Re: Glenn wrote (on 9/30)

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:18:54 -0500

At 04:59 PM 10/19/98 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Glenn wrote:
>
>"It tells us a very significant fact about history--there was a beginning
>and God was the cause. This is history!!! Hopefully true history rather
>than fabricated tales. That is precisely my point. Genesis 1:1 MUST be
>historical rather than allegorical. But what happens is that everyone
>gets
>weak knees when Genesis 1:2-Genesis 11:32 comes along"
>
>IMHO, your first sentence is a terribly weak argument! If I start a
>fictional story by saying, "In New York, it was a Sunday and it was
>raining," and then go on to talk about clearly fictional characters,
>would you say the first sentence was "history?"
>
>As for "weak knees," I happen to have one (not two) due to an athletic
>event over 50 years ago. But it does appear in your writing above as a
>pejorative! The same argument is used by some of our YEC friends to
>categorize those of us who are not of their persuasion! < G >

Ok, I didn't mean to sound perjorative. Biased, yes; perjorative, no! :-)
However, there is a clear difference, the novel you describe makes no claim
to divine inspiration and a revelation of the plan of salvation (a very
important issue). The Bible does make such a claim. That is why it is
rightfully subject to a closer scrutiny. Is what the Bible tells us TRUE or
FALSE? A fictional book we KNOW is false, the Bible must come up to some
standard of verifiability in order to avoid fideism.
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm