RE: Apologists and other salesmen

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:39:28

Daniel Berger wrote:

>I quote Glenn Morton's reply to my earlier comments, below.
>So, Glenn, you maintain that Jesus actually had to have observed a Samaritan
>performing the actions related in the famous parable,for the story to have
>any validity? That the fact that Nathan probably told David a completely
> non-factual story, about the poor man's lamb, meant that David didn't have
>to worry about murdering Uriah? That the Book of Jonah must be verified
>scientifically before its lessons can be taken to heart?

Don't put words in my mouth here. I never said that everything in the Bible
was factual history. I do believe that certain parts MUST be historical. The
resurrection MUST be historical. Jesus as an actual person MUST be historical.

As to the Good Samaritan, it may or may not have been actual history. Jesus
told the story to support what his definition of a neighbor was. It certainly
doesn't hurt if it is or is not historical.

As to Nathan telling David about the poor lamb, Nathan at the end clearly
defined the story as an allegory by naming David. This is a poor example to
support what you are trying to say.

Jonah? I don't know.


>My off-the-cuff opinion is that those who insist that everything in the
> Bible must be historically perfect and verifiable before they will admit
>their need for a Savior, would find some other excuse if that objection were
>answered on the terms they demand. Remember that Satan knows more truth --
>in an objective sense -- than any of us, yet refuses to repent.

First, I never said it had to be "historically perfect and verifiable".
I want to make this perfectly clear. I do not believe in literalism. I do
believe in historicity. If Noah took 8 pair of animals on a boat it would not
bother me. But if there was no event upon which the tale is based then why
believe anything in that part of the account? What am I to believe about the
exodus? Currently there is no archeological evidence of that.

I am disappointed that you entirely avoided my original question! Why should
we feel it is correct to criticise the YECs for using 17th A.D. cosmology
which is incorrect and falsified, and it is correct to excuse the Bible when
it uses a cosmology from circa 2000 BC which is equally wrong? All I am
asking for is a consistent application of a standard of truth.

Why is one incorrect account to be soundly criticised and the other to be
highly praised?


Foundation,Fall and Flood