Re: Black Sea Flood

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 11:15:10 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Adam and Eve"

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
    > >Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:54 PM
    > >To: Glenn Morton
    > >Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    > >Subject: Re: Black Sea Flood
    > >
    > >
    > >I don't want to sound critical Glenn, but it will be hard not to come
    > >across that way given my question.
    > >
    > >I have read number of your posts and your articles. In just about every
    > >one there is a discrediting of many beliefs that people extract from the
    > >Bible -- all in the name of science , of course. Yet I know that you are
    > >a sincere Christian and I wonder if any of web pages are written with a
    > >positive outlook towards the "history" of the Bible.
    > >
    > >I have a Jewish friend, for example, who does a lot of archaeology (As a
    > >hobby.) he talks repeatedly about aspects where the Bible is shown to be
    > >accurate in terms of ancient settlements, idols, etc. Don't you have
    > >anything along these lines?
    >
    > YEs, but no one likes it. http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/synop.htm
    >
    > The reason I spend a bunch of time correcting errors is precisely because of
    > the attitude presented here. Rather than looking for the truth, we want
    > people to tell us we are right. And because of this, we fall prey to
    > charlatans who tell us we are right using absolutely false data. Looking
    > back on my YEC experience, I had lots of people telling me we Christians
    > were correct. Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jody Dillow, etc ad nauseum. The
    > problem was that they were not telling me anything containing truth about
    > the natural world--not a single thing they told me which at the same time
    > disagreed with conventional intepretation turned out to be true. I have
    > cited this poll before but I once tracked down most of the Christian
    > Heritage College graduates who had gone into the oil industry about 10 years
    > after they entered the business. Christian Heritage is a college associated
    > with the INstitute for Creation REsearch. I asked them one single question:
    > Is there anything you were taught at CHC which differs from modern geology
    > that you still consider to be true? Not a single one could name a single
    > fact that fit this description.
    >
    > So, the question is, what are we doing in apologetics? Telling the truth or
    > telling ourselves that we are 'correct' when that means using false data,
    > and fooling ourselves into blissful ignorance. We are like Ahab:
    >
    > 2 Chr. 18: 5So the king of Israel brought together the prophets█four hundred
    > men█and asked them, ¤Shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I
    > refrain?Ë
    > ¤Go,Ë they answered, ¤for God will give it into the king╠s hand.Ë
    > 6But Jehoshaphat asked, ¤Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can
    > inquire of?Ë
    > 7The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, ¤There is still one man through
    > whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies
    > anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.Ë
    >
    > Ahab felt much better with what the other prophets were telling him just as
    > you are much more comfortable with people who tell you you are correct.
    >
    > Thus, I will tell you, you are correct! Feel better?

             I'm loathe to enter into another round of debates with Glenn on this,
    but have to note that almost everybody involved in all these discussions about
    Genesis is trapped within a general concordist paradigm. For some the
    constriction is much narrower than others. Glenn has gathered a great deal of
    useful geological & anthropological data & we all should admire his insistence
    on honesty in dealing with the scientific and historical material.
    But while he
    plays the role of Miciah ben Imlah very well with this material, he is not
    willing to go on to question the concordist paradigm itself.
             Well, not entirely. He recognizes that Genesis 1 is a
    different kind of
    critter & doesn't try to force it into aritificial agreement with Genesis 2.
    Thus he avoids the error of, e.g., Dick Fischer who, in his desire to harmonize
    1 & 2, creates serious problems with the NT's _theological_ (N.B.)
    understanding
    of Adam.
             There are two problems with this whole concordist approach. First, it
    assumes that texts can be true & authoritative only if they are accurate
    historical &/or scientific accounts. Secondly, they start in the wrong place -
    the OT, & Genesis in particular, rather than the NT & Christ. The OT is
    important - nay, indispensable. But it's to be read in the light of
    the NT, not
    vice versa. If you start either systematic theology or apologetics
    with Genesis
    then your theological framework has already been solidified before you get to
    any explicit mention of Christ.
             I have said a great deal about all of this in the past & will
    not rehash
    it all now. But I wish that those who think that the crucial questions about
    _how_ to concordize would step back a bit and think about the possibility that
    one need not concordize in order to maintain the truth & authority of
    scripture.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 11:17:27 EDT