Re: the Black Sea Flood

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 21:45:45 EDT

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Black Sea Flood"

    --- Glenn Morton <> wrote:
    > 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
    > false.

    Even if this were true, this does not mean the
    entirety of the Bible is false, nor does it mean the
    most important parts are. First, the Bible is NOT a
    unitary document. The closest it comes to this is the
    Gospels which purport to represent the ministry of
    Jesus. Second, the "Bible" is a creation of Church
    ecumenical councils that assembled these books. They
    used certain criteria that distinguished between, say
    the Shepard of Hermas and Hebrews. Thus, the books do
    not rise and fall together. Defects in one do not
    taint the others. Third, the OT was inherited from
    the Hebrews, and so was subjected to a different sort
    of canonical process of adoption than the text of the
    NT. I do not think that anything in the OT, in and of
    itself, invalidates the NT. (ALthough I have not
    thought overly rigorously about this).

    > > 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.

    These are very good points, which your subsequent
    comment does not address.

    > If you remember Ugaboogah, the god of the universe,
    > of whom I spoke years
    > ago
    > if Jehovah didn't
    > create the universe, and Ugabooga did, then we
    > should worship Ugaboogah and
    > forget the Bible.

    This is logically incorrect. You assume that
    Ugaboogah is not the same God that the Jews called
    Jehovah and that it was not Ugaboogah who worked in
    the history of the Jews (whom they perceived as
    Jehovah). It seems to me that you could never have
    this kind of proof.

    > 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
    > false.

    This is true, only to the extent that the resurrection
    experience of the disciples was false. But, the
    resurrection experience is attested to not only by the
    documents contained in the NT, but by the lives of the
    apostles. There is no disputing that the experience
    was real to them. While you may debate about how it
    occurred, the NT is very clear that it DOES NOT
    describe the mechanism. Only the result and the
    meaning to the disciples. In one vein which goes too
    far (I think) it is the kerygma that matters, not the
    act itself. However, the two are heavily intertwined
    and you CAN NOT say that the experience was not real
    to the disciples.

    > 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.
    All these are incorrect logically and factually. The
    Bible is NOT a unitary document.

    > 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.

    Read above. The Bible IS NOT A UNITARY DOCUMENT. It
    can not be said any simpler. Your conclusions are
    logically and factually wrong and have NO support in
    the history of the compiling of "the" Bible through
    ecumenical councils.


    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 23:11:17 EDT