><<If Bloesch's view of reason is that your faith determines what objective
>reality is, then I have great trouble with that. >>
>
>He does not believe this at all. Not at all. He is in line with the
>Reformers.They did not teach this either. I think the problem, again, is a
>tendency to be too Enlightenment in one's thinking. This shrinks the
>categories in ways the Biblical writers, Reformers and Bloesch do not.
>
Well, Jim your view seems to reflect that point of view. You said that
Genesis "transcends history (the limited view)". And you said that the fit
of your view with" modern archaeological knowledge is
irrelevant". If evidence of archaeological nature is not applicable to Early
Genesis then what on earth are we able to discuss about this issue?
Butterflies are irrelevant to the issue of how to understand Early Genesis
also, but they don't seem to be an appropriate topic for this forum.
I must say, your denial of the relevancy of data to the issue does not match
either your past actions or your contention above that Bloesch's views do not
mean a rejection of data (assuming you are following Bloesch). I am really
flummoxed here.
I wrote:
<<This quotation seems to imply that Bloesch believes Revelation should
leave footprints in history as well as in the changed lives of the
individuals.>>
Jim replied:
>>Of course he does! His book on Holy Scripture, as well as his Essentials of
Evangelical Theology (touching on the subject), leave no doubt. Pinnock,
Ramm and everyone else who is evangelical believes this. This was never an
issue.<<
It sure was an issue when you wrote yesterday,
>>By the way, the question you keep asking, "anything about how his 50,000
year creation of man view fits with modern archaeological knowledge" is
irrelevant, which is why I've charitably ignored it. As I keep saying, you
wouldn't ask these questions if you understood where I'm coming from. But
since you insist: Early Genesis is not about counting, but about theology.
It transcends history (the limited view). Thus, modern archeaological data is
a wrong, self-imposed measure for Scripture here. And wrong measures lead
inevitably to wrong conclusions. That's the way I see it.<<
Every time I raise an observational data point you have treated it with
irrelevancy as if it does not matter and now you are saying that events in
Scripture should leave footprints in history. Ok. What about the footprints
that should have been left by Noah's flood? The farming? If Genesis is the
only place this irrelevancy of observational data applies, then please say so
clearly. The more I listen to you I think I am talking to a Turing Test and
I just found the point of failure! I must compliment the program's author.
You wrote:
>>Only where verifiability is a valid criterion. Again, his most recent book
is
the clearest on this, especially in regards to Genesis 1-11.<<
OK. I see you have now stated that only at Genesis 1-11 does the irrelevancy
of data apply. Please summarize why he feels Early Genesis is not subject to
the verifiability criterion?
I wrote:
>><<If reason says that the revelation is unreasonable (like the turtle in
the
cosmic sea) then how is one to come to a belief that the revelation is from
God?>>
Jim replied:
>>Reason only says that revelation is unreasonable only when it is reason
that holds faulty premises. The error is in us, not God's Word.<<
So a swimming turtle would be O.K. by you?
I really am curious why the non verifiable criterion does not apply to
Genesis 1-11? What is the name of this book you are citing?
glenn