Re: Seely's Views 2

From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 04:27:46 EDT

Glenn wrote:

"...The point of my complaint is that I do not expect it to be too much to
expect from God that he communicate a simple but true story...."

What if God's objective with Gen. 1-11 was not to communicate a story at all but simply to insert himself into the lives and culture of certain ancient Hebrews? God might then have regarded it as appropriate or even necessary to interfere as little as possible with their preexisting (inaccurate or just plain wrong) beliefs, modifying them only enough to be able to satisfy his objective. In that case his word to those ancient Hebrews would not have been intended to provide information valid for all time, but it still would have been the word of God to those people.

We today could still benefit spiritually from such ad hoc words because we could imagine ourselves in the place of those ancient Hebrews and hear God speaking to us; or we could at least benefit from seeing how God has acted in other historical times in such a way as to lead eventually to a fuller revelation of himself.

A great many portions of the Bible in fact must be read in something like that way if they are to be of spiritual benefit for people today. Examples: Ezekiel 28, a prophecy against Tyre; Ezekiel 29, a prophecy against Egypt. (Interestingly, neither of these prophecies seems to have benefited from historical fulfillment! If anyone knows otherwise, I'd be interested.)

The point: God's objective may not have been what you think it was. If so, you might be trying to get the wrong kinds of information from those narratives. In other words, the problem would not be God's failure but rather inappropriate human expectations.

Don
Received on Sat Sep 4 04:37:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 04:37:15 EDT