Hi George, you wrote:
> 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
>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
>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.
Don't worry, George, we probably can't plough new ground on this topic than
what we have ploughed/disturbed in the past. This will be my only statement
and you can have the last word.
Am I willing to discuss the concordist paradigm, yes. Do I believe in a
different epistemology than defining that which is true as being that which
matches observational reality? No. For one overpowering reason, George.
When I was a YEC I knew in my deepest heart that YEC didn't match reality
yet I still beieved. I won't go there again even if it is for another side
in this fractious issue. If where the Bible touches on historical or
scientific reality it says things which are demonstrably false, then it is
> Well, not entirely. He recognizes that Genesis 1 is a
>different kind of
>critter & doesn't try to force it into aritificial agreement with
>Thus he avoids the error of, e.g., Dick Fischer who, in his desire
>1 & 2, creates serious problems with the NT's _theological_ (N.B.)
> 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.
If you remember Ugaboogah, the god of the universe, of whom I spoke years
ago http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199911/0062.html, if Jehovah didn't
create the universe, and Ugabooga did, then we should worship Ugaboogah and
forget the Bible. Christ's claim is based upon the resurrection. But we
can't verify that at this late date so the only verification which can occur
lies in the natural realm.
If the Bible says there was a ressurrection and there wasn't, the Bible is
If the Bible says there was an Exodus and there wasn't, the Bible is false.
If the Bible says there was Abraham and there wasn't, the Bible is false.
If the Bible says there was a conquest and there wasn't, the Bible is false.
But as we have gone round and round about, if the Bible says there was a
Flood, or creation happened in a particular way, and it didn't happen that
way, then suddenly the Bible isn't false.
I never have understood any rational reason for the change.
And when it comes to Genesis 1:1, it says God created the heavens and the
earth. What is the evidence that God created? It simply has to be that the
Bible tells us what actually happened. If it doesn't, then I see no reason
to say it is still true. Heads I win, tails you lose.
But as I say, you can have the last word.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 15:30:54 EDT