Re: Seely's Views 2

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 09:25:40 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "'Roger Olson'"
<rogero@saintjoe.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: Seely's Views 2

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:29 PM
>
> > 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.
>
> But that isn't what it says. It ONLY say that God is the creator of the
> universe, it says he actually created the heavens and the earth (the
> universe). If the statement in Genesis 1:1 said, "I am Jehovah, creator
> of the heavens and the earth" I would be forced to agree with you. But
> the verse describes not who God is but what He did.
>
> Maybe I am too stupid to understand modern theology in this regard but
> it seems to me that if this is merely a theological statement it
> wouldn't describe actions.

> 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.
>
> Then why does it say God DID something rather than that God IS someone?

No especially modern theology is called for: ~1600 years ago Augustine said
"The world was not made in time but with time." (/Non est mundus factus in
tempore, sed cum tempore/.) If Gen.1:1 is a statement about God's initial
creative act then it was not something that took place in the time of our
world because that time did not exist. & if Gen.1:1 is - in Westermann's
phrase - "a heading that takes in everything in the narrative in one single
sentence" then it is perfectly consistent to say that it's true in the same
(non-historical) sense that the rest of the account is.

I.e., I'm not arguing here that you're wrong but just that your charge that
others (including myself) are inconsistent - doesn't hold up.

As to your 1st point here: Yes, 1:1 says that God created the entire
universe. But that does not require (as explained in my 1st paragraph) that
it be an historical
that it be an historical statement.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Sep 4 09:39:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 09:39:23 EDT