>At 07:34 PM 2/6/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>>>snip...
>
>>I don't know how long you have been on the list, but I will stand shoulder
>>to shoulder with you on the issue that the Bible must be historical or it is
>>probably not inspired. My good friend, Denis Lamoureaux says I am
>>hermeneutically unclean, and you probably would agree. However, since the
>>two of you are coming from opposite sides of the theological spectrum, I
>>feel pretty good being in the middle.
>>
>
>I do own you an apology. I didn't know you held the position that The
>Bible isn't an inspired book just because it doesn't match some idea of
>what history is. But again with that simple statement one declares that
>Paul is wrong 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>rigtheousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for
>every good work'. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 It doesn't claim to be inspired because
>it matches the historical record of someone.
>
A appreciate the apology. Not many are willing to apologize publically.
You misunderstand again. I did NOT say that Scripture was inspired because
it matches someone's historical record. Inspiration is the given. But since
it is inspired, it must represent what actually happened. It must represent
a set of historical events. I would bet that you beleive that the story of
Noah represents a historical event, and thus in your opinion the Bible
matches your historical expecations. Would you consider the Bible false if
there was no global flood? I do not mean that there is no evidence of the
flood but if it had never occurred?
>While in the fifth paragraph of my message, one can read the second reason
>for sending the message (it had to do with the erroneous and painfully bad
>interpretation of the Biblical narrative), the fourth paragraph clearly
>states what are my thoughts on the area of interpretation of rock or bone
>records.
>
Oh I will admit to not being a theologian, but I know science and lots of it.
I wrote:
>>The problem I have with this approach concerns the question, "Are Christian
>>theological views immune from observational data?" The nature of your
>>response would seem to suggest that your view does not need to take into
>>account the problems I raised. In my opinion this leads to relativism.
>>here is why.
>>
You replied,
>
>No they aren't. But you are presenting something more than reports of
>observational data while trying to build thesis on a single word.
You presented an argument for an age of the earth based upon the assumption
of a half a percent growth rate of the human population each year. You
presented what you thought were observational facts to try to convince me
and the lurkers that the young-earth/global flood position is correct. When
I merely point out that observation does not match your assumption, you now
say I am presenting more than observation. In what way?
> You call
>this last approach hermeneutics. Your friend describes it as
>'hermeneutically unclean'. I won't even attach the word hermeneutics to
>this method.
>
Denis would agree. But he probably wouldn't agree with your hermeneutics
either.
There is something wrong with this that I can't seem to write more than 7
characters before having to save the file. I will continue in another post.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm