RE: Glenn's comment

From: glenn morton (
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:32:18 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "RE: Adam never met Eve"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Burgeson []
    > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:51 AM
    > To:
    > Subject: RE: Glenn's comment
    > Glenn wrote, after summarizing two of the multitude of mankind's creation
    > myths:
    > "I think it is very important that you answer the question of the
    > truthfulness of the creation stories above--are they to be treated on par
    > with the Biblical account or are they fairy tales, or are they real
    > accounts
    > of what happened, or are they God's revelation to man?"
    > 5. They are ancient myths.
    > It happens that the Genesis stories were the ones understood by the people
    > 2000 or so years ago from whom we got the scriptures. The people mentioned
    > in those scriptures necessarily dealt with the stories their audience (and
    > they) were familiar with. As we Christians take the events of the cross
    > seriously enough to base our lives upon it -- we are necessarily going to
    > have to accept those stories as part of the stuff people of that day were
    > familiar with.

    From this I am gathering that you believe that Genesis is also an ancient
    myth. By myth do you mean that they have little historical truth? If so, why
    on earth did you chastise me for calling them 'little more than fairy
    tales'? To me, you can't deny historicity for these accounts and then claim
    that they are all real in someway. And if they have little historicity, I
    don't see upon what basis you criticized my use of fairy tales above?

    > I really sympathize with your concern to find solid verifiable evidence of
    > at least some of the events mentioned in Genesis 1-11. As you, I'd be
    > delighted. I just don't have to have that kind of evidence; it does not
    > seem very important to me.
    > You asked for an example of a "conservative writer" who accepts an ancient
    > earth. I suspect that your definition of "conservative writer" is one who
    > asserts a young earth, so obviously I cannot do that. I'd consider Ramm a
    > conservative, but I guess you would not. It's a matter of definition.

    No it isn't. I will accept Ramm as a conservative. But he denies evolution.
    Remember I said that you couldn't name a conservative writer who both
    accepted the age of the earth and evolution (both things that modern science
    accepts). Ramm believed in progressive creation NOT evolution:

    "Perhaps in another hundred years of experimentation, geneticists will admit
    that the evolutionary theory must be abandoned, and if they do they will be
    amenable to some sort of creationism." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of
    Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 21

            "The geological record might be troublesome to evolution. One hundred more
    years of palaeontology might show the invalidity of many present
    assumptions." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture,
    (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p.189

    "The Christian approach to evolution cannot consist of snipings at the
    theory; but it must supply an interpretative theory of biology which will do
    all the evolutionary theory does for modern biologists, and something more
    besides. Until then we may sting the theory of evolution with some factual
    embarrassments here and there but we will never force a retreat. It is our
    hope that a theory like progressive creationism will form the basis of a new
    biological synthesis which will be to biology like relativity theory was to
    physical theory." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
    Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 191

    > Burgy (Why is it EVERYTIME I post to you, you respond almost
    > immediately? <
    > G >)

    Like Radar O'Riley on M.A.S.H. I know when you are going to post. :-)

    IN another note you wrote:
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Burgeson []
    > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:38 AM
    > To:
    > Subject: RE: Glenn's second comment
    > Glenn wrote:
    > "Your deconstruction doesn't work, Burgy. ...Your example simply isn't the
    > same thing."
    > I have never been able to explain to you the nature of an analogy, Glenn.
    > OF COURSE it is not the "same thing." There will always be a difference to
    > point to. I assert, however, that my deconstruction is valid.

    You missed the point Burgy. For something to be an analogy, which I most
    assuredly understand, it must be analogical. One can't explain drilling for
    oil by saying it is like grass growing.

    > Glen later wrote:
    > "Yes, there are three ways of dealing with the Bible.
    > 1. Ignore the scientific data and accept the Bible regardless of what the
    > scientific data says.
    > 2. Say that the Bible is true even if it has no scientific or
    > observational
    > connection with reality.
    > 3. Say the Bible is false.
    > 4. Come up with a new interpretation of the Scripture which
    > unites both the
    > Scripture and science into one unified reality.
    > I have always recognized these 4 options, Burgy. I reject
    > categorically the
    > first two as being entirely irrational. One leads to YEC, the other leads
    > to
    > calling observationally false things true!"
    > Your solution #2 is dependent on what "true" means to you.

    Agreed. and that is the option the YECs take. The Bible is true regardless
    of what the scientific data says. If your comment is intended to try to
    argue against me, you most assuredly haven't understood at all what I have

    > In 30 AD, Ananias Jones (a guy I just made up) had always been taught that
    > the world was flat.
    > The apostle Paul talked to Ananias at length about Jesus. Now Paul was a
    > smart guy, and no
    > doubt knew the world was a sphere. He also knew Ananias thought
    > differently. Now suppose Paul was
    > making a theological argument which was based, at least in part, on
    > Ananias's understanding, an
    > argument just as valid had Ananias had a 2oth century education. Do you
    > really suppose he would have
    > based his argument on the earth being a sphere? No -- he would have
    > offhandedly referred to the earth
    > in a wat Ananias recognized. Much as I would do today if I made the
    > argument to a 4 year old -- "See how the sun comes up every day? It is
    > symbolic of God's faithfulness." If I decided to point out to the 4 year
    > old enough physics to understand planetary motion, I'd either lose him
    > quickly or he'd think I was prevaricating!
    > Genesis 1-11 contains "truth," Glenn. But that truth was written in a way
    > people of long ago would recognize and accept. To assert that it must also
    > conform to the myths of the 21st century is naive.

    And I keep pointing out, but no one notices or pays attention, their were
    ancient societies who understood evolution. Here is what Encarta 2000 says:

    "The Greek philosopher Anaximander, who lived in the 500s BC, is generally
    credited as the earliest evolutionist. Anaximander believed that the Earth
    first existed in a liquid state. Further, he believed that humans evolved
    from fishlike aquatic beings who left the water once they had developed
    sufficiently to survive on land. Greek scientist Empedocles speculated in
    the 400s BC that plant life arose first on Earth, followed by animals.
    Empedocles proposed that humans and animals arose not as complete
    individuals but as various body parts that joined together randomly to form
    strange, fantastic creatures. Some of these creatures, being unable to
    reproduce, became extinct, while others thrived. Outlandish as his ideas
    seem today, Empedocles' thinking anticipates the fundamental principles of
    natural selection." "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. ©
    1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Now, this concept that the ancient Hebrews were too stupid to understand
    evolution and therefore had to be fed some fairy tale that wasn't true,
    simply insults the intelligence of the ancient Hebrews and flies in the face
    of the fact that ancient cultures UNDERSTOOD evolution!!!!!

    Thus, if God wanted to teach the Hebrews evolution, they most assuredly
    could have understood it!


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 17:31:40 EST