Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 22:32:02 EST

Dick Fischer wrote:
> George Murphy wrote:
> > We're obviously not in agreement but I fail to see how I can be
> > accused of making historical errors in this discussion. After all, I'm
> > arguing, inter alia, that it's a mistake to insist that early Genesis
> > must be read as historical narrative. You may think I'm theologically
> > out to lunch, but how historically?
> I didn't set out to prove anything. I was published in the Washington Post
> in 1986, The Post editor was so happy with what I wrote they put it on the
> LA Times - Washington Post Newswire and made it available to over 500
> newspapers worldwide. And this was after I had read Genesis 2-11 a few
> times and four books on anthropology. I blush now just thinking about it.
> Five years later, after investing a lot of time reading and researching
> toward producing a book, I became convinced that my method of apology that
> looked so promising at the time was unworkable. Simply put, it didn't fit
> the facts. Bummer.
> After a year and a half of feeling sorry for myself, a friend showed me a
> book on archaeology. That rekindled me, and after consuming over 800 books
> on related subjects and countless magazine articles, and completing a
> masters degree in theology, I have a workable method of apology that thus
> far holds up on all counts, theologically (taking Genesis literally),
> historically (all the pieces fit), and scientifically.
> What I advocate now, that Genesis 2-11 does appear to have historically
> integrity, can be substantiated. There is no other method of apology that
> will come close, because something has to be left out. Liberal theology,
> starting in 1860 with Barth, Bultmann, and so on, leaves out history. YEC
> methodology ignores science. If Bible, science, and history are all given
> full face value (I'm not saying equal value) then this is the method that
> works.
> So you are saying you won't change. Fine. YECs don't change, atheists
> don't change, and liberal theologians don't change. All I am saying is
> that with this method of apology one can put hundreds if not thousands of
> biblical, historical and scientific data points on a chart (hypothetically
> not literally) and draw a straight line through them that leaves virtually
> nothing out. YEC's can't, and you can't.
> Now, educating the whole world ain't easy, but eventually enough will come
> to recognize that there is value in having a theological position that fits
> the real world to start a small movement in that direction. But it won't
> likely happen in my lifetime.

        These notes of autobiography are not remotely a justification for the charge you
levelled at me & which you quoted in your supposed response. Furthermore, the phrase
"Liberal theology, starting in 1860 with Barth, Bultmann, and so on," gives me serious
doubts that you know what you're talking about.

        "But it won't likely happen in my lifetime." Indeed! As I think someone once
said about Comte's positivistic church, who will be the second member?


George L. Murphy
Received on Sat Feb 14 22:35:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 14 2004 - 22:35:48 EST