At 09:43 AM 11/21/98 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> Since we & other Christians agree that Genesis is true and authoritative,
what
>we have to do next is study the texts to decide what types of literature
they are. &
>it seems clear that some of them are not simply propositional evidence -
Gen.1:1-2:4a
>for example. This is not a modern scientific description of the big bang,
condenation
>of the sun & solar system, &c. It is a theological, perhaps liturgical,
statement about
>God's relationship with the world. It is a true statement. But to
publish it as a
>scientific paper in Physical Review would put it in the same type of
inappropriate
>setting as the language used by your car salesman.
But I still disagree with you about Genesis 1:1. It can't be true in any
sense if god didn't actually create the universe.
>> > The Easter message is that Jesus is alive. The way of
disproving it is
>> >to demonstrate that Jesus is dead.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. How could you even in principle prove that
>> Jesus was dead from the vantage point of today? Are you proposing we use
>> Mary's DNA to verify the skeleton is the son of Mary? That doesn't exist.
>> We can't prove that Jesus is dead. So, I say that you are not able to
>> falsify the Bible by the method you suggested. If you agree, ooutline a
>> method whereby without doubt we could prove Jesus is dead? If not, is there
>> any other misfit that would cause you to say the bible is false? If not,
>> you have divorced science from Scripture.
>
> Let me turn this around: What scientific evidence for the resurrection
of Jesus
>do you propose to find _beyond arguments which have already been made for
the accuracy
>of the New Testament accounts of the appearances of Jesus and of the empty
tomb_?
Rather than turning it around, I still would like an answer to this
unanswered question (and I asked first). How do you ever propose to prove
a given body is the earthly remains of Jesus Christ, son of Mary wife of
Joseph?
If proving that Jesus didn't resurrect is the only way to disprove the
Bible, then it can't be disproven. And this divorces the Bible from science.
>> So why didn't Jesus condemn Peter and John for running to the tomb rather
>> than sitting there eating breakfast. It clearly says that they thought the
>> women's story was crazy. They went to check it out, which is evidence
>> gathering.
>
> I don't know. Maybe at some point he did. The longer ending of Mark
(16:14)
>says that "he upbraided them [N.B.] for their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because
>they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen."
> BUT - you continue to avoid the clear statement in the gospel at the end
of the
>Thomas story - "Don't be like Thomas. Believe the witnesses."
Correction. He did not say 'Don't be like Thomas. Believe the witnesses."
Those words do not appear in Scripture. That is an interpretation. It may
be what he meant but it might not be. He might very well have merely meant
that those who don't have the doubts that Thomas had are happier. I know
that when I was a young-christian when I had no doubts about YEC etc. I
was in many ways happier (blessed) But I was also unknowledgeable. I would
prefer the present state to ignorant bliss.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm