[soc.religion.christian] Calendar Time and Euro-centric reasoning.

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/10/91)

This posted in regard to another post which claimed that since a
large number of languages/peoples numbered the days of the week from
1 to 7 that it was 'clear' that such a numbering was an absolute of
the universe. One may believe that the Bible does contain some
absolutes. However, in terms of 'scientific' facts or the way that
other people reckon things, the Bible is very narrow on these items.

To whit, the 'Encyclopedia Britanica' has an  article on the Mayans.
There is a very brief description of the Mayan calendars. Briefly,
there were 2 measures of the year, sacred and solar. The sacred had
260 days, given in 13 'months' of 20 days each. The days in the month
were list from 0 to 19(the mayans used a zero long before it came to
general use in europe). The solar year was an 18 'month' cycle of 20
days each. The last 5 days after the 'year'(360 days) were considered
'unlucky'(sic). There were numerous other cycle and a 52 year cycle
which is based on the least common multiple of days in the sacred
year and the solar year(365). For other cycles they had a 144000 day
cycle which should be significant to Revelations adepts.

The main point of this is that when discussing time keeping we in
the european tradition are heavily influenced by early borrowings
from the area of Mesopotamia. The reckoning used elsewhere in the
world may be different. Of course you can always argue that these
other people where 'lead astray' by the 'deceiver' but one could
argue that if Christians are agruing about 1 day these people didn't
need to be 'deceived' by total non-correlation. I don't see how one
could argue that the Mayan system is based on some 'original' from
Mesopotamia, and I don't care if you're Thor H. himself sailing to
the Yucatan on papyrus boats. (Well, may be that's a strong position
to take and I could be persuaded otherwise but it would have to be
fairly 'scientific' as opposed to 'theological/dogmatic').


Other 'facts' in the bible include the sun stopping(just a little
hint here that the earth stopped turning would have sped
understanding of the solar system), flat earth concept(one is told
to go to the 'ends' of the earth not circumnavigate it, Magellen
would have been old hat by 15th century if such a phrase was used),
anatomical errors on several species of living organisms(some
insects and fish are given erroneous descriptions).  Of course the
apologist will explain on the one hand that the Bible is not a science
manual, I will agree. But on the other reject evolution on the grounds
that it doesn't agree with the literal statements of Genesis, i.e. 7
days about 6000 years ago. One can't have both. Well, maybe one can.
I can accept the argument that it's all a paradox and mystery, sort
of a Zen approach to the Bible.

This not to lead in to a debate on evolution, I've heard the
bucket-o-bolts argument at least once.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/11/91)

In article <Jun.9.14.25.35.1991.24900@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:

   Of course the
   apologist will explain on the one hand that the Bible is not a science
   manual, I will agree. But on the other reject evolution on the grounds
   that it doesn't agree with the literal statements of Genesis, i.e. 7
   days about 6000 years ago. One can't have both. Well, maybe one can.
   I can accept the argument that it's all a paradox and mystery, sort
   of a Zen approach to the Bible.

I'm posting this because I think it can clear up a common
misconception about the way many Christians view the Bible.  I'm sure
John Clark already knows this, but so many don't...

The Bible *isn't* a science manual, and that's one reason why I (and
many, many other Christians) don't demand that Creation happened over
seven days some six thousand years ago.  You are right that one can't
have them both.  Unfortunately, some non-Christians make the mistake
of giving fundamentalists sole reign over Biblical interpretation
while not admitting their ability to correctly decide issues of
morality or politics.  This is, of course, pushing down big giant
straw men.  Of course, there are many fundamentalists who will insist
that the Bible, insofar as it mentions the physical world, does so
literrally and inerrantly, but they are not in the majority of
Christians, merely the most vocal in this country.

The majority of Christians (counting the Roman Church) do *not* hold
to a literalist interpretation of Scripture.  I'm sure John Clark
knows this full well, but he doesn't seem to give any glimmer of that
in his post.

