Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

Most posts on this thread have been on the offensive against
accommodation and the defensive replies of the accommodationists.
Please allow me to add a different strand in the opposite direction into
this thread: How far are you ("concordists" ) willing to go to defend
every straightforward narrative found in any Scripture? E.g. Forget
the small time floating ax heads & such -- those are child's play.
Let's skip to the big ones -- the sun stationary in the sky. I must
admit that I don't know what to do with the clear Scriptural claim that
Joshua told the sun (and moon) to stand still, and they did for "about a
day". I don't understand how this could literally have happened (it
would surely be a candidate from a physicist's point of view for the
grand-daddy of miracles since creation). But this is a weak objection
to a miracle, as they can't be understood anyway and this one is only
different from a floating ax head in its magnitude of physical effect.
Do I not have proper faith that God can (/will) do anything? This isn't
a rhetorical question, but a faith struggle for me. As much as I hate
to agree with Thomas Jefferson about anything theological, I do identify
with his clearly expressed skepticism towards some claimed miracles.
Perhaps I am just a weak-kneed accommodationist, and Dick and Glenn can
bolster my faith by declaring that the Bible states it -- therefore God
did it just as stated and as understood by modern eyes. But they also
take science and modern knowledge into account, so I am curious how
their brand of concordism interacts with some of these fantastic claims
so that I can evaluate if my faith (or possible lack thereof). I'm not
even sure why I rank some miracles as more "fantastic" than others. But
I seem to. Some (like the resurrection) are just as fantastic, but
have a lot more recorded witnesses and significance of centrality.
But either/or type thinking won't allow me to make the distinction
between a "central" miracle and a "peripheral" one that only merits a
couple verses mention. After all, to the concordist it is all
God-breathed and indisputable. Eager for your thoughts.

--merv

Jack wrote:
> ********
> Jack wrote:
> >There are of course different views on this, but I think the most
> consistent "accommodation" view, gets rid of a historical
> >Adam altogether.
>
> Which goes to my basic objection with accommodation. It makes
> everything untrue and then proclaims it worthy of worship--a rather
> silly approach in my view and it confirms the question someone asked
> about how far accommodation is willing to go in making things in
> Scripture untrue--to which I responded, mighty far.
>
>
>
> It doesnt make "everything" untrue. In a sense accomodation doesnt
> make anything "untrue" it just makes the scriptures say something
> different than you say it says. And the ahistoric interpretation does
> not apply to all of scripture, and not even all of Genesis, just the
> first 11 chapters, and some other passages. But the non-verifiable
> facts in the ahistoric passages, does not mean that it is untrue, it
> is just not historic, or verfiable with scientific methods.
>
> You are the one demanding this of the text. Why does an ahistoric
> passage have to be verifiable for it to be meaningful?
>
> But all of the scriptures point to truth of the risen Christ. That is
> what you have to hang your hat on. If that is proven incorrect, then
> everything else is meaningless.
>
> Who asked the question about how far accomodation is willing to go?
> Was that on this list or somewhere else? I am honestly interested in
> that answer.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 18 20:52:10 2007