RE: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

I claim, that there is a reason for each Biblical account on the tough list.
I just spent a while on Genesis 1. First, the fact that the sun and the moon
were not created on the first day indicates that God's days and nights are
not our days and nights. With the evolution of the computer and computer
aided design - the idea of God speaking something into existence takes on
new meaning. We could be a computer game for all we know.

Given that the days and nights are not our days and nights - God's ways are
not our ways - the rest of the sequence is pretty logical. Except for the
sun and moon thing. But, even ancient man knew that the sun was life. Other
ancient men worshipped the sun. They knew that plants couldn't live without
the light of the sun. They knew that the sun gave the light of day and that
the sun's departure caused night. They may have thought the sun was a fiery
chariot or that it travelled across the sky in some other way - but they
knew it was day, and it was life.

So, why pull the sun and moon out of creation sequence?

In the beginning God.
Without God the earth was without form and void.
God said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.'

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light
shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

I believe the sun and moon are intentionally out of sequence, defying even
the logic of ancient man, in order to emphasize that God is the light of
men. God is life. God is day.

And, I believe that if you pray and look at other illogical situations in
the Bible, that you will find similar literary motives for them being thus.

Consider modern art, modern literature. We suppose that ancient writers
could not, would not, use our 'sophisticated' methods of making points.
Let's step back and look at it differently. Take away your presuppositions
on a piece.

I am reading this for the first time. But, I have read the New Testament.
What strikes me? What seems powerful? What seems out of place? Why would an
author have done this? Ignorance? As I said, in this case, I say, 'No!' This
is too basic for ignorance. Then why would this be written thus?

This is literature - written for a purpose. All we know is that it is
literature, powerful enough to have survived millenium. Read it as such.
Where is its power?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:23 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Hi phil,

Borrowed a computer for a couple of days--mine went bye-bye.

 you wrote:

>>>>>On Mon May 29 23:07 , Philtill@aol.com sent:

I know you are traveling soon, so I will be patient for your response. I
want to
try contributing an answer to your specific questions. I think that I can
make
some small contribution. I have struggled with doubts about all these same
things,
so I can at least state how I got peace in regard to them. But before I do,
help
me understand the scope of the above quote. What in **particular** are
**all** the
areas where you see an apparent conflict between observation and scripture
and
where some Christians have appealed to pre-scientific accomodation of the
world-
view of the original audience. I'll start the list:

1. the sequence of events in the days of Genesis 1
2. mankind beginning from a recent single pair of humans
3. the geographical scope of the Noachian flood
4. the lifespans of the Patriarchs
5. the tower of Babel story vs. DNA and linguistic evidence for mankind's
spread
over the earth

Did I miss any of the "biggies"? (I know there are lots of "minor" ones,
too, but
I don't want to attempt a comprehensive list to that scale.) Please add or
subtract from this list of biggies.<<<<<

Those are the big ones in my mind. I actually have a concordistic fit for
these
issues (no one likes it but that is the way it is). Maybe one could say I
am
picking a fight because I find the widespread view so utterly unworkable
that I
find it strange that more don't find it so strange.

>>>>

If I understand you, you are asking how we can claim consistency with
observational
data for the above items, in a way that is qualitatively different than the
concordism of other religions and that is not epistemically ad hoc. Is that
a
correct summary?

Also, did you ask for positive observational "proof" for Christianity that
stands
on its own merits, or are you more concerned with removing the ad hoc
approaches to
the apparently negative observational data?<<<<

First, I have not asked for observational proof. I think proof is entirely
impossible. Many on this list tirelessly say I am asking for proof but that
isn't
the case. What I am asking for is supporting evidence. Supporting evidence
isn't
proof, but it solves the problem of having NO evidence whatsoever. Look at
the
biggies up there in your list (which is a good list of biggies). The
scientific
world used to believe those biggies. Newton and his contemporaries thought
the
world history was exactly as outlined in the Bible.

But, because of the problems you list, science rejected those stories as
being
serious history or science. Why did science reject the stories??????
BECAUSE THEY
DON'T CONCORD WITH REALITY.

This is why those on this list are not YECs. If the stories concorded with
reality,
most people here would be YEC.

But, many on this list don't like concordance at all and think it is a
dead-end
street. To me, it is the only way out of the epistemological thicket.

Now, what does one do when faced with a situation where his holy document is
fully
holey--i.e., has historically fallacious stories by the bucketfull--yet the
person
still wants to believe the message of the religion? Well, one can then say
(as has
been said), the holy document is still true but the science was accommodated
to the
poor intellectual abilities of those poor ignorant savages who actually
wrote this
holey thing. In such a case, it is the theology which is true but not the
history
or science. And so, the holy book is declared true by the fiat of saying it
isn't
supposed to concord with reality.

But to me, this is absurd in the highest degree. In no other area of life
can we
say with a straight face that something is true and worthy of dying for if
it is
believed to be false.

This approach also leads us to saying very nice, but totally unverifiable
things,
like: "The Bible has perfect knowledge of man". It is a nice thing to say,
but how
does one determine if it is true? Do we merely say anything unverifiable
which the
bible teaches is true theology and thus above reproach?

So, as I have asked Michael Roberts on this list and on others, why can't
the {fill
in the blank with your favorite religion} do the same with the holes in
their holy
books? To me this is a rational and reasonable question but for some
reason,
people don't like it--they get mad at me for being obnoxious [Which I freely
admit
to and will go further and say I have a bad attitude, a bad personality, am
arrogant, argumentative and I have a very sarcastic tongue. this list could
be
extended ad nauseum].

So, if that is what you mean by "how we can claim consistency with
observational
data for the above items, in a way that is qualitatively different than the
concordism of other religions and that is not epistemically ad hoc", then
that is
what I mean as well.
Received on Tue May 30 10:46:34 2006