Of course I agree with you here. If my premise, that the Bible may contain
history, is wrong, then my view is trash, bad trash, and nothing but trash.
But if the early chapters of Genesis are not history then neither is Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 2:7 history. God did not create the universe. God did not
create the animals, God did not create the plants, and man is not a special
creation of God. O.K. Now you've convinced me. Christianity is wrong.
What do we talk about now? How is the world series going?
I wrote:
>>I am not trying to be unfair, but explain to me a simple question which you
don't want to respond to. How does your view of man's creation help the
Christian cause? Does it match with known archeological fact? >>
Jim Bell Replied:
>>How? By upholding the special creation of man. How's that for starters? By
being truer to the data than a 5.5 million year old, sea bearing hominid, for
another. By seeing the exact evidence of God's hand operating in different
levels of the cosmos. By being true to the intent of Scripture, rather than
forcing and sticking with a certain personal viewpoint merely so a theory
might hold water (you'll pardon the pun). By continuing to keep up with the
latest in theology as well as science, and not turning a blind eye to the
former. <<
But Jim, I too uphold the "special creation of man." I too see "God's hand
operating in different levels of the cosmos." But I think I could find a
whole gang of people who would think you do not hold to the original intent
of the Scripture because you believe Adam was created 50,000 years ago and
that Adam was not created 6 days after the origin of the universe. This
whole business of original intent is not really a satisfactory argument IMO
for anyone who differs from what the Hebrews believed when Moses wrote it.
Since there is no commentary written by Moses or Joshua, one might validly
claim that original intent is in the eye of the beholder. You can't prove,
in detail, what Moses intended any more than I can. And it is quite possible
that what Moses understood is not necessarily what God intended. Now if you
were to say traditional understanding rather than original intent, I might be
more inclined to agree with you here. As to modern theology, I don't agree
with a lot of what I see in modern theology and I doubt you do either.
Although I will grant that you might be better versed in theology than I.
But, fair or unfair, I will say this, for what ever reason, you still failed
to answer part of the question I asked. And it is the part I have asked
several times earlier. How does your view match up with known archeological
fact? Do you believe that farming occurred 50,000 years ago, or not? Were
there cities 50,000 years ago? How about a tiny two house village 50,000
years ago? Was there iron production 50,000 years ago? Why is there evidence
of a tent prior to Adam's creation? Why do Neanderthals, prior to Adam's
creation bury their dead with apparent ritual? Why do 2-million-year-old Homo
habilis have Broca's brain? Does your view make the Bible appear more likely
to be true (or contain spirutual truth) or less likely?
Then a detail of the Biblical events within your view would also be
nice. Was there a tower of Babel or not? Where was the flood? Or was there
not one? Was the flood global or local? What rocks represent the event? Is
there any relationship between what the flood account says and what happened
or not? Is all of Genesis 4 to be viewed non-historically?
Further, if Genesis 1-11 are to be viewed non-historically, then why do
you believe so strongly that Genesis 1:1 is true? Maybe it is non-historical
also. After all, Genesis 1 is a poem as I recall you telling me several
months ago. This inconsistency is something I really don't understand. You
argue that I should not be rigid in my Scriptural interpretation, but you
are as ridgid as I that Genesis 1:1 as an actual historical event. And yet
after 1:1 you want me to believe that everything is allegorical (and probably
not historical) until we get to the creation of Adam? You are rigid that man
must be a special creation, so I think you rigidly hold to the view that
Genesis 2:7 is an actual historical event (as I do). Is your view that after
Adam everything becomes non-literal and non-historical until Abraham? I
think what we have here is that you do not want me accepting as historical,
verses that you don't accept as historical. But I do believe that you think
Genesis 1:1 and 2:7 are historical. If they are not, would you clearly state
that?
glenn