At 09:31 PM 11/17/98 -0600, Robin Mandell wrote:
>Hi again.
>This is a question, not meant as a rebuttal to your very formidable reply
>but rather to help me.If the Book of Mormon was historicaly unassailable
>yet made spiritual assertions that differed from the Bible which does have
>some tough areas historically( I mean having to postulate
>a 5 million year spread in a genealogy is a tough area) would you then go
>with the better history and move to Utah?the hypothetical weakness here is
>clear but do you get what I am wondering? >>
If another religion had an unassailable history (as you say) and that
history was not written after the fact(i.e. statements were made which
successfully predicted scientific discoveries) , then I think one would be
crazy NOT to give it serious consideration.
I manage a group involved in the search for oil and gas. What we do is
determine the geologic history of a given area. This helps us determine
where oil is, when it migrated into the traps, etc. We determine the actual
history based upon data. If one of my guys came and told me a story about
one of the leases we hold that was absolutely contradicted by the
observational evidence but then told me that what he said was relating
metaphysical truth, I would try to fire him. I don't want metaphysical
truths when dealing with the history of our planet. I want the absolute
truth. Only the real God knows how this world was created. A false god
wouldn't.
Christianity makes claims to tell us the historical truth of God's
interaction with humanity (except when it comes to the actual history of
our planet and then it tells us metaphysical truths rather than history.).
I find this oxymoronic.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm