Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Glenn -- here are some points I think I agree with you on. I think I agree
with something like your "days of proclomation" view or an "analogical days"
view. I also agree that "after their kinds" doesn't say anything one way or
the other about evolution. And, I've never really understood the insistence
that Adam *must* be neolithic based on the cultural references in the text,
especially from among those of us who acknowledge that the writer's cultural
context flavors the telling of the story. But I have a problem with the
Adam you propose -- how do you deal with the geneologies?

On 5/31/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
> I can hardly keep up. I was writing a compiled response to several
> people, but
> Randy, your post deserves being posted on its own.
>
> Randy Isaac wrote:
>
> >>>> I believe you have articulated a most pervasive tendency in our
> Christian
> community, namely the arbitrary re-interpretation of any passage, or even
> of any
> circumstance in our lives, to fit our preferred theology of the
> moment. This has
> bothered me for many many years and still does. Many of the explanations
> and
> meanings that we hear from Christians would have dire consequences if we
> dared take
> them to their logical consequences. It's sometimes hard to stick to the
> core
> beliefs.<<<<
>
> Having been guilty of that myself, it bothers me.
>
> >>>>> I'd like to comment on two aspects, at the risk of making the
> dilemma you
> stated even more difficult.
>
> 1) accommodationism and concordism. You pointed out that if
> an "accommodationist" interpretation is applied to a passage for no other
> reason
> than to avoid a contradictory observation, then the validity of such an
> interpretation is suspect and one would have no reason to deny any
> religion such a
> re-interpretation. Good point (although in some cases there may be other
> objective
> reasons for such an interpretation) but I think the same argument would
> have to
> apply to concordism. If a passage is reinterpreted for no other reason
> than to
> match an observation, then such a reinterpretation is as suspect as
> the "accommodationist" approach. For example, reinterpreting the date of
> the Flood
> to 5 million years ago and moving it to another locale for no other reason
> than to
> match an observed flood is essentially the same as your example of
> accommodationism. Of course, if there are textual reasons for such a date
> change
> or for accommodationism, that would make a big difference.<<<<
>
> I like this objection. It is blunt, straight up and hits home.
> Thanks. Now, I
> would start not at the flood but texturally. Almost all Christians believe
> that the
> Bible rules out evolution. I don't. I think the text teaches evolution.
>
> I would note that the grammatical structure of the days, makes it likely,
> in my
> opinion that they are days of proclamation. God said, "let there be
> light" but it
> doesn't say WHEN there was light. If the days were planning days and not
> fulfillment days, then the order of events doesn't matter at all. God can
> plan
> things in any order as often buildings are planned from the façade inward
> rather
> than in the way the buildling is built. See
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
>
> Nowhere can one find a verse which says "animals give rise to animals
> after their
> kind" where animals is both subject and object. If such a grammatical
> construction
> were there, then I would agree, the Bible rules out evolution, and one
> would have
> to decide what he must about Scripture in light of modern science.
>
> But, the Bible says, Earth (subject) bring forth animals after their
> kind. The
> earth does the bringing, animals are not restricted to reproducing after
> their
> king, the earth is told to bring forth various kinds of animals. That is
> evolution
> in the bible. Evolution says that the earth brought forth life—that is
> the modern
> scientific view. So, at least this interpretation is based upon
> scripture.
>
> Now, what are the implications of allowing the Bible to teach
> evolution? Time is
> the first thing. We are not restricted to 6000 years, or merely a few
> thousand
> years. We can then begin to open our horizons.
>
> Now, given that, I would note that many of the modern apologists, (even my
> friend
> and debate partner,Dick Fischer) is really a closet 6-millenialist. He has
> the
> creation account fitting within a few thousand years. (remember there are
> some
> YECs who believe the earth is, gasp, 12,000 years old and fit all biblical
> events
> within that time frame). I would go further and note that almost all
> Neolithic Adam
> guys and gals are closet 6-millenialists.
>
> So, now that we can open the time horizons, what does it mean? Well,
> exactly when
> was Adam? Well genetics says many of our genes go back 5 million years
> (or more).
> See the discussion of Templeton back in Feb or March. See
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegenes.htm
>
> Is there anything in Scripture which limits us to 6000 years for Adam's
> creation?
> Unless one is a 6-millennialist, no. Clearly most on this list claim to
> believe
> that the Bible doesn't teach a 6000 year old universe, yet they still try
> to fit
> all the biblical events into that time frame and they fail to see the
> contradiction. Mankind didn't appear 6, 12 or 50,000 years ago. Mankind
> has been
> around doing human things (that is what the anthro data says) for at least
> 2
> million years and since the earliest H. erecti SKELETONS are not the very
> first H.
> erecti who ever lived, we know that they lived much earlier. Statistically
> we can
> expect that H. erectus evolved somewhere between 5 and 3 million years
> ago. (go
> see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gaps.htm )
>
> So, Randy, I think I do pay attention to scripture and don't try to be a
> closet YEC
> who force fits Adam to a time he could not have lived in, and force fit
> the flood
> to a place where there is ZERO evidence of such an event.
>
> And for those who will criticize my views because they say farming wasn't
> invented
> that long ago, I would say this. the stories of King Arther are put in the
> Medieval
> world eisegetically. Wouldn't it be easier to understand the Neolithic
> attachments
> as eisegesis on the part of the writer, than to have to make the creation
> story
> totally false, observationally?
>
>
>
> >>>> 2) verification vs falsification. You've said several times that
> you
> aren't looking for "proof." Verification, at least of a text in the
> scientific
> sense, would entail an unambiguous and unique prediction which would be
> later
> confirmed by observation. That's not likely in this case. Falsification,
> on the
> other hand, would require proof that all possible interpretations, be it
> accommodationism or a redefined concordism or whatever, that bring
> consistency with
> observation are wrong. You repeatedly stated that if the text is wrong
> about
> something in history, then how can you believe anything else in the
> text. Fair
> enough, but showing that a text is wrong requires proof that that
> particular
> interpretation is absolutely correct and other interpretations are wrong,
> whether
> or not they were derived for the right reasons. That's not easily done
> either.
> This means that neither verification nor falsification is possible from a
> comparison of these texts with observations in nature. Rather
> discouraging. But
> perhaps it brings us around to what a number of people have stated in the
> dialog--
> the validity of and belief in the Word of God lies elsewhere. And we seek
> understanding in these texts, not a validation. <<<<
>
> I don't think that one has to show that every interpretation is false or
> that one
> interpretation is correct to do the above. A statement that Animals give
> rise to
> animals after their kind, would be enough to falsify the account, because
> evolution
> is real. But there is no such statement. To verify it, reading Genesis
> 1:11 as I
> do could be considered verification—supporting data.
>
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm
>
> Here's to all my friends on this list who are SIX-THousand YEar
> Creationist Old
> Earthers. I think I will coin a term--Sixthyecoes for this syndrome, or
> sixth-echos
> because they are actually echoing the YEC age of creation.
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 31 11:07:17 2006