Terry Gray wrote:
>This leads to Kidner's last point in the section I posted (it probably
>makes your concordist blood boil ;-) but I think that he is essentially
>> Thirdly, however, the interests and methods of Scripture and
>>science differ so widely that they are best studied, in any detail, apart.
>>Their accounts of the world are as distinct (and each as legitimate) as an
>>artist's portrait and an anatomist's diagram, of which no composite picture
>>will be satisfactory, for their common ground is only in the total reality
>>to which they both attend. It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is
>>the perfect vehicle for God's revelation, which is what concerns us here;
>>and its bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power. To
>>read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its
>>wisdom. To have God's own presentation of human beginning as they most
>>deeply concern us, we need look no further than these chapters and their
>>New Testament interpretation.
The idea that two realms of knowledge are independent and do not need to be consistent is EXACTLY what
Immanuel Velikovsky has done. Velikovsky has clearly indicated that history does not have to be consistent
with the facts and theories of physics! For anyone who does not know who Velikovsky is, he wrote a book in
the early 50's which advocated the idea that the miracles and myths of ancient cultures were due to the
planets Venus, Saturn etc had near collisions with the earth. The resulting catastrophe was preserved in the
mythology of ancient cultures. Velikovsky had the planets careening around the solar system like billiard
balls. If you talk to a Velikovskian, physics matters not to them. The fact that what they suggest is
impossible, doesn't faze them at all. They have separated history and physics.
Any professor today (lacking tenure) would be fired if he began to suggest that biology did not have to be
consistent with chemistry or that astronomy did not have to be consistent with physics.
Why is this the case? Why do we believe that Velikovsky is WRONG? Because these standards of truth are
dualistic. We require a SINGLE standard of truth in all areas of hunan endeavor EXCEPT theology. That we
allow to violate all sorts of other truths. And I believe we allow that because we have not been able to come
up with a scenario which united the two realms of science and theology. Lacking this union, and lacking the
courage to reject Judeo-Christianity because it is inconsistent with the known scientific facts, we come up
with this dualistic approach. We can have our cake and eat it too.
No one is going to like this but what Kidner is suggesting is no more and no less than exactly what the YEC's
are doing. They also do not feel that theology has to be consistent with science. But instead of denying the
actuality of the Biblical account, the YECs deny the actuality of science. The only difference I can see
between these two positions is what is being denied. Kidner can't find a scenario which unites the data of
science and the Bible so he loosens the Biblical data; the YECs loosen the Scientific data.
With all my strength, I firmly believe that to accept a dualistic system of reality when it comes to theology
vs. science, is to place us in the realm of Velikovsky and the YECs. Since I have already spent too much time
as a YEC, I will not go back into that box willingly.
Foundation,Fall and Flood