glenn morton wrote:
...........................
I respond briefly to a couple of points because I don't want to distract
from my main point at the end.
..........................
> 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?
First let's note that _your_ claim to understand Genesis 3 as _history_ is
spurious. Your reconstructions of what may have happened millions of years ago with the
first humans are indeed ingenious but they are simply claims that it "could have"
happened that way. For all your useful compilations of data, we have no historical or
paleontological or other data so finely focussed on the first human beings that enables
us to say with any certainty that they were named Adam & Eve or that they ate from a
forbidden tree or anything like that. Thus your claims to "accurate history" are
vacuous. It's "coulda been", "not impossible" history.
More importantly, Gen.3 is a _theological_ text which says that human beings are
sinners. Its accuracy is to be judged by theological criteria. If you deny that you're
a sinner, I can't prove it to you by a study of ancient history. In the same way, if
you refuse to believe that your sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, no amount of
information about the historical Jesus will prove it to you.
............................
> > 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.
Nice dodging & weaving. The fact remains that by your criteria this part of
the Bible is "inaccurate".
................
> 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.
You never got away from it. You've just stretched out the time scale.
..............................
The way in which this whole discussion has gotten away from the initial
subject is an illustration of precisely the point I made to start with. That point
was that discussions on this list, & most Evangelical ones of science & religion, seldom
make any connection with Christ. Here we started out talking supposedly about the
relationship between atonement & Genesis 3 but the subject has been reduced entirely to
the historical accuracy of Genesis 3, whether the first humans were really named Adam &
Eve &c. The debate is not about christology but adamology. In fact, I was criticized
at one point for supposedly "subsuming" the Old Testament into the New, as if it were
self-evidently ridiculous to give any kind of priority to the New! I rest my case.
Shalom,
George
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:29:44 EST