RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Roger G. Olson <rogero@saintjoe.edu>
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 17:02:35 EDT

>
>
>> -----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.
>
>

I kinda see your point, Glenn -- but how could Genesis 1:1 be read in an
allegorical way, if in fact Genesis 1-11 is "true" allegory rather than
all literal history? Isn't Genesis 1:1 compatible with allegory? After
all, it doesn't state WHEN "the beginning" was relative to the present.
It doesn't say HOW God created the "heavens" (what's that, BTW?) and the
earth. How else would God have stated this information?

Anyhoo,... can't a text combine aspects of history and allegory? Why does
it have to be all or nothing?

The problems that the historists have start in Genesis 1:2. That's where
the proverbial coprolite hits the alluvial fan.

-- 
Received on Fri Sep 3 17:20:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 17:20:03 EDT