RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 14:00:52 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 10:15 AM

> Glenn -
>
> I take the liberty of reversing the order of your
> statements for comment.
...
> One of the speakers at the 1st ASA annual meeting I ever
> attended was a YEC physicist (I think in solid state or
> something of the sort). After his talk I asked him how,
> knowing what he did about radioactivity &c, he could ignore
> all the data that indicated an old earth. His response was
> that when he got a piece of equipment for his lab, the first
> thing he did was to read the specs manual. And, he added,
> "The Bible is God's specs manual for the earth." I thought
> it was one of the goofiest statements I'd ever heard. Where
> are we told that the Bible is the "specs manual" for the
> earth? If it is, it's an awfully sketchy manual! The
> suggestion that the Bible, or part of it, is a "lab manual"
> seems to me equally misguided. With your interpretation it
> would have to be even sketchier than for the YECs because at
> least for them it's supposed to tell them the earth's age.
> But of course the more fundamental problem is that scripture
> itself never gives us a hint that this is what it's for.
>

Just remember where I got that lab manual example. It was today in an
email from Wayne Dawson who cited a prof who justified using a flawed
lab manual. But that being said, I don't find it goofy to expect God to
tell the truth about history. If you do, we will differ for a long
time.

>
> In the 1st place, the issue isn't "intentionally
> misleading" people. Describing peripheral matters (see above)
> in a way familiar to people so as to keep the way clear for
> communicating the essentials would be more like it.
>
> But then your final sentence again your expresses what I
> see as your basic problem. Sometimes a "mere illustration"
> is more important than "real history" - cf. my oft-mentioned
> example of the Good Samaritan. If I were to use your fish
> story as a sermon illustration & thought it would be helpful
> for homiletic purposes to put it in the first person, I would
> not be doing so to "intentionally mislead" anybody. & if I
> used it somehow to say something about being "fishers of men"
> & a hearer was inspired by that to become a missionary, I
> wouldn't be too upset if he or she thought that I really had
> caught a 32 lb fish. (Which BTW would be untrue: You've
> been fishing 3 times more than I have.)

I would be upset if people beleived false things about me. I have lots
of people email me or refer to me as Dr. Morton. They think I have to
be a Ph. D because of the way I debate. Frankly in some areas I have as
much knowledge as any Ph. D. but I DON'T have a Ph.D. I always correct
them. I would feel deceptive if I didn't correct that impression. So, if
Genesis is merely a fish tale with no historical truth, then is Genesis
1:1 equally a fish tale? If it is, then we should all be atheists
because it would strongly imply that the world came about by other
means. That is the import to me. If God didn't create the world then he
isn't worth much. And the allegorical approach seems to me to want to
have its cake and eat it too. They want Gen 1:1 to be historically true
but none of the rest of it.
Received on Fri Sep 3 14:22:57 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 14:22:58 EDT