Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Gary,

Just a few comments re the points you have raised:

> _EVERYTHING_ we read we must interpret in order to understand it.
> In doing this, we bring our past experience of reading, linguistics, as
> well as our experience of life in general, in order to ascertain what the
> intent of the author is/was, and with our experiences we also bring
> our presuppositions and prejudices.

You are, of course, correct in _this_ understanding of the word
'interpretation'. What I had in mind was the 'interpretation' that is
sometimes used in attempts to overturn simple statements of fact, such as
the one now before us, viz God's making of Eve.

You continue:

> You have presented an oversimplistic dichotomy. You have not
> allowed the possibility that the author was using figurative
> language to convey spiritual truth. (That is just one possibility.
> There are many others, I'm sure).

I am interested to know what 'spiritual truth' you believe is conveyed by
Gen.2:21-24. It sounds very much like fact to me. How can you be so sure it
wasn't? And what of the anomaly concerning evolution's placing insects,
amphibians, and land reptiles all before the birds that Genesis says were
made the day before? Did the Creator somehow lose track of the order in
which he had created living things? Or was it done purposely to bewilder us
with more 'spiritual truths'?

> Interpretation of Scripture is often far from straightforward.
> You have only to pick up a good commentary to see the different
> possibilities that present themselves. Often, commentators - godly
> men who have a desire for the truth - arrive at radically different
> conclusions, yet in each case basing their conclusions on what they
> claim to be a 'straightforward reading' of the text. If you believe that
> literal history (in the modern western sense) is the only possible way to
> convey such truth, then you are very much mistaken.

But you surely must agree that 'calling a spade a spade' is the normal
method of conveying a vital truth! And I believe it is reasonable to accept
that that is the chief method used by the Author of Genesis 1:1.

>There are many
> different literary styles used in the Bible, and they may all be used to
> convey truth - without necessarily being literal. Do you believe that
> 'the mountais skipped like rams', to give just one example? Yet the
> Psalms convey truth just as much as Genesis does. Or don't you believe
> that? If you are so blinkered that you can't see the issue here, then
there
> is little point continuing any conversation on this subject.

Yes, I accept that figurative, poetic and other linguistic devices are
occasionally used - but for most of the time I believe biblical truths are
conveyed more directly. Gary, I can assure you that I'm not blinkered;
indeed, I am very much aware of the issues exposed by the standing miracle.

My hope is that this exchange of views may continue in a robust, yet
Christ-honouring, spirit.

Shalom,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "gordon brown"
<gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Vernon Jenkins"
<vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

>
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 22:22:35 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> >Gary,
> >
> >Thanks for writing. But why are people like yourself so anxious to speak
> >about correctly _interpreting_ a passage of Scripture? Surely the words
of
> >the account of the making of Eve (Gen.2:21-24) are clear enough - either
to
> >be believed or ignored (for what other choice is there?). They could only
> >have come from the Lord - for Adam was asleep at the time. Is it your
> >contention that He who created all things (including the wonders of
Genesis
> >1:1) was incapable of correctly informing future generations of what
really
> >happened way back? What motive could He possibly have had to lie or
mislead?
> >
> >I appreciate your suggestions regarding reading material. However, I
believe
> >the opinions of Blocher, Fee and Macdonald - whatever they be - have now
> >been overtaken by events. He who constructed Genesis 1:1 is clearly a
> >Sovereign and Purposeful God - surely, One to be trusted to mean what He
> >says.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Vernon
> >
> >www.otherbiblecode.com
> >
> Vernon,
> _EVERYTHING_ we read we must interpret in order to understand it.
> In doing this, we bring our past experience of reading, linguistics, as
> well as our experience of life in general, in order to ascertain what the
> intent of the author is/was, and with our experiences we also bring
> our presuppositions and prejudices.
> You have presented an oversimplistic dichotomy. You have not
> allowed the possibility that the author was using figurative
> language to convey spiritual truth. (That is just one possibility.
> There are many others, I'm sure).
> Interpretation of Scripture is often far from straightforward.
> You have only to pick up a good commentary to see the different
> possibilities that present themselves. Often, commentators - godly
> men who have a desire for the truth - arrive at radically different
> conclusions, yet in each case basing their conclusions on what they
> claim to be a 'straightforward reading' of the text. If you believe that
> literal history (in the modern western sense) is the only possible way to
> convey such truth, then you are very much mistaken. There are many
> different literary styles used in the Bible, and they may all be used to
> convey truth - without necessarily being literal. Do you believe that
> 'the mountais skipped like rams', to give just one example? Yet the
> Psalms convey truth just as much as Genesis does. Or don't you believe
> that? If you are so blinkered that you can't see the issue here, then
there
> is little point continuing any conversation on this subject.
>
> Regards,
> /Gary
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 2 20:09:18 2004