	-mib

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/12/91)

In article <Jun.10.23.41.10.1991.1723@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
+
+I'm posting this because I think it can clear up a common
+misconception about the way many Christians view the Bible.  I'm sure
+John Clark already knows this, but so many don't...

The 'reason' for my somewhat 'fundamentist' interpretation is
because of the following logic that was given to me recently as
'proof' of the significance of the 7-th day. "God made the Earth in
6 days and rested on the 7-th, therefor in honor of this and in
acordence with other texts I keep the 7-th day Sabath". I pointed
out that from the time of the Creation (using the literalist
interpretation) to the giving the of the Laws at Sinai there is no
mention of any 'Sabbath-keeping'. For that matter, there is almost no
ritual or observances mentioned at all. So what is now practiced as
THE 7-th day is merely a custom like anyother which may observe the
'1-st' day relative to some reckoning which could be traced to
Babelonian customs. Hence the mention of observations about how one
could arrive at the significance of 7/52/360 etc. which is coded
into our time keeping methods independent of some assumption about
the Creation or any 'reveled' statements to a particular people.

I am aware that most Christians would probable agree to some aspects
of an 'evolutionary' explanation of the universe with some 'help'
from the Diety.

Speaking of some different developments in Christian thought, some
years ago the name 'Tillard de Chardin' was popular. Has anyone
continued in his line of thought. Something about some emergence of
some spirit. It's been almost 20 years so I can't hardly recall
anything about him or his writings.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) (06/14/91)

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:


>The 'reason' for my somewhat 'fundamentist' interpretation is
>because of the following logic that was given to me recently as
>'proof' of the significance of the 7-th day. "God made the Earth in
>6 days and rested on the 7-th, therefor in honor of this and in
>acordence with other texts I keep the 7-th day Sabath". I pointed
>out that from the time of the Creation (using the literalist
>interpretation) to the giving the of the Laws at Sinai there is no
>mention of any 'Sabbath-keeping'.

I'd just like to point out that SDA's are not 'fundamentalist' in interpre-
tation of the Bible.  Where the Bible is Figureative it is read figuratively.
Where the Bible is metaphoric, it is read metaphoric.  Where it is literal,
it is read literal.  Where the Bible is Symbolic, it is read symbolic.  It is
read the way any type of communication is read, as close to the meaning that
the authors intended as we can discern it to be.  The creation story is so
obviously a literal story, written in a stylized form of writing, that one
cannot help but accept it as such.  It is only after apparent conflicts with
'science, so called', that doubts are raised.

Some SDA views are similar to some 'fundamentalists', but it is not
accurate to lump the two together.

>I am aware that most Christians would probable agree to some aspects
>of an 'evolutionary' explanation of the universe with some 'help'
>from the Diety.

From the Biblical perspective.  God invented, designed and made the Universe
and all the laws of 'Nautre' that exist within the Universe.  God also,
inspired (not dictated to ) men to write the Bible.  Therefore; since God
is resposible for Nature and the Bible, there should be agreement between
statements in the Bible about the Natural world and what we find while
studying Nautre using the scientific method.  If there appear to be conflicts
then one of the following three rules applies:

1.  We are misunderstanding or misapplying Biblical statements.

2.  We are misinterpreting or missing the evidence and facts found by science.

3.  We have an incmplete knowledge of both the Bible and Nature.

Of the three rules, the third is usually the case.  Unfortunately, we feel like
we must know things absolutly, rather than acknowledging the fact that we just
know things in part.  Some take dogmatic stands on supposed Biblical 'facts'
and others take dogmatic stands on supposed scientific 'facts'; and then the
fight is on, until someone can show, not just by compromise, how the Bible
and Nature really are saying the same thing.  Many times, Biblical and
Scientific 'facts' are really misunderstandings that can be clearified by
further study.

