I know I said I wouldn't answer but on this one, I must go at least one more
round because there are too many unresolved issues. But I will absolutely
refuse to respond the next go round. People know my views so no need to
>From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:19 AM
>To: Glenn Morton; Asa@Calvin. Edu
>Subject: RE: Black Sea Flood
>--- Glenn Morton <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>I would be interested in pointing out where Jesus
>refers to Genesis 1 as either a "scientific" or an
>historical document and uses it for that purpose for a
First off, don't add conditions. I didn't say 'refers to genesis as
scientific or historical document AND uses it for a messianic claim." I
simply didn't even claim what you now require. Please read what I said
Now, as the claim that it is a historic document, Jesus in Luke 17:27,27 and
Matt 24:37-38 says that other men and women ate drank and married before the
flood came and swept them all away. If that isn't a real event, then since
the Day of the Lord is like the days of Noah, we can safely conclude that
the DAy of the Lord is IMAGINARY and will never happen just like the FLOOD
Secondly, Matthew 1 links Jesus' genealogy back to Abe who is to be found in
early Genesis, (admittedly, the respectable part of early Genesis) but Luke
3 goes on to list out all those imaginary leprechauns who never were
historical as part of Jesus' ancestry. Isn't it nice to have an imaginary
list of leprechauns who are the ancestors of Jesus?
Here are those imaginary fellows from Luke:
Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35Which
was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of
Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was
the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem,
which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son
of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which
was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of
Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the
son of God.
And since the list from Abe back is imaginary, I presume the name at the
bottom of the list is also imaginary or do we change the rules at that point
and allow God to be real?
>>If Jesus didn't know what the truth was about
>> Genesis, it raises the
>> memory in my mind of my poor friend.
>This depends in part on what you mean by truth.
My dictionary, the Oxford English, defines it at 1. in accordance with fact.
(gee sounds like that nasty concordism) 2. accepted standard, genuine and
not false; 3. exact, accurate
Number 1 is what I believe is the meaning of truth in the context we are
>First, I do not think there is evidence that he had a
>literal historical or scientific understanding of
>Genesis, but even if he did, so what? If he didn't
>you could still make the claim he was deluded. There
>is no way out of that except his actions. Did your
>deluded friend have profound healing effects on other
>people who came into relationsip with him?
AH, we accept the stories I mentioned earlier about walking on water,
feeding the 5000 but reject things like floods and talking snakes. Why the
And I might point out that a nutcase who lived about 100 miles south of me
at the time, David Koresh, had a profound effect on those who had a
relationship with him also. Was he then the true messiah? If having a
profound effect is all it takes to become a messiah, then we have a serious
problem. Jim Jones had a profound effect on people and so did Joseph Smith,
Sun Myung Moon, the Bahai Bab, Mohammed, Gautama, Zoroaster and many others.
Many of them have miracles associated with them so how do I distinguish
them--are we supposed to distinguish them because they aren't christian and
>friend show tremendous compassion for those that
Yes, he is very socially conscious
Has your friend died and been
>resurrected by God?
No he is still with us.
The argument can be framed in all
>sorts of ways as to what is "validation" of Jesus'
>messiahship. Albert Schweitzer thought Jesus was
>deluded and I don't think that was based on his view
>that Genesis 1 was wrong, but on the view that the
>Kingdom of God did not occur as Albert thought Jesus
The decision about who Jesus is simply can't be answered by the approach I
feel you are taking--it feels like he is the Messiah therefore he is the
>> Ugabooga loves plump young virgins. He is not the
>> same as the God the Jews
>> called Jehovah.
>Why, because you say so? Again, there is no
>verification principle here. How do we know if
>Ugaboogah is someone else incorrectly perceiving
Because I made Ugabooga up and thus know Ugabooga better than anyone on this
list. Being my creation, I know he loves plump young virgins.
Now, if we go to other gods, how do we tell a difference between Molech who
liked to have children sacrificed to him and Jehovah? Maybe Molech was
merely a miscomprehended Jehovah. That makes Molech a GOD? I don't think
3>> 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
>Yes, but was the experience TRUE to others whose lives
>he touched, or did they just think him a crackpot.
>You cannot separate the life of Jesus from the kerygma
>and the resurrection experiences. What you have to
>argue is that everyone in the early church was deluded
>with essentially the same delusion that Jesus had. As
>far as I am aware, Jim Jones' followers and David
>Koresh's followers and countless other charismatic
>leaders claiming messiahship who have lived did not
>have much success in spreading their claims or came to
>realize that the claims of those people might not be
Sun Myung Moon seems to be doing quite well. If success is all that makes a
person a Messiah, then I think the Moonies will do quite well in the next
>> The issue isn't how the Bible was compiled, the
>> issue is God's inspiration
>> of it.
>The two are intertwined. The OT was accepted, in
>large part, because that was the Jewish body of
>canonical scripture at the time.
That seems to imply that the reason the OT was accepted was not because they
believed it was true but because it was Jewish canonical literature and now
we don't have to deal with it. Is that the same status of the NT? It is now
our canonical literature, but will be replaced by the Book of Mormon?
>> 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.
>No, it doesn't. It just means it is not God inspired.
> I know lots of history and scientific textbooks
>compiled by guys who smoke cigars whose contents are
>reasonably verifiably true.
You missed the point. It doesn't matter what man compiles it. If God had
nothing to do with the compliation of the Scritpure, then it isn't god
inspired. If he did, and he inspired a lot of mythology, then lets call it
like it is and simply reject the mythology as useless for telling us
anything about reality, like that mythological statement "In the Beginning
God created the heavens and the earth" If that is mythological, as you seem
to believe everything that follows until chapter 12 is, I see no reason to
believe v. 1:1.
>> I don't care if one guy per generation
>> got to pick a book. If it
>> doesn't have God's inspriration then it isnt' true.
>> What does it mean to
>> say that the Bible is inspired?
>To say the Bible is inspired means nothing. To say
>that the books that comprise the Bible represent the
>experience of the authors in each particular instance
>with God does mean something.
But the books of Confucious' followers represent their experience with God.
Do you agree?
I won't go into
>hermeneutics, but inspiration does not mean dictation
>and there is the imperfect lens of the author and the
>imperfect lens of interpretation, I could go on.
But inspiration has to mean more than air passing one's lips.
>it is not the case you can treat the Bible as one
>thing or that you can say it is true or false. It
>depends what criterion you use to measure truth or
>falsity. All the books are true recordings of
>people's perceived experience of God.
My friend had a wonderful perceived experience of God--and he got to play
God. If that is all the Bible is, a set of warm fuzzies about what I did
this summer (or this life) with my friend God, it doesn't grab me much. Glad
it works for you.
>significantly among themselves in their intent and in
And if you listen to my friend Paul Seely, they also differ in theology. (I
know Paul will want to defend himself--go for it Paul).
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 16:58:27 EDT