Welcome to Christian Forum Site
Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community of christians from around the world.
Register now

Hermaneutics, Interpretation of Scripture and General Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 10, 2015
769
935
93
Maryland
But in reality, I personally have had many "intellectuals" use the argument of Creation verse evolution in order to reject God.
In every single case where that has happened, it allways comes down to their real problem which is the sin that that want to keep doing.

You see...……..evolution means NO GOD and No God means I am not going to be judged for my sin. So lets party, and party with no worries!
Regarding those who do not accept young earth creationism being unconcerned with sin,

I can only say that my view is that Old Earth Creationism is continually gaining evidence, and that the various pieces of evidence fit together well, while young earth creationism is only gaining in forced explanations and do not fit well (the young earth explanation of a body of evidence contradicts other evidence or other explanations).

Now, no one should care what Siloam thinks, but I can tell you that although I am far from sinless, I do care about, acknowledge, and work to correct my nature with the help of my Lord.

I also care enough about scripture to compare the evidence to what God wrote for us.

A few years ago, I spent a great deal of effort dealing with such issues as the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘YOM’ (sometimes translated as day, often simply translated as time).

Once you understand that YOM may refer to something other than a 24 hour span (similar to some English usages of day – ‘back in the day’, a ‘new day has dawned’, ‘the day of the Lord’), but a period when some attribute obtained, it becomes much less of a lexical stretch.

I also considered the purpose and theme of the Genesis accounts and found it to be about the uniqueness of God, His providence and our unique place in His creation. None of that requires a young Earth interpretation.

If you examine the evidence and are assured of a young earth, that’s fine, but to imagine you are defending the B ible by saying that those that believe something that you do not cannot be guided by scripture is taking things too far.

Earlier you posted an article from the American Science Affiliation. I suggest you look around that site. There are many articles from many points of view.

You could also look at the British version of ASA (Christians in Science)

You could also look at biolgos.org

Or reasons to believe (reasons.org).

(I did not provide links since many of these have a donate link and our rules prohibit links to such pages).

If you look at these sites, you will find articles by Christian who take faith AND science seriously. You will not find articles that could be characterized by unconcerned with sin.
 
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
Regarding those who do not accept young earth creationism being unconcerned with sin,

I can only say that my view is that Old Earth Creationism is continually gaining evidence, and that the various pieces of evidence fit together well, while young earth creationism is only gaining in forced explanations and do not fit well (the young earth explanation of a body of evidence contradicts other evidence or other explanations).

Now, no one should care what Siloam thinks, but I can tell you that although I am far from sinless, I do care about, acknowledge, and work to correct my nature with the help of my Lord.

I also care enough about scripture to compare the evidence to what God wrote for us.

A few years ago, I spent a great deal of effort dealing with such issues as the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘YOM’ (sometimes translated as day, often simply translated as time).

Once you understand that YOM may refer to something other than a 24 hour span (similar to some English usages of day – ‘back in the day’, a ‘new day has dawned’, ‘the day of the Lord’), but a period when some attribute obtained, it becomes much less of a lexical stretch.

I also considered the purpose and theme of the Genesis accounts and found it to be about the uniqueness of God, His providence and our unique place in His creation. None of that requires a young Earth interpretation.

If you examine the evidence and are assured of a young earth, that’s fine, but to imagine you are defending the B ible by saying that those that believe something that you do not cannot be guided by scripture is taking things too far.

Earlier you posted an article from the American Science Affiliation. I suggest you look around that site. There are many articles from many points of view.

You could also look at the British version of ASA (Christians in Science)

You could also look at biolgos.org

Or reasons to believe (reasons.org).

(I did not provide links since many of these have a donate link and our rules prohibit links to such pages).

If you look at these sites, you will find articles by Christian who take faith AND science seriously. You will not find articles that could be characterized by unconcerned with sin.
Maybe I did not say what I meant to say. It is in my opinion not about Old or New Earth at all.

What I said applies to every single person! Yes we must accept Christ to be saved but to do that one must take responsibility of their own life and recognize that sin is the cancer of our very soul.

May I take that a step further. That is always the real problem. People will say ….."I don't love my wife any more"

What they are really saying is...…."I am having an affair with another woman, adultery- SIN."
They just say instead......I don't love my wife.

