According to those who accept the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture, it
was discovered buried in the New World and translated with the aid of
some mysterious stones. There are no such fantastic claims for the
origins of the books of the Bible, to my knowledge. Also, to me, most
of the Book of Mormon was obviously based on various books of the Bible.
Believers accept Joseph Smith's claim that the similarities are due to a
common divine author (God), but I'm not convinced.
If there are Mormons on this list, please know that I have tremendous
respect for many Mormons individually, and for many aspects of your
church. But to be honest, I cannot accept the Mormon books as
authentic. I consider the books of the Bible to be honest (but not
always historically or scientifically accurate) records of real people
who experienced God.
Chuck
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:03:04 -0500
From: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Historical honesty if not accuracy
Charles Austerberry wrote:
"...I am not convinced that the Book of Mormon is an historically honest
document, let alone an historically accurate document. The Bible,
however, is consistently honest..."
What would be your definition (and distinction) of historical honesty
vs.
accuracy, and how would one show that one document is or isn't?
Jon Tandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:44:22 -0400
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
Subject: same-sex marriage
I recommend the following document for some (IMO) very thoughtful
analysis of this issue:
http://www.princetonprinciples.org/
Ted
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:27:01 EDT
From: Philtill@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?
- -------------------------------1149812821
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 6/8/2006 6:48:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
I would like to add to Phil, when he gets back that he should not ignore
my (and David
Sieman's) physical objections to this theory. David's note shows that
there is a big problem with rolling (as I had noted in my original
post). And David brings up another excellent point, the velocity of the
water. He is right. As I interpret the following passage, the mean
river velocity for rivers not in flood stage, is about 4 mph, but the
Hill's have a whole region in flood for a year. Surely the velocity
would be higher than 4mph.
I won't ignore it, Glenn. I was at a conference all week and unable to
respond to much e-mail.
The proper way to critique Alan Hill's hydrology would be to point out
why his model was (1) wrong, or (2) improperly applied. I doubt that
(1) is possible since he used the standard hydrology model that is used
by hydrologists studying rivers, unless he made an error coding it into
the computer. If he did make a coding error, then you would need to
point out specifically where his error was, or else try to duplicate his
work and show that you get different results.
Saying "surely the velocity would be higher" is not an acceptable
critique of the standard hydrology model or of Alan's application of it.
Maybe you can find that he misapplied the model somehow.
best regards,
Phil
- -------------------------------1149812821
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
cha= rset=3DUS-ASCII"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0"
name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated
6/8/2006 6:48:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, glennmort= on@entouch.net
writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: blue=20= 2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>I would like to add
to Phil, when he gets back= that he should not ignore my (and David
<BR>Sieman's) physical objections t= o this theory. David's note
shows that there is a big problem <BR>with= rolling (as I had noted in
my original post). And David brings up ano= ther excellent
<BR>point, the velocity of the water. He is right. As I=
interpret the following passage, the mean <BR>river velocity for rivers
not= in flood stage, is about 4 mph, but the Hill's have a whole
<BR>region in f= lood for a year. Surely the velocity would be
higher than 4mph.</FONT>= </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV>I won't ignore it,
Glenn. I was at a conference all week and unab= le to respond to
much e-mail. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The proper way to
critique Alan Hill's hydrology would be to point out=20= why his model
was (1) wrong, or (2) improperly applied. I doubt that (=
1) is possible since he used the standard hydrology model that is used
by hy= drologists studying rivers, unless he made an error coding it
into the compu= ter. If he did make a coding error, then you would
need to point out s= pecifically where his error was, or else try to
duplicate his work and show=20= that you get different results.
</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Saying "surely the velocity would be
higher" is not an acceptable = critique of the standard hydrology
model or of Alan's application of it.&nbs= p; Maybe you can find that he
misapplied the model somehow.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>best
regards,</DIV> <DIV>Phil</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
- -------------------------------1149812821--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:08:36 -0700
From: "Paul Seely" <PHSeely@msn.com>
Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.
Glenn wrote,
<<Paul, consider a primitive tribesman who grows up belieiving that the
Great Green Slug created the earth. He goes to college, learns science
and finds out that his creation story is factually false. Can he claim
that his God accommodated the message to the scientific views of his
primitive ancestors but that his religion still teaches true theology?
Can a Mormon do that? An animist?
I am betting you will answer the question cause you have guts.>>
Since you have thrown down the gauntlet while flattering me for my
fortitude, I would surely be breaking some rule of chivalry not to
respond.
So...
First of all, the GGS story, at least as you phrased it, lacks a clear
parallel to the divine accommodation in the OT. You say the primitive
tribesman grew up believing "the Great Green Slug created the earth."
That is a theological statement comparable to Gen 1:1, "Elohim created
the heavens and the earth." Since it is a theological statement, it lies
outside the possibility of being falsified by science, hence there is no
false science here to accommodate.
At the same time, there are primitive origin stories which mention a god
who pries the solid sky off of the earth. The Rig Veda says, Varuna
"pushed away the dome of the sky" (7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1). This is
partially comparable to Gen 1:6-8 where God creates a solid sky. So,
there is false science in both religions which could be called
accommodation by educated believers in those religions.
