According to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Jesus was fully human and
fully divine. If he was fully human, wouldn't he be expected to speak of
his people's scripture as they would? If he spoke of Moses as the author of
Genesis, wouldn't that be a part of his humanity? As a Baptist minister
friend once put it, "Some Christians speak as if they thought Jesus knew
Einstein's relativity from Day 1." Now, I understand the Incarnation in the
light of Phil. 2:5ff., and that Jesus was a kenotic Christ. I don't think
the YECs are right in justifying a literal six-day creation because Jesus
spoke in such terms.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <email@example.com>; "Asa@Calvin. Edu"
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: Black Sea Flood
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:44 PM
> >--- Glenn Morton <email@example.com> 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.
> Well, as was pointed out by Terry I believe, Jesus and the early disciples
> seemed to believe early Genesis was true in the sense I use that term. If
> it isn't, then at the very least, Jesus had either poor knowledge of what
> happened, didn't tell the truth or he isn't who he claims to be. If Jesus
> had poor knowledge because of his humanity, then one can justly ask if he
> knew correctly that he was God. The reason this comes up is due to an
> experience a friend of mine had during an episode in college. This guy
> thought he was, well, a messiah. He thought God sent him to save the
> Through counseling he was brought to his senses and now lives a normal
> with wife, kids etc. He was wrong in his messianic beliefs but didn't
> it. If Jesus didn't know what the truth was about Genesis, it raises the
> memory in my mind of my poor friend.
> >> > 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.
> At this point, I won't comment further because I gave George the last word
> and I will stick with that decision. Beleive, me, you don't want to see
> George and I going after it and neither do we. I like George and don't
> to do that to our friendship.
> >> 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.
> >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.
> Ugabooga loves plump young virgins. He is not the same as the God the Jews
> called Jehovah.
> >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.
> Didn't say that the experience wasn't real. The experience of Messiahship
> was real to my friend. It just so happens it wasn't at the same time
> >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.
> The issue isn't how the Bible was compiled, the issue is God's
> of it. If God didn't have anything to do with what got in the Bible and it
> was merely compiled by 5 cigar smoking guys in their garage, it means it
> isn't true. I don't care if one guy per generation got to pick a book. If
> doesn't have God's inspriration then it isnt' true. What does it mean to
> say that the Bible is inspired?
> You may have the last word.
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 12:47:50 EDT