Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

From: Jack <>
Date: Sun Mar 18 2007 - 19:14:18 EDT

Jack wrote:
>There are of course different views on this, but I think the most consistent "accommodation" view, gets rid of a historical
>Adam altogether.

Which goes to my basic objection with accommodation. It makes everything untrue and then proclaims it worthy of worship--a rather silly approach in my view and it confirms the question someone asked about how far accommodation is willing to go in making things in Scripture untrue--to which I responded, mighty far.

It doesnt make "everything" untrue. In a sense accomodation doesnt make anything "untrue" it just makes the scriptures say something different than you say it says. And the ahistoric interpretation does not apply to all of scripture, and not even all of Genesis, just the first 11 chapters, and some other passages. But the non-verifiable facts in the ahistoric passages, does not mean that it is untrue, it is just not historic, or verfiable with scientific methods.

You are the one demanding this of the text. Why does an ahistoric passage have to be verifiable for it to be meaningful?

But all of the scriptures point to truth of the risen Christ. That is what you have to hang your hat on. If that is proven incorrect, then everything else is meaningless.

Who asked the question about how far accomodation is willing to go? Was that on this list or somewhere else? I am honestly interested in that answer.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 18 19:14:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 18 2007 - 19:14:37 EDT