At 03:26 PM 1/10/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>1st I should note that "concordism" is a very broad term which can cover a
>spectrum of positions, so it shouldn't be surprising that any attempt to
speak about
>what it means will not be accepted by some who consider themselves
concordists. (In
>fact I - moi! - have been accused of concordism because I think that the
idea of
>mediated creation in Gen.1 is significant for a theological understanding
of evolution -
>which really stretches the term.)
George, your reputation is ruined! :-)
>
> I believe that God really did create the heavens and the earth. But it's
>problematic to call what happened "in the beginning" "history" since it's
the beginning
>of time, not something that happened in time. & I have even greater
difficulty seeing
>your "Days of proclamation" view as "history" since then Gen.1 happened
before time.
>We've discussed this before.
Maybe I didn't fully understand what you were saying last time because this
sounds a bit new to me. If you limit history only to time, then yes, my
views are not 'historical'. But I would contend that anything God does is
outside of time including the crucifixion. Since Christ is described as the
lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and since he wasn't slain
twice, it appears that this was either programmed into the universe or is
something extratemporal. Yes it has a temporal component but if it has
connections with the foundation of the universe, then is it historical?
>> BEcause we learn more as time goes on, I am not sure that it is really a
>> good idea to base the interpretation of scripture solely on the way the
>> ancients read it. God may have meant one thing but the ancient readers
>> understood it in another way.
>
> Okay, but again see my distinction of levels of interpretation in the
earlier
>post. As I said there, what's questionable about a lot of concordism is
the tendency to
>give level 4 interpretations (contemporary theology in relation to modern
science &c) as
>if they were level 1 (original intent).
I agree with you IF the intent is on the part of the humans. I have a bit
of difficultly with God not knowing how he created the world. If God's
intent when he inspired the account was really 6 24 hr days when in fact He
used the Big Bang and lots of time, it raises the question in my mind of
what exactly does this God know or is He lying.
>> How about the prodigal son which you like so much. It could have happened
>> but it didn't have to because it does happen all the time.
>
> Actually it's the Good Samaritan - & as I recall there's been some struggle
>about that, with you arguing that it _could_ have happened & that that's
significant.
My own son was 'prodigal' for a while. This is a common occurrence. But
Luke 15 is clearly marked in scripture as a parable. So at least the very
first story-the 100 sheep story is and the others follow on naturally but
they are not specifically said to be parables but the odds are that they are.
>> But the same things goes for the texts of the scripture. If you do go to
>> the way the ancients viewed genesis 1-11, they viewed it historically.
>> Someone told them it was real history. So what applies to the Columbine
>> example applies equally well to the ancients. They shouldn't have been
>> spouting what everyone thought was real history when it was really fantasy.
>> And if we can't trust the ancient writers not to do this sort of thing, can
>> we trust what they say about salvation etc?
>
> 1) If the original authors may not have known the real message the Holy
Spirit
>intended for a text, as you argued earlier, _a fortiori_ their audiences
didn't either.
Agreed. And this raises an interesting conundrum. This seems to be a place
where all options turn out to be loosers. If God's intent was what
tradition says it was, then there are problem like: Why wasn't the account
at least in outline more clearly evolutionary and old earth? And if one
goes my direction then the problem is: Why was God's inspiration so poor
at getting across to the inspired what he might or might not have meant? If
one posutlates that there was no inspiration, then the lack of match with
reality can easily be understood. If there was inspiration, then one has to
wonder on the one hand how truthful it was and on the other how it worked
and how fidelitous it was.
> 2) As I pointed out previously, it's clear that the intentions of the
biblical
>writers & redactors were quite different from that of "history as it
really happened"
>historiography - which doesn't mean that they were _never_ interested in
writing that
>type of history.
But, the problem with this is that we should not really be interested in
the intentions of the writers. They were human and not divine. They could
lie, they could confabulate wonderful fantasies, like apparently is
happening at Columbine or what happens with the Missing Day story that
floats around from time to time.
What we should be interested in is GOD's intent, not man's. And if the
writers were able to totally mess up God's message to the ages ever
afterward, then what is the good of inspiration?
Obviously I don't have good answers for these questions. But I do know that
a lot of bad things are avoided by having Genesis be a true but simplified
real account.
>So your distinction isn't clear. You defended the historicity
>of Jonah rather vigorously, which seems to me neither necessary nor very
plausible.
No it isn't clear. BUt then I haven't seen one yet that is including yours.
It seems that there is a tendency on the part of some like you to ignore
the possibility that Jonah might really have happened but was totally
miraculous. In that case, we could believe it and wouldn't have to explain
it. When you make it non-real I don't see what is done except a loss of
Biblical credibility. You believe God created the heavens and the earth
but not in the way it was described. That seems inconsistent. The evidence
that God created the heavens and the earth must lie precisely in that he
gave a true but simplified account of it. Kinda like a bank who asks for
your social security number and place of birth, the proof of who created
lies in the deliverance of a true account. Anything less becomes mere fideism.
>
>
>> > You're missing the forest for the trees - or the landscape for
the rivers.
>> >I agree that there _may_ be accurate geographical information in the text,
>> & that it's
>> >worth exploring that possibility. In Gen.2 it's clear that there is.
>> What I reject is
>> >the claim that there _must_ be accurate geographical information there.
>>
>> I like rivers and trees. :-) Because it is the details that matter. Only if
>> the details are correct can the landscape and forest really be there.
>
> The rivers in Gen.2 help make the point that the text is about the creation
>of the real world - but so is Gen.1 (I know, I know!) & there aren't any
names there.
But if the information can be inaccurate as you suggest above, why should
we trust anything else about the account? Why should be beleive that it is
accurate that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth yet he can't help
you find your way home because he can't give accurate geographic
information? This bothers me a lot that God can't ensure the delivery of
good information to us.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 10 2000 - 20:44:16 EST