In the context I was writing in it makes sense. The accomodationalist view is that God taught true theology but accommodated the science to that of the culture of the day when God inspired the Bible.
My friend Paul Seely says it this way:
"The biblical approach that I believe better relates science
to the Bible is to accept the historical-grammatical meaning of
Genesis 1. Admit that it reflects the cosmology of the second
millennium B.C., and that modern science presents a more valid
picture of the universe. Then, recognize the fact that the
theological message of Genesis 1 stands out in such superior
contrast to the mythological accounts of creation (both ancient
and modern) that even so radical a critic as Gunkel could see
the difference. Finally, draw what seems to me the obvious
conclusion: Science and the Bible are complementary." ~ Paul H.
Seely, "The First Four Days of Genesis in concordist Theory and
in Biblical Context," Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith," 49:2 June 1997, pp 85-95, p. 93
This is what I find so objectionable and why, inspite of what Michael Roberts wants to say about me, I do not believe this view and thus, I am not an accomodationalist. If God did this it is a problem, a real problem. Does God also accomodate his theology? Where does it say that God will only prevaricate about science but not prevaricate about theology? Accomodation is so illogical, so irrational that it confirms in my mind the irrationality of religion because so many believe this nonsense.
By the way, when I read Paul's book, it nearly caused me to leave Christianity because his arguments are extremely good (I respect Paul a lot). But if Paul is right, then in my view, one must leave his mind at the church house door in order to be a Christian. And tonight I quoted a YEC who effectively believes the same thing. see my thread on " lets assume I am right". That YEC beleives that the theology can be true without evidence as well, only he holds that the Bible teaches a very different theology than Paul would accept. And that means that this approach is NOT objective but highly subjective.
Consider this from Paul:
"The people originally addressed in Leviticus 11 were steeped in the
ancient Near Eastern concept that some things were clean and others
unclean, and that to touch or eat the unclean was a sin. This was a
culturally enforced religio-ethical concept, and their minds were too
immature and too hardened in it ('their hearts were hardened') to receive
the absolute truth that nothing outside of man is really unclean(Mark
7:15).
"So, god met them where they were, compromised with their immature
view (their hardened hearts), and employed their false concept to
communicate the truth of His holiness and his command that they be holy. He
temporarily allowed their mistaken but ingrained viewpoint to prevail over
the absolute truth about the clean and the unclean in order to communicate
without hindrance the higher truth of His demand for holiness." Paul Seely,
Inerrant Wisdom, (Portland: Evangelical Reform, 1989), p. 200
He says the same thing with science. But that then raises the problem for me. How does one tell a false religion with a false cosmology from a true religion with a false cosmology? We can't put theological doctrines to the test until our lives end. How do I know that God didn't allow their mistaken theological views to prevail over the absolute theological truth???????
Accomodationalism is totally illogical.
On Fri Jun 2 19:39 , Don Nield
glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:
> You say you are a fellow accomodationalist, but you are delusional.
> Since I don’t believe that the ANE cosomology was a reasonable thing
> for a truthful god to allow into his supposed communication to man at
> any time in history, I am NOT a accommodationalist. I think if God
> communicated to mankind such a view of cosmology, then God is a liar.
> And therein lies the conundrum I am faced with. I won’t say it is
> theologically true as you are want to do.
>
Glenn -- please explain why ANE cosmology in the Old Testament (which is
a collection of ANE writings) is unacceptable to you. It seems to me
that one should *expect* ANE cosmology in an ANE document.
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 02 2006 - 23:06:08 EDT