Glenn Morton wrote:
> 1/21/01
> George Wrote:
>
> ...........................................
> > 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.
>
> As I see it, the flood is just about the only thing that is verifiable that
> makes any difference to the Judeo/Christian story. Let's look at the
> situation.
>
> 1. there is nothing we can verify today about the resurrection, Jesus'
> birth, or the making of wine, the raising of Lazarus, the feeding of the
> 5000 etc. We have no Jerusalem Posts to look at news accounts, we have no
> physical evidence of the wine or the body of Lazarus to look at. What we
> really know apart from Scripture is that a group of people appeared in the
> early part of the 1st century proclaiming that Jesus was the son of God and
> that he had been killed and then resurrected.
>
> 2. In the OT we have no ability to verify the raising of the Widow's son,
> the floating axhead, the pillar of fire, the Exodus, Abraham's life etc.
> Given that nations invade other nations as surely as night follows day, we
> have no extra-biblical evidence that the Babylonians were called down upon
> the Israelites by God. The claim simply can't be verified. Its like me
> claiming that God called you to be a thorn in my side on historicity! :-)
> It isn't verifiable. Sure we have evidence of David and the Davidic line,
> but most of that is merely the record of history that doesn't offer
> something profound in the way of God interacting in the world that leaves
> evidence. Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy is the only exception to the general
> lack of verifiability seen in the OT.
>
> So now we come to the claim's made in early Genesis, that God created the
> world and that God brought upon mankind a great flood wiping out all but
> eight. It is unverifiable to claim that God created the Big Bang. One can
> believe it, but one can't demonstrate it. How do we put God in the witness
> chair? And if we go with the classical interpretation of Genesis 1-2 we
> would have to say that the Bible has been falsified because science has
> clearly demonstrated that evolution took place--i.e., the animals found low
> in the geologic column don't look anything like living animals meaning that
> life forms have changed.
>
> But with the flood, there would be physical evidence that would be capable
> of verification. This evidence would consist of demographic patterns of
> people, physical sediments, etc.
>
> If you don't think that the flood is one of the few verifiable things in
> Scripture, which also makes a spits worth of difference to the truth of the
> main point of the salvation story, then please by all means tell us how you
> will verify TODAY the resurrection, birth etc or how you will verify that
> God actually interacted with this world? As I see it, there are really only
> about 2 places.
>
> If I merely avoid verification, then I am creating a faith based upon faith!
> Fideism.
Were your argument true, "we are of all men most to be pitied." "There
is nothing we can verify today about the resurrection", which is at the heart of
Christian faith. Supposedly we only have the possibility of verifying the
flood. But even if that can be done there is no way one can move from that to
even a marginal increase in plausibility of the historicity of the resurrection,
as I've already pointed out. So we're out of luck.
Fortunately your argument isn't true. As many writers have pointed out,
mss of the NT documents relevant to the resurrection are more plentiful & closer
in time to the events they claim to record than many documents recording events
of classical antiquity which no one raises serious questions about. Few serious
historians today question whether Jesus really lived and (except for Muslims)
that he died on a cross. We can point out with a fair degree of archaeological
support the place where early Christians believed that he was crucified and
raised, in the Church of the Resurrection.
Does this prove that Jesus was raised from the dead? Of course not?
But these are the types of things which historians consider as putative
evidence.
> >>> 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.
>
> Mere belief without evidence of this inspiration is nothing but fideism.
> Faith based upon faith.
Obviously I can't win here. I note one reason people have doubts about
the Bible & you tell me I'm leaving out inspiration. When I say I think
scripture is inspired I'm accused of fideism. I find it very hard to see what
evidence of inspiration of the whole of scripture you think there can be if the
flood narrative is the only significant part of it that's verifiable!
> 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.
>
> Paul Seely argues quite effectively in his book that the religion Jesus
> taught was not the religion of the Jewish peoples. Thus there is not a
> single theme to the Scripture.
I haven't read Paul's book. There's a sense in which I'd agree with him
& one in which I wouldn't. But the questions about the commonality of "the
religion Jesus taught" & "the religion of the Jewish people" isn't the same as
that of the unity of scripture. If there is no such unity it's hard to see how
to make sense of the pervasive NT claims that Jesus is the fulfillment of the
Hebrew scriptures.
& _inter alia_ it would mean that there is no theological connection between the
flood narrative & the resurrection.
