Paul writes
>The very same criticism applies to the concordists
Paul, as always, I give you credit for publicly voicing your
views. Even if you're 100% dead wrong (not saying that you
are, per se), I highly respect you for that. As a layperson,
I get frustrated. I come onto the ASA listserv. I hear about
(or read) 20 different voices. I can't possibly hold that
many ideas in my head. I want the most compelling answer.
Once I am comfortable with it, then I will defend it.
Your article is on the "front page" of the ASA homepage.
But it says "Gen 1 has nothing to do with history." You,
my friend, are removing Genesis from its historical context.
I can sympathize with your desire to not drive anyone into
creation science. And, you have pointed out a number of places
where concordists were wrong. But, if God wanted Gen 1 to be
unscientific, all he would have had to do was place the creation
of humans before fish. Then, I would have known that it was a
crock. BUT PAUL, THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN GEN 1 IS ACCURATE.
Be careful about your own beam. If you can't show where science
doesn't "fit" Gen 1, you simply aren't a big enough man to drop
a harmful postion. But, you're still fun to debate ;).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 6:57 AM
To: jeisele@starpower.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Seely v Ruest&Fischer
Jim wrote,
<< Paul, I looked once again at "The First Four Days of Genesis
in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context"
A while back a discussion between you and Peter started, then
aborted. I don't see where your article addresses Ruest or
Dick. Um, you're outdated. What are your current objections
to concordism? Are they in print anywhere? >>
I did respond to Ruest in a letter to Perspectives March, 2000 pp 77-78.
Ruest and Dick are not different in principle from those I did answer. They
all take the Bible out of its historical context and give the text
idiosyncratic meanings which would have surprised the original author and
readers. Although they formally oppose creation science for which I am
grateful, by espousing interpretations which even laymen can see are
contrived, they drive people all the more into creation science.
YECs like to say it is all a matter of interpretation. Then they give
interpretations of the scientific data which the consensus of qualified
scientists finds so far from what a careful and thorough investigation of
the
data show that the interpretations must be regarded, as you have said, as
cultic. The very same criticism applies to the concordists. They give
interpretations of the biblical data which the consensus of qualified OT
scholars over the entire theological spectrum finds so far from what a
careful and thorough investigation of the data show that the interpretations
must be regarded as cultic.
Concordists thus have no more claim to intellectual integrity than do YECs.
They have just chosen to distort the biblical data instead of the
scientific.
Of course, YECs also distort some of the biblical data like the solidity of
the firmament, the sea above the firmament, the earth resting on the sea,
having animals on the ark hibernate when the biblical text indicates they
would eat every day just like Noah (Gen 6:21), ignoring that clean birds far
outnumber the unclean and so must be multiplied by 7, giving c. 50,000 birds
rather than the several thousand they have allowed, etc. But, this
suppression of Scripture on their part does not justify the suppression on
the part of concordists.
I still applaud the concordists' opposition to creation science, Dick's
correct identification of the flood in history, etc. But, in my opinion
concordists need to take the beam out of their own eye before they can
expect
to take the speck from that of their brothers'.
Best wishes,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 07:41:50 EDT