Re: Seely's Views 2

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 14:28:57 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Roger Olson'" <rogero@saintjoe.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Seely's Views 2

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Olson
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:40 AM
> > >
> > These is a loaded expression. Why would allegory or metaphor be
> > considered a "falsehood to convey truth?" I'm really very confused
> > about all this historical vs. metaphorical business. Allegory, when
> > inspired by God, is just a "true" as historical narrative, IMHO.
> >
>
> I keep coming back to the fact that those who want Genesis 1 to be
> allegorical don't want Genesis 1:1 to be allegorical. Indeed, Genesis
> 1:1 is propositional and it is either true history or it is totally
> false. To me this is the heart of the inconsistency on the allegorical
> side. Also there is no clear place where this account is identified as
> allegorical. Jesus was said to tell parables which clearly identify the
> genre. There is no statement like this in Genesis 1.

The supposed inconsistency between the way folks like myself treat 1:1 & the
rest of Gen.1 is illusory. Gen.1:1 is not an historical statement but a
theological claim - i.e., God is the creator of the universe, including
time. It is (& here exegetes differ) either a statement about God's 1st
creative act which would have been literally pre-history & pre-time, or a
summary of the following (non-historical) account. But it is not a
statement about an historical event. V.1 is a true theological statement,
just as other points made in Gen.1 are. It's not that it's historical & the
others aren't.

& then can we lay this "allegory" business" to rest? Interpreting a text
"allegorically" means saying that the things in the text "stand for"
something else, like _Pilgrim's Progress_ or what Paul does in Gal.4:21-31.
It's not how I, at any rate, understand the 1st creation account (except in
a sense for the meaning of the Sabbath). The luminaries in vv.14-19 don't
"stand for" some other kind of lights or anything like that. They are the
real sun, moon & stars in our sky, but they aren't described in scientific
terms.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Sep 3 14:50:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 14:50:11 EDT