Re: The importance of concordism

From: George Andrews (gandrews@as.wm.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 10:13:29 EST

  • Next message: James W Stark: "Re: Physical constants"

    Hi Glenn and George;

    glenn morton wrote:

    > At 08:23 AM 1/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
    >
    > > God _didn't_ choose to tell us "literally" how the universe, earth, life
    > &c came
    > >into being - there's nothing in the Bible about GUTs, nucleosynthesis, DNA
    > &c. That
    > >doesn't mean God didn't know about such things but it's not the way he
    > chose to describe
    > >creation.
    >
    > What I have, as always objected to, was the situation in which the universe
    > came into being in one way but the description which was inspired by God
    > was totally different. That is like going to buy a car and being told that
    > you will get a beautiful blue Crown Vic with whitewalls, stereo/CD player
    > and automatic seats. When you go to pick up the car you find a red Yugo
    > with no tires, a walkman and one of those old piano seats that you could
    > rotate to raise or lower it. It always strikes me as a bit of a bait and
    > switch routine if God can't tell us what actually happend.

    The Bible simply doesn't attempt to describe "how the universe came into being."
    Therefore, there is no problem worthy of your objection and your automobile analogy is
    superfluous. There is no need for God to tell us what actually happened; only that it
    was he who did it. Moreover, God indeed can't tell us what actually happened if we
    can't understand what actually happened; information transfer requires - and is
    therefore constrained by the receiver. God told Moses and his contemporaries what they
    "actually" could understand; he would - and does - speak differently today as is
    exemplified by the advent of the New Covenant found in Christ's teachings and
    established by the cross.

    (George M. wrote:)
    Inspiration means that God used the writers in their totality -
    >not just their hands but their minds, imaginations, understandings of the world with
    >their limitations &c.

    (Glenn Responded:)

    >
    > I would note that since the above statement is not actually stated in the
    > Bible, that you are reading your meaning into the process of inspiration.
    > While I agree with what you said, it must surely be acknoweldged that this
    > is also an example of seeing what we want to see.

    George M.'s statement is much more than wishful thinking as is repeatedly evidenced to
    buy the reactions of the prophets and saints when they receive revelation; i.e.,
    confusion and misunderstanding based upon their finite and cultural limitations. George
    M., as you agreed, is correct so why raise questions that serve to confuse? There is
    much about human methodologies, definitions and cognition that the Bible does not
    comment upon - and we do not doubt them.

    >
    >
    > But see, if you walked in to that 5th grade class to teach cosmology and
    > read Genesis 1 and then concluded with: "This is how God created the
    > world," would you think you had given them the truth? So why is it that we
    > should feel that God has given us the truth if it doesn't fit the facts?
    > That is why I take the interpretaional approach that I do. I avoid such
    > problems.
    >

    It does fit the fact that God created.. But this is a revelation that will not adhere
    to any scientific scrutiny; it is received by faith. Additionally - and particularly
    problematic for your position - is that the account also reveals the "fact" that the
    sky was a solid sphere holding back an ocean above. I ask sincerely: what modern
    notions can salvage this latter "Biblical fact"?

    >
    > But that doesn't address the real issue I am raising which is, why can't
    > God tell the truth? You feel that God tells the truth in Genesis 1 when the
    > ancients wrote it, but I doubt seriously you would feel the same if a YEC
    > came into the class and read Genesis 1 and said that was how God created
    > the world. We can't have one standard for God(a lower one) and another for
    > us(a higher one).
    >

    Why do you insist that truth must be quantifiable? Language inherently is not so. The
    truths and untruths (e.g., solid spheres) of Genesis can be deciphered intelligently
    without resort to naivety of interpretation.

    Sincerely

    George A.





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 10:05:57 EST