You quoted me responding to Denis' excellent and pointed jabs at my positon
but didn't quote what I view as the basis of the character issue that you are
mulling over. Since some may have missed this over the holidays, I will
repeat the logical thread I feel raises the character issue.
Ask the question, "Would God tell us a true story of creation?"
There are only 4 possible answers I can think of
1. He is willing and able. Thus he told us a true (but incomplete) account.
2. He is unwilling and able. Raises the problem of who penned the message we
have in Genesis 1-11. If it is wrong, and God inspired it, then God lied.
If God let Moses write what he wanted, then what do we have in the record?
3. He is willing but unable. Questions God's potency.
4. He is unwilling and unable. Both bad options for God's character.
This is a variation of Epicurus' argument for atheism .
You wrote:
>>I said elsewhere that I suspect that the human author of Genesis 1 (and of
the flood narrative) believed in a "flat earth / sky sandwich" cosmology,
and that the language of the narratives (and the ordering of the days of
Genesis 1) reflects that belief. I suspect that God chose to reveal
important theological truths through the medium of Ancient Near Eastern
language and thought forms, without first correcting their mistaken
"cosmology" or historical beliefs.<<
This is the view that Denis has been advocating. While I have no problem
with the language coloring the account, I do have a problem still if God is
unable to break through that language and get a basically correct view to us.
This would not require scientific language because we can say, "This car hit
that car and caused a lot of damage" and say something true without talking
about tensile strengths of metal plates.
You wrote:
>>Preliminary point 1: This idea does not conflict with the doctrine of
inerrency (although perhaps with a few versions of it); however, it does
force us to take extra care.<<
I would prefer not to put the argument in terms of inerrancy, but in terms of
what a wrong message means to Gods character (see above)
You wrote:
>>1) For the sake of the human author and the immediate audience. God had a
message to communicate, and now was the right time to do it! For God to
stop and correct their historical/cosmological misperceptions would have
gotten in the way of what God wanted to teach! (God knows our human
limitations, and makes allowances for them.)<<
This is indeed an interesting suggestion. But I find one problem and that is
today (contrary to your point 3), we do not take comfort in having a story
that makes no scientific or observational sense. I don't really believe that
God had to correct their cosmology in order to give them a correct view of
what happened. A case in point is the evolution of life. They may have
viewed Genesis 1 like a YEC would but I see in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24 God
commanded the waters and land respectively to bring forth life. In light of
modern evolutionary views, the waters were the first place life arose and if
Cairns-Smith is correct, life arose from inorganic clay i.e. "eretz'
'land-ground'. (See A.G. Cairns-Smith, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life,
Cambridge Univ. PRess, 1985) Thus I think God did break through the ANE
language to leave us the true message.
If God had wanted to avoid the problem altogether He could have simply said
"I created you guys" and then gone from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 12:1. This
would have sufficed to be a true (but incomplete) statement of fact. It would
have avoided ANY of our erroneous cosmology. So why all the additions of
Adam, Eve, the snake, Cain's family, the Flood, etc.?
You wrote:
>> Perhaps God wants us to know that the
"inspiration" of scriptures does not mean "divine dictation." Perhaps God
wants us to know that scriptures are not a reference book for answering
every one of life's little questions. <<
I quite agree here. Genesis 1-11 is too short to be an all inclusive
scientific or otherwise answer-book. It is not divine dictation, but if he
couldn't tell us the correct message, (as clearly could have been done as I
showed above) then is He unable or unwilling? To me the issue gets to the
very heart of God's power.
You wrote:
>> Perhaps, by using Ancient Near Eastern cosmology
to teach about Creation, God is once again showing us that his scriptures
are not intended to answer certain kinds of questions.<<
This is what Jim is arguing. Then why tell us anything. Why put in the
scriptures a whole lot of milarky about creation which causes lots of people
to endlessly discuss the issue. If God had left out Genesis 1-11, we would
have very little problem with modern science. He obviously wanted us to get
something out of it. And I hope it is more than that Genesis 1-11 is false.
You wrote:
>>5) For our sakes today --- so that we don't put all our faith in God
purely on the basis of recorded narratives (or what others tell us about
God), but instead we ALSO look to our own experiences with God as a source of
faith in God's character. It has been asked, "If Genesis offers
untrustworthy history, how can we trust scriptures to teach us about
salvation?" The answer, clearly, is that we trust GOD.<<
I would be uncomfortable with this approach. While our trust should most
definitely be in God, we learn of God through the pages of the Scripture. If
we cut our connection there, then our conception of God and who and what He
is becomes very subjective. Prior to our converstion, we do not have the
"experiences with God".
You wrote:
>> It has been asked, "But how can we know about
God's character if we can't trust the historical veracity of every single
Biblical story?" Well, my faith in God's character is only PARTLY based
upon what I read in the Bible. It is also based upon the existence of the
church and the experience of God, and his grace, in my life and the lives
of my friends and family. And isn't that how faith is supposed to be? If
faith in God's character is based solely upon scriptural stories, then it
only has half a foundation. <<
I will ask you what I asked another person. How many stories and accounts in
the Bible can be untrue before we begin to think that the whole thing is
erroneous. If every story were verifiably false except the resurrection,
would we have much reason to beleive in the resurrection?
If I recall correctly, you are a physicist. How many predictions of
Einstein's relativity need to be false before you would know that relativity
is false? If only one prediction of relativity were wrong, say I found a way
to transmit information faster than light, would you feel so confident in
relativity? If we apply such an exacting standard in science,
why do we avoid that when it comes to God?
glenn