Re: FW: YEC Destroying Faith

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 16:20:57 EDT

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:54:08 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
> > 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:
>
<snip>
 
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.
 
Dave

Glenn,
You're back with the notion that either everything has to be factually
true, or one has to sort out the true parts with some infallible method.
This will never work. We have instead to recognize that the theological
message is without flaw (although that is not true of the human
interpretations of God's message), while other matters may include
ancient cosmologies, biological errors and other kinds of mistakes.
Others have pointed out that this was also Calvin's view. But maybe he
was influenced by Darwin and the Higher Criticism by means of backward
causation. Time, after all, is symmetrical in the physical equations.

Are you accepting Hebrews as part of the sacred text? If so, read 9:2f
and tell me where the altar of incense was located in the Tabernacle.
Don't use AV, for they substituted "censer" for the clearly described
altar. But even the AV text does not have the altar of incense in the
Holy Place, which is where the Torah requires it to be. If I apply your
principle, Hebrews cannot be inspired because it clearly contains a
factual mistake, which God could not make or allow. Do you suppose that
the YEC doctrine of inspiration is faulty?
Dave
Received on Wed Apr 21 16:23:38 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 21 2004 - 16:23:40 EDT