Robert,
You appear to suggest that the Flood narrative was fabricated by a
person (or persons) unknown. If that is indeed so, then what, in your
understanding, were the "theological truths that lie embedded in the
story"? Surely, God's words to Noah could have been communicated in any
number of ways [you may remember that for Samuel they were audible
(1Sam.3:4), Solomon received them in a dream by night (1Ki.3:5), and so
on], and quoted verbatim by Noah himself when extending the written
records. And, concerning your reference to Noah's ignorance of "biology
and geology", this is completely beside the point - as I have already
intimated to Jan. I repeat, this is a convenient red herring which
simply 'muddied the waters' (pun intended) and gives the evolutionist an
easy ride.
But, to return to your "notion": what is its sequel? Where does God's
covenant (complete with rainbow) come in? Do you agree that a promise
was made to Noah following the Flood? If so, what in your view was the
content of that promise? If you don't agree, then is this not an
arbitrary decision of yours to strike out the verses that offend?
Sincerely,
Vernon
Robert Schneider wrote:
> My notion is that God inspired the writer(s) of the Noah story to make
> God a character in the story, as a way by which the original
> hearers/readers would learn the theological truths that lie imbedded
> in the story. It is a naive way to read the story to assume that the
> words of the character God are the actual words of God, or that God
> dictated the story to the writer(s). As Jan pointed out, it makes no
> sense to assume that the writer(s) had our knowledge of biology and
> geology, of, e.g., the spherical earth. As I often told my students,
> the purpose of the Bible is to teach us salvation, not science. No
> red herrings here.Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:Jan de Koning
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Evolutionists' dilemma/WAS: My Daughter is a
> YEC
> At 12:03 AM 11/06/02 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Robert,
> >
> > Thanks for your detailed account of ancient Hebrew
> > thinking. However, you appear to have overlooked the fact
> > that it is the Lord Himself who speaks His intentions in
> > verses 7, 13 and 17 of Genesis 6. Are you suggesting that
> > He was to be constrained by Noah's understanding of what
> > was proposed? I believe you present us with a 'red
> > herring'. God certainly knew more about the earth than we
> > know today.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Vernon
>
>
> God is not constrained at all, but we are in our thinking.
> All of us are. I find it striking that, despite my remarks
> in the past, several people on this forum still want to read
> OT scriptures using ultra-modern ways of reading and
> talking. The Bible was written thousands of years ago,
> inspired by God, in a language and using concepts known to
> people living thousands of years ago. Even if God would
> have used modern English he would not have used concepts
> unknown to people at that time. Of course, God would talk
> to Noah in a way Noah would understand, and to Jacob in a
> way Jacob would understand ,and to Israel in a way Israel
> would understand. We have gone over this before, and the
> subject has never been satisfactorily discussed, since we
> have apparently different backgrounds biblically and
> philosophically. I don't intend to go over this time and
> again, but I would suggest, that we take each other
> seriously when we state something. Nobody here thinks that
> Noah knew as much about biology and geology as we do, so
> nobody should suggest that God talked to Noah in a language
> he would not understand.
> This is not the first time we go through this discussion.
> Ever since I joined the asa list many years ago it comes up
> again and again, but do not expect that we, long time
> participants, keep on discussing this all the time,
> repeating ourselves, without ever getting satisfactory
> replies. The same now, no thorough discussions, but just
> generalities, without discussing the arguments the other
> side brings forward.
>
> Jan de K.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 11:35:07 EDT