0083 The start of chapter 4 suggests that the distortions occurring on the perspective-level of the interscopes of grace_3cand nature_3c may be due to the challenges of specialization.

Here is a comparison of the situation-levels.

0084 The theologian has knowledge about salvation_3b.  Indeed, the theologian_3b brings people into communion with God_2b through the possibilities of ‘the church’_1b.  However, the authority of the churches is now being challenged by those who do not view Genesis 1-11 as scientifically credible.

I suppose this lack of scientific credibility is what Ross intends to solve.

The problem is that revelation_1a is not supposed to be scientifically credible.  It is supposed to be… um… revealing.

0085 The scientist has knowledge about a particular topic_3b.  Expertise_3b brings specialized tasks_2b into relation with the potential of ‘an institutional setting’_1b.  That ‘institutional setting’_1b is not ‘the church’_1b, even though it_1b may be highly ideological.

Why would the world_1b of scientific_2b expertise_3b be ideological?

Well, what does it take to say that a model should replace the thing itself?

Ah, it takes will power.

0086 So, what am I saying?

Well, here is a comparison of the content-levels for the interscopes of grace_3c and nature_3c.

0087 For grace_3c, the normal context of the logos_3a brings the actuality of Genesis 1-11_2a into relation with the potential of ‘revelation’_1a.

For nature_3c, the normal context of the logos_3a brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a into relation with the potential of ‘truth’_1a.

0088 One beauty of these formulations is that both theology and science share a common content-level normal context_3a.  The word, “logos”, means “word”, as well as “the study of…” and so on.

To me, “logos” is not like a gesture-word of hand talk, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  “Logos” is not based on images or indications.  “Logos” does not convey the impression of an implicit abstraction.

Instead, “logos” is like the spoken word of speech-alone talk, characteristic of our current Lebenswelt.  “Logos” starts with purely symbolic labels.  “Logos” conveys the impression of explicit abstraction.

0089 Beauty is a transcendental.

So, I better watch out and look again.

Surely, beauty slips out of the vision when I consider what theologians and scientists are actually doing.  In chapter 4, Ross discusses what the theologians are up to.  But, the scientists are up to no good, as well.  The content-levels have changed in order to accommodate “pressures”.  Concessions must be made in order to keep one’s job.

0090 Surely, this comparison looks different than what was expected from the fact that grace and nature are distinct and separate.

But, this is what Christians are stuck with, in my version of Ross’s historical introduction.

0091 Now, the ground has shifted so much in my parallel to chapters 1 through 4, that I wonder, “Should I go over the storyline again?”

Before the 1200s, scholars regard the human thing as grace [inflows] nature.

By the 1200s, grace and nature became more and more distinct and separated.

After all, they are spoken words.  Plus, the theology of grace [inflows] nature does not allow scholars to explore the fact that different labels imply different referents.  If intellectuals are convinced of anything, it is the saying, “To name it is to know it.”  Thinkers can name “grace” and “nature”, but they cannot know them without… um… pulling the terms away from one another.  Completely.  Let us forget that substance, [inflows], and consider the terms in themselves.

By the 1600s, two parties are apparent.  One party elevates grace₃ over nature₁.  The other party exalts nature₃ over grace₁.  Both parties agree on the relation between grace and nature₂.  That agreement stands as an actuality₂ that both parties share.  The concept of dual revelation is in the Zeitgeist, as suggested when Galileo talks about the two books, the book of revelation and the book of nature.

By the 1900s, the judgments that constitute these two parties have unfolded, not merely into category-based nested forms, but into interscopes.  A three-level interscope is a complete social construction.  Maybe, the term, “worldview” will do.  Each exaltation, grace_3c or nature_3c serves as the perspective-level normal context.  A well-framed perspective-level actuality_2c veils the actuality that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate_2c.  The perspective-level potential_1c is adjusted to exclude the non-exalted term_1c.

0092 By the 2000s, when Ross writes, certain concessions are apparent.  Both content-level category-based nested forms distort.

