Re: Something must change

Glenn R. Morton (
Sat, 22 Aug 1998 13:27:38 -0500

At 07:43 AM 8/22/98 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
>Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>> At 08:10 AM 8/21/98 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
> ........................................
>> > The
>> > point isn't that the Good Samaritan _couldn't_ have happened
>> > but that its historicisty has nothing to do with its truth
>> > in the way Jesus uses it.
>> But, that is irrelevant as I see it. When I jumped into this thread, I
>> used the example of Clinton having difficulty coming up with a scenario
>> that fit the facts of the witnesses which at the same time kept him out of
>> trouble. As long as I give enough background for you to understand my
>> point it really doesn't matter whether or not there is a Clinton in the way
>> I used the example. So, for the purpose of my point, Clinton's existence or
>> lack there of is of no relevance.
> You are making precisely the point that I did.

You miss my point. Clinton IS real and the troubles he has ACTUALLY occur.
So why can you automatically rule out the existence of a Good Samaritan? I
am trying to point out that your example about the Good Samaritan is a poor

>> > Again, I'm not just speaking of your flood scenario but of
>> > the general idea that all biblical accounts must be accurate
>> > history to be true. ...................................
>> But Genesis 11
>> and Genesis 5 consists largely of genealogies. What possible
>> 'metaphorical' message could be conveyed by such a list of names. The
>> relationships listed are either historically true or they are historically
>> false. And I can see little of theological significance in a list of names.
>> > ........................................ I think the latter
comment in more indicative of your unwillingness
> to see theological significance in anything that doesn't consist of
> dogmatic propositions. The genealogy of Mt.1, e.g., is clearly there
> to show the connection of the Messiah with Abraham. The genealogies
> of Gen.5 & 11 serve the function of stating that there is some
> continuity between the origination of the world & the beginning of
> the story of Abraham, with which (from a modern standpoint) we begin
> to get into more clearly historical material. The genealogy of Lk.3
> takes up both concerns together.

But if these people are not real, then there is in REALITY NO connection
between the Beginning of the world and Abraham or even Christ! What
internal evidence can you point to that is different between the
Genealogies in Genesis 11 and those in Kings or Chronicles that would
indicate that the former are not to be taken seriously?

>> > ...................................
> The word "theology" means at its most basic level talking or
> What do you think "from the greatest of them to the least" means?
> (& this is in fulfillment of the king's command which is directed
> to the whole population.) Read the story, don't just look for the
> word _kol_.& don't forget the animals being covered in sackcloth!
> A _wonderful_ hyperbolic touch - but of course you must consider it
> historically accurate to be "true".
>> > & calling what I'm speaking of "the more nebulous
>> > version" is false. The Good Samaritan is not "more nebulous"
>> > if it's fictional, & neither is Jonah.
>> And Jonah doesn't say what you implied it said anyway. And I certainly
>> don't believe that Jonah says what you say it does.
> Sorry, it does. You seem to be whittling down the text to a point
> at which it can plausibly be considered historical.
> & I think it's kind of sad that you have to hold

I have never made the claim that one must treat every apparently universal
statment must be taken to imply absolutely everybody. I have heard you note
that the universal statements in Genesis 6-9 don't mean the entire world.
the phrase "everybody is going to the party' is conditional universal, not
unconditional universal. Same thing goes with Jonah. If you now switch and
say that universal statements like the one (I still don't see) in Jonah
mean that ALL humans in Ninevah wore sackcloth, then you must be consistent
and admit that the young-earthers are correct that the Bible teaches that
ALL the mountains under the entire Heaven were covered with water. And if
that is the case, they you can no longer tell a YEC that the Bible doesn't
teach a global universal flood, because by your use of the term you are
advocating unconditional universal. You must also then claim that ALL
nations including American Indians came to eat grain in Egypt when Joseph
was there. I don't believe either Jonah or the claims in Genesis 6-9 are
universal in the sense you are claiming.

but my position is not inconsistent. There was a Ninevah, there was a
king, there was a Jonah (2 King 14:25) there was a Tarshish, there were
ships at the time Jonah lived, there were big fish and I do believe there
was at least a temporary repentence. Do we have the Nenevah gazette as
evidence? No.

But unless one does what I suggest, there was no flood.

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