Re: another heresy?

This is typical of MacKay failing to read what scripture actually says. It
is repeated countless times by dubious YEC theologians eg by Kelly in
Creation and Change p129-134 where he gives umpteen verses "proving" a
literal use of Gen 1 and 2 from the New Testament. None do and it makes me
wonder about the quality of his theology.

John Mackay is a very gentle soul and anything but belligerent.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: another heresy?

I concur that we don't need Moses to have been the author. But it's
clear that for the creationists Mosaic authorship is, if not a
necessary argument, at least a useful hammer. I saw John Mackay of
Creation Research talk a few weeks ago, and he made a big deal out of
Moses writing Genesis so he could cite Luke 16: "If you won't believe
Moses, you won't believe even if someone comes back from the dead"
etc.

On 12/7/05, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Michael writes:
>
> "That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when the
> Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
> before
> the final form."
>
> I agree. Historical questions of authorship, composition, etc., are
> interesting, and may provide hermeneutical aids, but in the final analysis
> it is the text as we have it that matters. What are its stories and what
> do
> they mean theologically and spiritually?
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>
>
> > Theological students in the 50s had four coloured pencils and coloured
> > the
> > Pentateuch according to whether it was JEP orD! When I did theology in
> > the
> > 70s my non-conservative OT teacher said JEPD didn't work and combined J
> > and E.
> >
> > There is much question about this now , but still it is taught .
> >
> > The likes of Gordon Wenham dispense with it and reckon the Pentateuch
> > was
> > collated in about 1000BC thus dispensing with both JEPD and Mosaic
> > authorship. That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when
> > the Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
> > before the final form.
> >
> > Mathematicians will be interested to know that Euclid's geometry only
> > partially derives form Euclid and was collated over centuries. Does that
> > disprove geometry?
> >
> > Michael
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> > To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:51 AM
> > Subject: JEDP: another heresy?
> >
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I've been wondering lately what the status of the JEDP documentary
> >> hypothesis should be in light of its "evolutionary" character. It is
> >> cited approvingly in plenty of Bible commentaries and is lambasted by
> >> Answers in Genesis (see
> >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) so my
> >> assumption is to treat it with some plausibility. But I don't really
> >> know much about it, so I thought I would ask experts on the list if it
> >> is a firm explanation of "textual origins" or something weaker.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 8 14:21:11 2005