RE: [asa] promise trumps biology

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri Dec 12 2008 - 05:48:27 EST

Dick,

I guess I will concede that yes from the perspective of those on the ark then the text could be taken literally and would withstand more scrutiny. I have heard that before and RTB uses it as well. The problem though then is setting this precendent of concordant literalism because I don't believe we can explain it away in every instance. Maybe in this case but not across the board.

I think the safer view is that the Bible we have today is ancient wisdom inspired by God and it contains eternal truth, but we have to proceed with caution with it as it was delivered through men and their mental faculties and understanding at the time and it is unclear and subjective where the boundaries are between this accomodationism and eternal truth.

Also my issue is more with what the church teaches than technically what the Bible says. I appreciate your efforts to defend the literalness of the Bible but again since I don't think we can do this conclusively, I am not sure of the ultimate value of this pursuit.

Thanks

John

--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:52 PM
> Hi John:
>
> Your comments written down are reflective of what many
> others on this
> list seem to think. By answering you I am also answering
> them. Which
> is fine.
>
> The original Hebrew is not so globally oriented as the
> English
> translations. This is what I wrote in The Origins
> Solution:
>
> "As to the language used to describe the flood, it
> would make no
> difference whether the flood, in fact, was global or local.
> From the
> standpoint of the passengers on the ark, the description is
> entirely
> true and accurate in either case. These verses do not
> oblige us to
> ponder whether the Rockies, or the Andes, or the Urals, or
> the Himalayas
> were under water.
>
> Considering that mountains were not inundated by the flood,
> as the
> evidence indicates, in no way should that impugn the
> accuracy or
> inerrancy of Scripture. From Noah's and Shem's
> viewpoint, the text
> describes their situation and surroundings in terms we
> might have used
> had we been passengers on the ark ourselves.
>
> For example, say we heard an emotional outpouring from
> someone who had
> just fled from a burning building. If that person
> exclaimed, "There was
> fire and smoke everywhere," would anyone rebuke him
> for speaking
> inaccurately? Who would chide a shaken survivor with,
> "Now, you don't
> mean `everywhere,' do you? You meant only inside the
> building." In
> this hypothetical situation, who would not know instantly
> what was
> intended by the word, "everywhere"? We make
> interpretations from
> context every day. Are we to be any less sensible when
> Scripture is the
> case in point?
>
> Why should Scripture, yes "inspired" Scripture,
> be interpreted
> differently? Humbly, obediently, reverently, judiciously,
> and
> studiously - yes, but we need not abandon our common sense.
> A regional
> flood confined to the Mesopotamian valley fits all the
> requirements of
> accuracy and inerrancy that anyone should expect."
>
> As I told Bernie, none of the parallel flood narratives
> even hint at a
> global flood even though it was universal destruction for
> all of Noah's
> kinfolk. Where I will allow for the possiblity of error is
> on the
> year-long duration of the flood and the size of the boat.
> The parallel
> accounts are all week-long events and 450 feet would have
> been the
> largest wooden boat ever constructed, and without the
> benefit of modern
> tools. Of course it might have been possible to raft
> together smaller
> compartments to make the overall dimensions. Can you
> imagine those
> wives spending a year floating around with a bunch of
> smelly animals.
> No wonder Noah was driven to drink.
>
> Dick Fischer, GPA president
> Genesis Proclaimed Association
> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:19 PM
> To: Dick Fischer
> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
>
> Dick,
>
> Please don't misunderstand me. My comments below were
> not directed
> toward any of your premises directly. In fact I tend to
> agree with you
> that in totality all of your historical coincidences do add
> up to a
> compelling argument for an historical Adam. I haven't
> gotten around to
> reading your book yet but maybe now is a good time to look
> into it.
>
> My comments of exasperation below were directed toward
> those that teach
> the literal historicity of Genesis i.e. the flood in the
> face of science
> like Bernie points out. For instance RTB teaches a local
> flood but they
> still hold that the Bible is inerrant.
>
> The problem is the Bible clearly teaches a global flood. It
> is dishonest
