RE: Schaefer's Book

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 19:56:39 EDT

There is much to agree with in Peter's post. The sad fact is that we
don't get answers to questions like I asked Paul about, Why is it that
if God is accomodating his science, why isn't he also accomodating his
theology to the local tribe's understanding. In one culture, one could
have God accommodating himself to the sacrifice of sheep, in another to
the sacrifice of pigs, and in another to the sacrifice of children.

An accomodationalist God can, it seems to me accommodate to almost
anything. I see no coherent or cogent reason to stop the accomodation
anywhere along the line.

I will take Peter's part A and make a few comments

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Ruest []
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:05 AM
> To:
> (A)
> - Michael Roberts wrote: "The writer had no knowledge or
> concern about
> science and beyond the fact that God is creator of all that is".

Where is that exactly in the bible? It is a nice assertion, but
certainly I can't find a verse in my Bible which states the concern of
the Genesis writer. How do you know that is true?

> - Jan de Koning wrote: "People who insist that God spoke to
> people 5000
> years ago in a scientific language cannot be convinced of
> their error...
> Insisting that God spoke to them in a language they would not
> understand
> makes the Bible a book that is doubtful... God did not speak in 21st
> century English to people who could not read or write. So God did not
> intend to teach them modern science."

I have repeatedly used the analogy of a car wreck on this list. A
person sees a red car hit a blue care. He tells the officer that the
red car hit the blue car. That is a simple true account of the event.
He doesn't have to place the story into scientific language in order for
the story to be true. He doesn't have to tell the officer about ionic
bonding, the strength of the metal, the force of impact, the torque on
the various parts of the two autos which were experienced during the
wreck, in order for the story of a red car hitting a blue car to be TRUE
historically. What I hate, is that the approach exhibited by the
approaches I am critiquing are like the witness saying, "What accident?
You mean you think there was an accident here just because you see two
wrecked cars? If you think there was an accident, then you are
hopelessly concordistic, sir!"

> - Paul Seely wrote: "... was it the INTENTION of God to teach
> us HOW the
> universe was created, the order, the length of time, the
> nature of the
> physical world, etc.? Did any prophet, apostle, or Jesus ever cite
> Scripture in order to teach physical science?"

Did any apostle comment on what God's intention was? It seems to me
that you are mighty certain of God's intention when I know of no apostle
or Bible verse which tells us that intention.

So, I agree with Peter here that it is simply mantra for y'all to keep
claiming that we want scientific language. And it is unfair to hold us
to your own hypothecations as to the INTENT of the writer, to whom you
have never spoken and about whom nothing is written in Scripture.
Received on Mon Aug 16 20:16:21 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 20:16:23 EDT