Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: PHSEELY@aol.com <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: mortongr@flash.net <mortongr@flash.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Fable telling
>To:
><< >Burgy's point is well-taken, although one could argue that human
parents
> >are not perfect. But Glenn, I think you are misrepresenting what George
> >and Howard are saying, as well as trying to second guess what God ought
to
> >do. I'll let George and Howard try to clarify what they _are_ saying,
but
> >I suspect they will take exception to your claim that they relegate early
> >Genesis to the category of fable.>>
>
>Glenn responded,
>
> My view is that God is a God of truth. If He doesn't tell the truth about
> things, then how do I know that He is telling the truth about the way of
> salvation? I have no satisfactory answer to that question
> >>
>
>I thought this was the answer Glenn would give; and it is certainly the
>answer that the majority of evangelcial theologians who have framed the
>dominant doctrine of biblical inspiration would give. Read any evangelical
>book on biblical inspiration and it will always finally hang its conclusion
>on this syllogism:
>
>God cannot lie
>The Bible is God's word
>Therefore, the Bible cannot contain any lies and is hence inerrant in all
>that it says including its science and history.
>
>That is the syllogism that holds Evangelicalism in its grip. It is the
>syllogism that supplies the foundation for creation science. And, it is
the
>syllogism that makes many evangelicals look upon those of us in the ASA as
>less than solid Christians.
>
>The way out of this dilemma is to recognize through the teaching of Jesus
>that the divine inspiration of Scripture can encompass temporary CONCESSION
>to cultural beliefs that are contrary to God's perfect knowledge, contrary,
>as one scholar put it, to God's personal opinion. The proof of this is in
>Matthew 19:8 (Mk 10:5) where Jesus points out that Deut 24:1-4 encompassed
>concession to the culturally acceptable practice of the times of divorcing
>wives for reasons other than adultery. (The law could not refer to
adultery
>because in cases of adultery the wife was stoned.)
>
>Note that this divine concession is a concession to sin ("hardness of
heart"
>in the words of Jesus). It is a concession in the area of faith and
morals.
>How much more then can divine inspiration encompass concession to the
>cultural beliefs of the time about science and history.
>
>When then I _observe_ (I threw that in for Glenn) that the references to
>scientific matters in the Bible regularly reflect the science of the times
>(indeed I have never seen a reference to a scientific item in Scripture
which
>reflects any higher understanding of that science than was known by other
>peoples of that time), I have the right in the light of the teachings of
>Jesus about inspiration to conclude that God is NOT REVEALING science, but
>conceding to the views of the time. God has left (in accordance with Gen
>1:26-28) the discovery of scientific truth to humankind as his
>under-sovereigns.
>
>The same thing is true of history in the Bible, the only difference being
>that the Bible indirectly tells us that its history is dependent upon human
>investigation and human sources (Luke 1:1-4), the OT books often
documenting,
>as it were, their statements by referral to human sources such as "the book
>of Jasher." And the biblical historians, unlike the prophets and
psalmists,
>never say or imply that they are receiving their historical information by
>revelation. Even Genesis 1, as evidenced both by its order of events and by
>its reference to the splitting of the primeval waters (something no other
>creation story has) as well by its acceptance of the cosmology of the times
>testifies that its science and history is coming from the same tradition
that
>is found in the Babylonian epic Enuma elish, not from divine revelation.
>
>Based upon the empirical data of the Bible as well as the revelation of
which
>Jesus has given, it is a perfectly biblical position that the science and
>history in the Bible is inspired by God in the sense that the writers were
>endowed with the Spirit so as to produce the best possible product for
their
>times, but not given revelation except with reference to spiritual truths.
>All one has to do is read the theology of Enuma elish and compare it to the
>theology of Gen 1 to see the contrast and the bright light of the divine
>revelation given in Gen 1. But, the science and history is not a divine
>revelation, but a concession, and hence God cannot be accused of lying even
>though the sky is not really solid, there is no ocean above the sky, the
>earth is not flat, the universe is older than 6000 years, etc, etc.
>
>I will only add that even with reference to the resurrection of Jesus,
which
>is where the NT makes its ultimate apologetic stand, Paul builds his case
in
>I Cor 15 for the resurrection as a historical event upon references to
human
>testimony, human sources, not divine revelation (except as prophesying that
>it would happen); and all the apostles do the same thing.
>
>The doctrine of the Bible as inerrant in science and history rests not upon
>divine revelation but extra-biblical rationalism. Let us not accuse God of
>lying just because for reasons of his own he gave temporary CONCESSIONS in
>Scripture to some cultural ideas. Indeed I find myself offering praise to
>him that he left to us humans the joys of discovering the truths of
science
>and history.
>
>Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>