>From: JW Burgeson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:29 AM
>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
>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.
Burgy, my friend, you are taking my words a bit too literally. Have you
become a literalist? :-) I would be shocked! :-)
Of course not everyone, ever and I hope you know by now that people can say
almost anything to me or about me and don't get too bothered by it. Often I
find it a bit amusing. But their is (ok I will say it correctly) almost
always a stream of notes telling me that this isn't the way one should do
it. Indeed, Shuan was quick to tell me that AFTER I posted the above note!
>"... 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
>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
>rather than CONFESSIONAL.
I know that one was you--I chose it because it was you. And indeed, in some
sense, Burgy, you are correct, I do have a YEC mindset but I would argue
that the YEC mindset, of looking for concordance with reality, IS the
scientific mindset. The problem with the YECs is that they don't incorporate
the other part of a scientific mindset--correctability. They are constantly
and incorrigibly incorrectable.
>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
>is seldom productive. I think I can fairly argue your position,
>Glenn. I do
>not think you can argue mine.
Believe it or not, I might be able to argue it, but on this list I have seen
no reason to try. And, no, I probably don't see a reason to hold that it is
ok to have so little historical content as you. But even you fall to my
position if I ask the question would you believe the OT if none of it was
>"... 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
>useful for ME. It may well be useful for others, of a more
Actually, I am glad it isn't useful to you. You probably have less trouble
in these issues than I.
>"...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.
I know the arguments but I think it actually makes no difference. It is the
truth or falsity of the poem that makes a difference and of course, as usual
I am not speaking of internalized spiritual truth.
>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.
I won't claim to know every persons argument as well as they, but I do know
it and actually could do a credible imitation of it. I really think you
underestimate me here. I am arguing against a position which spiritualizes
early Genesis, because of the necessity for God to be the creator. That
doesn't mean I don't know the arguments. For goodness sake, George has
excellently propounded them enough. And I have (boringly) replied often
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 14:58:34 EDT