Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)
Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:12:49 -0400Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> At 10:42 PM 4/22/98 -0400, cynic@net-link.net wrote:
> >Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >> Ed,
> >>
> >> Let me ask something about your story. Why couldn't you accept the
> >> generally accepted liberal Christian view that early Genesis is 'true' but
> >> non-historical?
> >
> >I can't accept that simply because I don't know what "true" could
> >possibly mean other than "historically true", and because, once divorced
> >from its historical validity, the story has no more claim to being
> >"true" than the Dogon creation myth or the Hindu creation myth or any
> >other.
>
> That's what I figured, and I agree with you. This is why I fight so hard
> for historicity of the Genesis accounts, in my opinion, the YECs are correct
> that if Genesis isn't historically true, then it can't be God's word. This
> of course upsets my libral brothers in Christ. On the other hand, the YECs
> propose a theory that can't possibly be historically true--infact it is
> already falsified
This is true. And as I told Ron, I respect your stand on it, as I do
Davis Young, Howard Van Till, Steven Shimmrich and others. It would be
easy when one finds that their knowledge of science butting up against
their faith to either A) be intellectually dishonest; B) bury one's head
in the sand and repeat a mantra to drown out the doubts; or C) invent
conspiracy theories to justify rejecting that knowledge. I respect the
attempt to reconcile the two even if I do not find it to be compelling
for myself.
Ed