Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:00:30 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

>
>----- 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
>

Sorry for the delay, I've been unwell. OK, I'll have just one more
attempt.

>
>Gary, you speak as one who approaches these verses with _no
>presuppositions_.

No, I'm perfectly aware that I, too, have presuppositions.
The difference between us seems to be that I am prepared
to modify mine, whilst you are not.

I suggest that, faced with a portion of text - from
>whatever source, a _literal_ acceptance of the words is the norm.

Not so. Well, it depends what you mean. The words in isolation may
have to be 'taken literally' in some linguistic sense, but that is
certainly not the case with the interpretation of the text as a whole.
Take Virgil's Aenead or Homer's Odyssey, for example.

Those who
>wish to read another meaning into them must surely provide a convincing
>reason for so doing.

A good reason has been provided - Genesis 2:5, an argument which is
internal to the text itself, and which you continue to ignore.

I simply point to the character of the Creator - as
>revealed by the intricate structure of Genesis 1:1 -

This says nothing about the genre of the text.

and suggest that you
>have no authority for taking such liberties.

>
>>
>> >
>> >You continue:
>> >
>
>I don't have ready access to the writings of Blocher - nor would I regard
>them as authoritative, anyway,

Authoritative is not a word I would use here either. But his reasoning
is sound.

because (a) he would have been unaware of the
>additional data that are now before us,

I haven't seen any additional data that pertain to the genre of the text.

and (b) as a TE, I assume, he would
>be anxious to _interpret_ these awkward verses.

He is not a scientist, he is a theologian. He does not argue from the
basis of science, but from the basis of the Scriptures themselves.

>
>
>
>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:..."

And you have forgotten Genesis 2:5, which indicates that the author
did NOT intend his readers to take the days literally. And you will have
already seen Gordon's response.

>
>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.

No, the word MEANS a literal day, as used within a figurative framework.
A framework of 6+1, and especially of 6 days + 1 day, was (apparently) a
framework which was often employed in literature of that time. (Young,
himself a literalist, apparently makes this point.) The author of Genesis
built his narrative around a commonly employed framework, and did not
necessarily mean to convey to his readers that the framework was literal.

>> 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.
>
What reason? You haven't given a reason why you think the argument from
Genesis 2:5 is not valid. You haven't given a valid reason why we shouldn't
consider the literary genre of the source material into account. And I could
probably go on...

>
>>
>> >
>> >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.

Why?

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.

This is a non-sequitur. I, too, believe that the whole Book is a body of
revealed truth. You are mistakenly assuming that revealed truth has to
be equated with literal history in the Western 21st Century sense.
It doesn't. I believe the Psalms, Proverbs and other Wisdom writings
also give us revealed truth. Don't you?

>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.

The only things we can know directly are those things that directly impinge
on our senses, and even then we don't know the things in and of themselves,
but only the interpretation given to them by our brains. However, that
doesn't mean that we can't be reasonably certain of other things. Quantum
physics can't be 'proved.' However, on the basis of quantum physics we
have things like lasers, tunnel diodes, etc. This same quantum physics
gives us our basis for understanding radioactivity, and this understanding
has pretty conclusively shown that the Earth is a great deal older than the
6000 years that a literal understanding of the Scriptures would suggest.
And that's not ONLY by radioactive dating. There's also a very powerful
argument concerning the distribution of naturally occurring radioactive
isotopes. There are others on this list who are far more knowledgeable
about such things than I am, but I suspect they're already tired of trying
to reason...

>/Gary
Received on Mon Jul 19 05:13:38 2004