But, so what? The accommodation does not prove that Varuna or Elohim or
any other named creator-god did not create the sky. It leaves open the
true answer to Who made the sky?
Concordism can do no better. It rejects the historical-grammatical
meaning of the Bible's words and twists them around until they agree
with modern science. Could a believer in the Great Green Slug, or Varuna
or any other god do the same thing with their stories? I don't see why
not.
To me it is a simple matter of honesty. I will not take the scientific
data out of context and twist it to agree with Scripture, so I cannot be
a YEC. I will not take the biblical data out of context and twist it to
agree with modern science, so I cannot be a concordist. The beauty of
accommodationism is that you do not have to twist either the Bible or
science.
(Believers in the Book of Mormon could theoretically appeal to
accommodation, but I think accommodationism would have to be applied too
extensively to be a practical answer.)
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:13:37 -0400
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.
For Michael Roberts and Paul Seeley,
Michael wrote:
>>>If I found a great green slug in my vegetable patch I would squash it
>>>or put
salt on it.
The question is silly so cant be answered as I have implied before
Michael<<<
You know, Michael, since other people, like David, Iain, Jack and Paul
find that it isn't a silly question and is a question which is capable
of being answered, maybe your emotional reaction shows that you can't
handle the truth which logic dictates. You won't answer this simple
question but I have seen you over and over demanding that YECs answer
equally simple questions. That seems a bit inconsistent and borders on
showing what a double standard you have for yourself vs. the YEC. They
must answer questions while you avoid them.
Paul Seeley, who does indeed have guts wrote:
>Since you have thrown down the gauntlet while flattering me for my
>fortitude, I would surely be breaking some rule of chivalry not to
respond.
>So...
>
Yeah, I intentionally wanted to put maximum pressure on you. I was tired
of people ignoring a simple question. :-) But I knew you would
come through and deal honestly with an honest question.
>At the same time, there are primitive origin stories which mention a
god who
>pries the solid sky off of the earth. The Rig Veda says, Varuna "pushed
away
>the dome of the sky" (7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1). This is partially
comparable to
>Gen 1:6-8 where God creates a solid sky. So, there is false science in
both
>religions which could be called accommodation by educated believers in
those
>religions.
>
>But, so what? The accommodation does not prove that Varuna or Elohim or
any
>other named creator-god did not create the sky. It leaves open the true
>answer to Who made the sky?
OK, but that is the point I am trying to make. Without some form of
concordism (reality) in the mix, the accommodationalist position takes
one into a totally fideist and circular system, as I showed with
George's statement that God accommodates to the point of not interfering
with the theology. The 'so what' is that, like a house without a
foundation, one is left in epistemologically floating without a
foundation
based in reality.
The thing that makes science real is that input of the observational. I
drill a well, it tells me whether or not my pre-drill theories are
correct or not. Often I am wrong, but occasionally I am at least
partially right.
The thing that makes most religions wrong is that they are mutually
inconsistent. They can't all be true at the same time (unless we are
like
the queen in Thru the Looking Glass, who could believe 2 impossible
things before breakfast). Thus, if there is a true religion, then
99.999999999% of the religions are false. I see only one way to know if
a religion is true and that is by observational input.
The fact that 99.9999999% of all religions must be false, by logic,
means that 99.99999999% of the religious people of the world have
deluded themselves. And that means that the odds are not really with
us. I would never drill a well with that kind of odds against me.
>
>Concordism can do no better. It rejects the historical-grammatical
meaning
>of the Bible's words and twists them around until they agree with
modern
>science. Could a believer in the Great Green Slug, or Varuna or any
other
>god do the same thing with their stories? I don't see why not.
Then, if what you say is true, that concordism is mere twisting facts,
there is still the possibility that the whole thing is false.
Accommodation then becomes an impediment to drawing the correct
conclusion. It gives the appearance of making the religion true, without
actually doing so.
>
>To me it is a simple matter of honesty. I will not take the scientific
data
>out of context and twist it to agree with Scripture, so I cannot be a
YEC.
But YEC is not the type of concordism I am talking about. You know how
much I fight the YECs, so is this a strawman?
I
>will not take the biblical data out of context and twist it to agree
with
>modern science, so I cannot be a concordist. The beauty of
accommodationism
>is that you do not have to twist either the Bible or science.
The beauty of accommodationalism is that one gets to live in a self-made
virtual world-kind of like a dream, thinking one has the truth but
logically knowing the odds are quite against you, but believing it
anyway.
Your comment is similar to what Rich Blinne says in his
Calvin,Accommodation and the Trinity thread. He says that the
accommodationalist
goal is not to make the text say what it doesn't say. But in point of
fact, that is exactly what accommodationalism does. It takes an
account widely believed to be history prior to modern science and makes
it say theological truth rather than history. The YECs are right
whether we like it or not when they say that the natural reading is of a
6-day creation.
>
>(Believers in the Book of Mormon could theoretically appeal to
>accommodation, but I think accommodationism would have to be applied
too
>extensively to be a practical answer.)
I agree with you.
And thank you for being honest enough to actually deal with this
question in a forthright way. The already considerable respect I have
for
you has just grown.
------------------------------
End of asa-digest V1 #5906
**************************
Received on Fri Jun 9 14:14:07 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 09 2006 - 14:14:07 EDT