We cannot forget the limitations of the Bible and Science.  The Bible was not
designed to tell us the how of the functions of Nature, but the cause and when
of events of Nature.  Science is excellent for learing the how and where
of Nature, but is inadequate for discovering the cause of the Universe and
the actual order of events in Nature.  Together, we have complementing systems
of study that can give a whole understanding to existance.

Allen Roy
God loves you.  All He want's is for you to love Him back.


[In the current context, I think the term "fundamentalist" implies
that people believe the Bible is inerrant.  As far as I know, all
Protestants (and these days I believe the dominant Catholic tradition
as well) do their best to read passages as originally intended, i.e.
symbolically when there is symbolism, metaphorically when there is a
metaphor, etc.  This is true whether they believe in inerrancy or not.
--clh]

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/17/91)

In article <Jun.13.23.47.04.1991.16246@athos.rutgers.edu> allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) writes:
+
+I'd just like to point out that SDA's are not 'fundamentalist' in interpre-
+tation of the Bible.  Where the Bible is Figureative it is read figuratively.

To pick a particularly devisive topic which seems to polarize
Christians into the respective camps.

Do the Adventists teach such theories as Evolution in their schools
as Science. Or do they keep such discussions for advanced classes in
high school or Collage, and any case with the orientation 'this is what
some mistakenly believe to be the case'. Or have they moved to a
'deistic' directed evolutionary concept?

I am well aware that in a sense 'science' does not answer as many
questions as iquiry seems to produce. One theory hold for a brief
time before some observation or other theory calls for the
previous' dismissal.

Even the 'queen' of Science has her faults, paradoxes,
inconsistencies etc. I have often thought of the parallels between
theology and mathematics.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) (06/22/91)

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:


>Do the Adventists teach such theories as Evolution in their schools
>as Science. Or do they keep such discussions for advanced classes in
>high school or Collage, and any case with the orientation 'this is what
>some mistakenly believe to be the case'. Or have they moved to a
>'deistic' directed evolutionary concept?

John:
I'll try to base my remarks on my personal and my children's experience in the
SDA school system.  If I remember correctly, science classes, as such began in
the 5th or 6th grades.  These classes dealt with various aspects of natureD
Most of it dealt with the reality around us with only a short time devoted to
origins.  I think it was in the college level that more indepth discussion on 
the differences between the Theory of Evolution and Biblical Creation/Flood
Models took place in some classes.  Science as a study of nature, involving
the scientific method, is not a threat to a Biblically based philosophy of
life.   To me, Science does not equal Evolution, and Evolution does
not equal Science.  

I think the prefice to a discussion on the Theory of Evolution may have gone
something like this:  There are two main philosophies or ideas on how we
got here.  The theroy of Evolution which teaches that all life originated
from a single cell.  It is supposed to have taken Millions of years for this
to have happened.  However, the Bible teaches that all life (on the earth)
was created by God some 6000+ years ago.  The Theory of Evolution teaches
that Genetic variation is the cause for all the various life forms, but we
hold that genetic variation is the cause for differences within kinds or 
families.  (From here on there would be lesser or greater detail, depending
on student age group and interest).

I don't hold to a Deistic-Evolution concept.  I just trying to say that some-
times our ideas about Creation and Science seem to conflict.  To resolve
such a problem requires us to reevaluted our conclutions from Science and even
our evaluations of Biblecal statements.  Any reevaluation shouldn't violate
the integrity of either, but clarifiy both.  I do not find that Science and
the Bible at logerheads.  But the theory of Evolutions, cut the very core out
of the Bible.

Allen Roy
 
[As you know, I'm not interested in discussing the merits of evolution
here.  Those who are interested in an informed discussion should read
talk.origins.  However the point of this posting is not to argue
against evolution, but to clarify SDA belief.  The question John asked
resulted when someone disputed calling SDA's "fundamentalist".  I
think your response that Christianity requires rejection of evolution
involves an interpretation of the Bible that most people would
characterize as fundamentalist.  I understand that the term
fundamentalist has some ambiguity to it, but these days it seems to
mean something very close to inerrantist.  --clh]