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

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 17:17:15 EST

To me Dick's "idea" is a distraction from the messages of Genesis 1
(that God created the heavens and the earth and by implication the gods
of Israel's neighbours are of no account) and Genesis 2-3 (that mankind
is estranged from God and so in need of a redeemer/reconciler). These
messages do not depend on our detailed understanding of Middle East
manners of speech.
Don

hatDick Fischer wrote:
>
> Perhaps this idea might be useful relevant to Genesis.
>
> 1. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible writer received
> "A.
>
> 2. Due to his Near East environment and upbringing, he thought B.
>
> 3. He wrote A influenced by B.
>
> 4. Due to unenlightened translation, we read C.
>
> 5. Due to our inability to comprehend Middle East manners of speech,
> we understand D.
>
> 6. A and D differ, but some believe D is true, while others
> think the writer was uninspired
>
> 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 Don Nield
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:20 PM
> To: James Patterson
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
>
> 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
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> T
>

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 17:17:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 17:17:33 EST