Re: Exegesis or Eisegesis?

From: george murphy (
Date: Tue Jan 01 2002 - 22:34:12 EST

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Re: Pasteur and nature of science"

    Dick Fischer wrote:

    > George Murphy wrote:
    >> Yes, Paul probably did think of Adam as an historical figure.
    > I agree with Paul.

            What I wrote was:

         Yes, Paul probably did think of Adam as an historical figure. The
    writer of Genesis 1
    pictured a flat earth with a solid dome of sky & waters above the
    heavens. & the point is ... ?

            Dick seems to have totally missed the point here - either that
    or his omission of my reference to Genesis shows that he saw it quite
    clearly! It's clear that the writer of the Genesis account used the
    concepts of an archaic cosmology in order to speak about God's creation
    of the world. No sensible person today thinks that that oudated picture
    of the world has to be accepted if one is going to believe the
    theological claims of Genesis. I.e., those claims are cannot simply be
    identified with the way in which the world is described there.
            As Christians, we presumably believe that scripture is in some
    sense inspired by the Holy Spirit. The example of Genesis 1 shows that
    the Spirit seems to have been willing to condescend to the use of
    less-than-perfect concepts - & in fact ones that from the standpoint of
    today's science quite obsolete - in order to convey God's message to us.

            If we are going to use what Paul says in Romans 5 and I
    Corinthians 15 to develop a theological anthropology, we will have to at
    least consider the possibility that the concept of an historical
    individual Adam as the single male ancestor of all humans is also part
    of a view of the world which we need no longer accept.
            Note that I say "at least consider the possibility." Of course
    we need to try to grasp Paul's theological argument before we can decide
    what is essential to it and what is simply the language that he uses to
    express it. But this can't be done if one doesn't even recognize the
    difference in principle.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 22:33:34 EST