Re: question

And I started this mess by saying "Seely" when I meant "Enns"!!! Sorry!! I
had just read an email from Paul before I typed that so I guess his name was
stuck in my head!

On 6/6/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <PHSeely@msn.com>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Janice Matchett<janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *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*<http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?tshowpost.php?p=845710&postcount=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 08:29:18 2006