> to spin it otherwise. And the Bible writers likely believed
> that as well
> and intended the Bible to say that. So the only conclusion
> is that the
> Bible is wrong on at least that point. That doesn't
> undermine my faith
> nor should it anyone's but we have to accept this.
>
> Thanks
>
> john
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Dick Fischer
> <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> > To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> > Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 1:31 AM
> > Hi John:
> >
> > I wouldn't be so quick to throw in the towel.
> The
> > past 28 years I have
> > spent researching Genesis have strengthened my faith
> in the
> > integrity of
> > Genesis enormously. I have seen numerous connections
> both
> > small and
> > large that have convinced me Genesis 2-11 was intended
> as a
> > true
> > historical account of the Israelite nation. You do
> have to
> > make
> > allowances for scribal mistakes, errors in
> translation,
> > Hebrew
> > expressions and manners of speech, and their
> egocentricity
> > though.
> >
> > The region of the Near East has been excavated and
> analyzed
> > quite
> > thoroughly over the years. We believe animal
> sacrifice
> > began with Adam
> > and spread to his people. Even the Sumerians picked
> it up.
> > I read a
> > book in the Library of Congress that was nothing more
> than
> > a list of
> > cattle receipts from the market at Drehem. One entry
> > caught my
> > attention. It was a receipt for "unblemished
> cattle
> > for sacrifice."
> >
> > No cities that existed earlier than Eridu show signs
> of
> > animal
> > sacrifice. Eridu is the first city to bear the signs
> of
> > animal
> > sacrifice. Eridu was dated at 4800 BC and according
> to
> > Babylonian
> > tradition was near the Garden of Eden. Even edin
> means
> > "plain;"
> > "prairie," or "desert" in Akkadian
> and
> > Sumerian.
> >
> > The name "Adamu" perpetuated for centuries
> among
> > the Akkadians. Even
> > two Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with the name of
> the
> > first
> > "created" being as "Atum," and one
> of
> > his sons was named "Seth." Who
> > else could it be?
> >
> > Eve was taken from Adam's rib and she was the
> > "mother of all living."
> > Because the word for rib and life was the same in
> Sumerian,
> > a play on
> > words was "the lady of the rib is the lady of
> > life."
> >
> > Cain named his city Enoch and the Sumerians called
> that
> > city unug in the
> > Sumerian king list. Following the entry for Ziusudra,
> the
> > Sumerian
> > version of Noah, it says: "Then the flood swept
> > thereover."
> >
> > The "fountains of the deep" broke up in the
> flood
> > according to Genesis
> > and the exact same expression in Atrahasis shows
> clearly it
> > pertained to
> > their irrigation apparatus.
> >
> > The Akkadians worshipped a trinity or at least a triad
> of
> > gods. The
> > Sumerians readily adopted them and they are always
> depicted
> > in Akkadian
> > dress.
> >
> > The Tower of Babel was one of over 30 ziggurats that
> were
> > built in the
> > region initially as a means to survive frequent
> floods. It
> > was
> > destroyed by Sennacherib, rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar,
> and
> > visited by the
> > first historian, Herodotus.
> >
> > Nimrod ruled in Babylon and a statue of him was
> unearthed
> > at the city of
> > Birs Nimrud.
> >
> > I could go on and relate dozens of connections that in
> > totality are
> > entirely convincing to me that Genesis 2-11 is valid
> > history, but you
> > know how to access the information, John. Go to any
> > library and request
> > the book on interlibrary loan. It costs you nothing.
> >
> > Dick Fischer, GPA president
> > Genesis Proclaimed Association
> > "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and
> History"
> > www.genesisproclaimed.org
> > <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of John Walley
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:52 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> >
> > > I think honesty requires us to read it
> > > as intended, and then deal with it according to
> the
> > > truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to
> think
> > that
> > > the text is trying to describe a local flood, or
> that
> > a
> > > local flood could fulfill the passage.
> >
> >
> > I agree with this analysis. It is unpleasant to us and
> puts
> > the lie to
> > the Bibliolatrous Inerrancy doctrine but as Bernie
> says,
> > intellectual
> > honesty and integrity demands it.
> >
> > Sorry but we have to grow up and face this. Its the
> dirty
> > little secret
> > of the church that the Bible isn't really what we
> were
> > all raised to