On one hand (A), post-modern theologians argue that the normal context of the Bible₂, especially of the Creation Story (Gen. 1-2.3) and of the Primeval History (2.4 to 11)₂, is ancient Near Eastern civilization.  This normal context allows the theologian to qualify revelation₁.  This is the topic of chapters 1 through 4 of the book under examination.  Dual revelation in Church history and doctrine is covered in chapters 5 and 6.

On the other hand (B), Razie Mah’s blogs from July through October 2024, have been collected into a three-part e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  Post-modern expertise_3b considers reason_3a((1a)) for the average person to be an intellect_3a operating on a human will_1a.  This intellect is not considered to be metaphysical.  If not metaphysical, then what is it?  A pale imitation of the positivist intellect?  No, it the subject of manipulation, just like the mind of lab rat that is placed in a maze.

0093 With this (A and B) in mind, here is the interscope for exaltation of grace_3c (A),

0094 One aspect of the theologian’s knowledge concerns what anthropologists have learned about civilizations of the ancient Near East over the past two centuries.  On the content level, the normal context of ancient Near East civilization_3a brings the actuality of Genesis 1-11_2a into relation with the potential of  ‘qualifying revelation’_1a.  How is revelation to be qualified?  Revelation_1a cannot be independent of the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East.

0095 On the situation level, the normal context of salvation_3b brings the actuality of the believer’s personal relationship with God_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘the church”_1b.  What does the church do?  Among other jobs, the church_1b interprets meanings, presences and messages underlying the words in the Bible_2a, including Genesis 1-11.

0096 For example, Saint Augustine, who knows nothing about the civilizations of the ancient Near East, proposes that the reason why Saint Paul calls Christ, “the second Adam”, is because we are all fallen.  We are all fallen because each one of us is directly descended from Adam and Eve.  Other proposals for how we are all fallen follow, such as “the disease model” and “the imputation model”.  These proposals are weirdly, both theological and natural, because that is the way God created us.

0097 On the perspective level, the normal context of grace_3c brings the actuality of redemption_2c into relation with the possibilities inherent in ‘creation’_1c.

And, it is worth noting that redemption_2c in the exaltation of grace_3c is like a blanket that covers the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable_2c and the potential of ‘creation’_1c is a similar cover for excluding the possibility of ‘nature’_1c.

0098 Here is the interscope for the exaltation of nature_3c (B).

One aspect of the scientist’s knowledge concerns the substitution of models for noumena, things themselves.  The substitution gets around Kant’s slogan.  A model (substituting for its noumenon) [can be objectified by] its phenomena.  Doesn’t that sound great?

On the content level, the normal context of the positivist… well, maybe not strictly a positivist… perhaps, a “not metaphysical” intellect_3a brings the actuality of scientific inquiry_2a into relation with the possibility of the ‘human will’_1a.  The potential is a hallmark of the so-called “post-truth condition”.  Ross does not discuss this aspect of science. Reason_3a((1a)) justifies the immense social pressure that post-modern expertise_3b places on those who help others towards salvation_3b.  

0099 Indeed, the title and subtitle of Ross’s book suggest that Biblical inerrancy might be rescued by a scientific defense, rather than the other way around.  To me, this indicates that Ross has not imagined that modern science goes with the exaltation of nature_3c in a judgment that has been around at least 800 years.

0100 Yes, the content-level nested form suggests that something else may be in play.

If Biblical inerrancy_1b situates qualifying revelation_1a in a way that ‘something’ gets revealed, then scientific institutions_1b may situate ‘something’ true about the human will_1a.  For example, if the church realizes that the handless serpent conducts a sales pitch on poor Eve, then that lesson may apply to the way that a post-modern institution devoted to, say, “positivist education”, might conduct a sales pitch that confounds our reason, especially when reason_3a((1a))manifests as the normal context of an intellect_3a operating on the potential of the human will_1a.

How often have people foolishly eaten from the tree of the knowledge of “value-free curriculum”, then learned to regret their choice.

0101 On the situation level, the normal context of expertise_3b brings the actuality of a specialized job_2b into relation with the potential of ‘an institution’_1b.  That institution_1b situates the potential of the content-level nested form.  In particular, a post-modern “scientific” institution_1b situates, not the truth_1b, but the human will_1b.  It makes me wonder about how certain funding sources seem to always come up with models_1c that justify the wills of the leaders of their institutions_1b and encourage each institution to reward certain scientists over others_1a.

