> Just as frankly, with a little focused thought, the statement isn't too
>difficult to understand. You claim it to be nebulas based upon an argument
>that contending views have no resolution; I know you can't mean that. A
>multiplicity of viewpoints surly does not imply none are accurate or true.
>The statement under contention does teach monotheism and omnipotentcy
>contrary to enuma elish. 'accurate theologically yet inaccurate
>scientifically' by modern christianity and science, respectively;
>furthermore, there simply is no room in the text for evolution; only solid
>sky, separating oceans above and below.
This assumes that monotheism is true? How do we know that? If monotheism
is false then the Bible is not theologically accurate. My point is not
that monotheism is false, as I am a committed monotheist, my point is that
you can only state that monotheism is the theologically accurate point of
Genesis by first having apriori decided that monotheism is true? So how did
you decide that monotheism is true PRIOR to when you read the Bible? Have
you ruled out all other religions after a careful reading and search
through them? You are assuming that which you believe--namely that
monothism is the central theme of Genesis.
And If I were a committed polytheist, I would note that tiamat was the
Babylonian god of chaos and is the word used in Genesis 1. Could it mean
polytheism? THis turns Paul's point about babylonian cosmology around on
you. If it really is erroneous babylonian cosmology in Genesis, then the
main point of Genesis isn't monotheism, but polytheism. What about the Let
US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness?
ONce again, I am not arguing for polythism but I am pointing out that there
is much for a polytheist to grab ahold of in Genesis. It is not as clear
as you would claim that the central point of early Genesis is monotheism
and omnipotence.
However, with a concordistic approach if one can see objective information
in the account that is true but unknown at that time, then one can use this
as evidence that this account is true. In that way one doesn't have to
assume what one wants to believe and then turn that assumption into a
theological doctrine.
><<<< I personally like the Marxist theologically accurate interpretation in
> That is
> I don't think
>it is possible to prove theologically accurate views erroneous. They are
>subjective.
>
> Why do you digress from the issues with sarcasm?
It isn't sarcasm. It is a point that people can interpret documents in
ways of their choosing. There is no constraint whatsoever on this type of
activity. The only real constraint is objective, observational evidence.
That is why I am a concordist.
I spent my graduate school days in philosophy. I remember being disgusted
by each philosopher assuming the previous philosopher out of relevance and
then setting up his logically consistent view. THen the next guy came along
and did the same thing. Each theory was internally logically consistent
but incompatible with the other views. How was one to chose between the
competing philosophical schools of thought? There is no experimentum
crucis. But when it comes to observational data, there are experimentum
crucis--plenty of them. The problem I saw in philosophy was what drove me
to the belief that the empirical is the only objective basis of deciding
certain matters. And theology is full of this same sort of problem. Each
theologian assuming what is good in his own eyes and throwing stones at the
other theologians with no real objective data with which to say the others
are wrong. And to a marxist theologian his view is quite reasonable. Are
we to tell the marxist theologian that he is wrong because you and I say he
is wrong? To do that makes us the judges of all matters, a point he is
most likely to disagree with. That approach also uses OUR assumptions
(which he does not accept) to say he is wrong. Unlike this approach,
concordism allows objective evidence to say a given view is wrong.
The Marxist view you
>espouse belief in is irrelevant to your attempts to put evolution on
>"sacred grounds" therefore irrelevant to my contention that such
>concordanist's attempts detract from the omnipotentcy of God;
I do not see or agree that there is any connection between concordism and
God's omnipotency. God certainly could tell us the true account of
creation and still be omnipotent. Or conversely, God could tell us the
true story about creation and yet still not be omnipotent. God could also
tell a false story and be either omnipotent or not. There is no
relationship between omnipotence and concordism except within your set of
assumptions. This is exactly what I was referring to above. Your
assumptions are not binding on me. Your empirical/observational data is
binding on me. That is why concordism is better.
not to
>mention its irrelevance to the existence of enuma elish and You are not one
>to ignore evidence (theory laden or not it must be reckoned with!), I
>implore you to look at enuma elish, resist sarcastic yet irrelevant
>dismissals and share with us any conclusions forced upon you?
I see nothing forced upon me by assumptions you, not I, have made. And this
is why concordism is much preferable.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution