RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 23:01:05 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: more on information from naught"

    Shuan wrote:
    >> No, it doesn't. And obviously, you are not a fundamentalist, Glenn.I
    would say that in the case of the Exodus, there is no independent evidence
    for or against the Exodus event. My guiding principle is that if it is not
    ruled out by the independent evidence, to go with the Bible .So Exodus is
    historical, Gen 1-11 isn't<<

    GRM: I would also raise the possibility of mis-interpretation in these
    issues. Merely a possibility. As to Genesis 1-11, I note that Abram, Sarah
    and Lot are all mentioned in Genesis 11. That must mean they aren't
    historical either? Of course I know that you will say that that is an
    arbitrary chapter division. So, Terah, who is Abe's father isn't historical
    because he isn't mentioned in the arbitrary chapter 12. If Terah is
    actually Abe's ancestor, then why not Nahor? After all, Abe had an
    unreasonably long life which is as unlikely as Terah's or Nahor's. If Abe
    existed, he had a father and a grandfather. What evidence do you have which
    indicates that these two characters were not his ancestors? So where, going
    backwards, does the history actually stop?
    Back to the Exodus. The Exodus is historical only because it is written of
    in Scripture--the same Scripture which tells us of Nahor, Terah and Abe.
    Other than that, there is no evidence for it. Events which have no evidence
    are not usually, by historians, accepted simply because there is no
    evidence. The usual procedure is that there must be positive evidence for
    things to be considered historically real. The numbers of people which are
    reported to have tramped through the desert would have left some
    archaeological evidence. One would think there would be some Egyptian
    records, which are quite good. At some point, lack of evidence becomes a
    reason to doubt.

    Shuan wrote:
    >>We can still believe that key events like the Exodus, The Conquest
    (according to Judges), the establishment of a Davidic dynasty, The Exile and
    the Return, and the events of the New Testament happened.The independent
    historical evidence does not rule out any of these events. and indeed
    supports some of them. But is a matter of belief, maybe not against the
    evidence but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.<<

    GRM: Wecan agree that things which have no evidence against them can be a
    matter of belief. But I wouldn't call it historical.

    Shuan wrote:
    I don't think that Jesus ever claimed to be descended from Noah.While the
    sacrificial lamb tradition is connected with Passover, it is more closely
    connected with the Sinai and tabernacle in the wilderness traditions

    GRM: Jesus may not have, but his publicist did. Luke descends him back
    through Noah. And Matthew takes him back to Abe, who didn't seem to have a
    real father or Grandfather.

    Shuan wrote:
    See above. Again, sorry for snapping at you. Its not you, its other folk.

    Don't worry about it. You are at the end of a long line of people of whom I
    have elicited that reaction. I must learn not to do that.

    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 16:07:51 EDT