You wrote:
>>Glenn, you like H.G. Wells, seem only to conceive the notion of
historicity in just one way. Moreover, with this cannon you both suggest
that it can be applied to metaphysical realities.<<
The problem I have with this is that the universe is not simply a
metaphysical reality. It is a physical reality. It is a physical reality
with historical events. While one might place the actual creation event
outside of space-time(history), one can not place Adam and Eve, the origin of
the animals, the origin of the sun and all that outside of history
I also have the problem that the method of hermeneutics you are using might
very well be extremely harmful to christianity if applied to the New
Testament. I have heard some state (although I could not document this) that
they believe that the star of Bethlehem, the angels and all were merely
cultural appendages used for setting apart the birth of great men. According
to this view Caesars had great events occur in the heavens at their
birth.(once again I could not cite you a reference for this and now I am
kicking myself for not documenting that). If pushed to the limit, is the
resurrection merely a cultural attachment to set Jesus apart and make him
God? Maybe the resurrection is a metaphysical rather than physical reality.
As I mentioned last night, it is going to take me a long time before I can
see me changing on this. I may very well be wrong in my epistemology and
hermeneutics [I have been grieviously wrong before in my life]. But I can't
see any reason to believe any of the miraculous under that hermeneutic.
George Washington performed great deeds also. He threw silver dollars
across the Potomac River (a human impossiblity if it was not at the source of
the Potomac). That story is nothing more than the appendage of superhuman
feats to a great man. It is not historically true but it does represent the
metaphysical reality of George's greatness.
I just don't see a way out of this impasse I find myself in with regard to
how history and Scripture combine. If it is not historical in the common
notion of that word, then I see no point to believing any of it.
You wrote:
>>Let me clarify with an example what I have just written (which may seem
rather esoteric). We all agree that we bear the imago Dei. Can you tell
me when in our development history it was imparted on our being?
Was it fertilization? Did spermatogenesis and oogenesis result in cells
with half an imago Dei? Or did God impart it in us in its entirety? And
when? Or was it even imparted in a point in time?<<
Your analogy fails because there is a major difference between the imago Dei
and the creation of the animals. An observer watching development obviously
can not tell when the imago Dei is imparted. But then he can not prove that
we have the imago Dei in any objective fashion. With creation, I can prove
(or feel fairly certain that I can prove) that life exists. As an observer,
I would have been able to watch the sudden (or gradual) appearance of life.
I would have been able to demarcate where life began (first self-replicating
molecules or at the first miraculous appearance of life). This is a major
difference between the imago Dei and the creation of life.
You wrote:
>> As you don't drink and drive, you
don't mix epistemological categories without getting disastrous results.<<
I might add that non-theologians (me) should probably not try to argue with a
theologian (you) on the theologian's turf. Doing so might lead to a
disastrous end. Want to talk about geology now? :-)
glenn