Anyone can interject any situation and I promise you that the reality will be their inability to take personal responsibility for their own sin.

Also, personally, I do not care if anyone accepts Young or Old earth. It is not an essential to our Christian faith whether or not we are saved.
Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.

If it is about Evolution verses Creation then YES, I can tell you that that would be an essential to our faith.
 
Feb 10, 2015
769
935
93
Maryland
You see...……..evolution means NO GOD and No God means I am not going to be judged for my sin. So lets party, and party with no worries!
If it is about Evolution verses Creation then YES, I can tell you that that would be an essential to our faith.
My belief that the house I live in was built by carpenters does not preclude my understanding that the Lord provides it to me.

My buying produce at the local farmers market from those that grew it does not prevent me from thanking God for providing me with sustenance.

I worked with meteorologists that know a lot about weather patterns and climate. That does not preclude my understanding that the Lord is in control of all.

I can believe that the witness of the universe around us points to an old Earth with evolution being the best explanation for the evidences of life over the ages and understand that it has He that created all and that all progressed as He directed.

All without contradiction.

It is not a matter of anyone here contending that there are contradictions is scripture or that there is any other kind of error, but a contradiction between scripture and what someone (possibly including myself) thinks it means.
 
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
My belief that the house I live in was built by carpenters does not preclude my understanding that the Lord provides it to me.

My buying produce at the local farmers market from those that grew it does not prevent me from thanking God for providing me with sustenance.

I worked with meteorologists that know a lot about weather patterns and climate. That does not preclude my understanding that the Lord is in control of all.

I can believe that the witness of the universe around us points to an old Earth with evolution being the best explanation for the evidences of life over the ages and understand that it has He that created all and that all progressed as He directed.

All without contradiction.

It is not a matter of anyone here contending that there are contradictions is scripture or that there is any other kind of error, but a contradiction between scripture and what someone (possibly including myself) thinks it means.
There are NO contradictions in Scripture. There is however a lack of understanding which seems to be what you are saying.

The dating of creation, using the genealogies in Scriptures present several challenges for YEB.

It has been shown now that the Mosaic genealogies are only 20 to 40 percent complete. Those who hold that the genealogies are telescoped place the creation of Adam and Eve around 10 to 30 thousand years ago, but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.

Experts in Old Testament genealogy note there is wide-spread consensus regarding dates and chronology from the time of Abraham. However, prior to Abraham, there is little available Biblical or historical information on which to build a solid chronology.

Grudem specifically mentions “prior to Abraham, the setting of dates is very uncertain.” (Grudem, 290-291.)

Reflecting on God’s days of creation, It can be concluded with the words of the late Gleason Archer, Hebrew linguist, Bible scholar, educator, author, and champion for biblical inerrancy. He wrote the following in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible:...…......……………...………..

“Moses never intended the creative days to be understood as a mere twenty-four hours in length, and the information he included in [Genesis] chapter 2 logically precludes us from doing so. It is only by a neglect of proper hermeneutical methods that this impression ever became prevalent among God’s people, during the post-biblical era. Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the twenty-four hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed—except by those who are bent on proving the presence of genuine contradictions in Scripture…Who can calculate the large numbers of college students who have turned away from the Bible altogether by the false impression that it bounds the conscience of the believer to the 24-hour Day theory?"

Just something to consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Siloam
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
Major and bobinfaith and I have been discussing the interpretation of scripture, particularly as formalized as Hermeneutics.

Rather than take that thread farther afield from the original post, I would like to re-start it here and invite whomsoever wishes to participate.

Before I get into it, let you know where I am coming from, I will start with a brief personal history. Actually, it may ramble a bit since I find it helpful to write it all out. Please be patient

I am the son of a missile physicist and was taught to love the sciences from a young age. I was exposed to several discussions for young scientists and found that several aspects of the presentation of aspects of time, as well as atomic theory got me thinking about the relationship between God and creation.

I accepted Christ during High school and started attending church. My congregation included such persons as the head of the astronomy department at the local college, and although he was not my astronomy professor, he was instrumental in defining the curriculum presented to me in class. I did attend one of his lectures concerning possible explanations of the Christmas star. The upshot is that my specific congregation did not look at the sciences as competing with scripture.

If you look at my avatar or icon, you will see symbols for the Cross and Bible and a little (and unrecognizable) detail from a painting of the blind man washing his eyes at the pool of Siloam (John Ch 9). You will also see a depiction of an atom (in this case a lithium atom which has significance), and an hourglass with a sparkle overlaid. The atom reminds me that the movement of everything, including all subatomic particles do so by direct will of the creator. The sparkled hourglass represents creation of time, since one of my realizations was that time was created as part of the creation of things (as was stated in a science presentation). I have found this to be a very helpful in understanding that Gods view of time and history is from the outside (since he created time) and not necessarily moment by moment, yesterday before today and next year, while man is created as a creature within time and cannot understand the universe except as an orderly sequence of events. Many things in scripture that are confusing are made less obscure if one adjusts the supposed point of view to the correct one, which may be different in different passages of scripture. These realizations predated my acceptance of Christ and were indications of the Lord preparing me.

In the 50 or so years since High School and accepting Christ, I have always looked for ways to join my technical education and enjoyment of reading popularizations of physics with my spiritual faith. The Lord made this universe. It came into existence as the Lord spoke, so in that sense it is also quite literally the word of God. The universe bears its makers mark. Romans 1:18-23 shows that God intended us to learn about Him by studying the universe, but we have failed to understand what He placed there. For a Christian, the study of the sciences is an effort to correct this failing.

So when it comes to the interpretation of scripture, I think it is incumbent upon us to employ general revelation through the workings of the world God made as well as special revelation (the Bible). 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 instructs us that by examining everything, particularly our understanding of the scriptures, we do honor to both the Scriptures and to the Lords creation.

However, throughout my 50+ years in Christ, few pastors would agree. This has been the cause for much meditation and has impinged on my fellowship in several congregations. Most hold that the Bible can teach us about the world, but God’s creation should not be used as a check on our understanding of Scripture. I am a lay person, and neither am I a scientist, although I had a career in technology (developing software for military and civilian agencies). So I am an authority on neither side,
Are you talking about the use of generalization as opposed to interpretation when reading scripture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Are you talking about the use of generalization as opposed to interpretation when reading scripture?
Hello oldhermit;

This topic has leaned more toward interpretation of the Scripture, however, generalization could be brought into the discussion.

We would love to have you join in the fellowship. Have you read the previous posts to this topic?

God bless you, oldhermit and your family.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
Sounds good, sir. By the way, are you famiiar with Lubbock? I was born there when Dad was in the Air Force and stationed at Reese Air Force Base. As a joke I tell everyone Buddy Holly was my babysitter.

I digress. lol!

God bless you, Hermit.
As a matter of fact yes, I graduated from LCU and Sunset International Bible Institute. I still have two children who live there with their families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
The Bible is NOT a book of biology, but it has biology in it.
The Bible is NOT a book of Philosophy, but it has philosophy in it.
The Bile is NOT a book of mathematics, but it has math in it.
The Bible is NOT a book of geology, but it has geology in it.
The Bible is NOT a book of marriage counseling, but it has that in it.
The Bible is NOT a book of Creation, but it has creation in it.
The Bible is NOT a book on science, but it has science in it.

First and formost, God reveals Himself in His Word, the Bible.

The Bible is a book about God and His relationship with human beings. The Scriptures contain a long history of God’s revelation of Himself to man—from the first man Adam to the prophet and lawgiver Moses down through the apostles of Jesus Christ and the early Church.

One of the most fundamental principles to keep in mind regarding proper understanding of God’s Word is simply this: The Bible interprets the Bible.
After reading through most of this thread it seems the larger question concerns how the Bible is to be read and understood. You made a good observation regarding what the Bible is NOT and I quite agree. Although the Bible contains element of all of these fields of study, this does not tell us what the Bible is. For example, the Bible is not a historical document though everything it records is historically true. It is not a narrative document though it contains many narratives. It is not a document on ethics, doctrine, and soteriology but has much to say on each. The question remains then, what kind of document is the Bible and how should we treat this book?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith
Dec 19, 2014
4,989
2,204
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
This topic is a bit over my head to be honest and I couldnt tell you what hermaneutics even means.

But today Bibles in schools were teaching children about having an inquiring mind and thats what scientists do, try to find out things from what they can see. Or empirical study as they term it. We were talking about how the universe was made, did it just get here by accident or was it created? Christians believe it was all created by God.

Geneisis tells us it was created in six days by God but doesnt tell us how long ago it was created (that would be a running total every year, you would need to constantly update your bibles if God had said well I created the earth 4 billion years ago. Next year it would be wrong because then the Bible would have to read 'I created the earth 4 billion and one years ago' .

Just saying!
 
Feb 10, 2015
769
935
93
Maryland
Are you talking about the use of generalization as opposed to interpretation when reading scripture?
What I am advocating is that we, as Bible believing Christians employ all the evidences supplied by God in interpreting scripture (and employ scripture to give context and meaning to extra-scriptural information).

But what happens is that some take a prevailing interpretation of scripture as the standard when we should be willing to re-examine our understanding of scripture in light of the physical world around us.

This would not alleviate all problems in reconciling the sciences and scripture, but would allow profitable discussion among believers, and between believers and non-Christians. It would also allow God to correct our inaccurate interpretation of scripture based on the universe of His making. It is a universe of His making and bears witness to Him.

There is a principle of interpretation termed sola scriptura (scripture alone). This principle is meant to avoid using the authority of man in to decide the meaning of scripture, but by applying it to the evidences gleaned from the physical world, it precludes using the world He made as a check on our understanding of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith
Dec 19, 2014
4,989
2,204
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
What I am advocating is that we, as Bible believing Christians employ all the evidences supplied by God in interpreting scripture (and employ scripture to give context and meaning to extra-scriptural information).

But what happens is that some take a prevailing interpretation of scripture as the standard when we should be willing to re-examine our understanding of scripture in light of the physical world around us.

This would not alleviate all problems in reconciling the sciences and scripture, but would allow profitable discussion among believers, and between believers and non-Christians. It would also allow God to correct our inaccurate interpretation of scripture based on the universe of His making. It is a universe of His making and bears witness to Him.

There is a principle of interpretation termed sola scriptura (scripture alone). This principle is meant to avoid using the authority of man in to decide the meaning of scripture, but by applying it to the evidences gleaned from the physical world, it precludes using the world He made as a check on our understanding of scripture.
Can you give an example.
I dont quite understand because christians are actually given revelation by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. The Holy Spirit is unseen, and one must have faith in what is UNSEEN.

All the evidence supplied by God...the holy spirit is a gift given to us. He supplies us. The physical evidence that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, is to us available in scripture which is an eye witness account written down, unless you are advocating archeological evidence, in which case scientists and skeptics need to go visit Israel to see for themselves the empty tomb, in Jerusalem, go to the dead sea, go to Bethlehem, Nazareth, the temple mount where the holy of holies was, mt sinai, go beneath the red sea to see evidence of the eyptians being crushed by water, see the mount of olives, etc.

His chosen people, the israelites, the ones who speak hebrew, the ones who had the oracles of God, and preserve them in scriptures we can see today. Bearing witness...it is the changed lives of Christians and their testimonies that is the best witness. Its the healing we receive in our bodies, and often this manifestation is physical, that bears witness..the deaf hearing, the blind seeing, the lame walking.

What else can we look to, we can see the stars as many as sand on the sea shore, or the heavens when we look up, proclaiming the glory of God. We can see pictured of the planet earth from space and see we are the only planet that has water and see the evidence that God DID send a flood and if one looks at our planet earth from space more than half, maybe 2/3rds of its covered with water, especially the pacific ocean. We can see that the planet is lopsided and spins on an axis, suggesting a great disruption that took place, and how the land has been moved around as if the land had been divided.
We can measure the earths temperature over time and see the globe is indeed warming up, as Jesus shown in prophecy that there will be a judgement day where there the elements will melt with fervent heat.

We can see land that has been destroyed by humans as evidence that humans are wicked and sinful, and need God. When we find rest in gardens and by fresh water we can see evidence of Gods original creation was good, the way He intended it to be in Eden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
What I am advocating is that we, as Bible believing Christians employ all the evidences supplied by God in interpreting scripture (and employ scripture to give context and meaning to extra-scriptural information).

But what happens is that some take a prevailing interpretation of scripture as the standard when we should be willing to re-examine our understanding of scripture in light of the physical world around us.

