I didn't use the term inerrant. I prefer the term historical. If the
events related in Scripture have no basis in fact, then what exactly are we
believing. There were several reasons I nearly slid into atheism. I believed
that the Bible taught evolution didn't happen--I learned evolution happened.
I believed that there should be some evidence for Noah's flood (of local or
global extent)--I could find no geologic support for ANY view of a flood
until I developed my view. I believed that the Exodus must have been
true--yet even today there is no real evidence of it (which is why I truly
hope that the report posted here a few weeks ago might solve the Exodus
problem).
Note that all these areas involve earth history--biological, geological or
archeological. While I agree that an inerrant Bible is probably not
attainable (there being spelling mistakes and typos at the very least), I
don't see that a historical Scripture is out of reach. A non-historical
Scripture is no better than the Book of Mormon or any work of fiction I
might come up with.
>> Christianity is a stongly based on historical events. Those events are
>> related to us in a series of intertwined documents. In order to believe the
>> Resurrection (which we read of in the Scripture) we must believe that those
>> documents are telling us something real. Your view, it seems to me, says "It
>> doesn't matter that it is not real, I will believe it anyway".
>
>No, I'm all for only believing in what is real, but that's why I don't
>think it does us a service to emphasize Christianity's role as an arbiter
>of earth science. I don't think earth science is decoupled from
>Christianity in some kind of 'two-chamber' approach, but it seems to me
>that casting Christianity as one opponent in a fight-to-the-finish with
>other theories of earth science is to miscategorize what it is all about.
I would suggest that only the YECs make the Bible the arbitor of the
geological sciences. But I would suggest that what the Bible says about
geological science should be correct, i.e., that IF there was a flood then
we SHOULD find some evidence of it. We are not given enough information for
us to be absolutely sure of any flood scenario but I think it necessary that
SOME scenarios that matches the Biblical description, be within the realm of
geological science.
>If Jesus never
>lived, on the other hand, then that would raise a much more serious red
>flag with me :-).
Yeah, me too.
My contention is that in placing 'no-rain-before-the-flood'
>alongside the resurrection as factoids to be defended at all costs,
>Creationists have done a disservice to many people.
I would agree that the Flood etc is less important than the resurrection or
Jesus being a person, but such things are not unimportant or irrelevant either.
If there is no historical basis for the Flood, then the story is no better
than stories bout leprechauns faeries and elves, who equally have not basis
in history.
>
>> Given that epistemology, how do you tell a Mormon, whose book describes a
>> story for which there is absolutely no evidence, that he is wrong and you
>> are right? He can claim that history is not the point of the Christian
>> faith and he believes his story the same way you believe yours.
>>
>> Under your view, what separates mainstream Christianity from the Mormon
>> version of Christianity?
>
>Mainstream Christianity these days increasingly shies away from the idea
>that history is that simple, or, in fact, that spiritual views of history
>are reducible to what can be verified by conservative scientific historical
>methods. I think this trend is in the right direction.
I know that modern christianity is doing this, but what that strongly
implies is that we are giving up that we can produce a scenario that makes
the Bible true in a real fundamental HISTORICAL sense. I think that it is
still important to have and uphold as much historicity as we can.
> In the case of
>the Mormons, I can only repeat myself from above: I find that the best
>science tends to undergird (or compose raw material for) the best myth.
But I don't see an aswer for the Mormon question here. Is their myth of a
Semitic people with big walled cities and chariots in the New World as good
as our myth that the Hebrews escaped from Pharoah? Are all myths equivalent?
>I've heard probably dozens of
>interpretations of the fall story which do not take Adam and Eve as
>literally living ~6000 years ago in Mesopotamia.
I have something like 20 different interps., including a marxist
interpretation. These 20 or so interpretations are mutually exclusive so
they can't all be true at the same time. So which interp. is correct? Or is
any interpretation, no matter how bizarre correct because it serves the
purposes of the interpretor?
>My point is this: the core of
>Christianity is not on whatever details are taken to provide the raw
>material of this separation. Those are important to talk about, but the
>core is pointing out that it exists, and fitting it into the rest of
>the Christian cycle of redemption and restoration.
>
So, if the core of Christianity is not in the details like the creation, the
fall, the flood, the exodus etc. Then why do we need the Old Testament. The
core of Christianity is obviously the resurrection. Under your view, why
should modern Christians NOT simply divorce our Judaic heritage?
>Sorry for such a long message--I hope I have clarified what I am thinking.
>Since you have had this discussion before, though, I may be boring you
>to tears. :-)
Oh no, I am not bored. This issue is one of the most crucial in modern
Christianity today. It is what divides the conservatives from the liberals.
It involves Pilate's question: What is Truth?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm