I think there is a difference between proving that Scripture is
historically accurate and proving that Scripture COULD be accurate. For
example, there is no independent , non-Biblical evidence that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob ever lived, but the independent evidence is consistent with
the Biblical portrait of the world of the patriachs, I.E the Middle East
circa 2000-1500 BC.For example, there was a city of Ur, although the
reference to the Chaldeans is anachronistic. There have even been artifacts
found with inscriptions with names like ABRAHAM, ISAAC and JACOB.IMO, we can
accept the historical reliability of the patriarchal traditions, with the
proviso that there are certain inconstencies and repetitions.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:08 AM
To: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology
Shuan and George wrote:
>> Shuan wrote:
>> So where are the fingerprints demanded by Mr. Morton? :)
> Glenn wants evidence that scripture is historically accurate.
>I have debated
>that extensively with him (without wanting at all to say that there
>is no verifiable
>history in scripture.) But he has not to my knowledge demanded
>"fingerprints" as has
>blatantly as Philip Johnson.
Let me see if I can clarify these muddy waters without stirring up that
brown muck at the water's bottom.
We can NEVER prove the Scriptural account. That is simply impossible. But
we can verify certain things. I would claim that the difference between me
and Johnson is that I would like to see something historically true in the
accounts. I wouldn't believe much of the New Testament if it claimed that
Jesus was raised under the tyranny of the great Carthagenian empire who
gained ascendancy in the three great Romanic wars. For the same reason I
don't believe the book of Mormon, because it's new world history is a fraud
and a shame. Native Americans didn't have chariots or horses. Nor did they
have huge walled cities in northern North America. I see no reason to
change my standard of truth when it comes to the Scripture.
I am often accused of wanting everything proven, but that isn't the case. I
think I would prefer to push as hard as I can towards that point, but
knowing all the time that it will never happen.
Johnson and the ID group wants a natural theological proof of God's
existence. They are looking for the type of proof which Sagan gives at the
end of his book Contact (which I liked better than what was offered in the
movie). In the book, they found a message buried deeply in the random
numbers of pi. Dembski's claim to have mathematized design won't be
remembered past this generation.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 13:01:04 EDT