At 10:18 PM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> The fact remains that I do not "reject" Genesis 3. "Don't believe to be an
>accurate account of historical events" is not equivalent to "reject".
So how inaccurate can Truth be? Especially Truth which is inspired by God?
How inaccurate can God's Truth be? And if God's truth is inaccurate here,
is He inaccurate when it comes to telling us the way of Salvation? How
inaccurate is that message? And if it is inaccurate, is it still possible
for us to be saved?
>
>
>> >>>But you seem to be arguing that _logically_ the NT claim that Christ
>> atoned for sin requires that sin be understood as having originated
>> historically as described in Gen.3, & thus that we can conclude that if
>> Christ really atoned for sin then Gen.3 must have really happened that
>> way.<<<
>> If Genesis 3 didn't happen the way it is written, then clearly what is
>> written is absolutely false. It happened in some other way that is not
>> written. And if it happened in some other way, then Adam didn't sin at all.
>> Someone else did in some other way.
>
> There IS nobody else!!
> Adam is "human being". Adam & Eve are the first humans.
Not necessarily. If the account is inaccurate in other details, how can we
know that Adam and Eve are accurate names of the only 2 people on earth at
that time? Or is Genesis 3 accurate in giving us their names, but not what
happened? How do we know that there is nobody else? The account afterall
isn't accurate. Or do we merely accept what we want and reject the rest?
Genesis 3 is a story
>of the first sin of the first humans, and of the sins of all humans.
Not if it is inaccurate. How do I know that accuracy extends that far?
The claim that all
>humans are sinners is true also of the first humans. Genesis 3 is a true
story of how
>humans (including the first humans) transgress the limits God has set. It
is a true
>story of how humans (including the first humans) put themselves & other
things ahead of
>God.
You are the one who thinks I am wrong to consider Genesis 3 as accurate
history. But if it isn't accurate history how on earth can you say that
Genesis 3 relates anything of value at all? mere presupposition?
> By the same simple logic, Psalm 23 is false. No, don't do all your
dodging &
>weaving about poetry. Don't try the "it's a different kind of thing from
Gen.3" gambit.
>Ps.23 is a part of the Bible that says things which are false. I'm not a
sheep & I
>don't eat grass. It's simple logic.
Genesis 3 is not in a book of poetry. Psalms 23 is. Is Abraham poetry? Is
Joseph poetry? How does one know when to believe it is nonpoetry? When we
feel like it? And when it comes right down to it, I won't worship poetry.
>
>> I would rather follow Provine, my former boss, Templeton and Farrell Till
>> than believe what is false is really true and what is true is described by
>> a false story. I really mean that.
>
> I think it's really sad that someone who obviously is very intelligent can
>be so blind to the possibility of truth being conveyed by something other
than a
>listing of historical events.
And I think it sad that a person of your education can believe that which
has no accuracy and find it to be trustworthy.
> How can you sing "Rock of Ages" with a clear conscience?
>When someone says "My heart is broken" do you hand them a roll of duct tape?
No I don't hand them a roll of tape. But then if God can't communicate to
us any real truth and He knows no history then why bother with Him.? That
is where your theology leads me. To me I would feel self-deceived. I was
deceived and self-deceived once as a YEC. I simply won't go there again. I
want the real truth and nothing but the real truth. Not some sham where I
must believe that that which is not true really is true.
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 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 22:35:02 EST