Re: statement on creationism?

dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:45:40 -0700

On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:11:47 -0500 "Dr. John Stahl" <jwstahl@geneva.edu>
writes:
> The recent exchange between Dick Fischer and George Murphy prompts me
> out
> of lurking.
>
He cited Dick's list of verses and commented:
>
> I am wondering about the utility of a general line of discussion
> that
> starts with scripture, and attempts to disconnect the false
> interpretation
> that YEC MUST BE the only correct way to read the Bible's statements
> about
> creation. (Even as I type, I seem to recall that Galileo tried this
> to no
> avail regarding geocentrism - in fact maybe he made things worse).
>
> Dick's list of verse's include some I had never thought of in this
> context
> before, which is what prompts this question. However, looking at
> some of
> these, I am concerned that a YEC sympathizer would not be impressed,
>
> because the statements about mountains being vastly older than man
> could
> just as well be interpreted as mountains being vastly older than the
> life
> of any individual person. Obviously I need to do some of my own
> study on
> this, but are there other scriptures you folks have found which can
> help to
> "open up" the interpretation of the age of the earth and life.
>
I fear that John is right, although I would like Glenn to be right, for
it would make matters simpler. The problem is that so much gets
"translated" into one's own view. The principle of personal
interpretation goes beyond scripture. I once translated a portion of
Kant's position into an extreme Schillerian Pragmatism. This really upset
a Kantian professor. I hasten to add that I am not a Pragmatist of any
ilk. Because of the battle going on, I read the relevant passages from a
pre-, mid- and post-trib position, and found that things could be fit in
whichever view was held. Though post-mil seems to give more problems,
amil and pre-mil positions can be fit to scripture. The disagreement
among Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed and Zwinglians over the Lord's
Supper has not been resolved. Transsubstanciation seems to require a
specific philosophical commitment, but I have not found my Lutheran,
Presbyterian and Mennonite brethren to be theological and philosophical
idiots. They disagree intelligently, even though somebody has got to be
wrong.

The best I can see for Glenn's approach is that he can show that the Word
does not demand a YEC interpretation. This has the added benefit of
undercutting that interpretation as a test of one's Christianity, though
I can almost hear them reacting to him as Luther reacted to Copernicus.
It was not scripture that made me change my view from YEC. It was reading
scientific reports. Science, plus philosophical ruminations, then forced
a change from OEC to TE. Biblical interpretation followed.

Dave