From: Dick Fischer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:21:58 EDT
Howard wrote earlier:
>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?
If early Genesis does not differ to any substantial degree with history and
science, the Bible itself has more overall credibility that we can use to
evangelize unbelievers who may mistakenly believe the Bible is merely a
collection of fairy tales.
>Why is concord expected?
Paul describes Scripture as "God breathed." If God himself through the
Holy Spirit inspired the writers to produce something that was to establish
the ground rules by which we can either have or miss eternal life, it had
better be reliable.
>Why is concord desired?
By removing the stumbling blocks to understanding we can lead more people
>When specimens of concord have been crafted, what has been gained?
"Crafted" is a loaded term. Tension between Bible and science can be
reduced, maybe even eliminated, by isolating the passages that seem to be
in error and looking for the real meaning that God intended. Remember,
even Daniel didn't know what he was writing about, but God instructed him
that it was for future generations who would understand.
Bible translators have caused most of the heartburn. They labored under
the misconception that the entire human race commenced with a man (Adam)
who lived roughly seven thousand years ago, that the entire globe was
covered by the flood from which only Noah, his sons and wives survived, and
that all of our languages began at the tower of Babel - which it turns out
was a Mesopotamian ziggurat.
By not having a handle on the historical setting of early Genesis and its
Mesopotamian background, they dug a hermeneutical hole for us from which we
have to extricate ourselves.
Concordism itself should not be the goal. If the Bible falls short on its
own, then so be it. Eliminating misunderstanding, however, I believe is a
But nothing is gained if no one takes heed and refuses to change his or her
mind. If everyone remains fixed in the belief that science and history can
be beat into submission to an outdated method of interpretation on the one
hand, or that Genesis is simply allegory, poetry, mythology, tradition or
outright falsehood on the other hand, then the paradigms remain, and we
muddle on in endless discussion.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:22:05 EDT