On Fri, 29 Dec 1995 02:49:38 +0100 you wrote:
TG>It is with fear and trepidation that I enter this discussion. I
>have no degree in theology and have never parsed a Hebrew verb.
>Also, I am certain that Denis thinks of me as a concordist even
>though many of my friends and enemies might be amused by that label.
Concordist? Shock! Horror! Turn in your bunsen burner, Prof. Gray -
your through! :-)
[...]
TG>1. While I'm quite open to the notions of recognizing the Ancient
>Near Eastern (ANE) context for the Genesis documents, I'm
>uncomfortable with the idea that their VCR would pick up anything
>different than ours. (I'm in no way suggesting that Genesis
describes VCR history.) Suppose that we have God's knowledge of the
situation (which we don't) in which case we have the standard of
actuality by which all our perceptions and interpretations could be
judged. Of course, even our VCR could not pick up all of God's
>knowledge. So things happened in a certain way. It took billions of
years or it took 6 24 hr days...one or the other (or some other
possibility). Evolution happened or creatures were instantly created
(or some other possibility). Humans evolved just like other animals
or they were created de novo (or some other possibility). The point
is that the events took place in a certain way. No exegesis or
eisegesis here. Although clearly there is a certain view of reality
espoused. When Glenn and Stephen talk about VCR recordable history,
I suspect that they are talking about the ways things happened, the
actual course of events.
Actually I have never mentioned "VCR". I must have missed the
original post that started this term. I think I am different from
Glenn and similar to Jim. I believe that Gn 1-11 records actual
events, but in partly symbolic language.
I don't think it was VCR history, because even a VCR is selective, and
it doesn't convey the *significance* of what it's recording. What if
we were shown a VCR of a naked woman handing a naked man a piece of
fruit. It could be a B-grade porno movie or it could be Gn 3. A
pictur e does not tell a 1,000 words. It tells nothing, without
words:
Minear asks:
"How could a bystander in Jerusalem, watching one of the innumerable
executions beyond the city wall, detect that scene [of the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ) as one decisive for all human history?" (Paul
Minear, Eyes of Faith, p143, in Ramm B. "Special Revelation and the
Word of God", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids Mi, 1961, p77).
The events of Gn 1-11 could have been very complex and happen over a
great period of time, but be wrapped up in a revelatory package, as
for example the Book of Revelation is. But we cannot get past the
actual words of Gn 1-11, any more than we can get back behind the
actual words of the Gospels. They are what God has given us, and they
must be what He wants us to believe, as an accurate summary of what
actually happened.
TG>2. Again while granting the textual horizon and the importance of
>the metaphysical/theological message, I will quickly add that it
>appears that Genesis is not just metaphysical/theological. I will
>focus on Genesis 2 even though that has not been the focal point in
>previous comments. I believe that the best exegesis (yes, Denis,
>that's an exe- there) of Genesis 1 results in neither a YEC or a
>day-age theory chronology, but what is known as the framework
>hypothesis. Genesis 1 is not recording chronology at all, but is
>using this ANE literary form of the suzerain executing his decrees in
>the space of week. Kline, Ridderbos, Stek and others have advocated
>this position. There is no concordist NEED here because the Genesis
>text is not attempting to be a scientific (even an ANE scientific)
>description of the course of events.
Agreed, I am flexible on the *form* of the revelation. I do not
regard myself as a concordist, in that I don't try to relate each day
of Gn 1 to a period of time in Earth's history. I believe the days of
Gn 1 are God-days (Ps 90:4 2Pet 3:8). But I believe there must be a
historical reality behind the words of Gn 1. In the beginning, God
*did* create the heavens and the earth (Gn 1:1). God *did* really
create man in his own image (Gn 1:26-27). Jesus and the apostles
believed it, and I believe it too.
TG>Genesis 2 is another matter however. These questions arise. Was
>Adam an historical figure (VCRable, even if the description in the
>text is what would appear on that VCR)? Did he live in space and
>time? Was he the progenitor of the whole human race? Did he
>represent the whole race as it's covenant head? I think that the
>answer to all of these questions is yes. The decision to answer
>these questions yes is a theological and exegetical one (BTW, part of
>exegesis is putting the text into its covenental/Biblical historical
>context; that must sound awful to folks steeped in professional
>Biblical studies although there are professionals whom I respect a
>great deal (e.g. current Westminster Seminary folks). Now here's
>the heart of the "concordist" problem. If the Biblical text
>addresses questions that are addressed by scientific enterprises
>(history, biology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.), then as much as
>those enterprises address the same reality, then they ought not to
>conflict.
Agreed. If believing that Scripture and Science sometimes intersect
on the same complex historical reality is "concordism" then I am a
concordist. Actually, I don't believe I am - I reject Denis' labels.
