Re: Is there any way to falsify accomodationalist interpretations?

As Paul Seely pointed out, I started a thread with similar questions.

It seems to me, if an accomdationalist is going to claim that so and so wrote so and so because that is all that was known at the time, then at minimum the accomodationalist should be able to prove, that yes indeed, that was what was known at the time. That does not prove the accomdationalist is correct, but if the converse is true (that something else was what was known at the time), then the accomodationalist's interpretation can be show to be false.

So if George Murphy says that Paul was incorrect in making the assertion that Adam was an historic figure, and that he did so because it was the thought among the Jews of his day that Adam was historic, then this interpretation can be falsified if it can be proven that in fact the Jewish thought of the day was that Adam was not historic, for example.

Otherwise, accomodationalism, seems to me to be arbitrary, and to be able to support diverse and perhaps contradictory views.

----- Original Message -----
  From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:22 PM
  Subject: Is there any way to falsify accomodationalist interpretations?

  The recent upsurge in posts on how to read Genesis
  prompt me to ask the above question.

  YEC seem to work from the
  concept that a literal reading of the account is the
  only valid way to read Genesis 1-11. They then invert
  science in order to achieve this.

  In terms of evangelizing of people with, at best, maybe
  one or two required college courses in science, AND, in
  an environment where other competing religions can be
  neglected, the YEC stance would have the strongest impact.
  They can say with that voice of authority "the bible is
  true", and say it with such confidence, that nothing can
  compete.

  Of course, those of us trained in science go crazy over
  some of their convoluted science, and one wonders where
  that confidence is placed, as any self respecting
  intellectual would find it difficult to talk with such
  unmitigated certitude.

  And so, with Glenn's view, or Dick's view, we have some
  way to at least get some of the science to make more
  sense. (I won't go further into this than that.) But
  both these, and other views, are intellectual efforts,
  and none of us can talk with that same unmitigated
  certitude that some of these YECs do. It is strange
  in a way that an honest intellectual view is seen as
  "weak", but I think that is what we are seeing, and
  why anything of ASA as such, is not taken particularly
  seriously by most evangelical churches.

  But now I get to the heart of my question. At the one
  end is some effort to harmonize science with the scripture
  account, which goes by the name "concordism" here. At
  the other extreme end, it would be to take the scripture
  as writings that express truths, but are not true in any
  factual sense: there was never any flood, never any tower
  of Babel, never any Adam and Eve of any kind whatever.
  I'm not implying anyone here holds this view exactly, only
  that this would be the "extreme".

  Of course, if God is the truth in the end, the arguments
  about accommodation vs concordism are irrelevant, as we
  can all rejoice at having been faithful by Grace. But
  what if the bible is just a bunch of good stories, and
  say Buddhism is actually much closer to getting it right?
  Or let's say for a moment that life is completely meaningless
  and the only meaning generated is in your own head, as one
  would have to finally conclude as an atheist.

  Is there any way to know where the line is when we chose
  to accommodate scripture? In what way can we validate
  accommodation as an honest way to interpret scripture?
  Or is Grace the only means by which we can see our way
  to God, and accept God's word as truth, irrespective of
  whether it concordant or accommodating?

  by Grace we proceed,
  Wayne
Received on Sat Jun 10 20:16:57 2006