>The issue here Glenn, I think, is that the text itself suggests that we
>ought not attempt to derive scientific data (chronology, ages, etc.) from
>the text. Thus, even concordists schemes such as yours, even though well
>meant, are not necessary. The text simply isn't trying to convey that kind
>of information to us. It's not that God is not telling us the truth or
>anything of the sort. The Genesis text is not trying to address scientific
>questions. Thus there is no "being consistent with the Biblical account"
>wrt our scientific theories.
>
>I think that the picture changes (and I think that Kline would agree) when
>you get to Genesis 2 and following (although even here we must be sensitive
>to literary genre and the covenantal purpose of the text.
>
I wrote this wonderful response then read your last paragraph and had to scrap
it and start over. I fully agree with you concerning the difference between
Genesis 1:1 -2:4 and Genesis 2:5 on. Genesis 1 is poetry I have been told.
Although a poem can convey historic and scientific truth, too often it
doesn't. So while I would like a concordistic approach to Genesis 1, I could
live with out it. Everyone seems to focus in on Genesis 1 when in point of
fact the real problems are in Genesis 2-11! How does Adam fit with the fossil
hominids? Where was this local flood and how bad is the Biblical description
of it?
In the case of Genesis 2-11 I feel very uncomfortable relegating all this to
non-history. If Genesis 2-11 is meant to convey a set of historical events,
then a concordistic approach is not only needed but required! Failure to
provide such a concordistic approach in this scientific age means that our
Scripture will be viewed as an unreliable origins myth.
I learned from my last discussion on this issue with Denis Lamoureux (bless
his heart) that I am on firmer ground with Genesis 2-11. However, if I can
get a concordistic approach to those chapters, why not go for the brass ring
and try to incorporate the first chapter?
glenn