Re: [asa] A parable of three investors

Glenn Morton wrote:

>10-30-06
>To Don Nield:
>
>
>
>>My question to Glenn is the following. If God inspired the
>>writings to
>>tell us something of a concrete nature, why is it not set in
>>more solid
>>concrete?
>>
>>
>
>It is as I have already posted. God has a problem. He has to pick a time to
>reveal himself to humanity. Whenever that is, humanity will not understand
>the full truth of science. But if he is to tell us how he created, which is
>what that account actually looks like (claims that it was only to convey the
>merest statement that he created notwithstanding), then he has to tell a
>simplifed story which can be understood at all time, and which can be read
>and viewed as true throughout time. That is not an easy task.
>
>Thus, we have several facets of the communication. Gods intent -> the human
>writer's understanding of that intent -> what the human writer writes -> the
>original reader's understanding of what was written,-> and our understanding
>of what was written.
>
> If God did inspire the Bible, then HIS intent, is important, not the intent
>of the original human writer. Of course, if God just let Joe Blow write
>whatever sounded poetic without any form of divine guidance, why do we
>bother with any of this? Under that circumstance, the communication trail
>looks like:
>
>the human writer's intent -> what the human writer writes -> the original
>reader's understanding of what was written,-> and our understanding of what
>was written.
>
>Such a chain is no different than that of a best selling novel! And this is
>why I don't think the human writer's intent is all that important.
>
>To claim that God can't tell us anything about reality casts serious doubt
>upon the claim that he CAN tell us something true about theological reality.
>IMO. A god incapable or impotent to tell me something true about reality is
>equally impotent at telling me something true about theology. The only
>difference is, that with theology I have no means to check the truth value
>of the theological statements. With physical reality, I do. Thus, the only
>way to get any assurance of the truth of the theological message is to test
>the physical message. Fideism isn't a path towards true theological
>knowledge; it is a path towards self-deception.
>
>
Thank you, Glenn. My follow up questions are the following. If it is
important for God to tell us, in the Book of Genesis, something about
physical reality that he has left us incapable of finding out by
ourselves, why did he not do so in an unambiguous manner , leaving you
and Dick no need to argue about it? Is it possible that it was not
important for God to do this?
Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 30 18:31:15 2006