On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:17:34 -0500 Glenn wrote:
[...]
GM>My point was merely that if there is not historicity in Genesis
1:1, then why
>on earth would we believe that God created the universe? And if he didn't
>create the universe, then besides an interest in forcing Christians to get
>their facts right, what is the point of arguing creation/evolution?
[...]
GM>The entire issue of whether God was able to convey a true message
to us is
>not involved (as far as I am concerned) with inerrancy of the Scripture. I am
>a little uncomfortable with making the Scriptures be perfect as that borders
>on worshipping the object rather than God, (like the Hebrews worshipped the
>ark of the Covenant in their battle with the Philistines). The issue with me
>is one of God's character. If God could not convey a true (if incomplete)
>message to us then one must ask why? I can think of many questions which
>arise in this regard. The following does assume that in some way, the Bible
>is a communication from God, i.e., it is inspired somehow.
>
>Is God impotent and unable to convey his message to Moses? (this denies
>omnipotence)
>If He conveyed it to Moses is He then such a bad judge of character that He
>chose a man who would garble it so badly that no one can tell what it means?
>(this denies his omniscience)
>
>Did He not want to tell us and thus didn't convey anything to Moses and now
>we now have a sacred book written by a man, kinda like Dianetics? If this
>option is true, then what other parts of the Biblical message are made up?
>(This denies He desire to bring man to knowledge of Him)
>
>Did He not want to tell us the truth and so made up a false tale for us?
>(This is the God lied option and denies His Holiness and goodness.) If He
>lied here, maybe He is lying about who His son is?
>If God didn't think the ancient Hebrews could handle the truth, was he not
>able to foresee that one day we would? (this denies omniscience) Is there no
>solution such as a simplified but true story?
>
>Maybe God doesn't know how the world was created? This implies we have a
>stupid God (like Plato's Demiurge who never knew of our existence) or our God
>was not around at the time of creation and thus is part of the created. (This
>denies his omniscience or His God-ness )
>
>This is the heart of the creation/evolution issue for me. If there is no
>evidence that I am dealing with God in the sacred document, then there is no
>reason to worship that God. Whatever state the Hebrew is in, if it is not
>historical fact that God created the Heavens and the Earth, then what or who
>in the world are we worshipping?
I actually agree with Glenn on this! :-) While elements of Gn 1-11
may be symbolic, if there is no literal reality behind the symbols
(that the symbols represent), then it is all a kind of fairy tale.
The great 19th century Scottish evangelical theologian James Orr
wrote:
"I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third
chapter of Genesis-whether as history or allegory or myth, or most
probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical
dress-but the truth embodied in that narrative, viz. the fall of man
from an original state of purity, I take to be vital to the Christian
view." (Orr J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897, p185,
in Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster:
London, 1955, p223).
If Evolution is construed to mean that there was no literal
Genesis 1:1 creation of the heavens and the earth, no literal Adam and
Eve, and no literal Fall, then it is difficult to see why there was a
need for a literal Christ:
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the
desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and
finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made
necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the
rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus
was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution
means, then Christianity is nothing." (Bozarth G. R., "The Meaning of
Evolution", The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30, in Gish D.T.,
"Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics", Institute for Creation
Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p371).
Though Glenn is an evolutionist, he still believes in the historicity
of Gn 1-11, so there is more common ground between him and
PC's like myself, than there is between us and TE's who believe that
Gn 1-11 is a collection of unhistorical ANE myths.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------