Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Vernon,
Just a few comments on your comments...

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 00:32:40 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

>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.

Here I see you are bringing your presuppositions to your interpretation.
You are assuming that this is intended as a literal account. Your
assumption may not be correct.

>
>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.

There is a great wealth of spiritual - or perhaps better, theological -
truth in this passage, especially concerning man's relationship to
woman, which remains the same regardless of whether the passage
in question is literal or figurative. See Blocher for more details.

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'?

Here again, you are presupposing that Genesis 1 is intended to be
straightforward history. Once again, your presupposition may not be
correct. I have already pointed out that Gen. 2:5 indicates that it's
highly unlikely that the author of Genesis intended that the 6 days
should be taken literally. You have chosen to ignore this. But I can't
say I'm surprised. Blocher, who takes this point from Meredith G.
Kline, says that this argument has never been adequately answered.

And if the days of Genesis 1 are not literal, then it is quite possible
that other parts of the origins accounts also contain non-literal
elements.

>
>> 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.

Why? The only argument you have given essentially boils down to:
'Because I can't imagine it to be otherwise.'

>
>>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.

Again I ask: Why should the finding of patterns in one verse have
any effect on the literary genre of any subsequent verses?

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

Well, you need to address the points raised, and provide some good
arguments for your viewpoints, and not just go off into sidelines
which, whilst not necessarily uninteresting in and of themselves,
are of little direct relevance to the issues in hand.
>
Regards,
/Gary
Received on Mon Jul 5 04:42:02 2004