You wrote:
>> Look at
the PHENOMENON of the Biblical Text, and let it shape your view of the
revelatory process. Don't come the Text with YOUR ideas of how God
should have inspired or what a Holy Spirit inspired Text should be.
To be sure, we quite agree on the CONTENT of the Biblical message, but we
disagree on PHENOMENON of the Text. By the way, it is because I became aware
of the latter that I left YEC.<<
The problem I have with the modern view of how to interpret the Scripture
resides in what I view as the implications to God's character for a false
message. It really is a variation on Lactantius' (ca 300 B.C.argument for
atheism. God wishes to tell us a true message or is unable; He is able but
unwilling; He is unable and unwilling; He is both willing and able. This is
the question I have. If this issue is not dealt with, I will have problems
going your direction.
You wrote:
>>He could have. But the question is did He? Is this question inspired by
Glenn's conception of how God reveals, or does it come from what we
glean to be the revelatory process as testified in the Text by both its
CONTENT and PHENOMENA?<<
No, the question was not simply pulled out of the air. The question comes
from the logic Lactantius provided. For anyone's information, Lactantius'
question was why was there evil in the world. God could remove it if he is
willing and able. You can fill in the logic.
You wrote:
>>This indeed is a wonderfully concise expose of the CONCORDIST
hermeneutic. But is it true? I am convince what is operative here is
one of our 20th century epistemic virtues--the law of correspondence.
And this is not to say it is not an important tenet in my epistemology.
The question is: "Should we apply it to this particular type
of literature?" I say "no" because if you do you will find it creates more
problems than it solves.<<
As a scientist you have to expect concordism in your theories as I do. Would
you, believe in phlogiston theory because it conveys deep metaphysical truth?
I doubt it. We both know it is fallacious, untrue, and not factual Why do
we accept such a view of scripture in its historical portions? Just because
it is literature? Or is it that we have been totally unable to find a
successful concordistic theory?
I also have to expect concordism in the resurrection account. I have to
expect concordism in Abraham's life (the events of his life concord with the
story). Let's move a little further back.
Which of Abraham's ancestors is the last "concordistic" individual in the
sense that he actually existed as a historical individual?
Should the Tower of Babel be concordist with actual history?
What about the flood?
What about the events of Genesis 4 and 5?