> Undoubtedly you're right that there are many people who cannot
>imagine that the Bible can be true in any meaningful sense if it is not
>"history as it really happened" - though by a blessed inconsistency they
>are willing to accept the truth of Ps.23 without interprteting it
>literally. However -
> 1) This is just wrong, as I have argued in previous threads, &
> 2) There are a lot of people - not YEC, but more likely non-
> Christians - to whom the artificial historicizing of the
> entire Bible would do more harm than good in trying to bring
> them to accept Christ. C.S. Lewis is a case in point. He
> knew too much about both history and literature to think
> that, e.g., it was either plausible or necessary to insist
> that Jonah was an historical account.
I would like to point out that IF history is NOT violated by the
concordistic effort, the results can be much different than you surmise.
Many atheists say the same thing as I am saying about the need for the Bible
to be historical. On one list I wrote:
>GM>If the Bible is nothing
>>but a nonhistorical set of nomad myths, which are objectively false, then
>>why bother with christianity. To say everything in a document is
>>historically false but the message in it is true, seems ludicrous to me.
>>I would not apply such logic in my work.
to which Daren Mclarnen, an australian atheist active in the anticreationist
>This is a reasonably good summary of why I am not a Christian.
>However, I don't believe that the Old Testament is completely
>nonhistorical. Rather, I am more convinced by the claim that it is a
>record of a race's attempts to deal with divine concepts, rather than a
>record of a race's actual relationship with a divine being.
My former boss, also an atheist, told me he rejected Christianity because he
too believes that it is a book of fairy tales, which have been
scientifically invalidated. He also can't figure out why someone would
beleive an inaccurate book could possibly contain theological truth.
As a point of proof (not humility)that the standard for truth and falsity is
far more widespread than merely the YECs, I am going to brag a bit. I
occasionally get messages like this from people who spend their lives
fighting Christianity. A fellow sent this a couple of weeks ago about my book:
>I am not Christian, and I think that the hoops you have jumped through in
>order to harmonise Genesis with the results of science are a bit
>reminiscent of the harmonies of the Gospels that attempt to make each book
>say the same thing. However, despite this quibble, can I say that if one
>must do this, then yours is the best and most informed attempt I have seen
>so far. It is accurate and plausible. Congratulations.
This from a nonchristian. I have one guy in this country, an atheist, former
YEC, who is now very well known in the skeptics community actively telling
young-earth creationists that they ought to take a look at my book.
Remember, I am arguing for a historical Bible. I also claim the title as
the only person who has argued for a historical Bible on Talk. Origins who
was totally ignored. Those guys who like to chew up young-earth
creationsists for their factual errors, didn't even respond. When I
complained about being ignored, one guy wrote me and told me that he
couldn't find any factual errors in what I had posted. The post in question
is from February 1996 and should be able to be found in the Talk Origins
archives. It can also be found as "Theory for Creationists" on my home page.
I simply cannot tell people to believe in the historical resurrection when
the rest of the book is historical fabrication. That may mark me as
inflexible but so be it.
Foundation, Fall and Flood