Re: Descendants and Thomas Trap

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:55:25 -0800

At 09:42 PM 11/19/98 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>> So how many people believe the Bible today because of Dante's book?
> Utterly irrelevant. I never said people would believe the Bible because of
>Dante. I said his poem conveyed some truth. I realize you don't think
poetry can do
>that. You're wrong.

Here you are wrong. I cannot recall ever having said poetry can't convey
metaphysical or allegorical truth. I absolutely agree that it can. I don't
agree that Genesis is conveying that type of information. That is very
different. I have never said that poetry can't convey historical truth.
What I have said is that Genesis 1-11 reads in the same historical form as
Genesis 12-50. And I have claimed that if we sweep the dust bunnies of
historical/scientific mismatch between science and scripture under the rug
of allegorical truth, and then smile and say that the house is clean and
the Bible is true, what have we accomplished? We have made falsehood true.
And that is what we are seeing on National TV tonight.

> First and most importantly, the creation of the universe is not "an act in
>history" because it is the creation of the whole framework in which
history is possible.
>As Augustine said, "God did not create the universe in time but with
time." Saying that
>creation must be an act "in history" is like saying that the writing of a
novel must be
>part of the plot of the novel.

I think you are escaping the conclusion with pedantry. If God did no
actually create the universe, then whether in time or with time or outside
of time or under time or over time or through time or what ever, Genesis
1:1 can not be a statement of God's relation to the universe. If God didn't
create the universe then the PROPOSITIONAL statement of Genesis 1:1 is a LIE!

In another note tonight you wrote:

> Well, if someone finds a skeleton unmitakeably identifiable as that of Jesus
>of Nazareth there would be such a misfit.

That is an easy bullet to dodge. There is no way ANY skeleton could ever
be unmistakeably identified from that time. Lets say we found a tomb with
the inscription Jesus of Nazareth. C14 dated to the 1st century. Is this
OUR Jesus? Was Jesus the ONLY guy named Jesus (Yeshua) from Nazareth at
that time? The odds are against it since Yehoshua was a common name. So
what are you going to use to 'unmistakeably' identify the skeleton? mtDNA?
DNA fingerprinting? Fingerprints? photos? This is something that can
never happen. And because it can't happen it is a meaningless gesture. I
would ask again what could possibly falsify the Bible for you? this
skeleton business simply can't do it in any way, shape or form.

> But my approach to apologetics is more fundamental and more distinctively
>Christian than the one for which you argue. It makes use of the fact that
one must
>begin with presuppositions, and then evaluate those presuppositions _a
>from their results. That is the way science works. Einstein didn't first
"prove" that
>c is the same for all observers. He _assumed_ it and then showed that a
coherent theory
>could be developed which explained observations better than the older
theories. E
>should do the same thing theologically and, in particular, proceed in this
way in
>apologetics. Instead of saying "I'm going to prove to you that Jesus is
God Incarnate
>who was crucified and is risen, I would say, "I invite you to look at the
world and at
>your own life on the assumption that the crucified and risen Jesus is the
one "in whom
>all things hold together."

Exactly what evidence do you present to prove to me that Jesus is the one
in whom all things hold together? This is a question I can hear my current
and former atheist bosses asking me if I told them the above? If all we
offer the world is an assumption, we will have few converts indeed.

>> Why are the Disciples allowed to gather further evidence and we aren't?
>> Where does it say that in the Bible?
> Paul said "but some have fallen asleep." Now they have ALL fallen asleep.
>They're all dead, Glenn - sad but true. We can examine the plausibility
of the accounts
>they left, but there is not going to be "further evidence."

You missed my point.

You had written on Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:41:12 -0500:
>Yes, the apostles were
>eyewitnesses of the risen Christ. That is the basis on which they give
>testimony to the his resurrection, which is at the heart of the gospel
which they
>proclaim & which has been transmitted to us. But they do NOT invite
people to go out
>and find further observational evidence to support the resurrection before
believing it!

You said that the Apostles weren't invinting others to gather data. This
implies that they are the only ones who were to gather the data and report
it to us. Obviously the Apostles were allowing others (in that day) to
gather their own data. They are telling them that there are people they
could talk to.

Where does it say in the Bible that only the Apostles were to be the ones
to gather data? And if this is true we should shut down all archaeological
excavations financed by Christians. It becomes irrelevant to Christianity
under your rule.

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