Glenn Morton wrote:
Shuan, I see the liberal doing exactly the same thing as the YEC. The YEC
> holds that the Bible is true according to their interpretation regardless of
> what data contradicts it. The liberal holds that the Bible is telling us
> truths which are absolutely unverifiable by any scientific standard. Thus it
> doesn't matter a whole lot that the Bible tells us silly things about
> talking snakes because it was never meant to tell us about the scientific
> view of the world. It is true theologically. Both camps declare the Bible
> true no matter what the contradiction is or how embarrassing the Biblical
> story is. Frankly, I think both approaches stink, but then, there I go
> again, ruffling feathers.
I am not a liberal - a statement I make not to clear my theological
honor but because the theological truth that I think the Bible
a great deal that many "liberals" wouldn't be interested in defending
(resurrection, Incarnation, &c).
Having said that - your argument just won't do. Because the really
important things that the Bible claims - that God is the creator of the
universe, that God got Israel out of Egypt, that Jesus is truly
divine and truly
human, that "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
&c - are not things that can be verified. You can make a good scientific case
for a temporal origin of the universe, but not that God created it. You can
make an historical argument for the Exodus, but not that God acted in any
distinctive way to bring it about. You can make a convincing argument for the
historical character of a lot in the gospels, including the basic fact of the
resurrection - but you can't verify that Jesus was God Incarnate.
And you can't
prove historically or scientifically that God justifies sinners for Christ's
& no, you have never said that you could prove these things. But the
point is that after verifying to your satisfaction that the flood, or the
creation of humanity, or whatever events you wish really happened as the Bible
says - you are still faced with theological claims which cannot be verified.
Certainly some degree of historical accuracy of scripture is important
for faith in Christ because scripture is our basic witness to Christ. But in
that case why not deal with the NT documents, which are closer & more
the Christ event? Even if you can provide a convincing argument that
of Gen.6-9 really happened 5 x 10^6 years ago, it's a tremendous stretch to
claim that you've provided any additional reason to belief the theological
claims made in the NT.
The bottom line is that it is the theological claims that are
whatever percentage of accurate historical narrative you think scripture
contains, & those claims are ultimately matters of faith, even though
to historical events. You might be able to verify that Jesus suffered under
Pontius Pilate but not that the Son of God did.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 23:15:05 EDT