Glenn Morton wrote:
> Hi George, you wrote:
> > 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.
To keep this brief I'll just make one point - which is that this is a
very odd & inconclusive argument.
Christianity rests upon the resurrection of the crucified - check.
At this late date we can't "verify" the resurrection. Well, we can't
prove it but we can show that the evidence that we have for it hangs together.
But let that pass.
OK - now supposedly we're going to verify some OT texts as historically
accurate. Assume this done for the sake of argument. Then what?
We now have additional reason to believe in the resurrection? Not in
the slightest - witness all the Orthodox Jews who accept the historical
character of Genesis without question but who don't believe that
Jesus rose from
Of course the argument may work for a wavering fundamentalist who wants
somehow to bolster his faith that the Bible is "true" - i.e., accurate
historical narrative. But it would do anything for the person who has serious
doubts (or doesn't believe at all) & is really thinking critically.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 23:06:20 EDT