Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate

From: Graham Morbey (
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 13:05:05 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "RE: Please show respect (was GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate)"


    I don't think that you can really call Francis Schaffer a generally
    recognized scholar, (as much as some of his engaging Christian apologetics
    - old Princeton, Van Til, and smattering of Dooyeweerd influenced
    worldview- warms the chrisian heart) especially not in Old Testament
    studies. A very interesting treatment of Genesis by a very good scholar is
    the Genesis Volume in the Interpretation Series by Walter Brueggemann. I
    haven't heard much about him on this list but I think that serious
    theological reflection on the early chapters of Genesis needs to be
    acquainted with his position!

    On Mon, 6 May 2002, Walter Hicks wrote:

    > Shuan Rose wrote:
    > >
    > > You and the other concordists are certainly right.Christianity is a
    > > historical faith and we should not forget that It builds on Israel's faith
    > > which is also deeply historical.
    > >
    > > I think the problem is that Genesis 1-11 looks like history and is in fact
    > > joined onto a historical account, so we want to consider it
    >history. It was
    > > the genius of the the original writer( The Yahwist, according to the
    > > scholars) to take an account of the saving acts of YAHWEH in Israel's
    > > history, that originally started with the call of Abraham, and
    >to extend it
    > > into prehistory . He did so by taking several seperate creation stories,
    > > arranging them into a chronological sequence, and inserting genealogies to
    > > cover the gaps.He did so in order to make the vitally important
    > > point that the first saving act of YAHWEH was the creation of the universe
    > > and that the Lord of Israel was also the Lord of the universe.
    > >
    > > Now in creating his literary and theological scheme, the Yahwist mined the
    > > mythological traditions of his day and rewrote them to suit his conception
    > > of YAHWEH. The flood story, for example is based on older Babylonian (and
    > > possibly Canaanite) originals. the story of Adam & eve really does not fit
    > > together seamlessly with Cain and Abel( hence the perennial
    >question, Where
    > > did Cain's wife come from?). The tables of generations work to
    >link together
    > > what were separate stories. Following the Yahwist, the Priestly
    >writer adds
    > > Genesis 1 and the Priestly version of the flood story to the Yahwist's
    > > foundation.
    > >
    > > Now, this is what OT scholars say is happening in Gen 1-11. See, for
    > > example, Gerhard Von Rad, The Problem of the Hexatuech, and the extensive
    > > litetrature generated by that book. Online, try
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Concordists and fundies tend to simply ignore the scholars view of Gen
    > > 1-11."Lets not let expert analysis get in the way of our historical
    > > reconstructions" is the motto of both groups. I think this a short sighted
    > > view that ends up in endless (and IMHO) pointless discussions on trying to
    > > extract a historical kernel out of Genesis 1-11. I have yet to see Glenn,
    > > Dick, or anyone else get to the meat of Gen 1-11, which for me , is What
    > > does it mean for ME and my community that my God is the maker of
    >heaven and
    > > earth? As scientists, you should be able to contribute devotional and
    > > theological insights that I, a non scientist, do not have. I
    >would like the
    > > list to table (at least, for a little while) the whole
    >concordist debate and
    > > hear some contributions on this question.
    > I think, Shaun, that you seriously misjudge the dominance of
    > "scholarship" as supporting the position that you promote here. I would
    > suggest that you get a copy of Francis A. Schaffer's (A generally
    > accepted "scholar")"Genesis in Space and Time". While deeply exploring
    > the spiritual meaning of Genesis, Schaffer points out the reasons for
    > taking Genesis 1-11 as a true historical account and backs it up with
    > Biblical quotes from the New and Old Testament. Indeed, he suggests that
    > it is _only_ as a historical account can it's deep spiritual content be
    > appreciated -- and that "scholarship" that treats it as other than real
    > history falls short of the true spiritual message. I suggest that
    > reading it might possibly change some of your conclusions.
    > I do not agree with Schaffer 100% but he balances off some of the
    > extreme views in the opposite direction.
    > Walt
    > --
    > ===================================
    > Walt Hicks <>
    > In any consistent theory, there must
    > exist true but not provable statements.
    > (Godel's Theorem)
    > You can only find the truth with logic
    > If you have already found the truth
    > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    > ===================================

    Graham E. Morbey, Chaplain || Wilfrid Laurier University
    tel. 519-884-1970 ext.2739 || Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5
    fax 519-885-4865 ||

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 14:00:44 EDT