How are your froggies doing these days? Hope they are well.
You wrote:
>GM > Let me ask about Jesus' mention of the flood taking everyone away,
>Matt.
>> 24. It that not concordism? Or what about the treatment of Adam in
> the
>> N.T. Does that not qualify as concordism? Afterall, they seemed to
> treat
>> these people as real people i.e concording to reality.
>
>No. That is absolute consonance, as I note in my next sentence.
>Concordism is the practice of trying to accord purported discordant
>reports. Jesus wasn't trying to accord the science of His day with Gen
> 1. He was a YEC.
This raises an interesting Christological question. I don't believe there
is enough data to say that Christ was a YEC. But if he was, being who he
was, doesn't this mean that you and I should give up our "compromising"
ways? After all, Christ was the Son of God.
>GM > If I recall correctly, in our great eisegetical debate last Dec.
> and
>Jan.
>> you admitted that the ancient Hebrews would have treated Adam as if
> he
>> were a real person. And they would have treated the 6 days as
> literal.
>
>Your memory is quite correct. And I have fond memories of one of the
> most fruitful exchanges I have ever had on this reflector. And you are
> right,I am convinced the Hebrews were YEC.
>
I too found that exchange quite fruitful. And I am learning a lot here
also.
>> Given that, isn't any deviation from that view the eisegetical one?
> By this I mean the modern view that the days are not really days and
> Adam not really a person?
>
>Excellent, excellent, excellent. Yes, any interpretation away from this
>"YEC" interpretation is indeed eisegetical--from Hugh Ross' concordism
> to you and Hayward's proclaimation thesis. So if you ask me what the
>intentionality of Gen 1 is, it is indeed the YEC view--in 6 days,
> creation by fiat, Adam & Eve, etc., etc. And that is exactly how I
>interpret it. Thus I am an exegete.
This is Freudian. Just couldn't call yourself an eisegete, huh? :-) :-)
I too am an exegete.
>
>However, despite believing that is indeed what Gen 1 both says and
>intended to say, do I believe that is what really happened (as if we
>recorded the events with a VCR [our term, "VCR history"])? My answer is
>"NO."
Now, here is what I view as the tough question for you non-concordist
types (and as I noted last year, you are a true non-concordist, being
fully self-consistent). Upon what basis can you support your belief?
(Oh no, you are dragging me back into the quagmire of Genesis 1 which I
vowed to avoid last time we argued this issue and you won.)
> (After all I am one of those wicked CE [compromising
>evangelical] evolutionists)
Well, proudly, I have been called a compromising evangelical in print.
Woodmorappe slams me 6 times in the first 5 pages and multitudinous times
throughout the rest of his book. He has no index so I can't find them all
rapidly.
>
>Gen 1 is state-of-the-art ancient near eastern science being used as a
>vehicle under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to carry God's revelation;
>specifically, ontological/theological propositional knowledge (eg, the
>universe is a "creation," we've been created in God's image, sin is
> real,etc., etc.)
>
>God's revelation is not the "science" of Genesis, it's the theology . .
> . the "stuff" you just can't put in test tubes--ie, ontological
>realities.
Like the question above, how do we KNOW this to be true?
>Sure, and you and Hayward are examples of "looser" (2 "O"s ;-) ) guys
> than Ross.
>
I could probably say something about Ex-Lax but I won't. :-)
>And this very debate regarding Adam is indeed symptomatic of concordism.
>
But historians argue for the concordism of George Washington and his
times, Caesar and his time, Abraham and his times. Why is is suddenly out
of bounds to argue for the concordism of Noah and his times and Adam and
his?
Laoshi Ni de Pengyou,
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm