Re: question

Paul is right - the quote in question isn't mine. It's from a Tweb discussion on "Questions about the theology of the cross in creation" that someone else had begun to discuss my approach to theology-science matters. I had said:

"This means, among other things, that we should expect to understand the developmental history of the universe and of life scientifically. Since the scientific evidence for cosmic & biological evolution is very strong, we should interpret the Genesis creation accounts in a way that is consistent with the scientific picture. The legitimacy of such an interpretation is shown by the evidence within scripture itself (e.g., the comparison of the 2 accounts) which suggests that they should not both be read as accurate historical or scientific narrative.
This requires us to belief that God, in inspiring these texts, was willing to accommodate the divine message to the scientific and historical views of the biblical writers. Such accomodation shows a condescension which is consistent with the idea of divine kenosis."

"Reyvin" (who had begun the discussion) then responded with the part quoted below ("This 'accomodation' argument ...") to which I responded by saying, inter alia,

'I don't think that Paul Seely "confuses adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error." But the more important question is whether or not God is willing to "accomodate to human error", even if "the former does not entail the latter."'

It was from my post that the statement critical of Paul's view was taken & thus attributed incorrectly to me. People need to be careful in citing things from web sources like Tweb where people quote something they're going to respond to so that there can be quotes within quotes &c.

Maybe this isn't a big deal but since I agree with Paul on this matter I didn't want to be represented wrongly.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul Seely
  To: David Opderbeck ; Janice Matchett
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:03 AM
  Subject: Re: question

  << I mentioned Seely's "Inspiration and Incarnation" book a while back, and I'm find it a healthy corrective to some of the hermeneutical boxes we evangelicals have put ourselves in over the past 50 years or so. Just as I wouldn't discount the importance of the "original intent" of the constitution's framers, I wouldn't discount the "original intent" of a Bible author determined through the grammatical historical method. But at the same time, I wouldn't view either text as merely a static set of propositions lacking any genre conventions or possibility of historical development -- the scripture by the Spirit speaking in and through the Church, and the Constitution by the American people speaking in and through their shared experience and social contract.
  @ I haven't read his book, but everything I've seen regarding Seely on the apologetics sites I frequent on web hasn't been flattering to him. Here is merely one comment:

  December 28th 2004 , 04:07 PM Post # 6 George Murphy http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44458

  The 'accomodation' argument is very weak to me. Quoting Holdings' debate with Seely: "It does not do to say that 'God has sometimes allowed his inspired penman to advert to the scientific concepts of their own day.'

  Seely confuses adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error ­ the former does not entail the latter. As I know all too well, having spent several years confronting critics of the Bible, such 'allowances' as Seely asserts easily open the door to ridicule of the inspired Word, and the critics are correct to see such rationalizations as Seely's as totally invalid.

  It also opens the door to those who claim that the Bible writers' teaching on morality was also a reflection of 'the scientific concepts of their own day'. For example, was their teaching against adultery and homosexual acts in ignorance of the modern scientific 'fact' that such behaviour is 'in the genes', programmed by evolution?"

  Therefore.. " [snip] ~ Shalom, George >>

  Pardon me, but, a few corrections are needed here.
  One, I (Paul Seely) did not write Inspiration and Incarnation. It was written by Dr. Peter Enns, Professor of OT at Westminster Theol Semy. I have encouraged people to read it because it is one of the few evangelical books on the OT (and NT) which is actually intellectually honest.

  Two, the quotes objecting to my views are from two YECs, one being Holding, the other unnamed. They are not from George Murphy, who essentially agrees with me. Perhaps George can tell you how this dialogue got so confused.

  Three, if I may suggest it, read something I have written (some of my papers are on the ASA website), then decide for yourself what to think.

  Paul
Received on Tue Jun 6 06:41:47 2006