>Okay, since I really don't want to get back to work yet, I'll go one more
> round.
{my quote snipped}
>Sorry... "St. Phil" is a veiled irreverent reference to Phil Johnson, whom
>many of us have had battle with.
Yes, I have battled with St. Phil also. I have never told this publically
before, but after one of our e-mail battles where he learned that I had nearly
become an atheist, he asked me why I didn't just go on and become an atheist.
I thought it was sad and funny at the same time. Sad that someone who accepts
evolution is viewed so poorly by large segments of the Christian population;
funny that such a leader would nearly wish I were an atheist so he could
dismiss me more easily. To his credit, he later thought again about having
somewhat urged me to jump off the cliff and told me that he really wasn't
interested in driving me the rest of the way to atheism.
My problem is that I am in a rather interesting intellectual terrain. Unlike
Phil Johnson, I am convinced of evolution; but unlike a lot of the Christian
evolutionists (e.g. you and Keith Miller), I am convinced that if the
Scriptural documents do not reflect an actual history then there is no way
they can be true. This position allows me to argue with everyone. :-)
> No, I did not assume you were attacking me
>rather than the idea. My irritation coming through was based on having my
>idea associated with things I never intended. My suggestion to use
>"picture" was meant as a better phrase than the technical term "myth"
>because I believe it transmits more faithfully what I and many evangelical
>scientists intend to convey about our interpretation of Genesis.
My apologies for mis-interpreting you.
I wrote:
>>My specific complaint is that as we all struggle with these issues, we
> apply a
>>standard of truth to science that we seem unwilling to apply to the
> Scripture.
>>When it comes to science and history we believe what we do because there is
>>physical evidence which forces us to the conclusions we draw. In the case
> of
>>historical sounding events in Scripture, we are quick to allegorize them in
>>order to save them from falsification OR as is the case with the YECs we
> are
>>willing to disregard every piece of observational data in order to have a
>>particular historical view of the scripture. Neither of these approaches
>>seems satisfactory to me.
>
>I don't see my primary motivation being to save scripture from
>falsification. I appreciate Terry Grey's words "sources outside of
>scripture, such as science, may be the occasion for but may not be the
>basis of a reinterpretation of scripture". While in seminary, I examined
>what the best evidence was for the intention of the author's of scripture.
>My conclusions (a mix as tentative yet as strongly held as any of my
>scientific ones) included that Genesis 1 could not sustain the
>interpretation YECs were placing on it.
>
Fully agreed about the YEC interp. but since I am no theologian, my objections
are from a geological nature.
You wrote:
>My conclusion on Genesis 6-9 was that it could not sustain a global flood
>interpretation. (For some evidence, different from what I considered at
>the time but still compelling, see the brief recent communication in the
>ASA journal, "How many trees did Noah take on the ark?", Dec '95.) Coming
>to a negative conclusion is just as disatisfying (though no less difficult)
>as in science. The fact that finding the clear 'meaning' of the passage is
>still difficult to find is no reason to return to an inadequate
>interpretation.
>
Agreed, but I am not advocating a return to the inadequate global flood ideas.
But then I find the previously proposed local flood concepts geologically
ludicrous. One view tried to place the local flood in the Caspian basin.
There are 3,000 foot tall mountains in that basin and you can not cover
everything there without covering the entire earth. The Mesopotamian region
for a flood as described in Gen. 6-9 is also ludicrous because it could not
last a year and could not put the ark on anything even remotely called a
mountain.
Larry wrote:
>I suspect there is a better approach. Just as I suspect there is a better
>approach to solving the quantum gravity problem than I've seen so far. The
>difference is that I suspect the better approach might already exist in the
>literature on Genesis 6-9 whereas I doubt the winning approach to Quantum
>Gravity has been published. And just as I expect quantum gravity to be
>solved by physicists rather than Biblical scholars, I expect a good
>interpretation of Genesis 6-9 not to come from YECs or physicists.
>
>>Larry wrote:
> But all I'm saying to you is that I'm far from convinced that the
>intention of the writers of Genesis 6-9 was "history" as we understand it.
>Though evolution from slime might be a possible interpretation of Genesis
>1:20, I will never be convinced it is a likely one. I am far too convinced
>that such an interpretation would never have occured to the original
>readers, hence it is so far from the core of what God spoke that I would be
>in error to accept such an interpretation as the word of God. If I insist
>that God should have spoken in a certain way (or with greater clarity on
>some topic), then I am no longer putting myself under God, but over.
>
I appreciate the danger of putting us over God rather than remaining where we
ought to be--under. And I agree that if you define "history" as a 20th
century history text, then this is not history. But why is it necessary that
the correct interpretation be the one that OCCURRED to the Hebrews? I
recently went to the local YEC meeting and had a discussion with the leader.
He did not like my Days of Proclamation view for the six days in Genesis 1.
He told me that it was invalid because the original readers would not have
held that view. At the time I couldn't think of an answer for that argument.
But by the time I got home I had. If we hold to the view that only those
intepretations of Old Testament Scripture are valid which were held by the
ancient Hebrews, then I would say that Christ is not the Messiah. Very few of
the ancient Hebrews interpreted the Old Testament in a way that would allow
Jesus to be Messiah! I simply don't think that the interpretations of the
ancient Hebrews are the only allowable solutions. And if someone insists that
they must be the only allowable interpretations, then I would ask for
consistency with the way the Hebrews viewed the messianic prophecies.
You wrote:
>Recognize the type of scholarship Kline is offering in this context. He is
>using technical terms to report findings, but not giving all the evidence.
>I suspect that there are some articles that scholars in his field accept
>that point out the wide use of type/achetype language in ancient
>literature. The fact that you can't independently verify is due to the use
>of different criteria in scientific and historical practice. I suspect you
>would soften your statement "The only things we can verify are physical" if
>you thought for a moment less like a scientist and more like a historian,
>or even a husband.
>
Touche'. On another list, I once argued that I KNOW when my wife is mad at me
even if I can't prove it rigorously (and even when she denies it). :-)
However, the things which verify history are still physical. There are
documents, personal possessions etc. Even the classification of literature
based upon the physical existence of the ink which forms the words. So
explain a little more, if you don't mind. What in history is non-physical?
I wrote:
>>Lots of ancient cultures clearly understood the concept of evolution.
Larry replied:
>I didn't mean to imply that they "couldn't" understand evolution, just that
>it was irrelevant to God's intentions in Genesis 1.
>
I agree that it is irrelevant to God's intentions. I hope that God's
intentions were to tell us how to get into harmony with him. Since He knows
mankind well, I would also hope that when He inspired the writers to write
about history that He would inspire true things rather than clearly false
things. It boils down to trust. If a person tells me false things a few
times, I will cease to beleive them on very much at all. That is another
reason I prefer the view I take. It preserves what I view as the trust
factor.
>
>By the way, I also don't use the word "theory" in the general public. It
>turns out that "theory" has the connotation of "speculation" to people
>other than scientists, so the word is nearly useless for conveying how
>strongly I believe, for example, in relativity.
>
>The fact that you want Genesis 1 to give you confirmable or testable
>evidence about scientific matters says more about you than about the
>content and meaning of Genesis 1.
Probably so. :-)
glenn