Glenn said,
<< And if God isn't willing to correct people on observational data errors as
part of his inspiration, why should we believe that he is willing to correct
theological errors. >>
Unless you believe that a theology of numerous selfish gods fighting with
each other is not better than the one God revealed in Genesis, it is evident
by comparing the related Babylonian accounts to Genesis that the theology has
been corrected.
You cannot ask this question anyway because in your book on the Flood, to
avoid having your theory of a Mediterranean Flood falsified by Noah's ark
landing in the mountains of Ararat, you say, "Noah would not have had the
vaguest idea of where he had landed, so if the name of the mountains of
Ararat have come down to us from him rather than through revelation, the name
might represent Noah's best guess." So, you really are willing to believe
that God may not be willing to correct a false observational error as part of
his inspiration. Or is that belief only available to protect _your_ theory?
(-:
<<And if God accommodates his message to the science of the day there is no
way you can possibly ensure that he doesn't also accomodate his message to
their theological presuppositions of the day. If God accommodates to the
theology of the day, then there is no way to know if the theology we have is
true or not.>>
Again it is evident in the first few verses of Genesis that God has
accommodated his revelation to the science of the day. Both the Egyptians
with their primordial water of creation called Nun and the Babylonians with
their primordial waters of creation called Apsu and Tiamat show that an earth
covered 100% by Tehom water in the liquid state (Gen 1:2) fits perfectly into
the science of the times (but does not fit modern science). And the solid
firmament which splits the waters of Tehom in two (Gen 1:6, 7) is very
closely paralleled by the splitting of the waters of Tiamat (same basic word,
but feminine) in Enuma elish; so, this also fits the science of the day like
a hand to a glove (but does not fit modern science). So, there is no "if".
It is evident to any unprejudiced person who studies ancient Near Eastern
literature, that Gen 1 is accommodated to the science of the day.
But, this does not logically entail that therefore "there is no way to know
if the theology we have is true or not." Jesus said, "If anyone is willing
to do his (God's ) will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of
God…" (John 7:17)
<<So exactly what in theology is objective in your view? Science is objective,
events in history are objective, theology isn't. All those guys I listed
above have their own theology.>>
I agree with the apostle Paul that the historicity of the resurrection is an
integral necessary part of Christianity (I Cor 15:14) and think that his one
chapter alone gives enough historical testimony to establish objectively its
historical occurrence. I do not believe that establishing the "true history
of the planet" is in any way comparably necessary.
Best wishes,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 23:07:35 EDT