Re: tentative hermeneutical principles
George Murphy (email@example.com)
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 15:56:17 -0400
> At 02:35 PM 08/15/1999 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
> >Glenn Morton asked - nay, demanded - that I state some hermeneutical
> Lest I appear demanding, would you please apply these principles to Genesis
> 1 and show why it is not to be held as history or precisely define what
> historical content it has?
> REading through your list, the only thing I saw that I could apply to
> Genesis 1-11 was the apparent internal conflict between the two creation
> accounts. If I held to the assumption that you hold to, namely that these
> two accounts are detailing the same event, I would have to agree with you.
> I don't believe that they are detailing the same event. Genesis 1 and
> Genesis 2 are two separate events. If they are two separate events, then
> they don't conflict! This is the Days of Proclamation view. If there is
> something else that indicates Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken
> historically, I would appreciate it (not demand) if you would point it out
> to me.
I've responded to this point in the parallel. Briefly, Genesis 1 describes
a sequence of commands & fulfillments, & external evidence (age of the universe,
temporal order of the origins of living things) tells against reading either account as
an accurate scientific description.
George L. Murphy