----- 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: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: Methane in the late Archean
> You have completely missed the point. Your language - if it was being
used
> accurately ("lip service" means hypocrisy) - implied that I didn't really
believe in the
> historical accuracy of parts of Scripture that I said I did believe were
accurate. What
> is in order is an apology, not a smokescreen about Jonah.
I mis spoke there. I didn't mean to imply hypocrisy with the lip service
comment. I apologize for inadvertently implying hypocrisy. YOu are no
hypocrite. I don't know what term I should use to replace it but it seems
to me that you have a pick and choose what historical events you require to
be true and then can allow all the others not to be historical.
So, now answer the questions I asked (I will add a couple).
Do you believe Balaam's famous talking donkey is historical?
Do you believe an ax head floated, I mean actualy floated?
Do you believe Jonah was a real historical tale? (you have previously said
no).
Was Jesus born of a virgin?
Did he actually change water to wine or is that merely a theological tale?
Did Peter actually heal that lame man or is that a theological tale?
>
> > It makes it to be a real event that happened in history as viewed by
God.
>
> Calling this "historical" is a complete distortion of language.
On this we must disagree.
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course I've never described Genesis 1 as anything like this and would
never
> say that it was anything approaching "silly" or that it was "merely"
historical truth.
> But why should you believe my "lip service"?
On numerous occasions you have said that it does not describe what actually
happened at creation. The details don't match what really happened. While
you might not describe it as I did above, I would describe it as I did above
if I felt that the creation account had absolutely no bearing or conformance
to reality. If there is no historical truth in details of the creation
account, then one would be charged with perjury if he told such a
non-conforming-to-reality story on the witness stand.
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 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 07:03:42 EDT