From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:49:12 EST
George Murphy wrote (in response to Walter Hicks):
> ...
>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."
George, I don't think the problem is with "concordism", but with a
tendency to see but the two extremes of a ridiculously overdone
literalism and a full-fledged source-criticism à la Rofe. In principle,
I agree with you that one must carefully take note of what is actually
written, and at the same time consider what type of text one is dealing
with. But why can't "dust" [^afar] stand for "the elements of earth"? In
Prov. 8:26 it appears to mean just exactly that. And this question has
nothing to do with whether the report is historical or not, but with the
(flexible) use of language and the possibility of summary statements
omitting any amount of detail.
>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.
The proportions, of course, are completely irrelevant, if you consider
how language is normally used. I would have to call it nit-picking if
you had insisted on it. You are talking of a "historical description".
What do you mean by this? I don't think any of the ones you call
concordists are thinking of a scientifically formulated treatise you
seem to have in view. What do you expect of a simple, non-scientific
narrative of something which happened in history? Would the terminology
have to be absolutely inflexible? In my understanding, nothing has been
changed into something different, as you claim.
>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.
This is your construction, not what the "concordists" are doing. Who of
the ones you criticize tries to say the biblical texts "teach modern
scientific knowledge"? There is certainly less "forcing" of the texts in
their usually tentatively proposed interpretations than in the "assured
findings" of source criticism.
Try to see the situation from a different standpoint: There just happens
to be, in some biblical texts, a lot that the writers themselves could
not know, as with some prophecies they were given to utter. Now, looking
back to Christ's coming, we are able to interpret such prophecies. In a
similar way, it is found again and again that biblical texts concord
better with the reality we happen to know, than with ancient
mythological worldviews. This need not tell us anything about the
biblical writers' knowledge, but maybe of the Holy Spirit's leading them
(_not_ dictating!).
I find it distressing that there is a tendency to search for wrong
motives in those who see such concordances. They are usually people
whose faith is strong enough to survive without any such crutches as are
imputed to them.
>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.
If by this you mean that Gen. 2:7 is a theological statement about the
two-sided, physical-spiritual nature of man and about his mortality, I
fully agree. But if you imply that therefore it cannot, at the same
time, talk of a specific man named Adam in a specific historical
situation, I disagree. If, on the other hand, you think these two
aspects may well go together in Gen. 2:7, but that in this case Adam had
parents like everybody else, I again agree. We have various poetical
biblical statements where the picture of a potter forming a vessel out
of clay is applied to a human individual being fashioned by God (in his
mother's womb, of course, and possibly including his further
development). So why not apply this to Gen. 2:7, as well?
>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.
This does not follow. What is the "literal" meaning of a text if
language is flexible, fully allowing poetical pictures and analogies
etc.? It depends on the context. Some people's simple narratives of
events which really happened may contain pictures or similes, especially
if their cultural context abounds with such idioms, cf. e.g. Job. The
truly literal meaning of "dust", in a given context, need not be some
silicate or carbonate mineral! The assumption that it cannot be read as
an "historical account" because an idiom is used is not compelling.
>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.
I am hopeful that you come to see concordance less in a black-and-white
distortion, but as respecting both the flexibility of natural languages
and the feasibility of combining this with divine inspiration, which
respects the prophet's personal individuality, without sacrificing
truth.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 00:47:09 EST