RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 08:47:35 EST

OK.
So, which parts of Genesis 1 & 2 do you think are natural, and which parts
do you think are supernatural?
JP

-----Original Message-----
From: d.nield@auckland.ac.nz [mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:14 PM
To: James Patterson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

I agree with Iain and with Michael.
James needs to make the distinctions that other people on this list make.
Otherwise there will be rank confusion. He should be careful to
distinguish between supernatural events and miracles. The latter is a
subset of the former. Miracles are signs of God's special activity.

Further, he should be prepared to recognize that most scholars see
different genres in the Bible, even if he himslf denies that that there
are different genres.

The NT miracle accounts and Genesis 1 are different in two respects: (1)
genre, (2) content.

I disagree with both of the statements "It is inappropriate to talk of the
supernatural inregard to Genesis 1" and "Genesis 1 and 2 are not written
in a way that they can be described a supernatural". But both statements
are vague. Genesis 1 is clearly an account of God's activity, but not of
the type that James thinks it is.
Don

> Michael said:
> Genesis speaks of creation by God - whatever that means beyond creating!
> It
> is inappropriate to talk of miracles in regard of genesis one.
>
> Iain said:
> Genesis 1 and 2 are not written in a way that they can be described as
> "miracles". It is clear in the Bible when miracles occur (e.g. Jesus'
> miraculous healings, the parting of the red sea etc), but the creation is
> not described as a miracle. Therefore I don't see a contradiction, or a
> problem with the idea that it is there to say that God is the creator; the
> exact manner of creation being described in figurative language. By
> contrast, it seems to me that miracles are signs and wonders that happened
> subsequently to reveal God to His people; not a trick to bring creation
> into
> existence.
>
> James replies:
>
> OK, so first, we have a dividing point: Genesis 1&2 (creation accounts).
>
> Secondly, we have a rationale for division: Creating is creating, and not
> "miraculous".
>
> Now, I sometimes use "miracle" and "supernatural" interchangeably, and
> they
> are not necessarily the same. I am familiar enough with language to not do
> that, and I am sorry. So the second question is this: Do you agree with
> these statements, with "miracle" changed to "supernatural"?
>
> "It is inappropriate to talk of the supernatural in regard to Genesis 1."
>
> "Genesis 1 and 2 are not written in a way that they can be described as
> "supernatural".
>
> JP
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 1 08:47:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 08:47:56 EST