Re: Apologists and other salesmen

Glenn Morton (
Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:15:46

I knew my paraphrase would stir things up. I am going to try to stir them up
more. :-) The following is the best reason I can give for wanting a factually
true apologetic.

Daniel J. Berger wrote:

>Glenn Morton wrote,
>>If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific matters, who will believe its
>>reports about the Gospel?
>>A few weeks ago I told an atheist why I believed it was important for early

>>Genesis to be historically correct. I wrote:
>>>GM>If the Bible is nothing but a nonhistorical set of nomad myths, which
>>>>are objectively false, then why bother with christianity.
>This stems from the fallacy of considering the Bible as a book rather than
> as a library. There are all kinds of books in a library; if we find a book
>of mythology in the library, does this mean that the history books are
>Christianity is not founded on a literal interpretation of Genesis, it is
>founded on the Resurrection. And there is much better evidence for the
>Resurrection than for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-5.

I quite agree that Christianity is founded on nothing else but the
resurrection. But, follow this reasoning. The resurrection was necessary to
pay the penalty for man's sin which I presume you and I agree is a reality.
Thus at the very least the early Genesis is telling us something true about
the condition of mankind--that he is sinful and in need of a savior.

Now, if you agree that the Bible is telling us something true about our sinful
state, and that Genesis 2-3 is telling us this truth in an allegory that has
no scientific or historical reality, then the Bible is telling us something
true about mankind in untrue packaging (i.e. Ancient Near East Cosmology).
That is considered acceptable by many in the Christian community. However,
here is what I find to be most paradoxical.

The young earth creationists (YECs) are doing the very same thing. They are
telling us the sinful state of mankind, by means of a story which has little
scientific merit or historical truth. Many on this list object very strongly
to the actions of the YECs because they are not telling the scientific story
correctly. We feel that this behavior brings dishonor to the Lord; that it
runs people off from the Gospel. We demand that our fellow Christians tell the
true scientific story. Yet when the Bible does the same
thing, i.e. tells us the true state of mankind in an untrue fable, we do not
complain that the Bible is bringing dishonor to the Lord; that it runs people
off from the Gospel; and demand that the Bible should tell the true story.

Why should we condemn the YECs when we won't condemn the Scripture for doing
the very same thing?

Foundation,Fall and Flood