From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 19:34:59 EST
Thanks, George. I think that this is one the best posts you have made -- insofar as something that I
can use.
Despite what you may think, I do not fall into a "concordist" camp. Not am I a literalist, or a believer
that much of genesis is an allegory (or something like that). I just like to think each thing through on
its own merits and maybe never even reach a solid position. I could give an opinion on genesis 1 & 2 but
it would waste everyone's time.
Thanks for the post.
George Murphy wrote:
> 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/
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 19:38:48 EST