Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 13:38:54 EST

On good Sam's historicity . Tom Wright "Simply Christian" p165 deals with this. He says " I have never met a reader " who thought the Prodigal Son actually happened , and then discusses the truth of parables.

The Mormon example is a straight historical question open to DNA. As is the historicity of Jesus, David and Moses.

Early Genesis gives so few hard details that we cannot draw much info out them, beyond saying some kind of aqueous event occurred. Even Gen 4 fits best about 10000years ago but we can say no more.. Gen 1-11 simply is not written in a way that we can check it historically. At best we may find maybes but that is not much help, and we are best not forcing the text only to be refuted later.

I focus most on the historicity of the NT and the OT after Abraham, where the evidence is sparse before David.


----- Original Message -----
  Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:37 AM
  Subject: RE: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

  This is for Michael Roberts,

>I am afraid I find any suggestion that the Good Sam is historical misses the whole point of a parable.

   No it doesn't. It is actually more powerful if it is historical and known to the listeners of that day.

>Also Glenn's ideas of a 5 ma flood means that he has a remarkable amount of metaphorical interpretation in his view of >Genesis, or perhaps much accommodation. The history behind early Genesis becomes so vague that it might as well be >allegorical. Be cheeky I could suggest that his views are a strong form of AMA interpretation!

  Michael, you are cheeky. You demand that YECs answer tough questions, but then flee to the hills when you are asked tough ones for your position. Can a mormon use accommodation as a means to save his religion which says false things about how North America was peopled? Can he or can't he? Why this is so tough for you to answer, I really don't know. If you had an ounce of prescience about the weaknesses of your own position, you would have thought of a better answer than "it is nonsense to ask such a question."
>It is a pity that Glenn does not see the logic or rather illogic of his views.

  Oh, I see the weaknesses of my views. I know that no one likes the age of Adam in my views. But, genetics says mankind's genes go back that far so to maintain the unity of the Human race, one must postulate an Adam at least that old. Religion goes back at least to 420,000 years, long before anatomically modern man was on earth. We know this from this description of Bilzingsleben

  "But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle. "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'" (Gore, Rick 1997. "The First Europeans," National Geographic, July, p. 110)
  I really wouldn't want to walk into a village with a 'cultural area' like that one. And I doubt you would either. You too, if you really admit it, can see the symbolism.

  We can conveniently ignore such things because they don't fit our theology, or we can decide that theology needs to adapt a bit.

  But, my weakness is that there is no evidence for people in the place where they would have had to have been for the flood--but there is plenty of evidence for the infilling of the Mediterranean. I also have difficulty with the MHC complex because to coalesce that complex requires something like 28 million years, meaning no genetic bottleneck for the past 28 million years (although I do have a way to solve that problem). My weakness is that I don't place Adam where everyone else wants him, in 4000 BC or so. My weakness is that I must have small brained hominids have language (although Homo floresiensis may have solved that problem and given me support for language among the H. erecti).

  Now, Michael, I have listed some of the weaknesses of my position. If you have any intellectual honesty you will be capable of doing the same. What do you see as the weaknesses, both logical and observational in your position? Or are you like a YEC who has no weaknesses in his position????? I think you will respond like the latter. You seem not to be able to see or admit or acknowledge any weaknesses in your position, but all positions have their weaknesses, mine as well as yours. I have proven my honesty here by listing them. The question is: will you?

Received on Mon Feb 20 14:00:42 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 20 2006 - 14:00:43 EST