I agree, though I am not much of a theologian. I used "mythical" because I couldn't
come up with a better substitute. What would you suggest?
> I am operating under the general principle that it is better to have a
> religious book tells us true things rather than false things. If the Bible
> told us that the earth was riding on the back of a turtle swimming in a cosmic
> sea, in light of modern knowledge what would we say about the value of that
> part of the religious document?
If that's all that it said, it wouldn't mean a thing. If it said that God created
the world and set it on a turtle in the cosmic sea, I'm net sure I see any essential
difference between that and a creation account that is also not, to my mind,
objectively accurate. That's an off the cuff response, and I'm willing to reconsider
> If God did communicate the idea of the earth being on the back
> of a turtle, then that god doesn't know what he is talking about. If God
> didn't communicated that, then it is nothing more than gobbledy-gook written
> by a human. This is a terrible place for a religion to find itself.
Or maybe God was communicating ideas for which the exact mode of the earth's
transportation through the cosmic ether was unimportant.
> The reason I raise the strategic issue is that all our "evidences" that I
> could lay before my friends at work, for God's involvement in Christianity are
> rather weak.<snip>
> The only real way to strengthen a religion is to find out
> that the documents relate things which could not have been known by the
> ancient writers of the documents. That would mean something like how the
> world was created or events in the distant past.
Well, then we're at an impasse. I would not regard this as a way to strengthen
religion. Those who want to believe, will. Those who don't will find an explanation to
suit their needs and continue onward. I don't believe that God meant to provide
scientific, verifiable proof of his existence. If that's what He had in mind, he could
have done so in the first place.
> I agree with this.Truth does not come to fit our strategic needs. But, what
> if there was a possibility of verifying a flood acount which exactly matched
> the Biblical record? Why would one not want it? Is this any different than
> wanting verification for the existence of Jericho whose walls fell down? or
> wanting verification for David's existence? or wanting verification of the
> Exodus? Surely verification of these events is better for our religion than
It is better to have it, if it exists. It is not better to wish for it when it is not
> This is an interesting twist. If you were an Old Testament Jew you would have
> no certainty in your religion? Or better yet, if you were a modern Jew with
> modern knowledge, would you have no certainty of your religion?
I really don't know. The foundation of my faith is my experience of Jesus. Short of
that, I'd have nothing.