Re: [asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorah?

There is much BS around.

We can use archaeology in some cases. It enables us to understand the word
"downpayment" arrabwn in Ephesians cos of some scrolls found with that word.

Considering the archaeology of towns like Perge which we visited last year
enables us to visualise what Paul did there, but there was no extant Ist
century synagogue.

However we can get it wrong as over the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem.

The OT is harder and there is no archaeological evidence before Moses , so
all we can say about the Patriarchs is that there lifestyle fits in with
what we know of 2000-1500 BC.

As for Genesis 1-11, the text is so vague that no correlations can be made
as we could probably find 500 floods which could fit the story etc. Both
Glenn and Dick force the evidence and claim that the text supports their
ideas , but the evidence is not there.

I am one of those who accept the Flood as historical but written in a
certain form which makes identification impossible. It could have occurred
almost anywhere in the middle east and anytime over a considerable period.

I might get shot

Michael
>
> As long as Bolster Scale doesn't get shortened to 'BS' impact. (I can
> hear our
> secularist enthusiasts snickering already.)
>
> Seriously, though, I wrestle with what impact science can/should have on
> theology. Obviously archaeological finds can verify certain
> historiocities --
> nicely so. But how do we draw the line on where that is necessary vs.
> where we
> are willing to let historiocity go? Glenn Morton and Dick Fisher, etc.
> can
> stump those of us who easily let much of early Genesis off the hook in
> demanding
> historical interpretation by asking us: "so when does it start becoming
> historical"? And when does historical become important? I don't have a
> good
> answer for them, except that a lot of later events MUST be. So this
> mysterious
> line is not allowed anywhere close to the time of Jesus, for example.
>
> All I know is that science can help out with what is historical or not,
> BUT
> science cannot contribute to the answer of how significant or important
> this is,
> which must be addressed by the supersets: Theology / Religion /
> Philosophy. Or
> I should say, the only contribution science can make is to divide out
> extra-ordinary things from ordinary things in the first place, helping to
> give
> the supersets fodder to chew on. But that is the boundary of science.
>
> --Merv
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 20 14:03:07 2007