RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Shuan Rose (
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 11:19:01 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: sciDocument.rtf"

            Still in conciliatory mode,
    You will agree that the mistakes in Leviticus are incidental the purpose of
    the passage, so we are not talking about making things up out of whole
    cloth. Rather, we are talking about accommodation to the needs of a Bronze
    Age audience. I would argue that inspiration means that Go moves people to
    write Scripture, but he works through people limited, by knowledge and
    circumstances. (See my post, "Human Word of the Almighty God"). I am not
    going to reply on your comments on Genesis, because we have had that
    discussion. I would appreciate any comments on the rest of my post.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Glenn Morton
    Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 11:22 PM
    To: Shuan Rose
    Cc: Asa
    Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf

            Hi Glenn,
    >On a conciliatory note, let me say that I understand where, you,
    >Gordon, and
    >David are coming from. You want the Bible to be absolutely true on all
    >matters, even matters incidental to the purpose of the
    >writing.Thats good. I
    >felt that way myself. I used to hero worship folks like Josh McDowell [ I
    >hear tell you know him:)] who could explain away every error and
    >contradiction in the text.

    Unfortunately, this probably won't be too conciliatory on my part. No matter
    how many times I try to tell people I don't really care if Noah took 6 or 60
    of each kind on board, and thus do not care if the fine details are correct,
    I seem to fail to get this across, or, alternatively, people prefer to place
    me in their already well defined category regardless. I don't care if the
    flood was global or local, as long as it is large enough to have some
    relationship with the reported account. I fail to see why that is
    considered as 'absolutely true on all matters'. I know there are
    transcriptional errors, I know there are translational errors, there are
    insertions in the Scripture. In short I don't have a problem with that. What
    I do have problems with is believing things which are made up whole cloth.
    Aparently that is where you and I differ. Apparently, you don't mind
    believing things are true which are made up whole cloth.

    But I now think that the better approach is not
    >to explain away errors in the text, but to explain why there might be error
    >in the text.
    >the reason, of course, is that God chose to proclaim his message through
    >human beings. He did so in a manner that did not overwhelm the freedom of
    >the human being who he inspired, but worked within the cultural and
    >historical limitations of the human author and their audience. The
    >writer of
    >Leviticus was trying to identify to a Bronze Age, tribal audience which
    >animals were clean and unclean. He shared the Ancient Near East view of
    >animal life. He and presumably God had no interest in teaching modern
    >zoology to his audience.
    >Now God could have done things differently. He could have explained modern
    >zoology to our tribal forebears in great detail. But then he would have
    >given them a zoology textbook. WE would have been happy. It would have made
    >OUR faith journey easier. But God in his sovereign wisdom chose
    >not to do it
    >that way.

    This too is the biggest red-herring of all. God could have said true things
    without having a science book and without explaining absolutely everything
    in the universe. An example would be if God had simply inspired the Genesis
    account to read:

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. OUt of the waters
    came life. There was a man named Abram...."

    That is scientifically true, it would not have engendered the debate we
    engage in and it is simple enough for our ancestors to understand. So your
    claim that God would have had to teach a zoology text is simply put, bunk.
    God wasn't faced with that either/or choice. You can believe that if you
    want, but I just showed that I am more powerful and thoughtful than the God
    you envision, because I just did what you said He couldn't do.

    The really important question is why didn't God inspire that type of
    account? Three answers--
    1. He isn't really there
    2. He didn't inspire the Bible (thus we need to search on)
    3. He is a Clintonesque liar (someone who doesn't tell the truth is a liar).
    4. He isn't powerful enough to inspire anyone much less raise a man from the

    Of course, you will say that he inspired wonderful truths about God's
    dealing with humanity. I can't see it being wonderful or true if it is made
    up from the whole cloth of falsity! And what is amazing to me, is that you
    chose to believe as true what is clearly false. Why would anyone in their
    right mind do that?

    nuff said.

    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Shuan Rose []
    >Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:27 AM
    >To: Glenn Morton
    >Cc: Asa
    >Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Glenn Morton []
    >Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:58 AM
    >To: Shuan Rose
    >Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>From: Shuan Rose []
    >>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:45 PM
    >> Well, Glenn, I don't know the Greek or Hebrew, but all
    >>translations that I
    >>have read translate the word used to refer to bats as bird.Check out this
    >>all in one bible research site
    >>every translation uses the word bird or fowl to apply to bats, even
    >>evangelical ones like NIV and NASB.
    >> Clearly, the writer meant to list bats as a type of bird.But this is De
    >>minimis (How's your Latin?)
    >Have a minor in Latin but after 30 years of not studying it, it is now
    >missing in action. :-)
    >Rabbits do not chew their cud; insects do not
    >>have four legs.There are scientific errors in the Bible. Deal with it.
    >I am but frankly, I don't really think you are. You believe, as God's
    >inspired word, that which is false--does the word gullible mean anything to
    >I know you won't like the above statement, but I do get a bit
    >tired of those
    >on the more liberal end looking down their noses at those of us who deal
    >with these issues in a different way, as if we were loony. It is loony to
    >believe falsehood is God's word. If it is false, then say so and reject it.
    >We simply don't treat falsehood in this fashion in any other area of life
    >except in our religions. When we come to our religion, it isn't false and
    >worthy of rejection no matter what foolishness it says. Thus, I don't think
    >you are really dealing with the issue or you would do to it what
    >you do to a
    >perjorer in a trial.
    >for lots of creation/evolution information
    >personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:41:22 EDT