Re: Something must change

John W Burgeson (
Sat, 22 Aug 1998 15:01:03 -0600

Glenn: You wrote:

>>So, this would imply that God had no control over the writer and what
wrote. .>>

Sorry, Glenn. I don't see such an implication at all.

>> Is God not powerful enough to have the
writer tell us what he wants? No, I don't think that is the case. >>

Neither do I, of course.

>>Does God not have the foreknowledge to know that the Creation/evolution
area would become a big problem for 19th century people and those born

I suspect His foreknowledge also included an understanding of just how
trivial the subject is, in the eternal scheme of things!

>> So, since the 5th century BC (or
earlier in my opinion) writer didn't care about what the real history
why would God NOT then choose the better course to give a simplified but
historically TRUE account? After all, the early writer by your own
didn't really care and modern man does. God could saved us all this
by merely telling the true history the first time.>>

Answer #1. Who among us can know the mind of God? Except very faintly?

Answer #2. When my kids were very young, we made a big thing of Santa
Claus. Yeah -- in some sense I was "telling them a lie." At age 2 or 3, a
Santa Claus was appropriate (as least I though so) for their stage of
development. Not s, when they got older.

The folks in 500 BC were pretty primitive in their thought processes. No
differences in IQ, as far as we know, but probably 1/100 as much stimulus
towards what we in 20th century America think of as "science." The
Genesis story, one which had as its theme "God did it," was written in
story/parable form. I doubt if there was one person in 1000 who ever even
asked the question "is that a literal story?"

A key question in all this, Glenn, is this: What did the story mean to
the folks that heard it (mostly verbally, BTW) in 500 BC? They were the
"first hearers." Did they "get it right," or did they go off into
questions of philosophy, origins, the meaning of historical statements,
and the like? All the evidence I've seen says they did not.

I wrote that "The ESSENTIAL messages of Genesis 1-11 are
theological, not historical."

You replied: "So what is the theological meaning of
Genesis 11:20 "And Reu lived two and
thirty years, and begat Serug:"

Probably little or none. That's just part of the story.

But you also wrote: " I personally can't see any theological meaning. I
see some historical meaning however. And if it is historical meaning,
it is either true history or fabricated history."

The theological meaning is, of course, the story as a whole, not any
sentence in it, such as the one you quote.

If you think that Genesis 1-11 is intended to tell us a literal history,
and that is the reason it exists at all, then under that assumption, you
are absolutely correct.

I just don't think that. I think Genesis 1-11 was written to tell us the
"God did it" concept, and in this, it is quite successful, not only in
our generation, but in the 1000s of generations before us and the
generations to come.

Having so pontificated, let me also add that were I God, I would want to
do things more your way. But, last time I looked, I wasn't.

Best ...


You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]