Glenn wrote, in part: "one of the problems is that when one tries to prove
it [Gen 1-11] COULD be accurate, everyone chides that person for trying to
PROVE it or chides them for wanting to have historical proof, or chides them
for having a YEC mindset, or chides them for not seeing it for the myths
that it is, or chides them for not understanding that the true message has
to do with a proclamation that there is only one God as opposed to the
polytheistic religions of the day or they chide them for not seeing that it
is a poem or they chide them for...... on and on ... ."
You have a long list there. Let me try to respond.
"... everyone chides that person... ."
1. Not everyone.
2. To the extent that any post of mine here is perceived by you as a
"chide," apologies. I do not mean any of them that way.
"... for trying to PROVE it..."
For the record, I am pleased that you take this task on, and, as I've
mentioned before, the thesis you argue in your two books still appears to me
to be the soundest explanation GIVEN THAT ONE ASSUMES THE COINCIDENCE OF GEN
1-11 HISTORY WITH REALITY.
I am particularly impressed with the observation that your thesis is a
scientific one; it can be falsified; it can be supported by possible new
evidence yet to be uncovered.
"... or chides them for wanting to have historical proof,"
Speaking only for myself, I would be delighted to see "historical proof." I
just do not see it as a foundational need; I think you do.
"... or chides them for having a YEC mindset, ... ."
That was me. Let me unpack that statement. A "YEC mindset" does not mean one
is a YEC, or a "bad guy," or simple minded, or anything like that. It does
mean, as I used it, that one sees the Xtian faith as primarily PRESCRIPTIVE,
rather than CONFESSIONAL.
Suppose if in Acts 1 Jesus had said "And you shalll be my apologists,
bringing everyone into compliance with correct doctrine about me, ... ."
Then a prescriptive approach to Xtianity would clearly be understood. He did
not, of course, but instead said "You shall be my witnesses ... ."
"...or chides them for not seeing it for the myths that it is,..."
My argument to you on this is that I don't see you understanding that
position as a possibly valid one. You poke fun at it, and that's OK except
that sarcasm and irony on this LISTSERV is often not understood as such and
is seldom productive. I think I can fairly argue your position, Glenn. I do
not think you can argue mine.
"... or chides them for not understanding that the true message has to do
with a proclamation that there is only one God as opposed to the
polytheistic religions of the day ... ."
I think you understand that message, Glenn. I think that all on this
LISTSERV probably do. You are looking for more -- to bolster or make more
credible the faith; I applaud that effort without seeing it as particularly
useful for ME. It may well be useful for others, of a more
"...or they chide them for not seeing that it is a poem or... "
Not quite, But I would encourage people to EXAMINE THE ARGUMENTS why some
folks think it is a poem.
My daughter is a lawyer. She tells me that if she does not know her
opponent's arguments as well as he does, she is likely to lose in the
courtroom. She is a smart cookie.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 12:29:28 EDT