In the text, Ross mentions several encounters with funding agencies.  These snippets are truly fascinating and support my impression that Ross’s enterprise, Reasons to Believe, is worth funding, not from above, but from below.  I say, “Send a check to a researcher interested in truth_1a, rather than the alternative_1a.”  Send a check to Reasons to Believe.

0102 On the perspective level, the normal context of nature_3c brings the actuality of protocols_2c into relation with the potential of ‘models’_1c.

Plus, it is worth noting that protocols_2c, in the exaltation of nature_3c act like a blanket that covers the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable_2c and the potential of ‘models’_1c provides a similar cover for excludingthe possibility of ‘grace’_1c.

0103 The next set of chapters (seven through eleven) challenge the exultation of grace_3c and nature_3c through a doctrine (an “ism”) of harmony (“concord”).

The title of chapter 7 is “Concordism and Science”.

In this chapter, Ross reminds the reader that a divided Christendom gives birth to science.  The Reformation brings the Bible back to front and center.  The Bible exhorts the believer to test everything.  The Bible offers subject matter that comports with the scientific method of observation, modeling and technical specification.  Scientific disciplinary languages encourage literal and plain readings.  So, most of all, the Bible can be plainly read for exoteric meaning.

But, there is always an esoteric meaning hidden within that plain reading.

For example, today, the second day of the Creation Story (Gen. 1:6-9) appears, to a scientist, to be a phenomenological description of an evolutionary process.  To this reader, the second day contains poetic icons and images and symbols of the accretion of the Earth and Moon.  The hidden presence of a correspondence becomes apparent to anyone with scientific knowledge.  But, can I make this esoteric impression into an exoteric demonstration?

Say what?

As a scientist, can I construct an empirio-schematic judgment that plainly expresses what my intuition is privately telling me?

I say, “Yes.  Indeed, this is precisely what scientists do in formulating hypotheses.”

0104 Here is a general picture of the empirio-schematic judgment.

A disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness)

How would the empirio-schematic judgment apply to a what ought to be that is both concordist and Positivist?

To start, the phenomena might be my correspondences between a Creation Story day and a relevant evolutionary period.

My observations might classify the correspondences in terms of specific types.  That would be close to a model.

Finally, I would need a specialized disciplinary language (that is not “metaphysical” in the sense of “religious”) capable of formulating the designation of specific types.

0105 Here is a picture of my proposal of the empirio-schematic judgment for concordism.

0106 Since Ross does not know about the Positivist’s judgment or the empirio-schematic judgment, this will be something a surprise.  In a way, this examination serves as an introduction to Razie Mah’s e-book, Exercises in Artistic Concordism (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Nevertheless, the above diagram does not contradict Ross’s argument in chapters 7 and 8.

0107 Back to the figure.

The disciplinary language of semiotics (or triadic relations) (relation, thirdness) brings a typology of natural signs, corresponding the Peirce’s list of icons, indexes and symbols (what ought to be, secondness), into relation with my construction of correspondences between each Creation Story day and a relevant evolutionary epoch (what is,firstness).

0108 This figure is not the same as the judgment regarding the distinction and separation of the terms, “grace” and “nature” (see points 0056 through 0059).  In many ways, it is a rejection of this judgment, using the vehicle of a judgment that is integral to the scientific revolution (that is, the empirio-schematic judgment).

0109 In this figure, I make observations and measurements of phenomena, knowing that, for the past eight centuries, the noumenon is untenable.  Two separate parties have flourished under the judgment that this noumenon is untenable.  Yes, both modern theologians (the ones who conduct unnecessary concessions, according to Ross) and modern scientists (the ones who say that Genesis is not history in a modern sense, that the Creation Story does not compare to the evolutionary sciences, and that the Bible derives from… um… ancient Near Eastern civilizations) reject the claim that “grace” and “nature” are like matter and form in the human being.

0110 Modern theological and scientific experts do not know that they agree to this rejection.

Neither does Hugh Ross.

But, in chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, I sense that Ross might catch the drift that the modern disarticulated version of “dual revelation” operates as an impediment to his aesthetic strivings.

He asks, “Why can’t my impressions of correspondences between each Creation Story day and a revelant evolutionary epoch (what is, firstness) be regarded as real?”

He does not ask why they cannot be regarded as phenomena.

He does not ask why God’s grace no longer flows into our human nature.

In chapters 8 and 9, Ross confronts various “models” that reflect the consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate concepts.  These “models of Bible and science” offer various recipes for coping with the consensus.  But, they do not offer anything close to a schematic.  I mean, look at the title of the above figure, empirio- (empirical) -schematics (formulations).

Yes, I can regard Ross’s correspondences as phenomena.

0111 In chapter 9, Ross confronts Christians who exalt grace_3c over nature_3c.  He calls it “hard concordism”.

Or course, this is Ross’s audience.  God bless them.  Many know that their “models” for so-called “Creation Science” have certain weaknesses, the greatest of which is the complete rejection of modern scientific inquiry.  Ross does not want that.  He aims for a Biblical model that bridges the separation that everyone has agreed upon.  Ross’s audience knows that this is a more sensible path.  So, they keep him in business.

0112 In chapter 9, Ross confronts Christian theologians who exalt nature_3c over grace_3c.  He calls it “soft concordism”.

Yes, these are the theologians who get grants from foundations interested in… well… finding the right academic voices who will speak “truth” for “power” (or something like that).  These theologians are experts in the cultures and languages of the ancient Near East.  These theologians have a model for explaining the Creation Story.  The first chapter of Genesis depicts the construction of the temple (or tent) of the heavens and the earth.

0113 In chapter 9, Ross challenges both exaltations, by proposing what he calls “a moderate concordism”.  It is sort of like the Goldilocks fairy tale.  He seeks a concordism that is not too hard, not too soft, and feels just right.

He uses, as an example, Job 9.8.  God alone stretches out the heavens.  He calls it a poetic image.

0114 Just hold that thought, while I bring up artistic concordism’s empirio-schematic once again.

I wonder where the word “image” appears.

Oh, there it is.

It is one of Peirce’s three types of natural signs.

0115 Let me go over these three types.

In a sign-relation, a sign-vehicle (SV) stands for a sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

An icon is a sign-relation whose sign-object (SO) manifests on the basis of similarity, images, pictures, and other characteristics of the category of firstness.

An index is a sign relation whose sign-object (SO) manifests on the basis of pointing, indicators, contact, cause and effect, and other characteristics of the category of secondness.

A symbol is a sign-relation whose sigh-object (SO) manifests on the basis of habit, convention, tradition, law, and other characteristics of the category of thirdness.

0116 Ross offers an exercise in artistic concordism by identifying Job 9.8 as an icon.  The icon provides a “poetic” or “artistic” image of its referent.

0117 In chapter 10, Ross notes that Reasons To Believe is not the only game in town.  Sure, Christianity seems to be fixed in their consensus that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separate. Yes, all traditional churches_1b and modern positivist institutions_1b are stuck in a relation (secondness) that they no longer recognize might not be… um… fruitfully “conjunct”.  But, the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and certain Jesus-loving cults are not so constrained.  They harbor full-fledged concordists, who link their scriptures to scientific discoveries with… a sense of aesthetic abandon.  Outside of Ross’s brand of concordism, which I consider “artistic”, rather than “moderate”, there are few constraints.

0118 They are all saying the same thing.

Our scriptures contain signs of God’s natural world, as revealed in scientific models.

Why can’t Ross say the same?

0119 Allow me to consider chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 once again.

Here are the titles of each chapter.

0120 Oh, I included chapter 11, because, if the scholarly and religious elites of the Ancient Near East were time-transported to our current age, then they would be doing the same as the “other faiths” covered in chapter 10.  They would be comparing their myths and traditions and wisdoms to modern science.  They would be asking whether their scriptures are signs of the incredible counter-intuitive realities that science has revealed in the past 400 years.

And, they would be running into the same problem facing Christians, concerning the Primeval History (which for this examination, only includes Genesis 2.4 through 11).  All the written origin myths of the ancient Near East depict the creation of humans as a recent event.  Yes, the myths proclaim that humans are fashioned by differentiated gods for various (often technical) purposes, just like Adam and Eve.  The king lists of various ancient cities look just like the genealogies in the Primeval History.  Or is it the other way around?

Anyway, they would complain, “What is this business about humans being around for 250,000 years before the start of our great civilizations?  What gives?”

0121 Well, once the question is posed, then some Christian-science type of genius, like Hugh Ross, might consult the diagram of artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic, which appears below, and make a suggestion. 

0122 His suggestion says, “Yes, all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, along with the Bible’s Primeval History (yet, excluding the Creation Story) agree that humans are fashioned by one or more gods within the past, say, 10,000 years.  Okay, maybe 8,000 years.

“I observe your correspondences as phenomena (what is in the above diagram).  And, I find that these stories might be classified as indicators (what ought to be) of… um… the start of humanity.  Of course, this is impossible, because archaeology, natural history and genetics agree that tool use, fossil remains and DNA samples and so forth, demonstrate that there has been no change in humans for the past 250,000 or so years.”

0123 Then, those ancient time-travelers reply, “What about us?  We are the change, that we have been waiting for.”

Ross thinks, “Where have I heard that before?”

The ancients continue, “Obviously, if what you scientifically call ‘humans’ lived long before the times that our myths indicate, then, our myths indicate that these ‘humans’ are born again and fashioned into the ancestors of our civilizations.  That is why our ancient myths do not indicate ‘humans’ before their creation by our gods.  Rather, our origin stories indicate humans as they were created by our gods.”

0124 Ross doesn’t quite know what to make of this, so he sticks to the schematics and says, “Well, according to the disciplinary language of semiotics, I should classify your correspondence as an indicator.  Indexes point to their referents.  So, your correspondence is pointing to the start… or maybe… the potentiation of civilization itself, rather than of humanity.  If that…”

At which point, the hard-concordist Christian standing next to Ross says, “Did y’all just say that humans are ‘born again’?  How crazy is that?”

0125 And, at that moment, in this bizarre scenario, Ross looks up at the sky, a dome of bronze, hammered into a translucent patina by the angels, and Michael takes a big old mallet, and strikes the dome of the heavens.  Boom!

In the fashioning of Adam and Eve, humanity is born again.

The stories of Adam and Eve indicate the start of our current Lebenswelt.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

This is what the written origin stories of the ancient Near East indicate.

Humanity starts with our current Lebenswelt.

0126 In order to fully appreciate this fictional portrait of an exercise in artistic concordism, the reader may consult The First Singularity and Its Fairy Trace… or An Archaeology of the Fall… by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0127 Oops.  I got ahead of myself.

Even though the points 0120 through 0126 are fanciful, they contain an application of artistic concordism.  In this case, all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East indicate the potentiation of civilization in our current Lebenswelt.

0128 Here is a picture, once again.

Okay, following the diagram for artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment, I may say, “The disciplinary language of semiotics (relation, thirdness) brings the sign classification of index (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the observation of a correspondence between all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East (except for the Creation Story) and a very recent cultural event that potentiates civilization (what is, firstness).”

Isn’t that mind-boggling?

0129 Oh, how about article 19, once again.

0130 I ask, “Is semiotics a “preunderstanding?”

I suppose that it is.

Or, maybe, this instance of the discipline of semiotics goes into a larger judgment, and that larger judgment is the preunderstanding.

0131 So, I need to step back.

For modern science, the Positivist’s judgment is the larger judgment that contains the empirio-schematic judgment as what ought to be (secondness).

Here is a picture.

0132 A positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena (what is, firstness).

This relation is derived in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy.

The positivist intellect has a rule, saying, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”

Well, to me, that sounds like a preunderstanding that is alien to the Bible.

And, that impression is supported by the fact that modern science is what the doctrines of naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism and relativism celebrate.

So, article 19 condemns those who try to fit Scripture into the alien preunderstanding of the Positivist’s judgment.

