Re: Something must change

Glenn R. Morton (
Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:08:02 -0500

Hi Burgy,

At 01:32 PM 8/21/98 -0600, John W Burgeson wrote:
>Just a comment here. In my studies, it does not seem as if Genesis 1-11
>(up to the call of Abraham) really appears as "historical"
>as what comes afterwards. Certainly a lot of folks
>do view things this way!

Absolutely, lots of folks view it the way you describe. But why is the
genealogy of Abraham ipso facto not history? What external or internal
evidence do you have of its falsity.

>When I became a Christian at age 30, the questions of origins
>were highly interesting -- but only that. The sheer fact that we are here
>and that I exist as a self-conscious individual is (was) awesome enough
>that once having accepted the gift Christ offered me everything else
>sort of faded to obscurity in comparison.

Of course I must agree with that. But I also work in an industry which has
lots and lots of atheists who don't give any consideration to Christianity
because Christians either agree with them that the Bible is not
historically true or Christians don't believe that any scientific data can
be true. My friends do not believe the Bible because they don't think it is
historically true and they find the YEC denial of observation appalling.
Many of these people started out in life as Christians and left the faith.
My former boss, one of the funniest and most pleasant men I have ever
worked for, laughed one time when I asked him if it would help him believe
in Christianity if I acknowledged that it was conveying a theological
message rather than a historical message. He used many of the arguments I
have advanced here in this thread.

>" I would rather be an atheist than believe that which is false. >>
>OK, I can buy that. Me too! But is that the question? I think not.
>>> And if we Christians are afraid of dealing with the facts of science
>and the
>statements of Scripture as they are rather than as we wish them to be, we
>are not really trusting God, that He is capable of providing explanations
>for these events. I certainly know that as a YEC, I didn't trust God to
>able to explain the scientific data, and I don't really think my Liberal
>Christian brothers are any different.>>
>Hmmm. I guess I qualify as one of your "Liberal Christian brothers."

Yeah, but I like you a lot. :-) And we can share eternity debating whatever
is left to debate between us at that time.

>Maybe. I sure do trust God to do whatever HE wants to do with and to me.
>That includes letting me come up with "satisfactory scientific
>explanations" when it is appropriate (in His sight) to let me do so and
>to fail to do so in other situations. I suspect that origins issues are
>mostly in the second category. But the game is in the chase, of course.
>BTW -- exactly what do you think of when you use the term "Liberal
>Christian?" Perhaps I am not one after all? I'm really not sure. In my
>walk, and in the Christian circles I inhabit, the polarization of folks
>into "Liberal" and "other" is seldom, if ever, a matter of discussion.

For me, those who have denied historicity of many parts of the Scripture
are certainly more liberal than I. But I want to make clear that I don't
think salvation revolves around such issues. While we may differ and
differ strongly about various interpretations, we are all servants of God,
struggling to deal with difficult issues.

>One more point ... you wrote:
>"I would disagree here. I think the burden of proof is in those who
>that God would inspire falsehood."
>I guess that nobody here fits that description, Glenn. It is not a
>position (IMHO) that any Christian would take, and the non-Christians
>don't believe in God to start with.

Let me rephrase that. If God would inspire false accounts that appear
historical. If Genesis 11:10 on is not historical it certainly appears as
history. It names names, lists ages of births and deaths. If it is not
history it is an account inspired with the appearance of history. I would
classify that as being similar to the YECs who claim that God created the
world with an appearance of age. Both are deceptions.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information