Howdy, Glenn.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:24:09 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
<glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> Hi Paul, You wrote:
> >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.
>
> I know your view quite well having read your excellently argued
> book.
> However, one question I don't recall you ever being able to answer,
> at least
> to my satisfaction, is this: If God delegated the discovery of
> natural truth
> to man, how can you be sure He didn't also delegate the discovery
> of
> theological truth to man? Upon what basis, theological, scriptural
> or
> natural, do you reject the delegation of theological discovery? And
> if God
> did delegate only scientific discovery, where does God tell us this?
> You
> never tell your readers exactly what the basis for your belief that
> God
> delegated the search for natural truth is. Is it a theological
> revelation?
> Where is it in the Scripture? Did God tell you that He delegated
> this task?
> I simply don't see that you have much here other than an assumption,
> made by
> you in order to avoid the nasty science problems. How do you KNOW
> your
> assumption of God's delegation is actually TRUE?
>
> The consequences of God delegating the discovery of theological
> truth to
> mankind are such that the entire Hebrew Scriptures might simply be a
> dead
> end in mankind's search.
>
There is a simple answer to your question. God gave us minds and senses
with which to examine the natural world. Every step in science is checked
against that world. If I tell you that, doubling about every 150 years
from Ussher's date of the Flood to 1970, one gets a population of about
3.5 billion, you can check the figures. If that means that, at the death
of Abraham, the population would then be 91, you can verify that also.
How much sense that makes as a justification of YEC is a matter of
elementary thought. God does not have to explain it to us. There is,
however, no such simple logical and physical test for ethics and all the
other matters with which religion deals. Note the vast range of claims
made historically and upheld by theologians and philosophers today. Note
also how few of them are subject to rebuttal except by accepting an
alternative viewpoint. If God is good, then he had to reveal matters of
faith and conduct to his creatures progressively.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> OK, so man makes it up and calls it an inspired word of God. What
> epistemological basis do we have for saying that all descriptions of
> the
> natural world in the Bible are not true and only the theological
> extracts
> are true? Where does it say this in any theological document--other
> than
> your book and preferably within Scripture? And indeed, if
> descriptions of
> the natural world are delegated, how do you separate the description
> of the
> resurrected body from that delegation? When does this delegation
> end
> temporally? If people can be wrong about descriptions of the
> creation of the
> world, floating axe-heads and other obviously false things, were
> the
> apostles still allowed freedom in their description and discovery of
> the
> natural world when they mistakenly thought they saw Jesus walk
> through a
> wall into a locked room?
>
What empirical evidence can you produce in connection with a resurrection
body? And why would the disciples be mistaken at the sudden appearance of
Jesus? I can certainly describe the appearances and disappearances when a
magician is on stage, even though I am convinced that there is trickery
involved. I note further that there is solid evidence that gospels and
epistles were circulating during the lifetimes of those who personally
knew Jesus.
On the basis of the scriptures, I have accepted Christ Jesus as my
savior. I claim that I am experiencing the consequences which the
scripture says are the result of that faith. I cannot prove that this is
not more than a psychological effect, that there is a spiritual element
which transcends everything that can be examined scientifically. I live
in hope that I shall one day see what is promised. Meanwhile, I do not
have a test for the ipsimma verba of scripture. I am confident that the
New Testament is accurate, though I have evidence of three words that
were added to the original version of Mark. I also understand that all
the most ancient versions of the Old Testament do not necessarily agree
with the Massoretic text. I also know that hares and hyraxes do not chew
the cud at the text says. Does this mean that erroneous beliefs were
incorporated into scripture, or that satanic forces made copyists insert
the errors? Or were these creatures ruminants three millennia ago and
have evolved rapidly to their present state--or were miraculously
changed? I'll take the standard Reformed view that the scriptures are the
standard for faith and practice, revealed progressively, and not worry
that much about how much tradition and propaganda crept in. Bunnies and
bats have never figured in my ethics.
> The problem I have with your view Paul, is that you make an
> assumption which
> may be correct, may be wrong. But that assumption is so key to
> your
> position, that it would really be nicer if one could find it stated
> in
> Scripture rather than only in your books.
>
> glenn
>
Agreed. It would also be beneficial to your position if some verse
specified the canonical books and said that they were totally free from
all error, including interpretation.;-)
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 16:56:50 EDT