Not surprisingly, everyone committed to the Positivist’s judgment belongs to the exaltation of nature_3c camp.

So, they don’t care about grace_3c.

Plus, article 19 ends up back-handing Christians in the exaltation of grace_3c camp who claim that the Bible offers the same information as science.  Ross calls them “hard concordists”.  Scripture offers the same results as modern empirio-schematic inquiry.  In order to make this claim, hard concordists must ignore the genres (see Ross in chapter 11) of ancient Near East literature.

Oh, is that what the religions mentioned in chapter 10 are doing as well?

0133 Okay, if all that is so, then what is artistic concordism doing?

0134 Artistic concordism is doing the same thing that Ross’s “moderate concordism” is doing.

It is generating a variation of the empirio-schematic judgment, by proposing a semiotic disciplinary language (relation,thirdness) that brings Peirce’s typology of natural signs (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with correspondences between Scriptural text and the relevant science (what is, firstness).

0135 In chapter 12, Ross debunks the idea that the scholars of the ancient Near East believed that the firmament of the heavens is a solid dome.  Instead of debunking the idea, he could have applied artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic.  A number of modern theologians say that the Scriptural view of the heavens as a dome is scientifically incorrect.  Why?  A solid dome is not the sky.  Or, I meant to say, the sky is not a solid dome.

0136 Ah, but let me reflect upon the correspondence between the solid dome of the heavens and the sky as a phenomenon.  Applying the typology of natural signs, I would say that the solid dome (SV) stands for the sky from the point of view of someone located on the surface of the Earth (SO) on the basis of imagery.  In short, the dome of the heavens is an icon of the sky.

Am I missing something?

What about the sign-interpretant (SI)?

0136 Aha!  A scientist might think, “What truncated material and efficient causes would contribute to the sign-interpretant (SI) of this sign-relation?”

In contrast, a semiotician thinks, “How would Aristotle’s four causes contribute to my appreciation of the sign-interpretant (SI) of this icon?”

0137 In chapter 13, Ross discusses the use of monumental architecture by ancient civilizations (and proto-civilizations).  He uses Stonehenge on England’s Salisbury Plain as an example.

This example is interesting because Stonehenge, as well as other “circle-stone observatories”, are built between 4,900 and 1,800 years before Christ.  If I place a time-marker for the potentiation of civilization in the ancient Near East at 7,800 years ago, then these stone circles start going up around 900 years after this marker, which I call “U0′” or “uh-oh prime”.  Now, I wonder whether – whatever potentiates civilization in the ancient Near East – makes it from the Near East to the folk who are destined to build the stone circles in those 900 years.  That is 45 generations, reckoning twenty years per generation.

0138 I know what you’re thinking.

Why “uh-oh prime”?

It is short for “Ubaid Zero Prime”.

The current year is nominally 7825 U0′.

0139 Now, back to artistic concordism.

Here is a picture of the exercise.

0140 The observed phenomenon is the correspondence between the layout of stone circles, such as Stonehenge, and naked eye observations of the motions of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars.  That corresponds to what is.  The sign-typology is index.  These stone circles point to where the celestial beings will… um… be, at certain times of the year.  Index corresponds to what ought to be.  Consequently, I may stay that ancient stone circles of western Europe (SV) stand for locations of celestial beings (SO) on the basis of indexality.

0141 Once again, I do not know what the sign-interpretant (SI) is.  The sign-interpretant remains to be explained.  Also, I do not imagine that truncated material and efficient causes will produce a complete explanation.  Mechanical and mathematical models may contribute to a complete explanation, but they will never be sufficient.

And maybe, that too, is a sign.

0142 In chapter 14, Ross discusses Biblical cues to the Earth’s age.

In doing so, he brings the weight of his argument to bear on the Creation Story (Genesis 1-2.3), because that is the anomaly.

0143 The anomaly?

If the Bible started with the Primeval History (Genesis 2.4-11), then the Bible would honestly agree with all the other origin stories of the ancient Near East.  Humans (as far as the early civilizations are concerned) are recent creations.  We, civilized folk, are connected to the first humans by way of genealogies.  We do not recognize the deep reaches of evolutionary time.  Or, maybe, we pay tribute to evolutionary time by saying that the first humans lived for thousands and thousands of years.  Consult the Sumerian king list on that one.

