Re: sciDocument.rtf

From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 03:21:49 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "Scripture: Intrusion Ethics"

    Glenn wrote,

    << The really important question is why didn't God inspire that type
    [scientifically true even if not accurate in all details) of account? Three
    answers--
      1. He isn't really there
      2. He didn't inspire the Bible (thus we need to search on)
      3. He is a Clintonesque liar (someone who doesn't tell the truth is a liar).
      4. He isn't powerful enough to inspire anyone much less raise a man from the
      grave.

      Of course, you will say that he inspired wonderful truths about God's
      dealing with humanity. I can't see it being wonderful or true if it is made
      up from the whole cloth of falsity! And what is amazing to me, is that you
      chose to believe as true what is clearly false. Why would anyone in their
      right mind do that?>>

    I think there is a perfectly reasonable and biblical alternative:

    God has delegated the discovery of natural truth to mankind (Gen 1:26-28) and
    consequently does not reveal those kinds of truths. I see no claims anywhere
    in Scripture to the effect that God intends to reveal truths of the natural
    world. I see throughout the Bible, including in the life and teaching of
    Jesus, accommodation to the science of the times.

    It is not logical to say that if God accommodated his revelation of spiritual
    truths to ancient science, then he is making the science up from the whole
    cloth of falsity. He is not making anything up.

    Paul



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:37:23 EDT