You wrote:
>>Jim and Denis have been advocating,
"5. He is willing and able, but chose to do otherwise, and for good
reasons."
Perhaps you would push that under #2, "Unwilling." But that little
deduction, "If it is wrong, and God inspiried it, then God lied" carries
several unstated assumptions under the words "wrong" and "lied"
(assumptions about God's intentions) and particularly under the word
"inspiration."<<
I had mentioned to Denis, once that the "out" to the argument lay in finding
a logical reason for why God would withhold that knowledge. As I have
pointed out, the form of this argument was originally used to argue for
atheism and the issue was "Why doesn't God remove evil?" In that case we
have theodicy to tell us why he doesn't remove evil. I mentioned the second
law as a requirement for walking. But I see no logical reason to hide from
us the simple information concerning an outline of how He created. I could
agree with Denis and Jim on this if there was a logical reason. Any
suggestions?
You wrote:
>>It is not a question of "unwilling" or "unable." It is a question of
choice.<<
How do you know that? Why did He choose the choice He did? I know that we
believe that God is good, we experience his goodness and the Bible tells us
of his goodness. But what if He chose not to tell us of his evil? I am not
trying to be blasphemous I am merely pointing out that the idea that God
withhold's information, especially information which to every appearance He
has made an attempt to communicate, leads to major problems.
If God chooses to withhold the info, then why did he have Moses write what
he wrote? It would be better not to have Moses write anything. If I go into
a court room and withhold information because the lawyers didn't ask me for
the information, that is one thing, But if I say "Yeah, I saw the guy with
the scar on his face bop the little old lady on the head with the fireplace
poker." and I did not see that event, then what would you call my action? I
have made an attempt to communicate information and CHOSE not to tell them
what had happened. Would you trust me under those circumstances?
Loren wrote:
>>On the contrary, we CAN take comfort in it if we remember:
--The ancient Hebrews had no "natural" way of knowing the
correct scientific or observational story.
--They built the best cosmological picture/story they could with what
they had.<<
What this says to me is that the story in Genesis is no better and no worse
than the Blackfeet story of Old Man (their creator). The Blackfeet "had no
'natural' way of knowing the correct scientific or observational story.
--They built the best cosmological picture/story they could with what they
had."
So why should we revere the Biblical account and not the Blackfeet story?
You wrote:
>>--God did not need to correct their cosmology to tell them what they
really needed to know.
--God did not need "override" their mistaken cosmology (i.e. carefully
choose the words so that they would be interpretted one way by
ancient Hebrews, and another way by us today, and make "observational
sense" to both cultures) in order to tell them what they really
needed to know."
What did they "really need to know"? and Why didn't God limit Himself or his
inspiration to what they "really need to know?" As I mentioned yesterday, if
all they needed to know was that God created the universe, then Genesis 1
says that quite nicely. What did they need to know in Genesis 1:2-12:1?
You wrote:
>>What does this imply?
++God gives us freedom to discover certain things for ourselves, and
the freedom to be wrong when we have insufficient information.<<
I agree that God gives us the freedom to discover certain things and freedom
to be wrong. And He is not responsible for the wrong conclusions we draw.
But He is responsible for what He tries to communicate.
You wrote:
>>++God gives us the _responsibility_ to discover certain things for
ourselves.
++God actually grants us a certain level of respect and autonomy in
these matters. He chooses NOT to step in to correct (or
"override") our misconceptions if those misconceptions are not
getting in the way of his intended message.<<
I disagree here. The entire Bible is an attempt by God to "step in" and
correct our misconceptions about who and what God is, and what His plan is
for humanity. Christianity has the view that God is attempting to
communicate with fallen mankind. Thus, by definition, God IS stepping in to
correct us.
You wrote:
>>++God can reveal His essential truth to us and through us today,
despite our modern-day misconceptions, while still granting us our
full measure of freedom and responsibility in "non-essential"
matters.<<
Agreed. That is why I think it was necessary for God to be able to
communicate to both ancient and modern cultures with the same story. Both
cultures must be able to see the account as true.
