Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

Gary,

Please find my responses to your comments appended.

> 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.

Gary, you speak as one who approaches these verses with _no
presuppositions_. I suggest that, faced with a portion of text - from
whatever source, a _literal_ acceptance of the words is the norm. Those who
wish to read another meaning into them must surely provide a convincing
reason for so doing. I simply point to the character of the Creator - as
revealed by the intricate structure of Genesis 1:1 - and suggest that you
have no authority for taking such liberties.

>
> >
> >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.

I don't have ready access to the writings of Blocher - nor would I regard
them as authoritative, anyway, because (a) he would have been unaware of the
additional data that are now before us, and (b) as a TE, I assume, he would
be anxious to _interpret_ these awkward verses.

>
> 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.

But, as noted above, you are presupposing Genesis 1 _not_ to be literal
history - despite the new evidence concerning the nature of the Creator.

>
> 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.

Regarding the "days" of Genesis 1: perhaps you have forgotten Exodus
20:8-11, where we read the words of God (also the Author of Genesis 1:1):

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and
do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in
it thou shalt not do any work,...For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:..."

The Hebrew word 'yom' - meaning 'day' - is used throughout. Do you really
suppose that God (Author of Genesis 1:1), in choosing to use this word,
would have intended it to mean one thing here, and another thing there? -
and without qualification? Hardly the stuff of _revelation_, surely.

>
> >
> >> 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.'

No, not really. I believe that my views are based upon the sound application
of reason.

>
> >
> >>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?

Because I believe that the character of the Creator - now revealed in the
structure of the Bible's first verse - strongly points to the whole Book
being a body of revealed truth.

>
> >
> >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.

Gary, I believe that _real_ science is limited to what has been _observed_
by humans. So real science can tell us nothing positive about origins: it
can tell us only that we know nothing. I hope you would accept that your
philosophy is largely based upon a series of hopeful assumptions. I believe
my logic to be stronger; we should accept God's revelation.

Shalom,

Vernon

www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Thu Jul 15 10:31:42 2004