><<Bloesch's demand means a disconnect between
>observation and scripture. He is removing history from the Bible.>>
>
>You are quoting a small portion of a book from 1971, and even that doesn't
>support your conclusion. Bloesch doesn't say this at all. He says the exact
>opposite. You need to read "Holy Scripture" (IVP, 1994) before going
>further. "The truth of Scripture is both historical and metahistorical. It
>is revealed in history but at the same time transcends history. It has
>universal applicability and significance even while it has a historical
>focus and setting." [p. 270]
OH no, you made me read bloesch in the first place and now you want me to
read more theology. OK. I will try to find the book. But let me note
something. the differentiation between historical and metahistorical
appears to be a removal of history. If he can find historical evidence for
it, then he calls it historical; if not, then it is metahistory. In such a
case, we can pick and choose what is and isn't historical and this means
that what is history becomes subjective. And subjectivism removes the
Scripture from history.
>
>That is clear enough. Then you quote Ramm from 1954! And switch the issue
>from the theological to the scientific. Of course his data will be dated!
Jim, Ramm's data was dated and wrong on the date he presented it!
Topological maps of the Middle East, Iraq, Turkey and the Caspian Basin
were available in 1954. So were geological maps which clearly show NO
widespread Recent strata which could be identified with the flood. This is
not a case of picking on outdated science but one of picking on data that
was contradictory at the time the book was published.
>But you haven't dealt with the scriptural issue. For that you need to read
>his "After Fundamentalism" (Harper & Row).
I will try to get this. Does he present a scenario for the flood in it?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm