Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Tue Feb 21 2006 - 06:51:48 EST
This is for Bill Hamilton, Iain Strachan,

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>I think you are making the assumption "not descended from Adam = not human." But if Dick is right, Adam was
>commissioned to tell others about the Living God

But, where does it say that in the Bible? Why the story of the rib? Why the story of teaching Adam the animal names?  If God is such a bad inspirer of his truth that when He says "you are supposed to tell others," the message recieved by the writer is something about ribs and bringing animals and talking snakes, then God is truly a very poor communicator to the writer of Genesis. How on earth can we trust anything He tried to communicate? If God said, 'resuscitation,' but it was received as 'resurrection', where are we theologically?  My problem is that when we decide what God actually said, we have made God an mumbling incompetent.

As to me not being human, I certainly am NOT making that mistake.  It is my wife who is a descendant of Dick's Adam, but I am most assuredly human (in spite of her constant doubt of that fact) My point is not that I am making that mistake; but that others WILL make that mistake. And that would raise the racism card.



>-- the first missionary. It would seem that interpreting Genesis Dick's way leads to the inevitable conclusion that Adam's
>contemporaries _were_ human -- and that God loved them enough to send Adam to them and several thousand years
>later to send Jesus Christ to them. [/quote]

So, why didn't God simply say that?  Why the mumbo jumbo and the need for Dick to tell us what God actually mean to say? (I know Dick, like Dick, am proud to have him as a friend and think he is one of the finest fellows on earth), but Dick as God's interpretor is a bit scarey.

>>As to how the YECs have received my views? Why would you ask me to tell you truthfully???

>Sorry -- it's just an expression

Mei wen ti (no problem)

>Absolutely not. But perhaps it means one ought to continually search for alternative explanations -- that still meet the
>test of plausibility in view of all the evidence -- but that might be more palatable to conservative Christians.

I have known even before you reviewed my first book that if I could find a younger flood I would be able to sell the concept.  But, I will tell you this, I would rather fit the facts than play to the preconceptions of the audience. One gets ahead in apologetics IF and only if you tell the readers what they already want to hear. But that is intellectual prostitution and I won't engage in it. Since I have had a serious cancer (so far so good) I have to think about my impact on the world. Here is my assessment:  my name will quickly be forgotten by theologians and all of what I have done will be for naught. I still won't be an intellectual prostitute.


For Iain Strachan who wrote:

>Doesn't Galatians 3:26-29 answer this objection?

 >26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed >yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ >Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
>Glenn, it truly doesn't matter if you're descended from Adam or not.  Your faith in Jesus Christ puts you on an equal >footing with everyone else.  You're as good as descended from Abraham.

I know it is this way but you and I both know that when people start using that view, it will end up wrong. When people like Hugh Ross say that people who behaved just as we do are nothing more than 'bipedal hominids', you know there is a problem. Shoot, even Turing would say that if they behave just like us, they ARE us.

>People might choose to have a rascist theology, but then this passage emphatically declares that such a theology is plain >WRONG.

That and $4 will buy you a Starbucks. That passage was written because those descended from Abraham were looking down their noses at those not. But that doesn't mean that that verse solves the issue.

Received on Tue Feb 21 06:53:19 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 06:53:19 EST