--------------EA4842DA39C82D6E50197986
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
> At 09:00 AM 08/18/1999 -0400, George Andrews wrote:
> >>> In light of the Enuma Elish, and Paul's (not of Tarsus ? :-) )
> reminder of the erroneous Babylonian cosmology that is contained in the
> text of Genesis as historical yet wonderfully inaccurate by modern
> standards, isn't all concordanist's attempts at interpretation, including
> evolutionary ones, shown to be in vain? <<<<
>
> It seems to me that one must take each concordistic attempt on its own. I
> don't think you can prove a theorem that says all concordistic attempts are
> false.
But what about reasonableness or the "most rational explanation explaining the
data?" Scripture is not open to private interpretation or personal opinion,
exegesis is done in community; besides there is data to fit! Since the enuma
elish exists while 1) predating Genesis's creation account, 2) mapping the
account one-to-one in terms of events and -- most importantly to concordanist's
attempts -- chronology of those events and 3) contains (absurd by modern
standards) Babylonian science, is not the most rational explanation that this
is ALL that it is? To read in evolution as you wish to do is unbiblical,
unnecessary and - considering the science that is already there - just not
reasonable. So, while not axiomatic, this enuma elish view is self evident with
accord to the data and sets science free to do science. Thus, clearly, all
concordistic attempts to read in modern notions are simply obviated by the
facts contained in the text.
>
> >>>Taking Genesis to be accurate theologically yet inaccurate
> scientifically - how be it understandable to Moses - goes a long way (all
> the way in my mind!) at dismissing all attempts at concordism; be they
> young Earth, old Earth or evolutionary. This more rational "edited Enuma
> Elish" (rational in that the Enuma Elish exists and predates Genesis!) view
> also preserves the historical tone of the account you are arguing for but -
> most importantly to the dialogue between science and religion - allows for
> "poetic" - I prefer "allegorical" or "literary" - truth. (uh oh, don't do
> it George..... , I can't' resist: the "EEE" theory!!!!) <<<<
>
> Frankly, I find the 'accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically'
> to be so nebulous as to be meaningless. I have collected some 23 different
> interpretations (if I recall correctly) of Genesis 1-3. Most of these are
> logically contradictory with the others, yet their authors proclaim in full
> measure that their view is theologically accurate. There is no way to
> discern between one theologically accurate view and another theologically
> accurate view when they both can't be true at the same time.
Just as frankly, with a little focused thought, the statement isn't too
difficult to understand. You claim it to be nebulas based upon an argument that
contending views have no resolution; I know you can't mean that. A multiplicity
of viewpoints surly does not imply none are accurate or true. The statement
under contention does theologically presuppose 1) monotheism and 2)
omnipotentcy as being "correct" theology and a polytheism entailing limited and
failing demi-gods to be "incorrect". I do think this is a minimal standard for
any Judeo/Islamic/Christian theology. Thus, Genesis does correctly teach
monotheism and omnipotentcy contrary to enuma elish.
However, the erroneous Babylonian science contained in the Genesis text is just
what the text purports; tautologically. Thus, Genesis is 'accurate
theologically yet inaccurate scientifically' by modern christianity and
science, respectively; furthermore, there simply is no room in the text for
evolution; only solid sky, separating oceans above and below.
> >>>Many who are aghast at this edited Enuma Elish view can be comforted in
> that Genesis purports two major theological ideas notably absent in Enuma
> Elish: 1) monotheism and 2) God's omnipotentcy. It is God's omnipotentcy
> that is displayed by His overcoming chaos with a simple Word (the kingly
> authority Paul S. refers to in another post); i.e. his fiats affected the
> creation without the (apparently losing) struggle the gods were having in
> enuma elish. However, while the former theological truth of Genesis is not
> under contention by your view, the latter is. For, if as you state Genesis
> 1 is a preface to creation in "formulating the plan" and not affecting the
> creation by the spoken Word of God, then this detracts from Genesis 1 50%
> of its inspiration value. <<<<
>
> I personally like the Marxist theologically accurate interpretation in
> which ownership of the garden led to the eviction of the laborer. That is
> the real theologically accurate view. Now prove that wrong! I don't think
> it is possible to prove theologically accurate views erroneous. They are
> subjective.
>
Why do you digress from the issues with sarcasm? The Marxist view you espouse
belief in is irrelevant to your attempts to put evolution on "sacred grounds"
therefore irrelevant to my contention that such concordanist's attempts detract
from the omnipotentcy of God; not to mention its irrelevance to the existence
of enuma elish and
You are not one to ignore evidence (theory laden or not it must be reckoned
with!), I implore you to look at enuma elish, resist sarcastic yet irrelevant
dismissals and share with us any conclusions forced upon you?
