<<From this one can say that apologetics is concerned with showing that the
Christian doctrines are in conformity to actuality.>>
This is too limited a definition. Apologetics is really the broad defense of
the faith, in any way, shape or form. It is defense, and it is explication.
Peter writes, "Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is in
you." Such preparation presupposes different angles of inquiry from "outside."
<<Given this definition, apologetics must be considered to be the branch of
theology which attempts to prove that the Bible is consistent with all facts,
both observational and deductive.>>
This is fine, but there is a hidden assumption (based on previous posts) that
should be made clear, and that is that Glenn believes everything in the Bible
(outside the wisdom literature I presume) is to be taken literally--in a view
that is no different from standard, American fundamentalism. I believe this
hidden assumption is incorrect, in the same way Bernard Ramm ("After
Fundamentalism") did.
<<It is a fact that Genesis 4:2 says, "Cain worked the
soil". One can argue that Cain really didn't work the soil and thus the
verse is erroneous, but one can not deny the fact of WHAT the Bible says.
What must be determined is, Is this fact worth defending as an event? Jim
would say no.>>
One can also argue that the form here is saga, and that the key is not the
"event" (defined by Glenn in journalistic terms) but the "meaning". I think
Glenn misses this aspect of Scripture. And numerous current scholars would
agree. Rather than re-posting page after page of such scholarship, I really
leave it to the interested parties if they want to follow up on the works I've
cited.
<<If I am correct that it is better for an apologetical view to
harmonize as many points as possible with the observed facts of nature, then
in the case of Genesis 4:2 which said "Cain worked the soil", is it not
better to incorporate this than not to incorporate this?>>
Not if that is not what Scripture intends. Otherwise, you are undertaking a
task that is not called for, that is not compelled, and that may lead
inevitably to erroneous conclusions.
<< It would seem to me
that in the best of all possible apologetics we would have historical proof
of each and every event described by the Bible. >>
No, I don't think so. This has been the fundamentalist viewpoint, and it has,
in my opinion, failed. Not for lack of integrity or faith, but for a misguided
notion of the intent of Scripture. As Ramm wrote, fundamentalists "have not
developed a theological method that enables them to be consistently
evangelical in their theology and to be people of modern learning. That is why
a new paradigm is necessary." Glenn, I think, operates under the old paradigm.
An effective aplogetic, I think, should do what Ramm says--incorporate the
knowledge we continue to gain, reject that which is faulty, and deal with the
data as it is--which includes both Biblical data (and what it is meant for),
and observational data.
Jim