RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sat Aug 21 2004 - 21:34:12 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Jan de Koning
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:51 PM

> Okay. Don't shout. God did not speak in a language which
> 20th century
> historians use. That would not be understood by people of a
> primitive
> language.

Thank you. All I am saying is that God can use a simplified story which
is in its basics historically true, but no one thinks he actually did
that. The predominant position seems to be that God told a whopper.

> >And according to those who don't think the story is true,
> God spun them
> >a yarn worthy of the best fishing story ever told! Sure they
> understood
> >it, just like I understand how big that fish was, but
> neither story is
> >worth taking seriously.
> Since you do not understand me, and only repeat what you said
> before, which
> shows that you don't understand me, I stop. Your last
> sentence is insulting
> God in my opinion.

If God tells whoppers, then he needs to be insulted.

As to understanding you, you think the story is theologically true. On
Aug 16 you wrote:

>His intention was to teach the people of that
>time about the relationship between Him and the people living then, not
>teach what is now called science.

In my opinion one can't teach someone that they are the creator and the
people the creation (one of those relationship things) if God doesn't
have the foggiest idea what happened at the creation and demonstrates it
by telling a whopper. If some group wrote a story about how fleas
created the universe by rubbing their legs together and told me that my
relationship to the fleas was that I was a creation of theirs, and the
observational data didn't support the flea-origin of the universe, then
why would I consider that story worth listening too? One can't teach
anything real sans truth, and one can't teach that he is the creator if
he doesn't demonstrate that he knows what happened in the creation.

 I don't think one can separate theological from scientific/historical
truth when it comes to actual creation. We are not talking about the
parable of the prodigal creation, you know. It is a propositional truth
that either God created the universe or it is as the atheists say, god
didn't create the universe. There is no middle ground. One must be true
the other false. Having God tell fables decidedly tilts the tables to
the side of the atheists in my view.

Re: insults. One of the arguments I have heard on this list lots of
times is that YEC makes God into a deceiver by making the earth appear
older than it is. That has never to my knowledge been said to be
insulting to God on this list. Thus I fail to see how my altering the
ground of deceit a bit, should alter the conclusion about who is
insulted. If God told a deceptive tale about how the world came to be,
he is every bit as much a deceiver as if he had created with the
appearance of age.
Received on Sat Aug 21 21:55:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 21 2004 - 21:55:11 EDT