----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
Cc: <PHSEELY@aol.com>; <adam@crowl.webcentral.com.au>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 5:38 PM
> If the historicity of the crucifixion isn't more important than that of,
e.g.,
> the Noachic frood then the Christian church has had its priorities messed
up for the
> past 2 millennia.
And how much of the Biblical record can be false and we still think
Christianity can be true? Can all of Genesis be thrown out (approx 10%)? Can
all the Pentateuch be tossed (approx. 20%) Can Joshua through Job be tossed
also (approx 30%)? Or can we ignore the entire OT for a 60% rejection rate
and Christianity still be true?
What percentage of the Scripture can be historically false and still have a
religion worth pursuing?
>
>
> > > You keep misrepresenting my view as a rejection of all historical
> > evidence. I wish
> > > you'd stop it.
> >
> > No I don't. I wish you would listen to what I am saying. I place the
> > emphasis on the word 'all' in the above sentence. You don't reject ALL
> > historical evidence
>
> What you previously said in characterizing my views was, "As it is what I
see
> being offered is a baseless faith based on faith alone--no evidence
please, just
> believe!" _No_ evidence.
>
>
> > but you do reject MUCH historical evidence. You can't
> > have a true book teach falsehoods. Period. And you keep saying it isn't
> > teaching the whole truth. That is why you think I misrepresent your
position
> > because you give lip service to some parts of the history being actual
fact
>
> To say that I "give lip service to some parts of the history being actual
fact"
> means that I don't really believe that the things I say are actual fact -
such as the
> crucifixion - are factual. I trust that you're just using the phrase "lip
service" in a
> sloppy way.
Do you believe in Balaam's talking donkey, the floating ax-head? How about
the waters parting at the Sea? Is that historical?. I know you think Jonah
is a fish story and thus false, so we know that we can toss that one in my
questions above.
> But you practice your own selectivity with Gen.1. Your "days of
proclamation"
> view (which I don't consider a terrible interpretation in itself) is
manifestly
> non-historical.
It makes it to be a real event that happened in history as viewed by God.
At least I don't have to say with embarrassement 'Oh gee, yeah, well I am
stuck with that silly creation story here in the Bible. Pay no attention to
it as it is merely to teach us theological truths which have no relationship
to planet earth's history.'
I at least would be honest enough to say it is false and I shouldn't teach
it as conveying anything but a fable concocted by a middle eastern tribe of
neolithic barbarians who knew nothing and that it was quite similar to
thousands of other false creation myths taught by thousands of other
primitive tribes.
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 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:34:11 EDT