Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[TX-Beau]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

 

[opinterph]

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

Maybe he's a "big tent" kinda guy.

 

[TX-Beau]

Thing is, this issue is NOT controversial, unless you're a religious loon. The only reason to obfuscate, is to placate the crazy.

 

[JayHawk]

I will have to admit although at one point in my life I found great solace in the spiritual belief i can no longer align myself with religions that are trending towards obfuscating the truth of science to meet the requirements of a book written by man. That doesn't preclude me from believing just makes me completely aware that once the evangelicals became thoroughly involved with politics they allowed reason to leave the building......

 

[eastofeden]

Im so fortunate that religion isnt even mentioned here in politics, including the campaigning period. People simply dont give a shit and dont want politicians to preach religion.

In 2008 when the crash happened here our prime minister ended his speech by asking God to bless the country. It was one of the most talked about events for weeks because such a thing had never happened before and most people thought it was a really inappropriate thing to say.

Sounds splendid.

I loved Dennis Kucinich (2008 Democratic Presidential Hopeful) for his flying saucer admissions (and alot of other things).....the people who regularly preach about God were making fun of him.....but have no problem with an immaculate conception and the parting of the sea.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm having trouble finding a definition or similar explanation of "royal chronicle." Can you provide a link?

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/royal chronicle

Quickest source I could find:

...a royal chronicle, a form in which temporal elements, whether order or duration, are structural and not literal.

The only scholarly stuff I'v found online is generally in German, where the discussion assumes the reader can handle such fun things as old Ugaritic, ancient Hebrew, and Akkadian. The above gives the important part when it comes to Genesis 1. In terms of purpose, a royal chronicle is designed to declare an act of a king. In form, it's meant to be striking and memorable, generally somewhat poetic. In terms of factual details, only what directly describes the action(s) of the king are to be taken as objectively true.

For Genesis, this means that the point is the Creation, and the declaration that God did it. The only details which directly address His action are the "hovering (meditating, brooding)" over the deep, the creation by command, the enumeration of (some of) the things created, and the pronouncement that it was good. The conclusion, that God then "rested", is arguably meant as objectively true. The temporal framework, both order and duration, are "poetic", arranged to make the declaration both memorable and easy to remember. An interesting aspect of a royal chronicle is that it generally gives location, but for the Genesis account the locus is not something that 'defines' the king, but that the king defines.

The final aspect of a royal chronicle is that for referencing the specific accomplishment related, using the poetic framework is valid yet does not impart any assertion that the framework is objectively true. So Jesus can refer to God creating the heavens and earth in six days as a means of bringing to memory the whole account, while not asserting that those were literal days.

As an aside, the term "royal chronicle" is sometimes used to reference lists of kings, or lists of what a king accomplished in his reign. The former obviously doesn't apply to Genesis, and the latter is done only after the king's death, usually first proclaimed at his funeral. In technical terms of literary genre, calling those two "royal chronicle" is actually incorrect, but to those who know the field the context tells the usage.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am NOT shitting any of y'all while I'm sharing this.

When I first purchased my farm in Central Texas I wanted to "grow organically."

Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas has a simple soil evaluation/pH test.

So this is what I did:

Three tablespoons of soil from my garden into a peanut butter jar.

3/4 cup of water.

Shake to mix.

Let it settle.

The heaviest material will settle to the bottom first; clay, then sand, then "organic material."

Depending upon which of those layers were the "thickest" would determine the "amendments" that needed to be added; mulch, manure, minerals, etc..

Before I sent off my soil sample to get a reading on the pH balance, I showed the peanut butter jar to my socially conservative GOP/Libertarian BFF since middle school friend.

He pointed at the jar and said, "That's proof of the Great Flood!"

I said, "What?"

And he said, "Remember that trip we took to the Grand Canyon?"

And I'm like,

"NO! 2,000 + years ago God did not put the Earth into a Peter Pan Peanut Butter jar, shake it up, then let it settle into a National Park!



I just want to figure out if I can grow plumb tomatoes!"

Turns out that I could, and we still haven't found the ark.

Hilarious.

But it reminds me of a hiking trip with the OSU Navigators, a Christian group. At the time I was a geology major, so I got all sorts of comments and questions, and ended up giving a geological tour on the way down Havasu Canyon. People would jump in and point at something as "proof" of the Deluge, and when something could be interpreted that way I happily admitted it -- but I very pointedly stopped and explained sections that just can't be explained with/by a giant flood. When we made a stop to admire the scenery (and let those out of shape recover), about three quarters of the way down, I got barraged with assertions that the earth was only six thousand years old.

My first response was simple: show me where the Bible says that. It's a good challenge to make, because the scriptures just don't say anything like that at all. My second point, cutting off the first obvious objection, was that ancient near eastern, and thus Hebrew, chronology was not like ours, so if you try to get an age for the earth by adding years, you can end up with an age of eight or nine thousand years. And the third point as that in Genesis 1 there's room for not just a billion years, but a trillion! No figure is given for how long God spent on the heavens before He focused on the earth -- and "heavens" there means everything above our planet's atmosphere. No figure is given for how long the Spirit "meditated" over "the deep", by which is meant the earth as long as it was "without form, and void" -- there could be two or three billion years there. And no figure is given for how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, while the Serpent whittled away at their resistance.

So even in a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, the universe could be a trillion years old, let alone twelve billion. And when you read it as meant, as a royal chronicle, there's no problem at all because nowhere does it make any claim how long the Creation took.


Personally, I can see God poking His finger out, making a place where there was no place, and watching it expand for billions of years while the angels delighted in checking out all the unfolding details, and then taking the time to appreciate the job so far before He got down to arranging the place where God the Son would, in accordance with His nature, take on material existence.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Senator is doing a tap-dance wherein he doesn't dare to offend the fundies who control the Pubs by stating the obvious.

In the first half of his statement it looks like he's being honest, and making it clear it doesn't have to do with his job. Then he shifts to parroting the party line. That's why it looks disorganized, but I don't think it really is as much as I first thought.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sounds splendid.

I loved Dennis Kucinich (2008 Democratic Presidential Hopeful) for his flying saucer admissions (and alot of other things).....the people who regularly preach about God were making fun of him.....but have no problem with an immaculate conception and the parting of the sea.

If you ever want to get a group of real theological students to talk all night and into the next day, ask them how aliens would fit in to God's plan.

 

[opinterph]

… for the Genesis account the locus is not something that 'defines' the king, but that the king defines.

Thank you for providing a reasonably thorough and complete explanation. (Quite honestly, I think your own words are much more helpful than the link.)

To what extent do you think the premise behind the Royal Chronicle concept is consistent with the contemporary position (relative to creation/evolution) sponsored by the Catholic Church?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Personally, I can see God poking His finger out, making a place where there was no place, and watching it expand for billions of years while the angels delighted in checking out all the unfolding details, and then taking the time to appreciate the job so far before He got down to arranging the place where God the Son would, in accordance with His nature, take on material existence.

I like that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for providing a reasonably thorough and complete explanation. (Quite honestly, I think your own words are much more helpful than the link.)

To what extent do you think the premise behind the Royal Chronicle concept is consistent with the contemporary position (relative to creation/evolution) sponsored by the Catholic Church?

It fits nicely with the Catholic Church position. That God created by command does not preclude evolution; in fact when He says "bring forth", it's suggestive of process more than of sudden materialization.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It fits nicely with the Catholic Church position. That God created by command does not preclude evolution; in fact when He says "bring forth", it's suggestive of process more than of sudden materialization.

Exactly.

It's like "bring forth that pie."

The crust had to be mixed and rolled, the filling made, then baked.

The pie didn't just "materialize."

Anymore than our Universe did.

2 Peter 3:8:

But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

Anyone who claims to speak with definite clarity obviously hasn't read their Bible.

 

[Jack Springer]

Maybe he's a "big tent" kinda guy.

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

 

[opinterph]

The democrat party is not a big tent party ...

Do you think the "big tent" concept is something US political parties should embrace, or is it merely a "political by-product" with no greater merit than its potential to help harvest votes?

 

[TX-Beau]

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

The reporter was trying to feed threads on JUB?

Who knew?

Perhaps your fantasy world has run bit away from you.

While I did get a good laugh out of that, it's just ridiculous.

Get a grip, there is your usual far right loony tune craziness, then there are piss poor attempts like that. We expect better of you.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's all a bunch of BS. A reporter is trying to make a big deal out of nothing to feed threads like this.

The democrat party is not a big tent party -- you have to believe a certain way to belong.

What "way" would that be?

And why is it more rigid than the way Republicans have to believe?

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh come on people, this has nothing to do with Dems of any kind of tent - that's just a Jack sad kind of attempt to troll the thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO IRONY OH THE IRONY!

The republican party is all about believing in a certain way to belong... if you don't, you get kicked out and ostracized.

As far as Marco Rubio... I always said he was a fraud trying to be a Latino... but with this report, he's also a moron like most in the GOP.

Not necessarily a moron; definitely a worm, willing to squirm wherever it takes to get ahead.

As they say in jail and on parole, "Lie to get by".

 

[Mariatenebre]

Is Mr Rubio suggesting we suffer a form of cognitive impairment whereby we cannot distinguish fact from fiction?

And is he not offering a justification of his theological views by way of epistemic relativism?

I think we should be told.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._some_science_about_the_age_of_the_earth.html

What he is basically saying is that parents should have the right to teach their kids nonsense if that is what their "faith" demands.