Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

As yak butter sounds yukky I haven't yet responded.

My one comment is to support Randy. I cannot see any real difference between
your view of Genesis with the Flood so long ago than the awful
anti-scriptural idea of ACCOMMODATION.

Glenn, I now formally welcome you into the Accommodationalists'
(metaphorical) camp on condition you do not eat my dog Holly

Micahel.

----- Original Message -----
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

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 donâ?Tt. 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, â?olet there be
light� but it
doesnâ?Tt say WHEN there was light. If the days were planning days and not
fulfillment days, then the order of events doesnâ?Tt 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 â?oanimals 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 lifeâ?"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 Adamâ?Ts
creation?
Unless one is a 6-millennialist, no. Clearly most on this list claim to
believe
that the Bible doesnâ?Tt 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 didnâ?Tt 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 donâ?Tt 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 wasnâ?Tt
invented
that long ago, I would say this. the stories of King Arther are put in the
Medieval
world eisegetically. Wouldnâ?Tt 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 donâ?Tt 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 verificationâ?"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 14:11:22 2006