Re: Apologists and other salesmen

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 01 Nov 1996 20:58:17

Geoffrey Horton wrote:

>I think what this says is that, in worldly terms, the Bible does not make
>sense. And I'm afraid this is true. Insisting on a hard and fast rule of
>interpretation is not going to make things any easier.
>The argument seems to be the "slippery slope" problem: If I give up the
>factuality of early Genesis, what happens to the Resurrection, or some
>other such item? I'm generally susceptible to such arguments, but I have
>to opt out of this one.
First, in response to your other note, I didn't find this particulalry harsh.
I would call it direct.

In reply to the above, I don't think I am applying a hard and fast rule.
Looking at the style of Genesis 2-11, it sounds much like the style of Genesis
12-50. We believe that Genesis 12-50 is largely historical and we do not
suggest it is an allegory. Since there is no clear context with which the
author states that it is an allegory, or it is defined that way be being a
quotation from someone, I see no clear break demarcating the allegory part
from the historical part. I simply beleive that style wise, and strategically
Christians would be better off treating Genesis 2-11 historically. I am not
saying anything about how other parts of the scripture are best to be

I sat down with a friend of mine today who is an atheist. This man is
actively engaged in fighting young-earth creationism. I asked him a question.
"Would you be more likely to accept Christianity if we christians all
admitted that Genesis 1-11 was not historical?" He laughed.

I disagree that it is the "slippery slope" problem entirely. Why do I reject
the events contained in the Book of Mormon? Because they didn't happen!!!
The stories do tell people to obey God, live good lives, and thus are true in
that sense. But they are simply historically false. In my mind this throws
great doubt into the veracity of Mormon claims. Why should I believe an
equally historical-looking account, as Genesis 2-11 appears to be, if it is
equally false as the Book of Mormon? No one can tell me why it is logical to
reject the Mormon account because it is not historically true and then accept
the Biblical account in spite of the fact that it is not historically true.

Some religions teach that the world was created by two giant salamanders. That
is untrue also, but should we believe it is an inspired account?


Foundation,Fall and Flood