> >
> [snip]
> I worte:
> 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.
> >
> George replied:
>
> > 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 have stated this on numerous occasion (but people always fail to hear it).
> Apologetics is not an evangelical tool. It is a discipleship tool. It is
> more useful to keep people from leaving the faith than it is to entice them
> into the faith. So, these arguments are not aimed at the skeptic, they are
> aimed at the Christian who like the lady who wrote me last Saturday who had
> been about to give up hope that anything coherent could be offered which
> joined the facts of science with the facts of scripture. I don't do what I
> do for the non-christian.
One important factor in keeping people from leaving the faith (to the
extent that it is in the church's power) is to educate them in how to read the
BIble. I realize that when one comes into a situation at a point where a
fundamentalist is on the verge of losing faith, there usually isn't the
opportunity to go through a full course of adequate Christian education.
Stop-gap measures may have to suffice, & if you can keep someone in that
situation from apostasizing by convincing them that there's evidence for the
flood, OK. I am not trying to be sarcastic or condescending. I think that
you've accomplished something worthwhile - as long as the faith they're kept in
is living faith in Christ
& not simply in the Bible.
We justified by faith, not by our theology, & a person with YEC theology
can certainly be saved. But such a theology has many weaknesses which may
return to cause trouble. & the difficulty with your approach is that you don't
do anything to correct the theology. What you offer, if I can exagreate
somewhat, is YEC theology (i.e., concordism) without the YEC chronology.
> 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.
>
> See above. I have said this to you thousands of times George, I don't see
> apologetics as an evangelical tool. It is to prevent people from leaving the
> faith when they figure out that nothing the YECs teach them is true and that
> all the liberals offer is a solution akin to the famous Vietnam saying, "In
> order to save the village, we had to destroy it". Removing the Bible from
> historical verification, which is what many want to do destroys it because
> we are supposed to have a God who acted in history--real history.
> [snip]
But if "about the only thing that is verifiable that makes any
difference to the Judeo/Christian story" is the flood which happened, according
to you, ~ 5 x 10^6 years ago, it's pretty hard to see how you're presenting
anything like historical verification of the Bible.
> >> 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, &
>
> Aboriginal religions have stories that have been scientifically supported.
> They involve people walking across land where now there is sea. The stories
> were told prior to the rise of sea level. And I would contend that Buddhism
> has about the same level of historical support. We know about when
> Siddhartha Gautama lived. We know the names of his wife, his cousins, where
> he went, where he taught. I don't see how your claim for Christianity
> having more historical support than say Buddhism has any basis in fact.
Your statements about Buddhism are correct but in an important sense
Buddhism doesn't depend on the historicity of those events. What is crucial to
it are the teachings of Gautama, & they would be just as true if they were the
teachings of Joe Schmoe. There is some sense to a Zen master telling an
inquirer that he must kill the Buddha.
>
> > 2) you are omitting questions about the _meaning_ of
> >historical
> >events and the explanatory power of religious claims.
>
> Exactly HOW do we verify the 'meaning' of Biblical events? How do I
> objectively determine the meaning of some event. I recall several years ago
> reading a short biography on Ramanujan (who was just mentioned by Gordon
> Brown) and when he got some mathematical insight, he ascribed meaning to it.
> He believed that one of his Hindu gods was responsible for giving him that
> inspriation. Was he correct? He had both the _meaning_ of
> historical events[his inspiration] and the explanatory power of religious
> claims. So, what is so special and objectively different from his meaning
> and the one you are talking about.
>
> The problem I see with your argument is that you start from the assumption
> that there is nothing at all like Christianity anywhere else and then build
> your argument upon that assumption. In point of fact, most religious claims
> can't be verified and it seems to me that the only way out of this quagmire
> is to use verification on the few religious claims that are capable of being
> verified.
No, what I say is that the basic Christian claim has to be considered as
a whole. The evidence supporting (not proving) the life & death & resurrection
of Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospels, together with the meaning which is
partly inherent in the putative events themselves (e.g., resurrection means
something about life in relation to death) and partly drawn out by the community
which began with Jesus, & which has some continuity with the historical people
of Israel, should be the subject of enquiry. It isn't simply the claim "Some
dead Jew climbed out of his grave 2000 years ago" or an abstraction like "Life
is better than death."
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 21:27:07 EST