Re: In defense of Paul Seely

Has anyone published a history of the hermeneutics and interpretation of
Genesis 1? It would be interesting to see how the text has been interpreted
in the light of newer cosmologies over the past 2,000 years. The one that
sticks in my mind from my days as a medievalist is the section in the _Summa
Theologiae_ where Thomas Aquinas interprets Genesis 1 in the context of
Aristotelian cosmology. In a passage in which he reviews various statements
about the division of the waters, he offers the opinion that Moses did not
introduce the element of air (of the basic four elements) to describe the
heavens because he " was speaking to ignorant people and out of
condescension to their simpleness presented only those things that are
immediately obvious to the senses" (ST I, 68, 3). Here you have concordism
and accomodationism united in the same hermeneutic. St. Thomas'
interpretation also suggests a way in which a concordist approach to
interpreting the text has its own difficulties. It has to retool when a new
cosmology becomes established.

It doesn't matter what cosmological models we humans construct; they all
will differ from the biblical model. Historically, theologians have always
sought to find a modus vivendi with the current cosmology. The commonly
acknowledged theological truth, however, is that the doctrine of creation
remains, even as the understanding of the nature of the God-World
relationship is re-articulated in the light of new cosmological knowledge.
The doctrine is not dependent upon the model, however, and that is why one
can honor the cosmology of Genesis 1 for what it was, the matrix for
theological truth but a matrix recognizable to its own time and place, and
not insist that somehow it must be able to be consonant with every new
current cosmological model historically--to become all things to all men.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
To: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>; "Robert Schneider"
<rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: In defense of Paul Seely

> On 6/7/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>> YOu have correctly concluded that the YECs are wrong because what they
>> teach doesn't
>> concord with reality. In fact, it is just plain contra-evidential. But,
>> when it comes
>> to the Bible, we then conversely claim that it teaches true theology, and
>> in spite of
>> the bad data, it isn't REAAALLLLLYYYY wrong, just misunderstood.
>>
>> This illogic always amazes me.
>
> Glenn, this is somewhat of a non sequiter. Accomodationism does not
> say the data so to speak is bad. Rather, it follows the New Testament
> doctrine that the Old Testament was mysterious and thus not fully
> perspicacious. Trying to find a spherical Earth in the OT is similar
> to finding the Trinity in the OT. Calvin when interpreting Genesis 1
> resisted the temptation of saying since Elohim could be interpreted as
> plural that it taught the Trinity. Furthermore, accomodationism
> encourages efforts such as yours and Dick's to find concord and only
> parts company when the case appears overstated or where a
> falsification of a particular concord unnecessarily falsifies the
> whole. Both camps ultimately have the same goal of exegeting rather
> than eisegeting the text and in my opinion are good correctives for
> each other. The concordists call the accomodationists when they make
> the text rather than the contemporary understanding of the text in
> error and the accomodationists call the concordists when the alleged
> concord is forced and overstated.
>
Received on Wed Jun 7 10:40:11 2006