RE: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 07:57:54 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Schneider []
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 7:25 PM
> To: Glenn Morton;
> Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
> Hi, Glenn,
> You sure dangled a lot of hooks in the message below! I
> do not wish to engage in an extended argument, as I stand by
> my positions, only correct a few statements of yours.
> (1) the ASA statement does not say or imply that God wrote
> the Bible; it says that "we accept the divine inspiration of
> the Bible," which is not the same thing; not even the
> strictest inerrantist scholar believes in divine dictation.
> Perhaps you meant that only metaphorically. But, then, when
> we say that the Bible is the Word of God, we are speaking
> metaphorically.

If I said God wrote the bible, I miswrote.

> (2) I do not assume that the Bible is only true
> theologically, as you stated. You wrongly assume about that.
> If other religionists declare that their sacred texts are
> true, that is their business; I am not pitting theirs against
> the Bible, you are. Also, I have enough sense not to drink
> iodine, but your comment is beside the point.

If that is true, then what part of the Bible is scientifically true?
What about historically true? But in any case, you have to work from
their assumptions, not yours.

> (3) Although this and the argument I respond to in (2) above
> are beside the point, I am quite aware that people of other
> faiths have a set of assumptions different from mine, as do YECs.

As I read your page, I saw nothing that would have challeneged my former
YEC beleifs. You may think it is a tour de force, but I didn't.

> (4) I do not allow science to be jibberish. Nor do I believe
> that God used "scientific jibberish" in the Bible. You are
> "eisegeting" my text.

If Genesis has no scientific content, then the story of the creation is
scientific jibberish. I don't see how it can be otherwise. Genesis 1
purports to be about the creation of the earth. If it is fact free,
then it isn't science.

> (5) I am not blind to the fact that YECs "are driven by a
> desire to have a true religion." Aren't we all?

Actually I don't see that in what I termed (non-perjoritively) the more
liberal approach. If God can seemingly inspire a writer to say anything
at all, no matter how silly and contrary to fact, and still have people
think those silly and contrary to fact statements are true or are
communicating truth, then where in the world is the standard for truth.
Frankly, I simply don't seem much there. I am sure you will disagree.

> This is as far as I wish to carry this argument. Say more,
> if you wish.

I did. Thanks.
Received on Sun Apr 18 09:11:37 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 09:11:38 EDT