dixit behind an argumentum ad ignorantiam (it is true unless and until proven false). I just cannot see you allowing others to get away with something like this, having followed your responses to people elsewhere on these forums.

The fact that you find it all "fairly meaningless" apart from evidence that God exists is categorically irrelevant autobiographical information. What you happen to find meaningful or meaningless simply does not matter. That tells us something about you, but absolutely nothing about the issue being discussed.

And it is unfortunate that my positive opinion of you turns out to be a one-way street. Ah well.