----- 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 11:00 PM
> > 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?
> Each of these would require detailed theological, historical, literary &
> scientific treatment. I don't know how interested you are in the
rationale for my
> answers so won't launch into such a treatment now. I can go into more
detail if you're
> interested. But please realize that there are reasons for my answers &
that they aren't
> just arbitrary "I like this one, I don't like that one" decisions. I
assume that
> "historical" here means "reasonably accurate account of historical events
as they
> actually happened".
>
> Balaam: Probably not historical.
> Ax head: I don't know.
> Jonah: I've given reasons before for thinking that this isn't an
historical
> narrative (& it isn't simply because of the fish).
> I believe that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. ("Virgin birth" in the
strict
> sense, _virginitas in partu_, is not attested in Scripture & in any case
> its meaning is obscure.)
> Water to wine: Probably historical.
> Healing of lame man: Historical.
>
> Except for virginal conception these are my own opinions, subject to
change (though not,
> I hope, capriciously).
What I think I see in your position is an inconsistency in accepting
miracles. Why can't God make a donkey speak miraculously? If God can change
water to wine, miraculously heal a lame man, what is the problem with a
miracle in the other cases? It seems to me that once one accepts the
possiblity of miracles and the inspiration of the Scripture it seems
contradictory to say one purported miracle is and one isn't. That position,
as I see it, is incompatible with inspiration of those portions of scripture
containing false miracles.
>
> In spite of appearances, the above responses do not mean that OT accounts,
& in
> particular those of miracles, are not historical while NT ones are. That
appearance is
> a result of the examples you chose. & I should note that the heavy
emphasis on the
> miraculous tends to distort things somewhat.
What OT miracles to you accept?
Moses parting the Sea?
Moses striking the rock and getting water? (I wish I could do that and get
oil)
The plagues of Egypt?
Did Jacob actually wrestle with God physically?
Was the widow's son raised from the dead?
>
> In turn, let me ask this. Do you believe, on the basis of Mt.26:26 that
> communicants receive in the Lord's Supper "the true body of Christ that
was born of the
> Virgin, offered on the cross for the salvation of the world, and sits at
the right hand
> of the Father"?
> (No, this is not a strictly historical question, and yes, I realize that
some on
> this list think it's gauche to talk here about sacraments. But the
question gets at the
> basic issue of "picking and choosing" literal or figurative
interpretations.)
If it were a historical example I would feel much more trapped than I do by
this one. It is my understanding of Catholic theology that they do believe
in transsubstantiation (is that the theological term). Who knows, they
might be right.
> ........................
>
> > > 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.
>
> But I have & always will deny that either of the Genesis accounts has
> "absolutely no bearing or conformance to reality"! If that were so then
they wouldn't
> be about the creation of the real world. To see what I actually say (or
said briefly 15
> years ago) about them read Chapter 3 of _The Trademark of God_.
Note, that I specifically said that the details of the account don't match
what really happened in your view. And I do beleive that is a correct
characterization of your position. Thus I conclude, that if any story has a
whole lot of details that don't conform to what actually happened, the story
has no conformance to reality. I will re-read that chapter.
>
> BTW, you seem to have travelled about a day back in time according to the
time
> on your message. Did your computer's clock get reset? Or am I messed
up - a not
> unlikely hypothesis?
Yes, every few weeks I time travel back in time. Apparently, on my last
trip, I failed to notice that I didn't make it back to the present. Thus for
a few weeks now I have been living in the past and responding to your posts
before you wrote them. Under these circumstances when I send the notes in
reply to what you will write tomorrow, it takes 24 hours of travel for the
notes to get from yesterday to today and they appear on the list shortly
after your notes are posted. Neat huh? I have corrected that error now and
will have to oil the mechanism in my time machine.
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 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 06:56:24 EDT