This would not alleviate all problems in reconciling the sciences and scripture, but would allow profitable discussion among believers, and between believers and non-Christians. It would also allow God to correct our inaccurate interpretation of scripture based on the universe of His making. It is a universe of His making and bears witness to Him.

There is a principle of interpretation termed sola scriptura (scripture alone). This principle is meant to avoid using the authority of man in to decide the meaning of scripture, but by applying it to the evidences gleaned from the physical world, it precludes using the world He made as a check on our understanding of scripture.
I see.

There are two terms that I like to use to describe the two different processes in the act of Bible reading. These are dyadic reasoning and triadic reasoning. Dyadic reasoning needs to be understood as man reasoning toward his existence on the basis of human intelligence. Dyadic reasoning is man bringing human intelligence to bear on the biblical text to gain control over the text. Cosmic evolution is the result of dyadic reasoning. Triadic reasoning, on the other hand, is man reasoning toward his material existence based on a revealed intelligence which is only found in the word of God.

Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in the exercise of Biblical interpretation. The world uses a hierarchical structure of human intelligence that we call the nine fields of inquiry to compile information about the Biblical text as it attempts to fit the Bible into the framework of these nine fields. All existing human knowledge is cataloged within these nine fields. This type of textual approach appeals to the respective fields of inquiry to see what each of these have to say about the text of scripture. The world feels that it is somehow important to know what the scientist, the medical community, the historian, the clergy, the legal apparatus and others have to say about the value and place of scripture within the human community. Such thinking will not permit the Bible to be accepted as a uniquely legitimate standard for determining truth. This attempts to render scripture as context dependent. The world demands that truth must only be defined based on the human frame of reference within the material context. Personally, I could not care less what the nine fields of inquiry have to say about the text of scripture. I am however, very interested to see what the Bible has to say about the nine fields of inquiry. One undeniable truth we learn from scripture is that scripture relativizes all human knowledge that come about through the process of full socialization. The world however, will never accept this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Major

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Hello brothers and sisters;

Biblical Hermeneutics is a deeper, interpretation of the Bible and the task of understanding the meaning of Scripture. The disciple (student of the Word) learns to apprehend (discern and perceive) the meaning of Scripture.

Through the help of the Holy Spirit the Bible study student is empowered to "embrace" its meaning. In my experience many Bible study students, seminarians and scholars have difficulty embracing the Scriptures, instead they learn to comprehend (grasp its meaning) of Scripture.

But to be fair this is an ongoing work in progress for all believers who are obedient to the reading of the Bible. We should not have a shallow reading of Scripture.

On the other hand, praise God! Many Bible study students, seminarians and scholars do develop an intimate, affection for the Scriptures because its God speaking to them, to us. When God sees our hearts He works through us to grow our discernment and interpretation of His Word. The deeper our study the more intimate with God.

The dyadic structure of reasoning in the excercise of Biblical interpretation is closely connected to Hermeneutics and expands our study of God's Word. Triadic reason also has its place in deeper interpretation of man reasoning. Personally, I would not use the verb "reasoning", but replace it with "struggle" toward his material existence, though I still support the "reasoning" theory applied here.

In my previous post to support Siloam's view, I have to accept the hermeneutical (interpretation and deeper study) of the Bible above the interpretation of science. But I also feel that science has advanced since creation not by their own conclusions, but accepting their findings from a higher force and replacing that term with God.

All that I have read on this topic has challenged me, but I want to praise the Lord God for these posts, for we are not limiting God's omniscience, and can take our study of Hermaneutics and Interpretation to the next level of our Bible study. We become more and more convinced that the Bible is indeed true.

God bless you all and your families.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
It would appear we have quite a different understanding of the use of the use of 'dyadic' as it relates to human reasoning. How would you define dyadic in this context?
 

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
It would appear we have quite a different understanding of the use of the use of 'dyadic' as it relates to human reasoning. How would you define dyadic in this context?
There are two terms that I like to use to describe the two different processes in the act of Bible reading. These are dyadic reasoning and triadic reasoning. Dyadic reasoning needs to be understood as man reasoning toward his existence on the basis of human intelligence. Dyadic reasoning is man bringing human intelligence to bear on the biblical text to gain control over the text. Cosmic evolution is the result of dyadic reasoning. Triadic reasoning, on the other hand, is man reasoning toward his material existence based on a revealed intelligence which is only found in the word of God. Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in the exercise of Biblical interpretation.
Hello oldhermit;

Where reasoning articulates engaging, I do support the theory of reasoning. I personally include struggles which sustains challenges. This is what has brought us so far in our understanding of the Bible.

