I have been thinking about our discussion (which is always a dangerous
thing). Every man's viewpoint has certain nail points--point upon which much
of the world view is hung upon. If a world view is to be changed, the nail
point must be changed. Here are the nail points of my world view. If you
can't alter these points, I simply can't move your direction on the issue of
what the scripture is like.
Nail point 1.
Lactantius's variation
Would God convey to us a true message in Genesis 1-11?
1. He is willing and able. Thus it is a true/historical message.
2. He is unwilling and able. Thus He is telling us something not true and He
knows it is untrue. Very unGodlike; very scary.
3. He is willing and unable. Very unGodlike.
4. He is unwilling and unable. -really bad option.
You have not responded to this issue and it is probably the most important
one for my world view.
Nail point #2.
You must show why the Days of Proclamation View is unworkable to accomplish
what I want. You haven't responded to that issue. I think the Days of
Proclamation view avoid the YEC problems entirely.
Nail point #3
You must show me that the method you advocate is better, namely that it is
not a subjective methodology. Your comment last night that practice is what
allows one to determine the literature type does not make me comfortable that
it is an objective methodology. I have seen two hermeneutical experts both
of whom have had lots of practice disagree vehemently on what type of
literature they had before them. At least with science I can prove
pythagoras' theorem objectively.
Nail point #4
You must show me why the same methodology applied will not be applied to
Genesis 2-11 to remove their VCR history also. Terry Gray was correct at
least as far as I am concerned when he wrote: "When Glenn and Stephen talk
about VCR recordable history, I suspect that they are talking about the ways
things happened, the actual course of events."
I obviously take more liberty with Genesis 1 than a YEC would so I can not
claim to be as concerned with Genesis 1 as I am with 2-11. That is why I
asked you a couple of days ago about the Flood. That is considered less than
historical by most theologians also and yet is appears to be written in a
historical manner. As a geoscientist, my main concern is with the flood,
less with Genesis 1. But what happens to Genesis 1 usually happens to
Genesis 6-9.
Unfortunately, I doubt we will come to agreement this soon. The type of
change either or both of us are required to make is one that will only occur
over a period of time as answers have time to percolate. These are the
issues which are very important to me and I haven't seen a response to these
issues. I really would appreciate your critques of these issue.
I have enjoyed this discussion but I think we are at a dead end unless you
can show the way around these nail points. Let's go on to an area where you
and I do agree, namely trying to convince our brethren that evolution is not
hostile to christianity. :-)
Your hopelessly (for now) concordist, friend,
glenn