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

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 14:19:38 EST

James:
I would have thought that the answer to your question would have been
clear from my previous message. I regard the whole of Genesis 1 and 2 as
being an account of God's activity. "Natural" and "supernatural" are not
suitable categories on which to divide the Bible.
Don

James Patterson wrote:
> 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.
>

-

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 14:20:02 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 14:20:02 EST