Glenn Morton wrote:
> 1/20/01
> George Wrote:
>
>
> > N.B. The following is not just a reset of our standard debate.
>
> I thought you were the one who didn't want to go another round on this. But
> I knew that you couldn't refrain from a go at what I wrote to Paul.
The point of my _caveat_ was that I _wasn't_ just trying to reset the
previous debates but to raise different types of questions (though of course
they're still related to the basic themes of historicity &c) about your
arguments. & the basic question I raised is whether or not the historical
character of the biblical flood narrative would be a particularly strong
argument against skeptics.
It is really a question of practical apologetics: Granted of course that our
arguments have to be presented with intellectual and spiritual integrity, what
arguments are going to be _effective_?
You seem to be trying to recast this issue as just another reset.
> > I find your argument in the last 3 paragraphs strange for
> >at least a
> >couple of reasons. First, verifying the flood story in Genesis in
> >the sense you
> >speak of proves very little about the truth of Scripture as a
> >whole.
>
> It would add to the areas verified. What is strange about that? I find it
> very strange to claim that something that appears to refer to a real history
> is true in spite of it being as false as grandpa's false teeth, which is
> what I see my more liberal brothers doing. (here we go again).
As soon as you speak of other "areas verified" then you're putting it in
the context of the rest of
scripture. That's OK with the sort of view of the historicity of scripture you
argue for, but then of course you have to present the arguments for the other
areas. What I was objecting to was what seemed like the idea that confirming
the flood narrative is a king of key which in itself raises the credibility of
scripture as a whole to a different level.
> The Bible
> >is a collection of writings by different people spread over 1000+
> >years, and the
> >fact that a couple of its chapters give information about
> >something that really
> >happened tells us nothing about the truth of its many other
> >accounts.
>
> If there were no inspiration of the scripture, I would perfectly well agree
> with you. But there is the claim that the Bible is God's word. If it is
> nothing but the words of "different people", then what you say is absolutely
> correct. But if God engaged in some sort of overarching guidance of what
> they wrote, then what you say has no merit.
I believe that God inspired the "different people" but the skeptic of
course doesn't, & it was his/her response to your argument that I was trying to
summarize. With such a person you can't assume either the unity (in the sense
of having a single coherent theme) or the inspiration of scripture. & that
means, as I said, that the truth of the flood narrative wouldn't imply anything
about the truth of other parts of the Bible.
> I must raise this issue. You in the past have spoken about how we should
> believe the Genesis because its purpose is to tell us about the nature of
> God but not about the detailed lives of a real couple Adam and Eve etc. You
> wrote:
>
> >>>Mon Aug 09 21:41:43 1999
>
> The point is that there is a way of speaking about creation which runs
> through the OT which is inspired, authoritative, true & which no one with
> any sense reads as historical narrative. <<<
>
> Without real history, we have faith based upon faith. If the Bible is
> nothing more than the writings of a bunch of people, I see no force in the
> claim that the Bible can acheive the purpose above. Afterall, how were a
> bunch of men, unguided, to know and reveal the purpose of God? If it is ONLY
> the writings of a bunch of men, it may be the mumblings of a maniac. To me,
> you are raising a double-edged sword which cuts both positions out of the
> realm of possibility-yours and mine. But if it is a divinely inspired (by
> this I mean inspiration has some efficacy other than eliciting warm fuzzy
> statements about how good the revelation is), then there should be some
> connection with history--real history. You can't have the theme you spoke of
> run through the Bible without God having guided it. If he guided falsehood,
> then he is not to be trusted for the same reason I don't trust the God of
> Gosse--both are deceptive Gods.
I don't disagree with this - with the reminder that I have always
said that the Bible does deal with historical events and that the truth of a
statement doesn't require that it be historical narrative. But that's just the
reset again. The point here is that you are not going to make any headway
against skepticism if you begin with the claim that scripture is inspired.
> I would
> >think that there are very few skeptics who are committed to the
> >position that
> >_everything_ in the Bible is false. They can easily say, "Even a blind pig
> >finds an acorn once in awhile."
>
> True, but only the religious people say we should believe in the worth of an
> account which is historically and scientifically false. To me that is doing
> exactly what Paul Seely said we shouldn't do--base our faith on faith
> itself.
>
> > Second, there certainly is historical evidence for some biblical
> >material - e.g., inscriptions & archaeological remains relating to
> >the kings of
> >Judah & Israel & the destruction of Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, &c.
> > So if it's
> >crucial to have _one_ historical anchor, there are less debatable things to
> >choose than the flood.
>
> There is nothing metaphysical about the existence of Pontius Pilot. One
> can't draw from his existence that Jesus arose. One can't draw from the
> destruction of Israel that they therefore gave the true theology to the
> world. And I agree that one can't draw from a verification of the flood that
> therefore everything else in the Bible is true however, I would contend that
> this would be an event which, if reported correctly (and verifiably) in the
> Bible at least gives support for the divine guidance that we believe the
> Scripture has.
I see no significant difference & if anything the fact that Pilate is
a lot closer to Jesus historically than is Noah might carry some weight. This
is really a question of what line of argument is going to be most persuasive, &
that depends on who you're talking to.
> > A different point: We're not quite as dependent on Paul
> >as you suggest
> >for evidence supporting the resurrection. While they written some
> >time after
> >Paul's epistles, the accounts of the empty tomb and of Jesus'
> >Easter appearances
> >in the gospels can't be entirely discounted by historians.
>
> Then why don't we run to embrace the books of the Bahai, in which the
> Bahaullah was miraculously transported from a firing squad so he could
> finish his discourse with a disciple? The account was written only 80 years
> or so after his death. Historians surely can't discount that either.
How in the world do we get from my statement that the gospels can't be
discounted as historical sources to the statement that we should run to "embrace
the books of the Bahai"? I wasn't even suggesting that the skeptic should "run
to embrace" the resurrection of Jesus, but only that the gospel
accounts couldn't be rejected outright as sources of historical information
which is germane to religious claims.
As for the Bahai - well, yes, the account you note would have to be
investigated with some care in order to decide whether or not it really
happened. But that would have to be done in the context of investigation of the
whole Bahai claim, just as the resurrection of Jesus should not be investigated
as if it were an isolated claim about the return to life of "someone."
> My problem with many of your arguments is that if we apply them to other
> religions, we must conclude that all other religions are equally true. Given
> that they are all mutually exclusive, that process becomes a reductio ad
> absurdam.
No because
1) I don't think the scriptures & traditions of other religions do
have the type of historical support (N.B. I do not say "proof" or "infallible
historical accuracy" )that Christianity does, &
2) you are omitting questions about the _meaning_ of historical
events and the explanatory power of religious claims.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 20 2001 - 12:45:14 EST