RE: [asa] Nativity story- genealogy issue?

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Tue Dec 08 2009 - 12:14:22 EST

Hi Ted,
Ted said: "Either way, Bernie, I'm genuinely curious: didn't you study any of these issues in seminary?"
No- these were not discussed at my seminary. Tell me of a class in a seminary curriculum where it would be discussed. Now you have me curious. Unless it is an option. Can you bring-up a real-life example of which class in which curriculum this would be discussed? For example, if it was a discussion about salvation or the nature of angels, yes, the class would be "Systematic Theology." But I don't see which class would bring up this issue that I did, regarding supposed errors in the Bible.
Ted said: "I am getting the impression that this is the first time you've encountered most or all of them. Is this true?"

Yes. From my experience, these questions are all verboten at church and Sunday school... As if it is only something that 'doubters' think about and it will harm the faith. This is my first Christmas as a nonbeliever, for my whole life. So I'm looking at the nativity stories with a different eye, so I have a newfound curiosity on them now. Same thing with Easter coming up, too.
Ted said: "Many Christians I know who've never had a seminary education know about some or all of them."

If they did, I would imagine that it only came from self-study, as it appears to me that the church at large avoids it (just as they do the origins controversy).

That's one good thing about the ASA; discussing things that the local church is afraid to address. ...in my case, anyway.

Gordon said:

" William Henry Green noted a number of instances in the Bible where generations were deliberately omitted from genealogy lists (probably to end up with a particularly significant number of generations)."

It is more than just skipping generations; it is also about the names mentioned. For example, was Jesus the descendent of King David's son Solomon or King David's son Nathan?

RE:

" Matthew and Luke also agree that David was an ancestor of Jesus, but Matthew traces Jesus descent from the kings of Judah, beginning with Solomon. In contrats, Luke claims that it was David's son Nathan who was the ancestor of Jesus. Thus, almost every name after David is different in Luke than in Matthew."

,,,Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:07 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; gordon brown
Subject: Re: [asa] Nativity story- genealogy issue?

Bernie,

From the various questions you've been raising about standard biblical "difficulties," (i.e., interpretive matters that might or might not be difficult to reconcile with "inerrancy"), I am getting the impression that this is the first time you've encountered most or all of them. Is this true?

If the answer is YES, then I'm wondering what sorts of things you learned about the Bible at seminary. Weren't you exposed at all to these kinds of things? Many Christians I know who've never had a seminary education know about some or all of them.

If the answer is NO, if these aren't new to you, then I'm wondering why you are asking about them, in the midst of such apparent surprise on your part--surprise that these questions only just occurred to you. Some of these things have been explored for hundreds of years and there's an extensive literature (esp in the commentaries) dealing with them. You don't seem to realize this, or else you may just be trying to spell out for us one more reason why you aren't a Christian.

Either way, Bernie, I'm genuinely curious: didn't you study any of these issues in seminary?

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:14:22 -0800

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 08 2009 - 12:14:42 EST