RE: To Glenn again

From: glenn morton (
Date: Sat Nov 11 2000 - 17:28:32 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Adam never met Eve"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of John Burgeson
    > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 6:45 PM
    > Glenn wrote:
    > "From this I am gathering that you believe that Genesis is also an ancient
    > myth."
    > I am amazed that you still don't understand.
    > No.
    > You still fall into the dyadic fallacy.

    No, in this particular case, Burgy, you weren't clear. By merely saying they
    were ancient myths, you left undefined what you meant by that term. Don't
    blame me for misunderstanding you when you didn't really define your term.

    > There are n beliefs one may have about Genesis 1-11,
    > where n is a number at least one bigger than the number of possibilities
    > in any list anyone has made.
    > My position is that I DO NOT KNOW how much
    > "real history" is contained in Genesis 1-11; it may be a lot, it may be
    > some,
    > it may be little, it may be none.

    Thank you! this is much clearer than your last note. But if it has no
    history, I personally wouldn't find it worth believing. I am always amazed
    at the vehemence I get about my personal standard of truth on these things.
    It seems that if I say a false story isn't worth believing everyone wants to
    convince me that it is ok to believe such a thing.
    At the risk of being repetitive, why would one want to believe in a divinely
    inspired story about creation that doesn't seem to get the simplest things
    about creation correct? That is what surely puzzles me. Why do we beleive so
    strongly that a story that tells us little history (or is likely to in your

    > Actually, I think that's your position too. The difference between us,
    > and I respect that difference, although I don't really understand it,
    > is that you think it of high importance to figure out and I do not.
    > I think it may be of high INTEREST, but that interest is academic,
    > and largly unrelated to my Christian position.

    That is not the difference between us. I simply won't believe false things.
    If the creation story is false, then in my opinion it is no better than the
    ancient myths I related to you before. One false myth is about as good as
    another, which isn't really of much use to me. I don't see why it should be
    of use to others.

    > ---------------------------------------------------------
    > You went on: "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'?"
    > Because, my good friend, there is a whale of a lot of difference between a
    > myth, or
    > a family story (same thing) and a fairy tale. If those two terms are
    > synonomous
    > to you, then we need to search for better terminology. But I see a
    > substantial difference. To call a family story a "fairy tale" is
    > pejorative;

    Not if the family story is made up out of whole cloth. If I say that I am a
    descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and pass that on to my kids, it is a lie--a
    demonstrable falsehood, but it is still a family story. If I say that I am
    a distant relative of Robert E. Lee, then that would be true and it would
    also be a family story. The first is a fairy tale, the second is history.
    Both are family stories.

    > put down. When your grandfather tells of "the old days," going to school
    > in the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways, I suggest that if you call his
    > family story a "fairy tale" you'll get slapped upside the head.

    If my grand father lied to me about his past and the families past, am I
    supposed to believe it simply because he is my grandfather? I don't think
    so. Lies, whether they come from grandpappy or grandmother are still lies.

    > ---------------------------------------
    > Glenn: " can't deny historicity for these accounts and then claim
    > that they are all real in someway."
    > Why not? Anyway I don't deny, I just withhold judgement on that factor.
    > Their "realness" may, or may not, be rooted in "real history."

    Then tell me how real it is for me to claim relationship with Jefferson. It
    isn't rooted in real history, but is real for me in what sense? IN the sense
    that I have deluded myself to believe that Jefferson is a relative when he
    really isn't? Of what value is that self-delusion?

    If the Hebrews deluded themselves that they recieved messages from Jehovah,
    are we still to believe it is real because their realness may not be rooted
    in real history? I don't think so. This is almost 1984 doublespeak to
    beleive this.

    > ---------------------------
    > Glenn: "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..."
    > I've read Ramm; the quotes were unnecessary. OK. So you define a
    > "conservative writer" as one who does not accept evolution. Big deal.
    > That's
    > just a definition, and as such, beside the point. Let's drop it.

    I simply asked if you could name a conservative writer who didn't reject the
    age of the earth OR evolution. I can't help it if there are none.

    > ---------------------------
    > I wrote:
    > > 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 you, mysteriously, replied with this non-sequitor:
    > "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:"
    > (snip -- quoting Bill Gates is not really necessary)

    This is not a non-sequitor. You simply didn't follow all the logic. see

    > "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!!!!!"
    > Nobody (but you) ever posed the idea that the ancient Hebrews
    > were too stupid... .
    > We seem to go around on this every few months, without getting very far.
    > I'll let you conclude this time.

    I will take the opportunity. The point of the above is that we (and you in
    particular this time) claimed that the Bible was written in a way that
    people long ago would recognize and accept. This assumes that they would be
    unable to accept the true story of the history of the earth and evolution.
    If this were not the secondary assumption, there would be no need to write
    in a form that they would accept. If they could accept evolution there would
    be no reason to tell them something else. And by pointing out that ancient
    cultures accepted evolution I proved that ancient people COULD
    INTELLECTUALLY GRASP THE CONCEPT. THus they had no need for some false tale
    to be conveyed to them. And if you are referring to the age of the earth,
    the Maya and other primitive peoples beleive in an extremely old earth.
    ONce again, they could understand the concepts and had no need for a false
    story. That is why I react the way I do to the suggestion that Genesis was
    written for those poor bast...s to understand what they were congentitally
    unable to understand. It is a denigrating way to view the peoples of the
    past, who were as smart as we are--just less technological.

    > Burgy (I'll be back! < G >)

    I'd like to hear your response.


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 17:27:31 EST