> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 10:59 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Adam never met Eve
> So for myself, not having grown up being told that the Bible
> was true most of my life, and coming to a faith in college,
> the first 11 chapters of Genesis have never been that important to
> my confidence in testamony of scripture. However, if I must
> accept that the Exodus is merely a "good story", I honestly
> would have to reject most (if not all) of my Christian faith,
> or at "best?", to preserve some remnant of my faith, I would
> have to commit something akin to a Marcion heresy. I think
> it would be quite difficult to preserve a faith in the Gospel
> if the "Law" is simply a "good story".
Wayne, this reply isn't for you but is for general consumption:
This gets to the real point of my insistence upon the early chapters having
historicity. Everyone, whether they will admit it or not, has some point at
which they will reject christianity if some crucial part of the story isn't
historically true. The crucial part of the story differs for all of us, but
it isn't very useful for some to criticize one person's line in the sand
when they have one also. If they truly don't have any line in the sand
regarding the truth of Christianity based upon some historical fact, then
that is most assuredly a different sort of christianity than any I have
seen. We must realize that some will have tighter constraints upon what they
are willing to believe than others, but we shouldn't insist that they give
those constraints up. To do so is to insist that they reject christianity!
Does this mean that we shouldn't tell the YEC to give up YECism? No. They
can still have historicity either in the way I have suggested or in the way
Dick Fischer has suggested.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 18:47:42 EST