Re: The importance of concordism

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 17:24:37 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "Re: *Physical constants"

    At 10:13 AM 1/12/00 -0500, George Andrews wrote:
    >The Bible simply doesn't attempt to describe "how the universe came into
    >being."

    My response to this is where have you been over the past 40 centuries in
    which both Jewish and Christians scholars actually thought the Bible was
    telling them what actually happened and how the universe came into being?
    This is eisegetism at its best.

    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.

    But that isn't what the Bible tells us. If the Bible simply said, "God
    created the heavens and the earth, and then went into Genesis 12:1, there
    would be no creation/evolution issue at all. Sometimes I think your
    approach is the biggest cop out around. It ignores 30-40 centuries of
    judeochristian heritage and acts as if the modern interpretation is the
    only way anyone should have ever understood the Bible. That is silly.

    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.

    Why is it so hard for people to understand that God could tell a simplified
    but true story. No one expects an electron by electron account.
     
    >God told Moses and his contemporaries what they "actually" could understand;

    Bull! those people were everybit as smart as you or I. This is merely 21st
    century arogance that acts like we are the supreme intelligences of the
    universe. Evolution was thought of by peoples contemporary or nearly
    contemporary with the ancient Hebrews. Are you saying the Hebrews were too
    stupid to understand the concept of evolution? Of course they wweren't.
    This is merely a cop out.

    (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). --end of what I wrote George A. continues

      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.

    No where did I quantify truth! What on earth are you talking about. I was
    talking about standards of behavior.

    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 23:19:26 EST