Re: In defense of Paul Seely

On 6/7/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> YOu have correctly concluded that the YECs are wrong because what they teach doesn't
> concord with reality. In fact, it is just plain contra-evidential. But, when it comes
> to the Bible, we then conversely claim that it teaches true theology, and in spite of
> the bad data, it isn't REAAALLLLLYYYY wrong, just misunderstood.
>
> This illogic always amazes me.

Glenn, this is somewhat of a non sequiter. Accomodationism does not
say the data so to speak is bad. Rather, it follows the New Testament
doctrine that the Old Testament was mysterious and thus not fully
perspicacious. Trying to find a spherical Earth in the OT is similar
to finding the Trinity in the OT. Calvin when interpreting Genesis 1
resisted the temptation of saying since Elohim could be interpreted as
plural that it taught the Trinity. Furthermore, accomodationism
encourages efforts such as yours and Dick's to find concord and only
parts company when the case appears overstated or where a
falsification of a particular concord unnecessarily falsifies the
whole. Both camps ultimately have the same goal of exegeting rather
than eisegeting the text and in my opinion are good correctives for
each other. The concordists call the accomodationists when they make
the text rather than the contemporary understanding of the text in
error and the accomodationists call the concordists when the alleged
concord is forced and overstated.
Received on Wed Jun 7 09:05:40 2006