Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Thank you, Glenn, for that explanation.
All I can say is that the path that you are following is not the only
path available for a Christian to follow. I do not believe that I leave
my brains at the church door, nor do I do so when I open my Bible.
Rather, that is the time when I change into a more powerful gear--
spending a lot of effort to test the soundness of my premises, rather
than depending on logical arguments from premature premises. I test
my premises against the overall coherence of my experience in the light
of the best available scholarship. Sure, I cannot be certain of the
soundness of my premises, but I can live with that uncertainty -- I find
that better than trying to live with cognitive dissonance. I admit I
cannot prove that the Mormon, the Buddhist and the Green Slug adherent
are wrong, but that does not bother me. I find it sufficient to testify
that my life as a Christian is a worthwhile one and one that I can with
integrity recommend a similar life to other people.
The premise that the OT embodies a typical ANE cosmology rather than a
modern cosmology makes very good sense to me. It is certainly not
illogical. The Christian doctrine of creation and redemption does not
depend on this matter, so why should I be uptight about it?
Don

glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

> 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 sent:
>
> *
>
> glennmorton@entouch.net
> <javascript:top.opencompose('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
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 3 02:10:11 2006