How not to throw out the bible and still be scientific

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:53:56 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: RATE"

    Hi Wayne, You ask some very excellent questions below. Answers below
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Darryl Maddox [mailto:dpmaddox@arn.net]
      Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 3:55 PM
      To: Glenn Morton; Dawsonzhu@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
      Subject: Re: RATE

      Glenn you know I agree with you most of the time and I don't disagree with
    you here, but I do have a question and an opinion.

      Q: If we through out a 6 day creation and a universal flood, by what
    criteria do we stop throwing out stuff?

      GRM: Since I don't think the Bible actually teachs a 6 day creation but
    believe that the days in Genesis 1 are days of proclamation which are
    basically the proclamations about what the universe would be like when it
    was created, I don't have to 'throw' anything out. This interpretation
    maintains Genesis 1 as actually referring to history (see
    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm for more on this view.

      GRM: As to the flood, it is anthropologically universal, not necessarily
    global. The Hebrew word for what was flooded by Noah's flood is eretz'.
    That word is used throughout the Bible for limited regions. Indeed Abraham
    was told by God to leave his 'eretz'. If eretz means planet earth as the
    YEC/global flood people assert, then Abraham disobeyed God by not traveling
    to Mars. The flood becomes local under this interpretation and I don't have
    to 'throw' anything out.

      GRM: Your question is a bit like asking 'When did you stop beating your
    wife' It presupposes that there are only two options--throw things out, or
    accept 6 days/global flood. There are other options. The one I take is

      GRM: 1. Geneis 1 is real history of the pre-tempporal, precreation period.
               2. Genesis 2 happened billions of years after Genesis 1.
               3. Genesis 1:11, 21 and 24 God ordered the LAND (eretz) and water
    to create life. That is what evolution says.
               4. Nowhere in scripture is the word 'animal' both subject and
    object in a sentence which says, 'Animals reproduce animals after their
    kind. Thus the Bible does not preclude morphological change in spite of what
    the YECs and Phillip Johnsons of the world claim. The LAND created animals
    of VARIOUS kinds. That is what the phrase mistranslated 'after their kind'
    means.

      GRM: 'Course, no one likes my views.

      I've been trying to answer this one objectively for most of my life and
    have yet to even get close to an answer but that doesn't mean it hasn't been
    done or won't be done. But if it has I am not aware of it and that leads to
    my opinion -

      Opinion: My opinion is that it is the fear that the lack of such a
    hard-and-fast, publishable, debated and agreed upon by all, criteria for
    separating analogy from fact that causes most YECs to stay that way inspite
    of everything. Once they start throwing out stuff they are afraid they
    won't know how or where to stop and that could leave them with consequences
    they would rather not face. The fact that they compromise, select for
    acceptance, and ignore as irrelevant passages on other issues is a small and
    seldom thought of contradiction to their stance on the age of the earth and
    the nature of the flood so they try to stand pat on the big ones and hope
    the small ones will take care of themselves eventually.

      GRM: I don't beleive Genesis is allegory of analogy. I believe it is
    history. That was the whole issue George M. and I used to beat each other
    over the head about. While both of us still believe our opinions, I think
    we have both decided that while it is fun to beat the other guy, it is less
    fun to be beaten. Thus we have over the last few years agreed to disagree
    and left it at that. :-)

      GRM: I basically agree with you and the YEC position that we simply can't
    take an allegorical approach to creation or even events like the flood. If
    they left no evidence, then the best and most logical thing to do is to say
    " it didn't happen and the account is false", not to conclude that "it
    didn't happen therefore the account is true."

      I won't respond George, my head is still sore from our last battle. It
    needs to heal. :-)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:54:02 EDT