Fwd: A Third Method of Apology

In a message dated 8/9/04 3:17:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, PASAlist writes:

> Dick Wrote,
>
> >> Characteristics of Moderate Method
>>
>> 1. Genesis 1-11 is considered the factual history of the Semites, not the
>> entire human race.
>
> It is the strong consensus of OT scholars that Gen 1-11 is about the entire
> human race, with Adam being the first head and Noah the second. The strong
> consensus interpretation is that the Bible is saying the entire known earth
> (the greater Near East) was covered with water at the time of the Flood and _all
> mankind_ except those on the ark perished; and after the Flood as Gen 11:1
> says, all mankind spoke the same language, the language of Noah. Even if one
> focuses on the fact that only the peoples of the greater Near East are
> explicitly named in Gen 1-11; this still includes a lot more people than Semites
> (Gen 10).
>
> >> 2. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is preferred using sound,
>> consistent exegesis, and mindful of archaic Hebrew language.
>
>
> Your interpretation of Genesis 1 as well as of 6-11 is largely not literal.
> Sound consistent exegesis and mindful of archaic Hebrew language results in
> seeing Gen 1-11 as based on an ancient understanding of the universe and
> concerning all mankind.
>
> >> 3. Scripture is inerrant in the autographs, but suffers currently from
>> errors in transmission, translation, and interpretation.
>
> Where does the Bible say inspiration guarantees inerrant science? Where
> does the Bible say God cannot use the science of the times to communicate
> lessons of faith and morals?
>
> >>
>> 4. KJV is preferred, though needs revision in light of historical
>> evidence.
>
> Why prefer a version based on a more corrupt text than modern versions and
> translated into archaic English which only makes it less easy to understand?
>
> >> 5. The “days” of creation are seen as days of God’s time, not man’s
>> time.
>
> If we, or at least the Israelites, were to refrain from doing any labor on
> the 7th day because after creating for 6 days, God blessed the 7th day and
> hallowed it, how can the seventh day be "God's time" as opposed to man's time
> (Ex 20:10-11). If the 7th day, the day man is to rest, is 24 hours, it is
> probable that the days of creation were also 24 hours.
> >>
>> 6. Adam is considered to be the federal head of the human race, the
>> biological head of the Semitic race, and the first to receive God’s covenant.
>
> What is the Semitic race? Are they not the descendants of Shem? But Adam's
> line goes from him to Noah and to Ham and Japheth as well as Shem and hence to
> more than just Semites.
>
> >> 7. Faith alone has proved insufficient for understanding.
>
> Biblical faith loves light and does not seek to suppress the light that
> science sheds on scientific issues. It is not faith alone but faith in the Bible
> alone that has proved insufficient for understanding.
>
>
> >> 8. Scripture can be clarified by Scripture, and Bible interpreters
>> should consider revelations of modern science and ancient history.
>
> True (except modern science and ancient history offer discoveries, not
> revelations), but literal concord between Scripture and science should not be
> assumed, much less should biblical interpretation be determined by being forced
> to agree with modern science, especially in Gen 1-11, which evidences being
> based in large part on ancient Mesopotamian traditions and motifs, employed to
> teach lessons in faith and morals.
>
> >> 9. Impartial, unbiased data and evidence should guide us in formulating
>> theories of understanding, both theological and scientific.
>
> Since it is so easy to go off on a tangent of private interpretation, what
> this means pragmatically is that any interpretation that deviates from a
> strong consensus of biblical scholars or from a strong consensus of scientists in
> a relevant area of study should be rejected unless supported by such strong
> evidence that the professionals are forced to at least take it seriously.
>
> >> 10. Scientific theories are best left to credentialed scientists, and
>> modern science poses no threat to Genesis 1-11, correctly interpreted.
>
> The first half is right. But if one is demanding that Genesis 1-11 agree
> with the scientific facts, modern science poses a very large threat---if Genesis
> 1-11 is correctly interpreted. Only concordists think there is no threat
> because they have "fixed" these chapters by clever reinterpretations, but those
> reinterpretations are contrary to the historic understanding of the Church
> and to the strong consensus of OT scholars.
>
> >> Again, what do you think? Please realize that I have compiled a wealth
>> of historical data to support this method.
>
> Well no one will say you didn't have the nerve to ask. You must have been a
> daunting fighter pilot.
> Bear in mind, however, that OT scholars also have a wealth of historical
> data to support their conclusions, and are better trained to employ the data. I
> think you would do better with your theories if you submitted yourself to
> correction by the consensus of OT scholars.
> God can still use your scheme just as he uses that of Hugh Ross, but perhaps
> he could use you even more if your sheme stuck closer to the Bible.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
>
>

attached mail follows:

Dick Wrote,

> Characteristics of Moderate Method
>
> 1. Genesis 1-11 is considered the factual history of the Semites, not the
> entire human race.

