From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:34:47 EST
Walter Hicks wrote:
......................
> If (unlike you) I happen to believe that the story of Adam is intended to be history (for a number
> of reasons), then am I absolutely forced to think that Adam was a dust man? Am I allowed to
> believe that he was simply made of the elements of earth (which happens to be a true description
> of man)? Is the only alternative to be absolutely, 100% literal?.....................
I already responded to part of this post but, on reflection, realize that it
offers an opportunity to see a major problem with the concordist approach to scripture
so prominent on this list & among Christians in general, especially when dealing with
Genesis. I don't mean to pick especially on Walt here. (& BTW should commend him for a
very cogent reply to Richard on another thread.) Nor do I mean to suggest that people
who practice concordism in general are intentionally doing anything dishonest, But let
me move on to the questions posed above.
The concordist procedure is this. We want to read Genesis 1 & 2 as accurate
historical accounts but we know enough about the way the world is to realize that they
can't be accurate in all regards. For various reasons God couldn't have made the first
human literally out of _dust_. So that _isn't_ accurate historical reporting. It means
rather that the first human "was simply made of the elements of earth." & that's OK
because that "happens to be a true description of man."
Well, no it doesn't "happen[s] to be a true description of man" because the
proportions of the elements are different. But let that go. What has been done is to
change the supposed historical description into something different, motivated by the
desire to bring the text into concord with our scientific understanding of what people
are made of.
As I said, I don't want to pick on Walt. Similar criticisms can be made of all
the other concordist schemes of Glenn Morton, Dick Fischer, &c. They are ingenious but
all in one way or another fail to give priority to the texts themselves because they are
forced, whole or in pieces, into some supposed historical or scientific scheme. This is
done in the interest of reading the texts as historical narratives but it fails to do so
because the "history" which results is in fact that supplied by modern scientific
knowledge about geology, evolution, anthropology &c, and the biblical texts are taken
apart & manipulated to fit that scheme.
The writer of Genesis 2 described the 1st human as being made out of dust. This
is not the way humans actually deveoped in the course of history, nor is it a statement
about human biochemistry. The biblical writer knew that we are closely connected to the
earth & that when we die we return to the earth (as Gen.3:19 says), & has given a
theological interpretation to these facts.
Yes, this story states that we are made from the basic stuff of the world.
Isn't that just what Walt said. Yes - but without the baggage of pretending that this
is somehow an historical account. It isn't, as the very fact that Walt has to avoid the
literal meaning of the text shows.
If concordists could simply learn that there are other ways for texts to be true
besides being accurate historical or scientific narrative, much of the confusion that is
repeatedly expressed here could be eliminated. But I confess that I'm not very hopeful.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:54:04 EST