Sincerely
George A.
--------------EA4842DA39C82D6E50197986
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
At 09:00 AM 08/18/1999 -0400, George Andrews wrote:But what about reasonableness or the "most rational explanation explaining the data?" Scripture is not open to private interpretation or personal opinion, exegesis is done in community; besides there is data to fit! Since the enuma elish exists while 1) predating Genesis's creation account, 2) mapping the account one-to-one in terms of events and -- most importantly to concordanist's attempts -- chronology of those events and 3) contains (absurd by modern standards) Babylonian science, is not the most rational explanation that this is ALL that it is? To read in evolution as you wish to do is unbiblical, unnecessary and - considering the science that is already there - just not reasonable. So, while not axiomatic, this enuma elish view is self evident with accord to the data and sets science free to do science. Thus, clearly, all concordistic attempts to read in modern notions are simply obviated by the facts contained in the text.
>>> In light of the Enuma Elish, and Paul's (not of Tarsus ? :-) )
reminder of the erroneous Babylonian cosmology that is contained in the
text of Genesis as historical yet wonderfully inaccurate by modern
standards, isn't all concordanist's attempts at interpretation, including
evolutionary ones, shown to be in vain? <<<<It seems to me that one must take each concordistic attempt on its own. I
don't think you can prove a theorem that says all concordistic attempts are
false.
Just as frankly, with a little focused thought, the statement isn't too difficult to understand. You claim it to be nebulas based upon an argument that contending views have no resolution; I know you can't mean that. A multiplicity of viewpoints surly does not imply none are accurate or true. The statement under contention does theologically presuppose 1) monotheism and 2) omnipotentcy as being "correct" theology and a polytheism entailing limited and failing demi-gods to be "incorrect". I do think this is a minimal standard for any Judeo/Islamic/Christian theology. Thus, Genesis does correctly teach monotheism and omnipotentcy contrary to enuma elish.
>>>Taking Genesis to be accurate theologically yet inaccurate
scientifically - how be it understandable to Moses - goes a long way (all
the way in my mind!) at dismissing all attempts at concordism; be they
young Earth, old Earth or evolutionary. This more rational "edited Enuma
Elish" (rational in that the Enuma Elish exists and predates Genesis!) view
also preserves the historical tone of the account you are arguing for but -
most importantly to the dialogue between science and religion - allows for
"poetic" - I prefer "allegorical" or "literary" - truth. (uh oh, don't do
it George..... , I can't' resist: the "EEE" theory!!!!) <<<<Frankly, I find the 'accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically'
to be so nebulous as to be meaningless. I have collected some 23 different
interpretations (if I recall correctly) of Genesis 1-3. Most of these are
logically contradictory with the others, yet their authors proclaim in full
measure that their view is theologically accurate. There is no way to
discern between one theologically accurate view and another theologically
accurate view when they both can't be true at the same time.
However, the erroneous Babylonian science contained in the Genesis text is just what the text purports; tautologically. Thus, Genesis is 'accurate theologically yet inaccurate scientifically' by modern christianity and science, respectively; furthermore, there simply is no room in the text for evolution; only solid sky, separating oceans above and below.
>>>Many who are aghast at this edited Enuma Elish view can be comforted inWhy do you digress from the issues with sarcasm? The Marxist view you espouse belief in is irrelevant to your attempts to put evolution on "sacred grounds" therefore irrelevant to my contention that such concordanist's attempts detract from the omnipotentcy of God; not to mention its irrelevance to the existence of enuma elish and
that Genesis purports two major theological ideas notably absent in Enuma
Elish: 1) monotheism and 2) God's omnipotentcy. It is God's omnipotentcy
that is displayed by His overcoming chaos with a simple Word (the kingly
authority Paul S. refers to in another post); i.e. his fiats affected the
creation without the (apparently losing) struggle the gods were having in
enuma elish. However, while the former theological truth of Genesis is not
under contention by your view, the latter is. For, if as you state Genesis
1 is a preface to creation in "formulating the plan" and not affecting the
creation by the spoken Word of God, then this detracts from Genesis 1 50%
of its inspiration value. <<<<I personally like the Marxist theologically accurate interpretation in
which ownership of the garden led to the eviction of the laborer. That is
the real theologically accurate view. Now prove that wrong! I don't think
it is possible to prove theologically accurate views erroneous. They are
subjective.
You are not one to ignore evidence (theory laden or not it must be reckoned with!), I implore you to look at enuma elish, resist sarcastic yet irrelevant dismissals and share with us any conclusions forced upon you?
Sincerely
George A.
--------------EA4842DA39C82D6E50197986--
--------------EC8AB14933A210470148A2C7
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Department of Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------EC8AB14933A210470148A2C7--