RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (
Date: Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:29:19 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "RE: Reasons to Believe Ministry"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Howard J. Van Till []
    > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:14 PM

    > 2. Forcing the Bible (or any other sample of religious literature
    > written in
    > historical and cultural contexts vastly different from our own) to conform
    > to our modern Western expectations for "matter-of-factness," or scientific
    > relevance, or historical precision is sure to generate far more heat than
    > light and to distract readers from the valuable religious insights that
    > could otherwise be found there.
    > 3. It is time for evangelical Christianity to shed the biblicism
    > (bordering
    > on bibliolatry) that it now practices and to display a more appropriate
    > humility regarding the certainty and completeness of its grasp on human
    > knowledge of God and of how the human race might apprehend and worship the
    > Source of our being, the Standard of our daily life, and the Hope of our
    > future.

    Hi Howard,

    I simply don't agree that it is 'bibliolatry' to expect that there is some
    objective information in the Scripture. I have asked this sequence of
    questions before but will do it again.

    1. If there was no evidence for ancient Egypt, Sumer, the Hebrews, King
    David, Babylon, the exile etc. would one really see the Bible as being worth

    I don't think so. If everything in the OT was wrong or without evidence, no
    one would pay attention to it. I don't pay attention to the book of Mormon
    because almost everything in it is objectively wrong--but it has great moral

    If we decide to change the interpretation of the Bible away from objective
    reality and make it only a book of morality tales, let's read Aesop's

    2. How much of the Bible can be objectively false and still believe that it
    really is the communication of an omnipotent God?

    Can we be told that the mating of two salamanders created the world and
    understand it as a beautiful story of creation showing God's love and

    3. If we move away from objective data, what, other than our personal
    prejudices from our own culture, makes Christianity any different than
    Bhuddism, sikkism or animism?

    All of the above religions yield "valuable religious insights " just
    different ones from Judeo-Christianity. Why should we try to tell them our
    religion is the true one when all playing fields have been leveled by this
    flight from objective data?


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:29:02 EST