At 11:05 PM 5/29/97 -0500, John P. McKiness wrote:
>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?
>
No. I thought that is what you were saying. I inferred this from what you
wrote on Tue, 27 May 1997 19:39:45 -0500:
>We either accept that
>the flood of Genesis (the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, etc.)
>occurred by faith or we don't, and neither science nor the Bible can be used
>to prove to a skeptic either that it occurred or it didn't. That is the
>nature of these two different forms of knowledge. We live in a dichotomy
>when we live by faith.
and what you wrote in your last message
>Whose apologetics are acceptable for preventing "people from leaving the
>faith?"
>Discipleship requires a childlike faith not apologetics.
If we must accept the flood by faith, and I responded that it is a
discispleship issue, and they you say that discipleship requires childlike
faith, I presume you are arguing that we must not look for evidence of the
existence of the flood or Abraham or David etc.
What I am saying is that if they existed, then it is quite reasonable to ask
where is the evidence for that existence. Similarly, if there was a flood,
it was a PHYSICAL event. As such it should have left PHYSICAL evidence of
itself. IF there is none, then the conclusion would be that there was no
flood and the Scriptural account of Genesis no better than any other mythology.
>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.
Your argument has problems While you may accept the flood or Abe's
existence, you are believing the Account because you believe the account,
not because there is any evidence for it. God's testimony is valid ONLY if
God tells the truth!!!. IF God tells mankind lies about events in the past,
like the flood, or creation, then God's testimony is as worthless as any
used car saleman's.
>
>>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.
But if God tells lies??????
>
>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.
>
Thomas demanded evidence. He at least had to see Jesus. He didn't require
touching, but he did demand visual contact. What is wrong with that?
>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.
Once again, if the events in the God-inspired Bible are false, then what is
the value of God's standards?
>
>
>>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.
But they don't have to be true. The Book of Mormon comes to mind. Lots of
events are Preserved in writing but they are all false. Yet millions
believe their truth because they trust Joseph Smith. They too believe their
account because they believe their account, not because there is any
evidence for it.
>
>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.
Agreed. But that doesn't apply to the OT accounts.
Of Genesis 1:1 you wrote:
>Both verses are God Statements not necessarily scientifically verifiable
>historical statements, such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
Lincoln's address is scientifically verifiable in part. There is the back
of that old envelope.
You wrote;
>He does tell us what we need to know and what He tells us is true.
>
Then there must be a flood and floods leave physical evidence. Where is the
evidence?
>
>> 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.
No I am sure. He said he would install seats in the back of my
stationwagon. Seats never appeared.
>
Of gods statements,
>But is He required to present His message in a way that is historically
>truthful by your standards of what is historical.
Yes if he refers to them as history.
>
>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.
What of the Flood? Almost all of geology is prehistory yet we beleive that
continental drift occurred, left evidence and is real
>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.
I am not saying that and have argued often that poetry can relate true
information. I apologize for misunderstanding your position.
>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.
>
But Jesus didn't say, "Unsaved are those who have demanded evidence".
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm