From: Dr. Blake Nelson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 19:56:10 EST
Jim, your example of Adam and Eve was not one of the
three Christian beliefs that science has disproven
that you gave Michael. First, can you explain how
science proves there was no Adam and Eve?
Second, no doubt, you have a particular conception of
Adam and Eve that is not demanded by the text. So,
you cannot reject other interpretations of what the
story of Adam and Eve is about.
Third, the doctrine of original sin is exegesis on the
biblical texts, as we have discussed extensively, but
you simply ignore. As a doctrine, it originated in the
second century AD and was expounded by Augustine. The
Orthodox Church does not adhere to the same doctrine
of original sin as popular in the West, so you have no
basis for asserting that original sin is stated as
such in the Bible, nor that it is the only
interpretation Christians make of the biblical texts.
Fourth, the purpose of the Savior was not just to
expatiate the sin of Adam that taints the whole human
race, but is one aspect -- in Western theology -- of
what Jesus did for mankind.
Fifth, you did not answer my question. Assuming that
the writer of Genesis believed Adam and Eve to be
literal history (which science does not say cannot be
because believing in a historical Adam and Eve does
not require YEC), how does that make false the message
about man's relationship to God and creation? You did
not answer the question, but went on to criticize a
particular view of scripture that links Adam's sin to
redemption through Christ. Do you understand the
difference between what the text says and what someone
says about the text? If you do, why do you insist
that what one group of people say about the text is
what Christianity is, when it isn't?
I could go on, but if you think all that I have just
written is gobbledy gook or rationalization, it might
be useful for you to learn something about the history
of biblical interpretation and/or the development of
church doctrine. Your assumptions and your
conclusions are both wrong.
--- Jim Eisele <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Blake writes
> >>Every writer or thinker is a child of their time
> >> and thus expresses things
> >>in the science and thought of their day. If this
> >>makes the Bible invalid,
> >>then every other writing is invalid too.
> >> Oh boy, logic flaw. I'll leave it to others to
> >> point out if they
> >> so choose (I'm the atheist/agnostic outsider here
> >> :-)
> >Jim, please enlighten us to the flaw. If a writer
> >a biblical text thought the earth did not move and
> >sun moved around the earth, how does that
> >their writing about God's concern for the poor or
> >social outcast? You rarely answer my questions, but
> >would appreciate if you would please answer this
> First, I'll say that I'd be absolutely delighted to
> this thread. But I know how irritating it is when
> questions get ignored. So I'll at least answer this
> I think the others have been discussed very
> thoroughly in
> this forum.
> Again, I harbor no resentment towards non-YEC
> YEC is a cult, and I abhor it.
> Blake, there was no Adam and Eve, no original sin,
> and thus
> no need for a savior. Christianity seems to have
> evolved into a social network, where it is still
> (talking first world, here).
> The fact is that the Bible reads like mythology. I
> to base my life on mythology. I wouldn't base my
> life on
> Homer's writings.
> In all likelihood, any further replies in this
> thread will be
> off-list. I do hope that the ASA continues to point
> out the
> hideous deceit of YEC.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 23:07:15 EST