Not to interject, but why would God create a text only intended for the
people of the time. If that is the case then the Bible was written only the
writers audience, which suggests that the text is not inspired by God but
rather the writer's understanding of the God he perceived. If we accept that
the Bible is in fact the truth for all people of all eras then it must be
written in such a way as to be understandable and believable to all
generations. This is why the Bible is general at times. This allows for each
generation to understand using their own knowledge of God and nature. Our
Constitution is set up the same way. Making new interpretations of the Bible
is not heresy, it is in fact encouraged by God. We must only have the intent
of doing so for God's good and not our own.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of SteamDoc@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:26 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ASA Perspective
In a message dated Thu, 14 Mar 2002 9:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim
Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net> writes:
> if Gen 1 was supposed to be historical fiction,
> why didn't it clearly state this?
First, "historical fiction" is your phrase, not mine.
Second, one could ask the same question about your favorite position. A
"prophetic narrative" is not the most natural way to read Gen. 1, so if you
think that is what it is, why doesn't it state that?
Third, should we expect every passage in the Bible to come with an
annotation of what literary style it is? Though we might wish otherwise,
God has apparently chosen not to clarify most such cases (and there are many
in addition to Gen. 1 where one might wish for that). I think many human
doctrines about the Bible end up being "the way I would have written the
Bible if I were God," rather than "letting the Bible be the Bible" as you
suggested a while back.
Perhaps one reason why there is no annotation telling us how to read Gen. 1
is that, to the original audience that was more used to hearing truth via
figurative language, the important theological meaning was clear.
Especially (as Paul Seely has mentioned) since it was set in a familiar
*cosmology* but with a radical change in the *theology*. It is only with
the modern mindset of fallen humans, a mindset that demands scientific
perfection of nonscientific texts, that such questions even arise.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 15:05:35 EST