> > think it was. That doesn't mean it still isn't
> > inspired and contains
> > truth about all the important doctrines of
> Christianity,
> > but just that
> > it is not a silver bullet to answer all of life's
> > questions and with
> > magic powers.
> >
> > I wished someone would have explained it to me this
> way
> > when I was a
> > young Christian.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> > > To: "asa@calvin.edu"
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 11:44 AM
> > > If the writer wanted to make the reader clear
> that it
> > really
> > > was the whole world, he might put in extra words
> to be
> > very
> > > clear about that. And that's what he did by
> > saying how
> > > long the flood was (1 year, which is impossible
> from
> > > experience for a local flood) and how it covered
> the
> > highest
> > > mountain and then some.
> > >
> > > A local flood requires a bowl shape to keep in
> water.
> > If
> > > the water goes over the roof of the bowl, it
> can't
> > be
> > > contained. Scripture clearly says the water went
> over
> > the
> > > mountains. It follows that it went over, it
> > wasn't just
> > > spilling, but also filling up, so the whole Earth
> was
> > > covered in water-- it spilled over until the
> water was
> > the
> > > same level everywhere until it couldn't spill
> over
> > any
> > > more and the water level simply covered the
> tallest
> > mountain
> > > and then some, as scripture says.
> > >
> > > Why not just believe it, literaly? Because of
> science.
> > The
> > > writers of the Bible didn't have this
> scientific
> > > knowledge. We do. I think honesty requires us
> to
> > read it
> > > as intended, and then deal with it according to
> the
> > > truth/light that we have. It is unreasonable to
> think
> > that
> > > the text is trying to describe a local flood, or
> that
> > a
> > > local flood could fulfill the passage.
> > >
> > > ...Bernie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> > George
> > > Cooper
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:50 AM
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> > >
> > > Bernie,
> > >
> > > 2 Peter 3 does not say "whole world",
> > regardless
> > > of which Bible version
> > > selected. This phrase, however, is used a number
> of
> > times
> > > in the NT. But
> > > even these do not necessarily refer to the entire
> > globe,
> > > but rather the
> > > whole known world, apparently.
> > >
> > > Consider...
> > >
> > > Rm 1:8 "First, I thank my God through Jesus
> > Christ for
> > > you all, that your
> > > faith is spoken of throughout the whole
> world."
> > >
> > > That makes sense if it is in the context of those
> in
> > the
> > > known world, and
> > > not every human on the planet.
> > >
> > >
> > > The use of "world" in the 16th century
> was
> > often
> > > used to refer to the cosmos
> > > or universe. Copernicus used it many times in
> his de
> > > Revolutionibus.
> > >
> > > Coope
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > > Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:52 PM
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology
> > >
> > > Gordon Brown said:
> > > " There are problems with proof texting when
> one
> > uses
> > > an English
> > > translation. The English may be more clear-cut
> than
> > the
> > > original. In the
> > > Biblical languages the same word is used for land
> and
> > > earth."
> > >
> > > RE:
> > > 2 Peter 3:
> > > 6By these waters also the world of that time was
> > deluged
> > > and destroyed.
> > >
> > > Here it says the whole "world."
> > >
> > > Strong's says this:
> > >
> >
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=
> > KJV
> > >
> > > None of those options (in the definition by
> Strongs)
> > > involve a partial
> > > covering of the Earth.
> > >
> > > Literally, I think it is clear Peter meant the
> whole
> > world.
> > > I think he was
> > > wrong, because he didn't have the luxury of
> > science as
> > > we do now, to know
> > > that the whole Earth was never flooded.
> > >
> > > I don't see the relevance of your mentioning
> Deut.
> > > 2;25- you'll need to
> > > explain more fully. I think they meant the world
> as
> > they
> > > knew it, in that
> > > passage.
> > >
> > > My point wasn't to argue the flood. My point
> was
> > that
> > > Dick said that George
> > > didn't believe Moses, so it appeared to me
> the
> > same
> > > charge could be leveled
> > > at Dick himself. I'm sure Moses thought the
> flood
> > was
> > > worldwide, and wrote
> > > as such. If Moses (and Peter) thought the flood
> was
> > local,
> > > he sure was a
> > > super lousy communicator!
> > >
> > > ...Bernie

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 12 05:48:47 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 12 2008 - 05:48:47 EST