>I think that you've hinted at the answer to your own question here. You're
>in the business of finding oil. If God were in the same business, he'd want
>literal, scientific information. He, however, is in another business, so He
>presents His information somewhat differently. I believe that the account
>of creation in Genesis wasn't intended to present a scientific explanation
>that would make sense to men and women in the late 20th century. If it
>were, it would have been incomprehensible to countless generations.
I can most certainly appreciate this. But if God's business is to draw us to
Him, it would seem to me that the simplest way to do so is to say what
happened. Even a sentence in Genesis saying, "Out of the slime God created
life" Nothing more, would be needed. I don't think that the above statement
is too terribly scientific nor confusing to either ancient man or modern man.
In point of fact, the intelligence of ancient peoples was not significantly
less than ours. They would have been able to put their minds around the
concepts in some simpler form, wouldn't they?
George wrote:
>Instead, it's meant to show that God created this world in an orderly
>manner. Truth told by fable, allegory, parable is no less truth. If one of
>your geophysicists has to make a presentation to management, he may simplify
>his data so that even a manager can understand it (that's really simple!!
>;-)).
Yeah, I know. Being a manager again, I can't seem to understand anything
anymore. That is why the guys talk to me in simple sentences with lots of
pretty pictures. :-)
>When we make those presentations, the scientific rigor is lost in the
>simplifications. Does that make it all wrong or untrue?
>
See the above sentence I suggested. Loss of rigor or complexity does not make
it wrong. If they say that the structure formed in Late Pliocene times rather
than middle Nebraskan time (the Nebraskan is a time period in the late
pliocene). No harm is done. That is loss of rigor.
But if they say that the structure developed in the Sangamon (Pleistocene)
then there may be a definite problem. While that is only 1.5 million year
mistake, it might make a big difference as to whether or not I want to buy the
acreage and drill. This is loss of truth.
I keep going back to the fact that we do not accept such a standard of truth
in any other area of life. Truth in all those other areas stands for what is
believed to ACTUALLY be the case.
If I am asked "How did the world come to be" and I tell them "Well, you see,
there was this turtle who laid an egg. The egg was the earth. And when the
egg/earth hatched, all sorts of living animals crawled out and lived on the
shell." Have I told the truth? I think you could rightfully suggest I visit
the shrink. I have told a tale which was NOT what ACTUALLY happened. Would
God view that I have told the truth? Probably not.
>Remember that our so-called rational, scientific worldview is a recent
>invention. When reading any ancient literature, we have to remember that
>the original readers saw it in a much different light than we do. We need
>to accept God's message on His terms, not ours.
I agree that they may have seen it in their terms. It is not required for
them to have fully understood it or even understood it correctly. But since
we are presumably dealing (in Christianity at least) with some type of
communication from God, it seems important to me that God, at least, have
communicated truths-i.e. the way things actually are.
I want to make clear that I do not see this issue of historicity as a
"salvation/non-salvation" issue as I have seen some present it. There is
certainly room for lots of differing opinions here. And I am positive we
could worship happily together with our differing opinions in tact. But I
personally find it ironic that we seem to hold God to a lower standard of
truth telling than God holds for us.
glenn