RE: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate

From: Shuan Rose (
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 14:26:25 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Moving on from Terry's last post"

    I have read Brueggemann and fully endorse reading anything by him.Other
    books by him are the Prophetic Imagination and Israel's Praise, a study of
    the Psalms. Even more to the pointto discussions on this listserv is his
    book David's Truth, in which the explores the several different types of
    truth conveyed by the David narratives.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Graham Morbey
    Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:05 PM
    To: Walter Hicks
    Cc: Shuan Rose; Asa
    Subject: Re: 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
    > > which is also deeply historical.
    > >
    > > I think the problem is that Genesis 1-11 looks like history and is in
    > > 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
    > > 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
    > > and that the Lord of Israel was also the Lord of the universe.
    > >
    > > Now in creating his literary and theological scheme, the Yahwist mined
    > > mythological traditions of his day and rewrote them to suit his
    > > of YAHWEH. The flood story, for example is based on older Babylonian
    > > possibly Canaanite) originals. the story of Adam & eve really does not
    > > 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
    > > 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
    > > 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
    > > Dick, or anyone else get to the meat of Gen 1-11, which for me , is
    > > 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 - 16:08:38 EDT