From: Terry M. Gray (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:13:22 EDT
>Having observed once again on this list several concordist attempts to bring
>pieces of early Genesis text into agreement (concord) with pieces of modern
>natural science, I am led to ask a series of closely related questions:
>What is the purpose or goal of this exercise?
>Why is concord expected?
>Why is concord desired?
>When specimens of concord have been crafted, what has been gained?
>Howard Van Till
Concord is expected because God is the author of "both" revelations.
That's the simple answer.
Recognizing the different purposes and methods of the giving of the
two revelations and the very different means by which the two
revelations are received perhaps leads one to modify one's
expectation that a simple concord will be achieved.
Each revelation should be dealt with on its own terms and not
forcibly twisted to accommodate the other. This may result in
apparent contradictions. So be it. Creaturely (not just
sin-influenced) limitations may prevent us from resolving them all.
But there are many points at which both enterprises are influenced by
outside presuppositions, worldviews, cultural baggage, etc. A
suggestion from the reading of "nature" may cause us to re-examine a
cherished reading of scripture. I put Genesis 1 in this camp. The
"conflict" between a 6 24-hour day reading and the findings of
science leads on to re-examine the text. This re-examination results
in a literary or framework view as being a superior interpretation
based on the text itself. It has the benefit of removing the
conflict. Of course, this is not concordism in the sense that we have
been discussing it. But I think that the belief that there is a
fundamental unity in revelation is what motivates us here.
As to the question in a later post about concordism being necessary
to support the Bible, I think that the importance of this depends on
your apologetic biases. An evidentialist will be much more motivated
to prop up the Bible with the results of science and history than a
presuppositionalist or someone who will focus more on the role of the
Holy Spirit in convincing us that the Bible is God's word.
Personally, I lean toward the latter two notions so the Bible "needs"
less evidential support. This is not to say that it isn't there or
that it doesn't function in the convictions of some people.
Inasmuch as it is possible and that it helps, as long as it doesn't
violate good science or good theology, I see nothing wrong with the
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 email@example.com http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:13:01 EDT