You wrote:
>Glenn is on a slippery slope, still hanging on by his apologetic
>fingernails . . . he should give up that last vestige of his YEC
>past--his concordism. Glenn you have painted yourself in a corner with
>the days of proclamation thesis . . . and you know it . . . you are not
>being (to use your words) "fully self-consistent."
>
>God did intend to convey truth--ontological/theological truth--which was
>carried/processed within the hermeneutical horizon of the ANE mind
> (which included a science of origins, and which has since been
>superceded through time by better theories of origins--thus the science
>of origins is NOT that which is of utter importance, just like a
>geocentric world view is not of utter importance).
>
The charge of inconsistency on my part always gets my attention. I do not
like inconsistency so I am trying to understand your point. But I don't.
You are the one who accepts the assumption that God conveyed
"ontological/theological truth" only. I could see the charge of
inconsistency IF I agreed with your presupposition. But I don't. I think
that there must have been "ontological/theological/historical" truth. I
would agree that God's intended message was conveyed imperfectly by human
language. I would say that our understanding of the nature of God's
message has improved with the advent of more scientific knowledge."
>Glenn, get back to Gen 1--it's the science of roaming nomads . . . God
>inspired roaming nomads and entrusted them with His greatest truths--the
>world is His creation, we've been created in His image, we're a bunch of
>sinners, etc, etc. Their science and intellectual categories were
> merely a vehicle transporting these truths.
>
How can I know that the more subjective theological truths, derived from
an objectively historically false account, are true? When the objective
data says an account is false, on what basis do I find subjective truth in
the account? Are there God given theological truths in the objectively
false Book of Mormon?
(Alma 18:9 has chariots in North America prior to Columbus. The Indians
never invented the wheel and there is no archaeological evidence for
precolumbian chariots )
>Such a subtle, subtle God . . . sort of like His being incarnated in the
>body of simple 1st century Carpenter, eh?
>
He is a subtle God. On this we agree. But you failed to answer what I
thought was an interesting Christological question. If as you said,
Christ was a YEC, should we give up our views? (I don't want you to forget
that question. :-))
As to the slippery slope and my last vestiges, etc. I was on the slippery
slope when I was a YEC as I learned about the egregious scientific errors
that they promulgate as truth. For me the cliff (as opposed to the slope)
was the total lack of historicity of the Biblical account. I fail to see
how we can easily give up on historicity. I found a ledge to hang onto
with the Days of Proclamation view.
I keep coming back to a fundamental question. How much of the Bible can
be ontological/theological (as opposed to historical) truth,and still
have us have confidence in the message of the Bible? If Adam-Noah are not
real people and real events you might be able to get away with retaining
confidence in the message. But what if Abraham is ahistorical? Joseph a
jest? Moses a myth? David a dream? Solomon a silly story? Mary a mirage?
Joseph a joke? If all that was untrue, would you believe that
Judeochristianity was theologically true? Would you still claim that there
is theological truth in the system? I would dare say you would view it
with the susupicion reserved for fraudulent cults.
Thus, I would suggest that the YECs are correct in their view that the
erosion of Biblical historicity should be of serious concern. A house
which has a couple of inches of its foundation cantelevered over the edge
of a cliff is not in immediate danger of collapse. But if erosion
continues and the percentage of the house which extends over the edge
grows to 10 percent, then the house is not a safe place in which to live.
That being said, you know that I personally feel that the greatest threat
to the historicity of the Bible actually comes from the YECs. They force
an interpretation on the Bible which absolutely requires one to make a
choice between the truth of the Bible and the truth one sees with their
own eyes. They have to resort to believing that observational data is not
to be trusted,which undermines the story of salvation itself. I first
heard about the plan of salvation as a child. Hearing is observational
data. IF I can't trust it, then I may not have heard the story correctly.
I read the Bible via sensory data from my eyes. Is what I read a crock?
The evidence for the resurrection itself is based upon the sensory data of
the disciples who saw and heard the events surrounding the crucifixion and
resurrection. If observational data is not to be trusted, how do I know
the disciple's observations are correct?
Since the YEC science is totally out of step with reality they are in a
worse place than you are. The YEC's have placed the entire house over the
edge of the cliff and the house is in freefall!! But the YECs are
generally unaware of their predicament and the predicament in which they
place christianity. A person in a falling house can refuse to look out
the window and see the predicament, claiming that observational data is
not to be trusted, but that refusal does not change their predicament.
zai Ji Du li ni de ge-ge (Mandarin - in Jesus your brother)
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm