RE: FW: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:10:37 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. []
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:21 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: FW: YEC Destroying Faith

> To go back to what is basic in this discussion, Genesis 1, I
> note that there is water above the firmament.

You will scream that this is pedantic but there is water above the
firmament(above the blue sky we see). That is a fact. It is in comets,
it is in molecular clouds etc. It isn't in the form they or the YECs
envisioned. And that is what I find so wrong with much of this
discussion. The logic I see being displayed is illustrated by the
following. We seem to think that if God communicated A, and the listener
thinks they heard B, that because B isn't true, then A can't be true
either or then God didn't mean A or couldn't do A. Thus, just because
the Hebrews understood the Bible to mean B on all these issues and we
understand A, it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to hold to A.

To claim that God couldn't have meant anything other than what the
Hebrews understood to be the case, is equivalent to ruling out ANY
modern interpretation of Scripture. All modern interpretations would be
wrong, including yours, because it isn't what the hebrews understood God
to mean! This position leads to logical folly.

> 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.

Sigh, No. No matter how many times I say it not every thing has to be
factually true. I wish everyone here would listen for once to that
statement and burn it into their minds. But the issue does concern
whether or not Genesis is meant to be factual or not. I believe it was,
you don't. If it isn't a fact that God created the heavens and the
earth, then little can be trusted from the Bible.

I would start with that statement. Is "In the Beginning, God created the
Hevens and the earth," meant to be factually correct? Yes/No.

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

You know, the real issue for me is that if such errors add up to a
document so full of holes that the only way to save it is to say we
can't really know what is and is not true in it(for the only errors we
know of are the ones we can verify, what about the theological
statements which can't be verified?), then I would see no reason to
believe it.

Why do those more 'progressive' than I seem to think it is alright to
believe in the inspiration of a book so full of errors? It is errors
that keep me from believing other religions.

I am going to be offline for a few days so this will probably be my last
post on this thread I didn't want to start.
Received on Wed Apr 21 21:10:52 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:10:52 EDT