Re: Full disclosure (was Grand Canyon Tears America Apart )

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri Jan 23 2004 - 09:05:31 EST

It's like saying one can't believe (sorry accept) evolution because Darwin
did not accept genes and DNA. He was so inadequate and wrong in his ideas!!

Also we should not read Shakespeare as he thought the earth was 6000 years
old. Maybe that's why there is a Shakespeare collection at BJU!

Ted . What I am saying is that most.many from 1600 onwards and possibly
earlier reckoned God created chaos first which existed for an unspecified
period - 12 hrs for Ussher and "maybe a long time " for Bishop Patrick in
1694, of which view Burnet said most agree. After that everything was
reordered in 6 days. and most reckon the day was 24 hours but definitely not
Burnet and Whiston. Clearly these writers were not talking of an earth
millions of years old, but one older than 6000. This chaos or gap grew in
length in the 18th century and Chalmers gave a definitive statement of it.
The majority of writers I have read from 1600 do go for chaos (undefined
length) and then re-ordering in 6days. Some imply a short time, others more.
The point I am making that this is not YEC but a gradual opening up which
took place from 1600 to 1800 progressively (but very erratically) and at the
end a great age was allowed exegetically ( whether or not those grounds were
good).
Further thought the Flood was the dominant explanation of strata, it was a
rational explanation rather than a dogmatic one as YECs make as Gould
stressed. Taking into account the whole European environment of the 17th
century those who studied the earth did so from from a young earth - a bit
of undefined chaos followed by 6 24 hr days and the deposition by the Flood
as the best explanation they had. It was the obvious place and dare I say
the only place to start. Before 1700 many of the Theories of the Earth were
beginning to question this simple approach and give more time. I would
consider them to be thinking scientifically rather than clinging to dogma.
Further the ideas stemming from the 17th century types were developed and
modified in the 18th century in a way that YEC cannot, as Glenn has
experienced for himself. Buffon developed ideas of Whiston and standard
commentators like Calmet rather than dropping a bombshell.

I am sure that some YECs will lift our discussions and use it all in
evidence against as did that Australian YEC John Mackay who used a
discussion between Glenn and myself on this list to show we cannot agree,
and are therefore wrong..

To me it is fine that Ted and I dont agree. He makes me go back and double
check my sources and he knows that I had to remove Boyle from my list and
one paper before publication!!

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: Full disclosure (was Grand Canyon Tears America Apart )

> Glenn quotes Ed Babinski as follows:
> "Thus, I was awakend to the shocking thought that the authors of hte
> bible
> may have taken for granted that the earth was flat! and the more I studied
> the matter, (at first to debunk it) the more Bible verses I found that
> implied a strictly horizontal view of the cosmos." Edward T. Babinski, "If
> it wasn't for Agnosticism..." in Babinski Ed. Leaving the Fold, (Amherts
> NY:
> Prometheus Press, 1995), p. 221
>
> This quotation, assuming it's not out of context, is almost astonishing
for
> its naivety. Substitute "geocentrism" or "demons cause diseases" for the
> flat earth, and you can begin to see the point. The Biblical authors
> believed X, which modern science has shown to be false, therefore they
can't
> be trusted about anything (or so I infer Babinski then concludes). It's
> absurd logic.
>
> Babinski reminds me of a fellow who used my whale story in a skeptical
> newsletter to show that myths can in fact grow and propagate within just a
> few years of an event, well within the memories of those who actually
> experienced the event. He wanted to use this point then to attack the
> authenticity of the resurrection narratives. I didn't play ball with him,
> for many reasons including some things that had occurred to me as I was
> writing the whale story. There are no good parallels that I can see,
> between the one set of stories (the various versions of the spurious tale
of
> James Bartley) and the other set (variaties of Easter appearances). We
> *can* get close to the alleged events of Bartley, and the closer we get
the
> smellier it becomes: neither the captain nor any crew members of the
(named)
> vessel are ever quoted by name, despite the fact that reporters in the
1890s
> would surely have named them; no one named James Bartley was on the
specific
> vessel named at the time alleged (we have the full crew list); no "French
> scientists" ever authenticated the story; no medical records related to
> Bartley's alledged hospitalization have ever popped up (despite spurious
> claims that a book containing just such information was published less
than
> a decade later); etc.
>
> Whereas any open-minded person who reads NT Wright's recent book, The
> Resurrection of the Son of God, will see that the evidence for the literal
> bodily resurrection of Jesus is extraordinarily strong, speaking
> historically and biblically. There is no better hypothesis to explain the
> narratives as they have come down to us. Among his many points, let me
> simply repeat one of them that has been made by other authors as well: if
> the narratives were truly invented years later to justify a belief already
> held purely on faith, then the discovery of the empty tomb would not have
> been left to women. Women didn't count in the first century, their
> testimony on such an enormous event would never have been introduced into
a
> story concocted for the purpose of convincing others to believe. It don't
> add up that way. Etc.
>
> Babinski does leave me with the impression that, having rejected a rather
> unreflective and probably inherited Christian fundamentalism, he is now a
> rather unreflective fundamentalist of another type. This is as I say an
> impression, one that I would of course be willing to abandon upon the
> production of further evidence.
>
> ted
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 23 09:14:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 09:14:03 EST