FW: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 06:43:34 EDT

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:31 PM
To: glennmorton@entouch.net
Cc: jwburgeson@juno.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:54:08 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John W Burgeson
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:00 PM
> > To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
> >
> >
> > Glenn wrote: "So did he adjust his message to the early
> > Christians? Do we have the truth today or is it watered down
> > with compromise?"
> >
> > Binary thinking, again. Fallacy of the misplaced (overlooked)
> middle.
> When it comes to history, I don't really accept that there is more
> than
> one history to the universe. Thus, one set of events happened, all
> others didn't. That simple. If binary thinking is supposed to
> explain
> something I don't exactly know what it is. I see nothing wrong with
> saying that a given history is false and another is true, at least
> on
> the macroscopic scale. Thus, to exclude that all histories
> happened,
> which certainly is one of the possible middles, I find to be wrong.
> I
> am sure that it is binary thinking again, probably because I have
> only
> two hemispheres of my brain. If I had more hemispheres I could
> probably
> do what the White Queen said she could do:
If history is either true or false, why did the history text I used in
Canada differ from the text I used in the States? Why do histories in
the United States written at different times differ radically in their
descriptions of the events and their causes? Indeed, why are there
differences in the descriptions of events in the gospels?
GRM: Probably mostly becauce they had different authors and different
publishers. :-) They also emphasized different aspects. That stll
doesn't mean multiple sets of actual events happened.
To go back to what is basic in this discussion, Genesis 1, I note that
there is water above the firmament. So we have canopy theory, which you
proved impossible. Of course, God could have miraculously maintained a
sphere of ice in spite of the Roche limit, and miraculously kept the
earth's surface cool. But then there cannot be creation science. The
sun, moon and stars were placed on the firmament, and birds fly in front
of (below) it. The firmament cannot then be the atmosphere with clouds,
especially since the firmament has sluice gates that were opened to
produce the Flood. I am persuaded that you either have to change the
meaning of "firmament" for each of its occurrences (including Ezekiel),
or you have to recognize that the notion does not fit contemporary
science. Are we to preserve the integrity of the language or to insist
that God's revelation must be true historically, scientifically,
theologically, and every other way in which truth may be claimed?
GRM: The alternative is to insist that God's revelation must NOT be true
historically, scientifically and theoogically. In that case, which
parts are false, David? Document the falsehoods of the Bible and then
tell me why you believe any of it?
I understand the problem YECs have with the truth of scripture, an all
or none situation. On this I conclude that Satan has cleverly poisoned
the wells. I was there once, and thank God for showing me that the
problem was not with the Word, but with what people claimed the Word
taught. Only much later did I discover that this view matches that of
the Westminster divines and the other Reformation confessions, except
for the Anabaptist one.
GRM: I don't know if it was satan or not. Satan is always used in
relation to one's enemies and God approves all one's allies. So I don't
throw the S word around because he doesn't tell me what he is doing.
And I rarely see anyone in Christian circles say that what they are
doing is Satan's bidding or drinking from his poisoned well. I agree
that there is lots wrong with the YECs, but then it is always easy to
see the wrong with those with whom one disagrees. It is difficult to see
the wrong in ourselves.
Received on Wed Apr 21 06:43:53 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 21 2004 - 06:43:56 EDT