<<Of course I agree with you here. If my premise, that the Bible may contain
history, is wrong, then my view is trash, bad trash, and nothing but trash.>>
Actually, your premise is not that the Bible "may contain history," but that
it is always history in a modern,journalistic sense. That's why I brought up
current theology on the subject. Early Genesis is not, in the opinion of most
modern scholars, evangelical or otherwise, journalistic in this sense. I've
cited the ones I think ought to be read.
That doesn't make your view trash. It makes your conclusions, I believe,
incorrect, but only because the initial premise is faulty.
<<How does your view match up with known archeological
fact? Do you believe that farming occurred 50,000 years ago, or not? Were
there cities 50,000 years ago? How about a tiny two house village 50,000
years ago? Was there iron production 50,000 years ago? Why is there evidence
of a tent prior to Adam's creation? Why do Neanderthals, prior to Adam's
creation bury their dead with apparent ritual? Why do 2-million-year-old Homo
habilis have Broca's brain? Does your view make the Bible appear more likely
to be true (or contain spirutual truth) or less likely?>>
And my answer has been consistent: If you approach early Genesis as having
definite time lines, journalistic-style history and scientific detail...then
you have problems. You have sought to solve them in a certain way. But I see
the problem as one of scriptural interpretation. What exactly is the
"Scripture principle?" (Pinnock). What is the scope and intent of Genesis,
when you consider the whole of revelation? (Bloesch). Answer these questions
and you won't have to ask:
<<Further, if Genesis 1-11 are to be viewed non-historically, then why do
you believe so strongly that Genesis 1:1 is true? Maybe it is non-historical
also. After all, Genesis 1 is a poem as I recall you telling me several
months ago. >>
I recall trying to explain that your view of "historically" and
"non-historically" is incorrectly limited. Saga, which much of Genesis is, is
not limited in this way. "Saga has a historical significance but a theological
focus" (Bloesch). If all you do is cavil about details, you miss it. Anyway,
there is a whole lot written on this.
<< But I do believe that you think Genesis 1:1 and 2:7 are historical. If
they are not, would you clearly state that?>>
They are TRUE. That's the way to frame the biblical question.
<< As to modern theology, I don't agree
with a lot of what I see in modern theology and I doubt you do either.
Although I will grant that you might be better versed in theology than I.>>
No, just as you don't agree with all of modern science (especially when it
comes to early hominids!). But you test and analyze and try to come up with
the best solution.
In a way, you and I are approaching the same problem from different angles. I
find a certain view of *Scripture* to be unduly rigid (often represented by
the YEC point of view). You find a certain view of *science* unduly rigid
(from the same perspective). Maybe that's the curious part.
And we're on the same side, after all.
Jim