>I am sure that we can agree that what is taught by young-earth creationists
>about geology is not satisfactory.
Agreed
>I don't see child-like faith required for believing the events of the OT
>like the Exodus or David being King etc. Must I have child-like faith that
>no observational evidence can disprove anything in the scripture? I would
>contend that the Young-earth creationists ARE displaying a child-like faith.
> They allow no scientific fact to interfere with what they believe the Bible
>says. I fear that my more liberal minded brothers in the Lord, will not let
>any Biblical "fact" get in the way of what they believe the Bible says.
>While what is rejects by each group is different the methodologies are
>identical. If a fact becomes problematical, believe it out of existence and
>all will be well.
Are you telling me that you can only accept David's historicity because
there is well establish archaeological evidence of his existence, but you
cannot accept Adam's or Abraham's until there is similar proof? Is David's
story any more accurate than Abraham's or Joseph's because we can place
David on a time line with more archaeological precision than we can with
either Abraham or Joseph?
I have no problem with accepting that Adam, Noah, and Abraham are just as
real as David without "scientific fact" to establish their validity. God's
testimony is their validity.
>I see one of two problems here. Either we reject observation and say that
>science is not true or we reject the historicity of the Scripture. If we
>take the former tack then we have a problem. Saying that Science knows
>nothing about truth is a rejection of observational data.
I don't agree, it is not and either/or decision. We do not have to stop
observing creation and reject science. The scientific method has proven to
be our best method for learning how creation works and applying that
knowledge is essential to supply the needs of the earth's human population.
But even though it has proven fruitful in giving us the ability to make
better predictions about the workings of our universe, it does not provide
us with true knowledge of how the universe work, science can only provide an
approximation of reality.
>Our problem
>becomes that we obtain ALL of our information about the Bible, about our
>Lord, his death and resurrection via sensory data, observational data, which
>we read from the pages of our Bibles. If we can not trust observational
>data, how can I trust that I am observing what the Bible says?
I believe also that you place to high of a value on establishing the
"historicity of Scripture." Physical and corroborative evidence does not
establish the historicity of Scripture, God does.
This, I believe, is where the childlike faith comes in. At some point we
have to just say I believe or I don't. If I don't believe in God and that
He is trustworthy then the Bible is just another book on the order of the
Iliad or Herodotus' writings. But if I accept Him and trust Him to tell me
what He wants me to know through the work of His Spirit and His Word, then I
must accept the validity of scriptural statements and events.
I believe that we cannot force Scripture to the same standards as we expect
from modern (and post-modern) historians. As the Word of God, God's
standards apply not ours.
>If we take the latter option, that the historicity of the Scriptures is not
>there, then I could paraphrase Pilate? What is history? Was there a
>resurrection?
Good question, I would answer that history is what people choose to write
down about past events. It depends largely on what those people decide is
important and it is their interpretation of the events. Historical events
are events preserved in writing.
Yes, I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but
that statement is beyond a scientific or historical statement. It is a
belief statement.
I previously said
>>I don't accept that either our concept of history or our understanding of
>>how the cosmos works are applicable to the message God was addressing to
>>us in the scriptural account. Just as we must take a leap of faith in
applying
>>the rules of logic and science, so we must take a leap of faith if we are
>>going to believe God's message to us.
Glenn returned with
>So let me ask a question. If God was not addressing the history of the
>cosmos, or the workings of it in Scripture, then I would assume that you
>would find it either false or unknowable the statement "In the Beginning God
>created the Heavens and the Earth".
Neither!
> If God is not addressing history, then
>that is decidedly NOT a historical statement. If you believe that that is a
>historical statement, please explain to me why this is historical when the
>next verse isn't. What is the Hermeneutical difference?
Both verses are God Statements not necessarily scientifically verifiable
historical statements, such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
I trust God, I believe Scripture is His trustworthy testament to us, He said
this, I accept it as a Christian. As a student of several sciences, I know
that God Statements are outside the realm of science.
How did He do it? I don't know.
Can we come to a scientific approximation of how natural processes may have
done it? Yes.
