Re: misgivings

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.com.au)
Fri, 18 Aug 95 05:58:04 EDT

Bill

On Tue, 15 Aug 1995 15:19:52 -0500 you wrote:

BH>To tell the truth, I have some misgivings too. I find I'm more in
>Jim Bell's camp (as I understand it) regarding the nature of the
>account in Genesis: that it doesn't seem intended to be a historical
>account so much as defining the beginning of the relationship between
>God and man, with an outline of the history that preceded this point.
>Very much like the first two sections of a suzeraine covenant, which
>provide a historical prologue and identify the covenanting parties
>(This view is not of course original) I first became aware of it when
>reading Howard Van Till's book, "The fourth day...".

I tend to agree. I think it is important to understand the human
origin of Genesis 1-11. It is a collection of family histories of the
ancestors of Abraham and ultimately the Messiah, handed down through
the ages to us today.

It is this people's self-understanding of who they were and more
importantly who their God was, that is the reason that their God has
seen to it that these accounts are included in Scripture.

I believe there was a Flood, because: 1. Gn 7-9 appears to be
historical; 2. there is a strong witness to it from early Mesopotamian
tradition (eg. Gilgamesh Epic), and 3. Jesus believed in it (Mt
24:38). I regard the failure of geology to find evidence of the Flood
as a difficulty, but not fatal.

BH>One point this discussion demonstrates is that whatever means we
>try to use to relate Scripture and natural history, there always
>seems to be at least one point where the reconciliation is imperfect
>-- from at least one point of view. Perhaps that's intentional on
>God's part.

Agreed. We are often reminded by evolutionists that "absence of
evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence". The uniform
experience is that no Judeo-Christian holy artefact (e.g Ark, tablets
of Law, Cross, etc) has survived. To those who believe that not a
sparrow falls without God willing it (Mt 10:29), the conclusion is
that God does not want us to have such props to our faith, probably
because of the danger of idolatry (see 2Ki 18:4).

Ultimately, I do not believe it is all that important to try to
reconcile geology to the Genesis account of the Flood, but then I am
not a geophysicist! :-)

God bless.

Stephen

----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------