TG>I don't believe that the Bible is concerned with evolutionary
>questions of the sort that modern science is interested in and I'm
>convinced that recording that Adam was created from the dust of the
>ground is quite consonant with an evolutionary origin of man's body
>(although I don't think that the Genesis actively teaches an
>evolutionary origin of man's body, at the same time it doesn't
>preclude it). But having said those things which make it possible
>for me to be a "concordist", there are some questions. If genetics
>tells us that their Adam and Eve were really Adams and Eves (i.e. a
>bottleneck involving a population of ~500-10000) which is what the
>mitochondrial Eve data (and Y chromosome Adam) data *really* say,
>then this produces a problem for me. If this is true, then Adam is
>no longer the progenitor of the whole race. He could still be the
>convenant head. Perhaps my reading the text to require that Adam be
>the biological progenitor of the race is wrong. But here there is a
>point of contact between what the text says and the reality that
>actually took place that may be discernable by our methods of
>investigation.
If Adam and Eve were really a small population of human beings made
in the image of God, who had fellowship with God but rebelled, I would
have no problem. Pinnock points out:
"Conservatives are very `touchy' about the historicity of the fall of
Adam, because of its importance to their soteriology and theodicy,
and, therefore, about the status of the Genesis narratives on that
event (Genesis 2-3). They are reluctant to admit that the literary
genre in that case is figurative rather than strictly literal-even
though the hints are very strong that it is symbolic: Adam (which
means `Mankind') marries Eve (which means `Life'), and their son Cain
(which means `Forger') becomes a wanderer in the land of Nod (which
means `Wandering') (Pinnock C.H., "The Scripture Principle", Hodder &
Staughton: London, 1985, p116-117).
But OTOH, I am also aware of the provisional nature of scientific
theories (AFAIK neither Mitochondrial Eve nor Y chromosome Adam)
are universally accepted by anthropologists.
TG>Now you don't have to lecture me about the literary genre of
>Genesis 2 nor the symbolic, literary, theological elements there.
>I've used those aspects of the text in my defense of my own views.
>However, much of modern Biblical scholarship wants to undercut the
>historicity of Genesis 2 even more so that Adam is *adam* (everyman)
>and not a historical man, the covenant head of the race. Or that
>Genesis 2 is true theologically, but that its VCR veracity is largely
>irrelevant. I don't see it in the text itself or in the way that the
>rest of the Bible and its theology takes up this text. Now I've
>never been a YEC or a day-age theoriest for that matter so Denis
>can't attribute my view here to some remnant viewpoint that needs yet
>to be purged.
I've never been a YEC (except for the first six-months of my Christian
life) or a day-age theorist (ever), but that does not stop Denis
diagnosing me with an incurable "remnant viewpoint"! :-)
I plan to develop a 2-Adam model in which I will endeavour to relate
the facts of science to the scripture data. I will then be in a
position to judge what Adam's headship was. I realise that Denis
regards all this as hopelessly concordistic, but I am unfazed.
My starting position is that Adam was a single, literal, historical
individual, from which the entire human race has descended. On this
view, Adam would be regarded as both our biological and covenant head.
However, if this view in untenable in the light of genuine scientific
facts (as opposed to mere theories), then other sub-models will be
examined.
>3. Concerning Genesis 1:1. I'll leave the Hebrew constructions to the
>experts, but for the most part I don't see the importance of the
>discussion. We all, even Denis, believe in an ex nihilo creation. Who
>cares whether it comes from Genesis 1? I think Denis has said as much.
>Genesis 1 doesn't preclude an ex nihilo creation, it just doesn't speak in
>those terms because it is an ANE text. Now I would have a problem if the
>Genesis 1 text did preclude an ex nihilo creation, i.e. if it dogmatically
>stated that the watery chaos was co-eternal with God. I don't think that
>it does so that this is quite conjectural, but let me ask Denis here, if it
>did what would be our reaction especially in light of NT teaching.
I agree that it is not absolutely crucial that Bereshith in Gn 1:1 be
in the absolute state. My point was that Denis was IMHO overstating
his case and there is good evidence that Gn 1:1 is in the absolute
state, and this view is shared by OT specialists across a wide
theological spectrum, from ultra-conservatives like Edward J. Young to
German JEDP theorists like Von Rad and Eichrodt.
It was interesting that at Church last Sunday Gn 1 was read in the
Good News Bible, which starts "In the beginning, when God created the
heavens and the earth..." (Gn 1:1 GNB). I don't think anyone noticed
any difference. I personally actually like that rendering, but I am
not convinced it is correct.
TG>BTW reflectorites, we've been treated to Phil Johnson's reaction to
>his audiences. It looks like Phil will be at Calvin on January 11 in
>a "debate/dialogue" with Niles Eldredge. You're all welcome to
>come--Thursday evening (7:00 or 7:30) in our Fine Arts Center. If
>you don't come, you'll not only get Phil's reaction, but also mine
>:-)
Save me a seat! :-) It should be *very* interesting. I think we are
seeing Church history in the making. I found Phil's meeting with
Stanley Miller absolutely fascinating (Thanks Burgy). No matter what
TE's think of Phil, it is *him* with his Theistic Realism program that
is dialoging with the leaders of naturalistic science. I hope TE's
are praying for Phil and not reducing his effectiveness by internecine
squabbles. IMHO these are pivotal moments and the future of Western
Christianity, not to mention that of Western society, may be riding on
Phil's shoulders. What a responsibility!
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------