I appreciate Peter's very thoughtful post. I threw out the guess (I think
my post made it clear that I was in fact guessin) about the canopy theory,
incidentally, b/c I do see some relevance for it. The fact that YECs use it
does not mean that some OEC people do not also use it as part of their
harmonizing strategy. Dick says as much himself, with his comment about the
canopy and the flood. I think it was a fair point, though admittedly
somewhat of a guess.
Peter concluded as follows:
I would be surprised if God would give us such a
sublime text, in a very prominent position in his revelation, for the sole
purpose of fending off such unimportant "nothings" as idols. The creation
itself is certainly much more important.
Ted replies:
Actually, Peter, I don't think that the Hebrews viewed idolatry as much ado
about nothing. It was for them the fundamental sin, the violation of the
first two commandments that God gave them and the ultimate sin in Romans
chapter One. To respond to a host of polytheistic cultures surrounding the
Hebrews, God gave them this splendid story in the established, already
recognzied form of an ancient Near East creation myth. That makes perfect
sense, to me at least. Surely it is highly significant to preach monotheism
at the start of the canon? Surely this is why we have such a splendid story
at that point?
ted
Received on Sun Feb 22 15:37:16 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 22 2004 - 15:37:18 EST