Re: Hyers' Dinosaur Religion (was: HYAR'S...; Hyers' Article - Cods Wallop)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:16 +0100 Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
writes:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Virtually all of the objections you raise have been discussed in my
> paper
> with Armin Held,
> A. Held & P. Rüst, "Genesis reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999),
> 231-243;
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html
>
> and in our response to Paul Seely's objections,
> A. Held & P. Rüst, "Taking Genesis as inspired", PSCF 52/3 (Sep.
> 2000),
> 212-214;
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Held.html
>
> Therefore, just a few additional remarks:
>
> Your indirect reference to the YEC theory of a canopy (disappearing
> in the
> flood) for the "waters above" is mistaken, since our interpretation
> has
> nothing to do with that: we take these waters to represent a cloud
> cover as
> science would describe it at the appropriate times in the course of
> the 4.5
> billion years of the earth's development, with its extent and
> density
> depending on things like temperature and atmospheric composition. Of
> course,
> cloud covers occur in our times, as well.
>
> There was no firmament, but an _expanse_ between the ocean and the
> region of
> the clouds. - There was no ocean above it, but _clouds_. - No
> heavenly
> bodies were fixed onto it, but _their light_ _given into_ it to
> enable the
> terrestrial and flying creatures to orient themselves. - _In_ this
> expanse,
> of course, the birds fly. If there are clouds, only birds that fly
> under the
> clouds can usually be seen by an observer on the surface of the
> earth. In
> the simple biblical language, this is the (lower) atmosphere, the
> space that
> can be overlooked with the air which can be felt. All this fits very
> well
> with the Hebrew expressions you quote.
>
> The use of Ezekiel's "raqia^" to prove a solid firmament is a red
> herring.
> Why should God's throne require a solid support - and that in a
> _vision_?
>
> We are taking the explicit language of scripture seriously and as it
> stands,
> just as you are doing, but evidently our _interpretations_ differ.
>
> Peter
>
Sorry, Peter, but I was totally unimpressed by your "explanations" when I
read them. I consider them excellent examples of the Evangelical Revised
Version, which makes the scriptures fit preconceptions eisegetically
rather than requiring one's view to conform to scripture exegetically.
Accepting your approach would be much more comfortable, for I would not
have friends of long standing wondering why I had departed from the faith
(i.e., total inerrancy). However, all the linguistic and historical
evidence I can find persuades me that concordism is nonsense. I have come
to this position reluctantly, for I passed through a position similar to
yours. But I recognize that God will overrule my mistakes (being human, I
cannot avoid them), but I cannot serve him with fudging and falsehoods.
Dave
Received on Mon Feb 23 15:27:46 2004