<<I know I have asked this before. What IS your harmonization between Genesis
and Science? If you say my approach is wrong, then I would think that it is
incumbent upon you to come up with a consistent means of harmonization which
matches the data--both Biblical and Scientific. In my view the only two
views which do this are mine and Dave Probert's. I don't like Dave's view
but it does work. What is yours?>>
This dovetails nicely with the discussion between Dave and I. He has asked
about "saga-history" and "how much history" is in there. You are asking "how
much science is in there."
I submit these are the WRONG questions. They are wrong, because the genre is
NOT history, NOT science text. It is not primarily intended to convey a) VCR
details; b) scientific details. If it were, it would be a different kind of
literature.
In heremeneutics, you have to ask WHAT DID THE AUTHOR INTEND? And the
literarly genre is a clue to that.
Did God intend a VCR history, like the chronolgy of Kings? Clearly not,
because it isn't written that way. Did He intend a science book, like
Elementary Biology? Obviously not.
So to ask questions that force it into those boxes is not the right approach,
is it?
Take our friend Longfellow. He wrote about Revere to INSPIRE. He ELEVATED
history.
Same with Genesis 1. What it is trying to convey is a central message, and do
so in an awe inspiring way. The central message is: God created it. All of it.
That could have been stated in two or three verses. But it is stated in a
poetical form that is awe inspiring. It is intended to do just that, and it
does.
Did God REALLY, in space-time, create it all? Yes. And that is corroboarted by
the rest of the witness of the Bible.
Well how many years ago was it? Wrong question!
Does science support it? Of course! Unless science can somehow prove God does
not exist (ha!).
Dave Probert and Denis are right about the overall purpose of
Scripture--leading to saving faith. You don't have to force Genesis to be what
it is not in order to save that purpose. I believe the Bible, in all that it
affirms. Genesis 1 affirms the God directed creation of life, the universe and
everything. In history. It does NOT affirm time scales. It was never intended
to. So I don't ask it to.
<<May I suggest a distinction. There are two types of writing about history;
there is only one history. There was a Paul Revere who made a ride, but it
was not the ride that Longfellow described. There was one and only one
factual way that Revere took his ride. The descriptions of it can be true,
false, partially true and partially false. Longfellow wrote a partially
true/partially false account. The writing of Longfellow does not in any way,
shape or form affect what actually happened that night long ago.
We do not live in a universe where Paul Revere rode north AND rode south.
Nor do we live in a universe in which Paul Revere was of Chinese ancestry.
No matter how I describe this event there is only one TRUE description.>>
Yes! I agree with you here entirely. Now let's think about it. Suppose the
ONLY account about Paul Revere we had was Longfellow? We KNOW it "contains"
history, but we can NEVER know the journalistic details of it, because that's
NOT what the poem is about.
So why should we waste any time knocking our heads trying to find out detials
that aren't there? Why don't we just let the poem do what it wants to do and
leave it at that?
So, if we have ONLY the "poem" (allow that term for the moment) of Genesis 1,
we should do exactly the same thing. We KNOW this actually happened (actually,
we BELIEVE it, for theological reasons), but the ONLY account it the poem. Why
are we wasting time knocking our heads trying to find out details that aren't
there?
Jim