With respect to definition number 1, you can tell everyone your views are
sound until the cows come home, but that won't carry as much weight as
what your critics will have to say. You might be more successful in
arguing that your views are *scientific* and not *theological*, however,
I doubt you would escape so easily because you seem intent upon
presenting a challenge to theologians as well as scientists.
You hardly meet the requirements of the second definition. You would
have probably been burned at the stake as a heretic had you lived
during some periods of church history (and ps, I'm not advocating
that....).
The sixth definition has hardly any applicability here, since your views
have only just recently been widely proposed. They are hardly con-
ventional.
I left out several other definitions because I'm not sure that they apply.
But, by all means, don't let me influence you to refrain from looking them
up...
Therefore, I think it is reasonable of Mr. Bell to make the statement that he
made.
I too find some of your views to be MOST unorthodox. You seem to be
unprepared to recognize that some of us will (legitimately) come to that
conclusion. Better get used to it!
> Let's make this easy. I do not know how the message was transmitted from
>the time of the flood to modern man. So I will state the two reasons I give
>in my book. God could have given it to Moses by revelation or the message
>been handed down by oral transmission. Period. In the book I say nothing
>about revelation to other cultures! Oral transmission might work but you
>don't think so. So for the time being I will agree with you. God gave the
>story to Moses and he wrote it in the Pentateuch period the end. I am NOT
>required to explain the flood stories throughout the world as they are not
>divinely inspired nor necessarily due at all to the flood of Noah. So, I
>will strip this down further. The flood stories of various cultures are just
>that -- stories with no particular source.
Ah, BUT -- isn't it interresting that they DO exist with several common
denominators from many widely separated cultures which are CONSISTENT
with the Biblical account of the flood? I think such a remarkable *coincidence*
deserves at least SOME attention... Let's not take folks to task for bringing
this up...
>Thus I renounce the view that God talks to the heathen under any
>circumstances. I am not a theologian so I do not know who God talks to, or
>when He talks to them.
Glenn! You don't need to be a theologian to know this! The whole PURPOSE
of the New Testament might be called *GOD TALKS TO THE HEATHEN*.
And God certainly does not tell me to whom He is
>talking nor does He ask my permission. I will yield to a lawyer's better
>understanding of the scripture than mine. I am merely a scientist.
No -- you are a Christian who is also a scientist. And your views are going
to have an impact on one, the other, or both. You keep telling us that you
lack in your understanding of the Bible (though you do an admirable job...)
yet you have no hesitancy to argue forcefully for views which challenge
conventional, orthodox *wisdom* held by those who DO presume to be
experts in theological matters. Sure, you can find a bunch of theologians
who will agree with you and say you're not being unorthodox. On the
other hand, I can find a bunch of theologians who will most certainly say
you do hold to some unorthodox views.
>Thus, I
>will agree with you that the dreams of pharoah, Nebuchadnezzar and pilate's
>wife were not from God. I still believe that the angel Cornelius saw was
>from God. That is the only exception I will make. As usual you evaded an
>important point by not mentioning Cornelius in your post charging me with
>unorthodoxy. If you charge me with unorthodoxy then you MUST explain why the
>angel Cornelius saw was not from God. Was he from the devil? After you
>explain this point of theology to me I am sure that I will agree with your
>reasoning.
>NOW. With that out of the way entirely. Here are my views.of Genesis 1-11.
>
> I believe in literal 24 hour days in Genesis 1. Is this unorthodox?
>
>I believe that Eve was created from a rib removed from Adam's side! Is this
>unorthodox?
>
>I believe that Eve talked to a snake in the grass and ate a fruit, offered it
>to Adam who deliberately chose to sin with Eve thus plunging the human race
>into a fallen state! Is this unorthodox?
>
>I believe that the Flood was local in extent but anthropologically universal.
> All humanity save 8 died. Is this unorthodox?
YES! For some of us, the answer is going to be YES! Get used to it! The
Bible specifically says that the entire earth was destroyed! Do you really
think that mankind could live on this planet for as long as you claim and
NOT have inhabited every nook and cranny of it? Does this make good
*scientific* sense? If you can assume evolution, then why would this be
such a stretch?
>I can even believe that the ark landed in Turkey.(not that I prefer to or
>think this is required) Is this unorthodox?
>
>I believe that the Tower of Babel is a historical event! Is this unorthodox?
>
>I believe that the people in the genealogies are real, historical personages.
> Is this unorthodox?
>
I have rearranged two of Glenn's comments and placed them together, since
there is a point to be made...
>I believe that Adam was a special creation by God Himself! Is this
>unorthodox?
Well, no -- but then we read what Glenn REALLY thinks...
>I believe that Adam's body was largely made by God by the means of evolution.
> The creation of the soul and some final adjustments to Adam's body were
>directly accomplished by God's own hand! Is this unorthodox?
Yep. For some of us, it is. Oorthodoxy means that God specially *created*
Adam, and that he did not *evolve*. You say you think Adam was a *special
creation* of God's, but that God used evolution to accomplish this goal. The
Bible says that God *made* and *created*man, it does not say that man
*evolved*. Evolution is not a part of orthodoxy. It is an idea conceived
outside
the realm of the Bible. Of course, we all know that just because something
isn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it's not so. But the point here
is, that
evolution has NOT been compellingly established on its own merits to justify
taking the position you have taken Glenn. You have taken the position that
evolution is true, and therefore, you must find a way to make evolution fit into
the theological picture. This is unfortunate, and isn't necessary. Even for
a *scientist*.
Glenn -- though I and many others might agree with 90% of your theology,
let's face it, you DO have some *unorthodox* views. I think Jim Bell was
anticipating that this would upset you -- and that's why he urged you to
relax (correct me if I'm mistaken, Jim).
> I would say this is not at all unorthodox especially in light of the modern
>knowledge that the atoms and molecules in my body came from the food I eat.
> Therefore my present body is a mixture of chickens, cows, scorpions,
>alligator, turtle, sea slug, sea weed, duck, pig, and many other plants and
>animals that I have eaten. My body has been derived from animals and plants.
> So what is the problem with Adam's body being derived from animals?
The big problem is -- maybe it DIDN'T happen that way. In any event, you
can't compellingly demonstrate that it DID. You adopt evolution with all its
holes and foibles -- and you incorporate it into your theology. This is
dangerous ground.
>I DEMAND a response to each issue above. You owe me that much. If you are
>going to throw such charges around at least be courageous enough to provide
>a point by point substantiation to the charge. Making charges like you are
>doing should only be done when the issue is clearly unorthodox. I do not see
>anything unorthodox in the above.
Hey Glenn -- you never responded to all of mine, so, don't ask others to do
what you don't do.
========================
Kevin Wirth
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206) 391-3698 Voice
(206) 392-0192 FAX