How does God's activity relate to our physical processes? This is outside
our comprehension -- but not our speculation. ; )
Glenn continues
>We agree here, with only one possible exception. I see little reason to
>believe that a God who raised a man from the dead, can't tell us a true
>history of what he did. We may not always understand what He was trying to
>say but he must tell the truth.
He does tell us what we need to know and what He tells us is true.
>Coming out of my near brush with atheism, I must ask, Why would you believe
>Him if lots and lots of what He supposedly tells us is untrue?
By what measure can I judge the Almighty's statements?
> When a
>fellow lies to me, like a car salesman did several years ago, I don't go
>back to him to buy my next car. I bet you don't either.
No, I would go to another one who might lie also. Are you sure he lied,
maybe he just made statements based on inadequate knowledge.
The thing is that when we define God as truthful and science, and history as
human endeavors which are based on inadequate knowledge (that is why we
trust statistics in science and history over pontifications) what choice do
we have?
>The Scripture says that "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Tim 3:16. if God
>left his fingerprints on the Scripture, then HE is responsible for its
>truthfulness where it touches upon history. Does the scripture touch upon
>history when it says, "IN the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth?"
But is He required to present His message in a way that is historically
truthful by your standards of what is historical.
To me the Bible is historically plausible _from the point where we have
truly historical figures that have corroborative accounts and that can be
placed with historical certainty on a established historical time line_.
Those prior to the historically established time-line belong to the realm of
prehistory. That doesn't make them any less real, they just are not
historical figures.
I know I am using the terms history and historical differently than you are.
I think we need to use the terms more precisely.
>. . . why do you think
>God is trustworthy when he told a Middle Eastern mystic a tall tale about a
>Flood which couldn't happen physically?
Is it a tall tale because there is no geological, geomorphological, or
paleontological evidence of it? It is because I believe that God is
trustworthy that I accept that the flood occurred even though I cannot prove
it.
>And if God did not inspire the early chapters of Genesis, and it is merely
>mid-east cosmology, then why wouldn't God have communicated that this should
>be removed?
>Does the inclusion of uninspired mid-east cosmology and its
>lack of removal at a later date imply that God is unable to communicate with
>mankind?
I believe He did inspire those chapters as He did the rest of the Bible.
Glenn wrote
>>>Before you say that I am requiring every event (even the poetry) to be true,
>>>I am not. There is a certain level of problematical events I am willing to
>>>accept, but my limit is not very high. If I beleive that the historical
>>>inaccuracy of the Bible was as bad as the book of Mormon, I would not be a
>>>Christian.
I replied
>>So you want to pick and choose, that's convenient!
Glenn returned with
>Merely trying to avoid that old red herring that usually comes my way.
>Poetry is poetry. It is not history and was not meant to be history. But
>Genesis 2-11 is written in a similar style to Genesis 12-50. People
>generally beleive 12-50 is historical but often reject 2-11.
Poetry is not all that has been questioned. And it is a cheap shot to say
that poetry cannot make historical statements or contain true statements.
>. . . Simply believing in that which
>does not have evidence (which the resurrection does have) can allow one to
>believe anything. Believeing without evidence is why we have so many cults.
> It is why Ron L. Hubbard was able to win his bar-bet to found a new
>religion. People were willing to believe him without any evidence.
>Remember, Jesus offered Thomas his hands as evidence. John says that
>"which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked >at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word
of life." >NIV This is the recitation of physical evidence. Even John did
not have a
>simply believe approach to things.
Remember also what Jesus said to Thomas after the above quote,"Have you come
to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen
and have believed." NAB It is my thesis that we are those who have not seen
as Thomas did and yet believe.
The dichotomy stands. As a Christian we have a different standard in our
faith in God and in God Statements than we do a scientists, historians, etc.
We stand like a person with one foot on the dock and one foot on the gunnel
of a row boat.
It is tough, but I for one would have it no other way. I will not detract
from the power of the scientific method nor will I allow it to establish the
validity of my belief in my God. ( I place more weight on the dock, the row
boat will have to take care of itself.)
Again I hope my remarks are intelligible and I too enjoy the discussion.
In Him,
John
**********************************
John P. McKiness
P.O. Box 5666
Coralville, Iowa (U.S.A.) 52241
jmckines@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
**********************************