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

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Mon Mar 02 2009 - 15:03:03 EST

& of course the idea that Moses wrote Genesis 1 is axiomatic!

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: 'Don Nield'
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

  Ah, good case in point. These are exactly the kinds of misunderstandings I meant. Why do modern exegetes promote the theory that the Genesis narrative is a polemic against false gods? Waters on the second day of creation could easily be the seas below and the cloudy skies above from which it rains from time to time. Although natural springs were confusing. Where did that water come from?

  Then the fourth day of creation is misappropriated to mean the writer thought God brought the sun, moon and stars into existence three days after he created the heavens on day one. If the fourth day is a day of appointing the heavenly bodies as timekeepers for the sighted creatures who come along on day five and six, that difficulty dissolves away (Gleason Archer). Where would the light have come from when God said, "Let there be light"? Is the sun not a candidate?

  And so Genesis is stripped of its chronology and instead it becomes a "cosmogonic" order of presentation according to Conrad Hyer, or a "teleological" order in Roy Clouser's words.

  Either Genesis 1 is the most ingenious bit of prose ever recorded or else these latter-day writers have missed it altogether which is my opinion. Either Moses (1) just got it wrong, or (2) he got it right but was limited by Hebrew parlance, or (3) he is one of the most brilliant writers known to man. I'll vote for 2.

  As to Genesis 2-3, mankind was unaccountable until God ushered in a new era of accountability through his representative - Adam. Today, we are estranged from God less we claim the blood of Christ.

  Dick Fischer, GPA president

  Genesis Proclaimed Association

  "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

  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 5:17 PM
  To: Dick Fischer
  Cc: ASA
  Subject: Re: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

  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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 2 15:05:01 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 02 2009 - 15:05:01 EST