It is the strong consensus of OT scholars that Gen 1-11 is about the entire
human race, with Adam being the first head and Noah the second. The strong
consensus interpretation is that the Bible is saying the entire known earth (the
greater Near East) was covered with water at the time of the Flood and _all
mankind_ except those on the ark perished; and after the Flood as Gen 11:1 says,
all mankind spoke the same language, the language of Noah. Even if one focuses
on the fact that only the peoples of the greater Near East are explicitly
named in Gen 1-11; this still includes a lot more people than Semites (Gen 10).

> 2. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is preferred using sound,
> consistent exegesis, and mindful of archaic Hebrew language.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1 as well as of 6-11 is largely not literal.
Sound consistent exegesis and mindful of archaic Hebrew language results in
seeing Gen 1-11 as based on an ancient understanding of the universe and
concerning all mankind.

> 3. Scripture is inerrant in the autographs, but suffers currently from
> errors in transmission, translation, and interpretation.

Where does the Bible say inspiration guarantees inerrant science? Where does
the Bible say God cannot use the science of the times to communicate lessons
of faith and morals?

>
> 4. KJV is preferred, though needs revision in light of historical evidence.

Why prefer a version based on a more corrupt text than modern versions and
translated into archaic English which only makes it less easy to understand?

> 5. The “days” of creation are seen as days of God’s time, not man’s
> time.

If we, or at least the Israelites, were to refrain from doing any labor on
the 7th day because after creating for 6 days, God blessed the 7th day and
hallowed it, how can the seventh day be "God's time" as opposed to man's time (Ex
20:10-11). If the 7th day, the day man is to rest, is 24 hours, it is probable
that the days of creation were also 24 hours.
>
> 6. Adam is considered to be the federal head of the human race, the
> biological head of the Semitic race, and the first to receive God’s covenant.

What is the Semitic race? Are they not the descendants of Shem? But Adam's
line goes from him to Noah and to Ham and Japheth as well as Shem and hence to
more than just Semites.

> 7. Faith alone has proved insufficient for understanding.

Biblical faith loves light and does not seek to suppress the light that
science sheds on scientific issues. It is not faith alone but faith in the Bible
alone that has proved insufficient for understanding.

> 8. Scripture can be clarified by Scripture, and Bible interpreters should
> consider revelations of modern science and ancient history.

True (except modern science and ancient history offer discoveries, not
revelations), but literal concord between Scripture and science should not be
assumed, much less should biblical interpretation be determined by being forced to
agree with modern science, especially in Gen 1-11, which evidences being based
in large part on ancient Mesopotamian traditions and motifs, employed to teach
lessons in faith and morals.

> 9. Impartial, unbiased data and evidence should guide us in formulating
> theories of understanding, both theological and scientific.

Since it is so easy to go off on a tangent of private interpretation, what
this means pragmatically is that any interpretation that deviates from a strong
consensus of biblical scholars or from a strong consensus of scientists in a
relevant area of study should be rejected unless supported by such strong
evidence that the professionals are forced to at least take it seriously.

> 10. Scientific theories are best left to credentialed scientists, and
> modern science poses no threat to Genesis 1-11, correctly interpreted.

The first half is right. But if one is demanding that Genesis 1-11 agree with
the scientific facts, modern science poses a very large threat---if Genesis
1-11 is correctly interpreted. Only concordists think there is no threat
because they have "fixed" these chapters by clever reinterpretations, but those
reinterpretations are contrary to the historic understanding of the Church and to
the strong consensus of OT scholars.

> Again, what do you think? Please realize that I have compiled a wealth of
> historical data to support this method.

Well no one will say you didn't have the nerve to ask. You must have been a
daunting fighter pilot.
Bear in mind, however, that OT scholars also have a wealth of historical data
to support their conclusions, and are better trained to employ the data. I
think you would do better with your theories if you submitted yourself to
correction by the consensus of OT scholars.
God can still use your scheme just as he uses that of Hugh Ross, but perhaps
he could use you even more if your sheme stuck closer to the Bible.

Best wishes,

Paul
Received on Mon Aug 9 19:02:52 2004