----- Original Message -----
From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: <mortongr@flash.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Methane in the late Archean
> << Or meaningless. Did God accommodate himself to the science in the
Bhagavad
> Gita? or the the science of the Dogon peoples? If God accommodates to
one,
> what is to keep him from accommodating to all? And it doesn't seem to me
to
> be any good to say that the Bible tells us he doesn't accommodate to all
> because that itself might be an accommodation. >>
>
> I have objective evidence that the science in the Bible matches the
science
> of the times of the writer(s). I have no evidence to the contrary. From
an
> objective point of view I have no choice but to identify the science in
the
> Bible (astronomy, geology, biology, etc) as the science of the times. No
> doubt the same is true of the Bhagavad Gita, or your old favorites the
Book
> of Mormon and the Koran. But, this does not logically imply that none of
them
> contain true revelation from the true God. It does imply that you cannot
> distinguish the true revelation from the false by comparing the science in
> them to modern science.
>
> But, the real issue you bring up is history. Christianity distinguishes
> itself from other religions as being more solidly based in history.
You forget that historical sciences like geology, paleontology etc tell us
the real history of the planet. If the Bible is contradictory to the real
history of the planet, then Christianity can not possibly be more solidly
based in history than other religions. And if you think that Christianity is
more founded in history, i.e., more documented, then you haven't ever read
anything of the Baha'u'llah of the Bahai faith. Here is an extract from a
web page on him:
>>>Bahá'u'lláh was born in Persia (now Iran) in 1817 to a family descended
from royalty. As a young man, He chose to give up the life of luxury, and
the government career
that could have been His, to care for the poor. Bahá'u'lláh lived in a time
of Messianic expectation in many lands. Christians awaited the return of
Christ. Muslims
expected the fulfillment of Islamic prophecies. Other religions had similar
expectations. In 1863 Bahá'u'lláh declared that He was the One promised by
all religions and
that God had entrusted Him with a revelation addressing humanity's
present-day needs. The response to Bahá'u'lláh's announcement during His
lifetime was dramatic.
Thousands arose to support His Cause. Others, particularly the Muslim clergy
and the Persian government, arose to suppress it. His followers were
persecuted, and
many were killed. Bahá'u'lláh Himself was banished from Persia to Iraq. This
was the beginning of forty years of exile, imprisonment, suffering, and
bitter persecution
that climaxed with His banishment to the Turkish prison city of Akka in the
Holy Land. During His years in exile Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed His Mission to
the leaders and
peoples of the world in writings containing His Teachings for humanity.<<<
We have more documentation about him than we do about Christ. We don't know
the year Christ was born or the year he died--we know that of the
Baha'u'llah. The first documents about his life were written within 5 years
of his death--we can't say that for Christianity. If a religion is to be
true based upon the amount of historical documentation, then the Bahai's win
hands down. Is this the kind of contest you want between the religions? If
so, you are on the wrong side.
However,
> one cannot assume that the history in the Bible, even though inspired, is
> better than its available sources.
Then there is little reason to believe it is inspired other than a warm
fuzzy feeling in one's gall bladder.
I see no revelation in Scripture to the
> effect that God adds to or corrects available human sources. From the OT
> history books to Luke's preface, the implication is that the history is
based
> on human sources. And, if some of those sources are inadequate, as is
almost
> bound to be the case regarding prehistory (Gen 1-11), that does not
logically
> imply that all of it is false or even most of it. It is all a matter of
> available sources.
>
This sounds so Clintonesque! It doesn't matter that the history Clinton
presented of l'affaire Lewinsky doesn't make it all false. Jeemenie, surely
we don't want that for the Scripture do we?
> Your epistemological concern is valid; but, a biblical epistmology is not
> purely objective or even ultimately objective. As the apostle Paul says,
> "that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
God."
> I Cor 2:5 and John 7:17: "Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will
> know whether the teaching is from
> God or whether I am speaking on my own."
If there is not a strong objective component to it, then it is merely a
great tautology--I believe the Bible because I believe it is true or The
Bible is inspired because the Bible is inspired. Meaningless circular
statements!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 06:12:17 EDT