0144 Yes, the Creation Story is the anomaly.  Hugh Ross, familiar with evolutionary science, sees the signification immediately.  Later, after years of research, he now realizes that the Bible is peppered with phrases that signify deep evolutionary time.  He mentions Genesis 49:26, Habbakkuk 3:6, Judges 5:21, and Micah 6.2.  But, the Creation Story is incredible in its recognition.

Why?

The Genesis Creation Story is a sign of the evolutionary record.

0145 Why does Hugh Ross conjure this conclusion, yet appears to be incapable of articulating it clearly?

Ah, remember the late scholastic judgment where the relation says that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable?

Recall that, over hundreds of years, this early modern judgment calcifies into two contending parties, one exalting grace_3c and one exalting nature_3c.

And don’t forget, during that last span, science is successfully born in Western Civilization.  So, the exalting nature_3cparty appears ascendant.

0146 What is “reality”?

Truncated material and efficient causalities are the presence underlying term, “reality”.

What is the message of modern material and instrumental “reality”?

The message is that the authorship of the Bible is human, not divine.

0147 Take a look at the term, “inerrancy”, once again..

0148 What does “reality” mean for the party that exalts nature_3c?

Follow the positivist intellect.  “Reality” means that “metaphysics is not permitted”.

0149 Hugh Ross does not agree, because Genesis One looks like a description of the evolutionary record.

If he only had a model for delineating that appearance in a way that scientists might appreciate.

0150 What would a model entail?

First, the Creation Story comports with the first abstraction in natural philosophy.

Say what?

Each Genesis One “day” offers clues to something that looks like Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter [substance] form.

 Here is a picture of how that might look for the first day of creation.

0151 To me, this touches base with the way that Ross discusses the perspicuity of Scripture in chapter 15.  Biblical perspicuity is like visual acuity.  It’s the ability to see clearly and comprehensibly.  But what does that mean?

If every Biblical verse is an actuality₂, then Biblical perspicuity means that we can understand that actuality₂.  What is understanding?  Understanding applies a normal context₃ and potential₁  to an actuality₂. That is why a category-based nested form appears in the above figure.  This is the inerrant understanding that Ross wants to defend… um… scientifically.

0152 But, what is Ross really doing?

Ross substitutes his own aesthetic judgment for the Positivist’s judgment.

In effect, he is telling all those who exalt nature_3c over grace_3c that their interscope does not define “reality”.

At the same time, he whispers to those who exalt grace_2c over nature_3c that revelation cannot be qualified_1a.

0153 Here is a picture of Ross’s aesthetic judgment, as it starts to diverge from the Positivist’s judgment, while retaining its structure.

A diagram of the Positivist’s judgment may be found in point 0131.

0154 Ross’s aesthetic judgment goes like this.

An aesthetic intellect, embracing both metaphysics and physics (relation, thirdness), brings artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a dyad, the noumenon of Genesis One and our evolutionary history [cannot be fully objectified by] the phenomena of significant correspondences (what is,firstness).

0155 What is that what is again? 

Here is a dyad that follows the classical Positivist’s judgment’s what is of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

0156 Recall, the first abstraction in natural philosophy, Aristotle’s hylomorphe of matter [substance] form, associates to a noumenon, rather than its phenomena.  This is how the positivist intellect excludes metaphysics.  All the metaphysics of natural inquiry goes into the noumenon.  Phenomena are only the observable and measurable facets of the thing itself.

The languages of modern science (relation, thirdness) bring mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be,secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

Ross’s conjunction of the Creation Story with the Earth’s evolutionary history is packed with philosophical and theological implications.

These belong to the noumenon.

To me, the most notable implication is that this conjunction looks a lot like a mimic of the pre-scholastic dyad, grace [inflows] nature.

0157 Another implication of the noumenon?

What is of Ross’s aesthetic judgment ties together the content-level actualities of the interscopes for the party of exalting grace_3c and the party for exalting nature_3c.  The noumenon appears in the following figure as the box composed of dashed red-lines.

0158 Yes, Ross’s aesthetic judgment is clearly crossing red lines.

Or, should I say, “boxing red lines”.

At least, they are dashed.

The question to be asked is, “Is there a label for the single actuality composed of the actualities of these two content-level nested forms?”

0159 Chapter fifteen offers one suggestion from theologians who exalt grace_3c by conceding that they should qualify revelation_1a on the basis that the early stories of Genesis_2a must be associated with the cultural milieu of the civilizations of the ancient Near East_3a.

What is that suggestion?

There can be no single actuality because the scientific concept of the evolutionary record_2a is continually changing.  You know, the positivist intellect (the one forbidding metaphysics)_3a operates of the potential of truth_1a.  Do I have that right?  No, the logos_3a operates on the potential of truth_1a.  The modern intellect who derides metaphysics_3a operates on the potential of… well… the human will_1a, including an insatiable will to know_1a.  So, of course, scientific concepts_2awill change according to the appetites of a will that cannot be satisfied_1a.

So, the suggested label is “Does Not Apply”.

0160 But, how does “Does Not Apply” deal with the following artistic concordist judgment (unfolded into a category-based nested form) for day one?

0161 Surely, in the future, astronomers will figure out more and more about how solar systems form and how a star initiates fusion at its core.  But, I think we can rest easy that they will not discover that stars do not form from interstellar material.

At the same time, I think that the classification of each verse in day one of the Creation Story as an icon, an index or a symbol of the formation of the solar system is only going to get better, more convincing, as well as more incredible, rather than the other way around.

0162 Old hands in the “Science vs. Religion” debate will immediately put Ross’s “moderate” (and what I call “artistic”) concordism in a box labeled “day-age correspondences”.

Everyone knows the game, “To name it is to know it.”

0163 Chapter 16 tries to launch a different name.  Ross discusses “The Historicity of Genesis 1 -11”.  Then, he goes through his version of day-age correspondences.

So, the box is to be labeled, “historicity”.

0164 Exercises in Artistic Concordism by Razie Mah (available at smashwords and other e-book venues) offers a different set of day-age correspondences.

Here is a list.

The correspondences for days five and six do not appear in the above list, Ross and Mah identify the same relevant epochs.  Mah goes so far as to include correspondences between Genesis verses 26 through 31 and human evolutionary history.

The correspondences for days three and four match well.  Ross discusses the epoch corresponding to day four in detail in chapter 17.

0165 The correspondences for days one and two do not match, because (from this examiner’s point of view) Ross has difficulty placing “the observer” near an accretion disk (for day one) or on the surface of a molten planetesimal that becomes the Earth (in day two).  Yeah, in either case, if someone was at the location, that person would die before they could witness anything.  Better to start with a visionary on the Earth when the sky becomes transparent enough to allow a distinction between day and night.

0166 In contrast, the observer, for Mah, may not actually be witnessing the corresponding epochs live (so to speak), but rather through a medium… like a big screen TV…. or the surfaces of the visionary’s occipital lobes.  Just take a look at the text.  God speaks.  Someone besides the angels must be listening.  And, if that someone is a human visionary, then some of the angels might think that God is offering them a raw deal.  Yeah, here is a day-age concordance that can also serve as an introduction to John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

0167 Or, better, this day-age concordance introduces the version of Paradise Lost that would be produced as a totally random permutation when a trillion monkeys type on a trillion typewriters continually for a trillion years.  Of course, the randomly produced version is not quite identical.  Rumors are that the new title is Pair Of Dice Lost.

0168 And, that brings me back to the definition of the titular word, “inerrancy”.

Ross is not rescuing inerrancy with a scientific defense.

No, Ross is exploring a much more significant option.  He is offering new life to the term, “inerrancy”.  The rescue will be different for the Creation Story (Genesis 1-2.3) and for the Primeval History (Genesis 2.4-11).  

0169 Here is a picture.

The application of artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic to the phenomena of day-age correspondences changes the presence  (2) underlying the word, “inerrancy”.

The rescue of the Primeval History will revive the meaning (3) and the message (1) underlying the word.