Re: The place of history in Christianity

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Sat Jun 10 2000 - 05:27:47 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Methane in the late Archean"

    Hi Paul,
    this will be my last note in this thread. You may have the last word. I
    have such a little over a month before I move and I want to concentrate my
    time discussing objective data. This and the thread that I have had with
    George are philosophical.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
    To: <mortongr@flash.net>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 3:07 AM
    > 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.

    It is NOT a matter of what I feel is better. It is a matter of what is TRUE.
    If it is true that there are numerous gods squabbling with each other then a
    monotheistic theology is ipso facto false. You assume that what you were
    taught as a child is automatically the metaphysical view of the universe and
    then judge everything from that perspective. What matters is not what we are
    taught, but what is true.

    The only way you can judge the theology to be 'corrected' is by a prior
    assumption that there is but one god. You accept this by faith but you can't
    prove it.

    >
    > 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?
    > (-:

    Actually, since I published that it was pointed out to me the inconsistency,
    so I now do hold that the ark landed on the shores of Turkey. The Mountains
    of Ararat which is the mountainous region in Eastern Turkey, geologically
    extend from eastern Turkey to Adana. Geologically that entire system is one
    mountainous region. Thus by landing there near the region of Adana one is on
    the same mountain chain. It was Bill Hamilton who got me to change on this
    point. I always try to eliminate my inconsistencies the best that I can.
    You should try it. :-)

    >
    > <<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.

    I always wonder what Wittgenstein would say about the use of the word
    'unprejudiced' above. One sees this often in these debates. Sometimes the
    word 'unbiased' is used instead of 'unprejudiced'. What I have come to
    believe that the use of this word indicates that one is 'unprejudiced' if
    one agrees with my position. Obviously, none of us like to think that we
    are prejudiced so each individual using the term believes himself to have
    objectively arrived at his or her view. I have never heard anyone say "Yes I
    study geology/archaeology/ancient Near Eastern literature with a decided
    bias towards a particular interpretation. But of course, everyone who
    disagrees with me is most assuredly biased/ prejudiced etc. and thus have
    not come to the correct conclusion.

    The real trick is to seriously examine one's personal biases--we all have
    them.

    All that being said, you didn't answer the question. Does God accomondate
    his THEOLOGY to the theology of the day? You seem to avoid that question.
    In the above you reverted to speaking about God accomodating science. If he
    accomodates to the science of the day, does he accomodate to the theology of
    the day? Yes or no?

    >
    > 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.

    It is if God claims to have created the universe. If I say I created the
    universe, you would ask me to give you proof. If I couldn't tell you what
    happened before the scientists discovered it, then you would have no reason
    to give any credence to my claim. Yet we give God a free pass. It seems to
    me that God can be wrong as all get out about what happened, and we don't
    really care. Why would I believe a god who doesn't know what happened any
    more than you would believe my claim to have created the universe if I
    couldn't tell you what happened during the creation.? Why wouldn't you give
    me a pass?

    You can have the last word.

    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 Jun 10 2000 - 10:34:22 EDT