On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:04:48 -0500 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
<snip>
> First of all I can't find the word concordism in the dictionary or
> my
> spell checker so "Google" helped me out with the following
> definition:
>
> "scientific and theological views are interpretative methodologies
> that
> carry equal weight and their conclusions must be reconciled"
>
> Did this group make that up? I see a lot of strange words here.
Dictionaries usually only list terms that have a fairly broad usage in
the kind of publications that the lexicographers check. "Concordism" is
used by a small group of people involved in the relationship between
evangelical exegesis and science. I recall a lexicographer specifying
that they do not try to include technical cant.
>
> Anyhow, I still feel that those on this list lean over backwards to
> avoid giving the Bible any slack whatsoever. The absolutely last
> thing
> to be considered by most is that it is inspired by God and may have
> more
> to it than just an interesting story made up by people to fit their
> culture and taken from the myths of others. I have tried searching
> for
> these related myths and cannot find anything like Genesis 1. You
> guys
> even argue about whether a nut may have been considered to be a
> fruit by
> the early Jews. I think that sort of discussion is totally off the
> wall.
>
> Could we just consider for a moment the possibility that most of
> the
> Bible really was inspired by God? Let's make believe for a moment
> that
> it is some 4000 (or name your number) years ago and God told Moses
> or
> somebody else who told Moses. Imagine him stumbling down the
> mountain
> trying to figure out what this explanation of the Creation of the
> universe meant and how to explain it to others.
>
I think I detect an assumption which a friend made explicitly, that
"inspiration"="inerrancy." This was not in the statement of the
Westminster divines (they cannot be accused of accommodating Darwin or
Kant), who recognized scripture as the inerrant rule of faith and
practice, with no mention of facts. The equation seems to have sprung as
a reaction to the modernists. It led folks, according to a story that
makes the rounds, to cut out every passage that the liberal pastor
suggested was not literally true, leaving only a few shreds of pages. Not
noted by the tellers is that the back of each sheet so assaulted was also
removed, so the story was quite silly. All scripture is inspired, but I
do not see a reference to truth in II Timothy 3:16f.
> I can easily envision Genesis 1 as the result. Imperfect, but
> containing
> an amazing number of features which "hold water" today. Sure you
> can
> pick at scientific details -- but it was told as history (God's
> History
> of His creation) not science.
>
I find it amazing that so many problems are ignored or papered over in
the gap and day-age theories, let alone creation science/flood geology,
that have been popular. The only way I know to read the record in Genesis
1:1-2:4a and 2:4bff literally is to take the former as a series of
revelations over 6 days and the latter as a separate revelation, neither
of which is to be taken as the history of creation.
> The end of the road with this scientific cynicism is total non
> belief in
> my estimation. First the classification of old testament myths; then
> the
> debunking of OT miracles; then the same for the NT; then rejection
> of
> the NT parts that support the OT; then rejection of NT miracles,
> finally
> the rejection of the resurrection and finally nothing is left.
>
> I admit to being extreme with the above statements, but where does
> it
> end?
>
IMO, you are extreme. None of the ASAers is a total non-believer, unless
unbelief is equivalent to doubt about absolute inerrancy.
> Instead of all the negativism, is there nobody on this list who
> sees
> more than just a bunch of neat theological stories in the OT?
>
> I don't suggest that the Bible be taken as an infallible book that
> must
> be taken always literally -- but I reject the opposite extreme of
> rejection of a Biblical chapter out of hand if anybody can can find
> any
> discrepancies with the latest scientific notions.
>
This only holds if "inspiration"="inerrancy."
> Let me emphacize that I firmly believe in some type of evolution. I
> do
> not accept the Bible as infallible and I am not YEC sandbagger --
> or
> anything like a concordism-monger. I may be a bit to open minded
> for
> this group, I think. (What they say is -- so open minded that his
> brains
> fall out?) ;)
>
I see a shift here between what you say you believe and the implicit
assumptions in your arguments.
> Walt
<snip>
>
I sympathize with your approach, for I've been there. I was slowly forced
by the evidence from an original YEC and gap position to an OEC approach,
followed by TE. I also was forced from the fundamentalist view of
inspired inerrant total truth to the classical "rule of faith and
practice." But I have found no substitute for unconditional trust in God,
who revealed himself in the incarnate Son.
Dave.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 18:27:03 EST