In 2007 I took a Theology class at seminary and remember we touched on the subject of dyadic reasoning. Dyadic reasoning is a relational connection on the basis of human understanding, articulation and engaging in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Triadic Reasoning is the relation of bringing the use of signs and symbols in interpretation of Bible reading as well.

I also remember the subjects of philosophy religion, astro physics, cosmic evolution that came into the discussion. Anthony Thistleton, Anglican priest and author was mentioned and much of his books were written on philosophy religion.

Your knowledge is a blessing to us. Many have never heard the term dyadic or triadic reasoning, and it only rang a bell with me from 12 years ago.

I would like to ask you to define these terms further and elaborate on these two structures, so we all can share in learning.

God bless you, oldhermit and your family.
 
Feb 10, 2015
769
935
93
Maryland
It would appear we have quite a different understanding of the use of the use of 'dyadic' as it relates to human reasoning. How would you define dyadic in this context?
I assume you are referring to Didactic, which refers to reasoning concerning right vs wrong apart from any substantive or concrete purposes.

It is exactly here, along with spiritual info apart from morals that the scientific _only_ view needs Christians to give meaning to physical reality.

Much of this, I suppose, is because we see a difference between the physical world and the spiritual world. The ancients would not understand this. To them there is only man and the spiritual realm. The idea that something like weather was apart from God's realm was inconcievable. We understand who is the prime source of phenomena while making (fumbling) use of the knowledge of meteorology.

It is not a matter of who is right, but a basic way of understanding the world. The look the look through the sciences teaches us reliable things about the universe, but the unbelieving scientist (there are many believers among scientists) need us to supply spiritual interpretation.

It would be easier to supply this interpretation if we do not war needlessly.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
Hello Oldhermit;
I would like to ask you to define these terms further and elaborate on these two structures, so we all can share in learning.
For those reading this who may not be familiar with the concept of dyadic and triadic reasoning, I will try to explain this as succinctly as possible without bogging you down with a lot of baggage.

The words dyadic and triadic are expressions that crops up in mathematics but have other applications as well. A dyad typically describes something that consists of two elements or parts. As it relates to language or reason, I usually describe it as something that has two points of valance or connection. A triad is something that has three points of valence. The pattern of reasoning one uses depends upon one’s perception of reality. Dr. J. M. Strawn defines dyadic reasoning as “a reflexive nominal movement that has only two points of valence. It always begins on the temporal side and comes to bear upon something else on the temporal side.” Simply put, dyadic reasoning is man attempting to rationalize reality based on human lived experience and observable conditions. Dyadic reasoning is a belief structure that attempts to refine and conceptualize the question of cause and effect based upon those observable conditions. This is the hallmark of evolutionary theory in all its forms.

Dyadic reasoning is reflexive, always folding back on itself. It is never able to extend across the horizon into the eternal. It can never be linked to biblical faith because it is played out on the assumption that natural process is the causative agency in the universe. (There are many examples in scripture that demonstrate this point but we can come back to that some other time.) Dyadic reasoning is representative of how people generally relate to their world. If God is considered at all, it is only at the nominal level or even as a benign factor. We often give lip service to God as the controller of the universe but we speak and act as if nothing can happen that does not fit within the pattern of natural processes. All evolutionary theory, including theistic evolution, insists that everything must be explainable on the basis of natural process.

Triadic reasoning is reason that involves three supporting components that have a particular kind of relationship to one another. I suppose the question at present is how does one use these terms in relation to bible reading? I use these terms to describe how the Bible represents reality as the composition of two incommensurable worlds that are linked together into a singularity. (I am not sure I like to use of the word singularity here but I am hard pressed to come up with a better way to say this.) Triadic reality is made up of the eternal, this is the part of reality we cannot see; the temporal, which is the world of objects that lends itself to human empirical observation; and the linkage between the two. The linkage creates continuity between the observable and the non-observable. Everything scripture reveals about both the natural and the non-natural world is based on this triadic structure. You cannot escape it. Understanding this changes the way we read scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.