You wrote:
>> The
psalmist praised God for "firmly establishing the earth upon The Flood."<<
I have long made a habit of not getting science from the Psalms. Those
things are for praise. If the account of the flood was found in Psalms, I
would see no need to find a harmonization for it. As it is, the account has
all appearances of being written as history. (In spite of Denis' wonderful
breakdown of the account--other historical events can equally be arranged in
those types of patterns, like Judges).
You wrote:
>>I can't think of any way for
that to be a "correct view" in our modern cosmology, unless we REALLY
stretch the interpretation of those Hebrew words.<<
You wrote:
>>I don't think the kind of editorial control you suggest is necessary.<<
I don't view God as having dictated the words the writer was to use. But I
do believe that God revealed the content. If God did not reveal the content
to the writer, then what was the writer doing, making the story up? Does
this raise the possiblity that there really was no Adam and Eve, but mankind
was hatched from the eggs of some beast? The "truth" might be viewed as the
same, namely that mankind was created, but the story is totally different.
If this is the only type of truth that we can derive from the story, it is
quite a loose type of revelation. It would be like God saying "HEY Moses,
write something about creation." and that is all the inspiration there was.
Then I get back to the question above about the Blackfeet story. Their
story is quite a good one.
You wrote:
>>Besides, I DON'T think that Genesis 1:1 - 12:1 are entirely unhistorical.
How much "historicity" was there? How much is necessary? How much am I
comforatable with? I'm still working on those questions. But if those
stories, in one form or another, pre-existed the time of Moses, and were
believed at the time to be a pre-history of the nation, then I believe it
would be consistent with God's character to use those stories to reveal
his truths.<<
I appreciate the toughness of these issues. I have spent most of my adult
life thinking about this part of the Bible (because of being in the
geosciences). I finally had to conclude, that God is Omnipotent. If an
omnipotent being can't tell us a simple but true account of creation, how
omnipotent is he really?
You wrote:
>>GM> 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?
Answer: No, we wouldn't. On the other hand, suppose every New Testament
story were verifiably true except for one which was verifiably false
---Pontius Pilate never had a wife. What then, throw the whole gospels out?
Extreme examples on either end don't tell us much.<<
Obviously there are transcription errors and the like which have introduced
error into the manuscripts. And I agree with you that for one mistake we
would not throw the scripture out. But if everything in Genesis 1-11 is
unhistorical as many modern christians believe, then why on earth should we
keep any part of Genesis in the canon? Other books have been in and then out
of the canon so why not throw Genesis out if it is the offending party?
You wrote:
>> The prospect of historical inaccuracy in the early chapters
of Genesis --- the prospect that any "concordist" hermeneutics will fail
to match our observations to the text --- is disturbing. It should
disturb us, based upon what we know about God's character. Yet if we can
also find good, solid reasons why God might have chosen to reveal in this
way, reasons which are consistent with everything else we know about God's
character, then I have no doubt about the answer.<<
I agree whole heartedly here. I would add that I think the YEC "concordism"
(which is really no concordism at all) has really burned people and they are
afraid of trying to dance to this song again. I hate to see us give up
trying. If we do that, then we would be forced to go the direction that
Denis has gone. I for one could no longer see the Bible as anything more
important than the Illiad.
You wrote:
>>When it comes to God and the Christian faith, we have both propositional
and relational questions involved --- both are important!<<
That has always been my problem with the flood account. It appears to be an
event with fits propositional logic, like most ancient geological events.
You wrote:
>>Thanks for asking all these questions. Others have asked them before.
I've asked them myself many times. It's about time I wrestled with the
answers in a semi-formal way.<<
We may never find all the answers and we will certainly never ALL come to
agreement, but the search and questioning is a very important process.
glenn