Hi, Gary,
You'll find I've trimmed things down a bit, with my responses following your
latest comments.
> >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.
Well, mine are based on hard fact - so I have little room for maneouvre.
> > 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.
Fair enough. I should have been more specific.
> > 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.
Forgive me, but I am unable to understand the point you wish to make here.
Doesn't the verse simply mean that the hydrologic cycle had yet to be
established?
> > 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.
But is it reasonable to suppose that such a Creator would delude us with
empty words?
> > 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.
But, are you here claiming that he was completely neutral re the
creation/evolution matter?
> > 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.
Again, your reference to Gen.2:5 puzzles me.
> >
> >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?
My definition of 'revelation' refers to truths that we are incapable of
discovering for ourselves. In other words, it represents _God-given_
information. And while I've no doubt that the Psalms, Proverbs and other
Wisdom writings - as mediated by the Holy Spirit - are important, they don't
provide direct access to what actually happened way back - for that is the
literal purpose of, for example, the Creation and Flood narratives.
> > 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...
Yes, Gary, you are probably right.
Shalom,
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Thu Jul 22 19:12:47 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 22 2004 - 19:12:48 EDT