Hi Blake. Thanks for your response. I appreciate the
opportunity to dialogue.
>Jim, you cannot be serious (nor could any conservative
>theologian) in writing that "God wrote the Bible" as
>if He physically put pen to paper. That is really a
>huge definitional leap from the Bible consists of
>God-inspired writings, written by human beings.
Somewhere in the NT (Jesus himself?) it says that the OT was
"written" by the Holy Spirit. This is how prophecy was fulfilled.
>I generally sympathize with your desire to have a
>clear cut, bright line, but your view is really overly
>simplistic in this regard.
Blake, I think that you make an accurate statement about many
"conservative theologians." I try to be self-aware. YECs,
without question, fall into the "conservative" category.
I am guilty by association.
>Bear in mind, I am not saying that any book of the
>Bible is not literally true nor that it is not
>inspired by God (I think I am still staying away from
>heresy so far).
>You seem insistent that your version has to be the
No, actually I'm not. Everyone is responsible for his or her
own life. I'm just doing what seems right to me.
>and if someone does not see that, then
>they are somehow defective.
I'm not sure what your definition of "defective" is. Obviously,
the universe is ca 12-15B years old, or it isn't. Some will be right,
and some will be wrong. I guess that wrong would meet your definition
>Likewise, you seem quite
>untroubled that a person would either lose faith or
>not come to Christ because they do not accept your
>interpretation of any particular portion of the Bible.
>This may not be the case, but it appears to be the
>case and this is what I find sad.
The Bible can speak for itself.
>Bear in mind, I am not saying that your conclusions
>are wrong. Nor am I saying that all things in the
>Bible are negotiable. Christianity does clearly make
>some truth claims with a capital T.
It sounds like we're on the same page here.
>I am saying that to expand those truth claims
>unnecessarily and to assert or imply that those
>additional truth claims are the central part of
>Christianity or necessary for Christian faith is a
I'll "tailor" this comment to Gen 1. I continue to
see three options for a Christian.
YEC, day-age, or theology-only (yes, I confess to
a bit of "name-calling" when I call this theologism).
I call it theologism because, to me, it is abundantly
clear that Gen 1 is presenting itself as a creation
account. Ideas that it's not (ICBW) creep in when
people start to realize that it is a "backward prophecy."
Some people (ICBW) want no part of this.
Thanks again for your post,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 30 2002 - 18:24:13 EDT