Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

Sorry I have a correction. And this is one argument in favor of a forum
where we can post messages, and that is that they can be corrected. In this
format I am forced to second a second email to clarify.

In the beginning of the 4th paragraph it should read: "This bothers me a
lot MORE THAN the author of Genesis..."
----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

>I think I have a little more insight into what bothers me about saying Paul
>was wrong about Adam being historical, because the prevailing Judaic
>thought of the day is that he was, and not being as bothered by the author
>of Genesis using the ANE cosmology because it was all that he knew.
>
> The difference to me is that in the latter example, the ANE cosmology was
> a broad theory of origins, and the writer was using the accepted and known
> mythology of the day to teach monotheism and refute polytheism.
>
> But in the example of Paul, it seems that he was actually trying to make
> the actual claim that Adam was an historic figure. It may not have been
> the primary point of the text, but he was talking about this single
> falsifiable fact. Since this fact of Adam's actual existence is an
> isolated truth or untruth, and was part of the point Paul was trying to
> make, to say that this was in fact not true, and Paul was just a product
> of his culture, raises questions about what it means that scripture is
> inspired.
>
> This bother me a lot less that the author of Genesis not understanding
> true cosmology, because this understanding of cosmology was more
> pervasive, and not as easily falsifiable.
>
> Similarly, I have less problems with an accomodationalist approach lets
> say to NT scripture supporting slavery, or claiming that only men should
> preach scriptures. As these seem, in a similar way to the Genesis
> account, more pervasive cultural ways of thinking, than isolated facts.
>
> But my distinction strikes me as arbitrary, which is the point of my
> question.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:25 PM
> Subject: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?
>
>
>> Is such interpretation arbitrary? It seems highly subjective, and that
>> it could justify just about any viewpoint.
>>
>> For example. I do not mean to pick on George exclusively, but I just
>> read his article in Perspectives on Original Sin. In this article he
>> makes reference to Paul Seely's argument that, "citing Calvin, there is
>> accommodation to cultural context in such matters (the ANE cosmology)
>> which are inessential to the text's (Genesis 1:6) theological message.
>>
>> I can accept this as accommodation, the ancients likely had no conception
>> of cosmology as we do today.
>>
>> But George also claims that even though Paul thought of Adam as a
>> historical figure, there is no reason for us to do so. George makes the
>> claim that Paul's understanding, even though it was incorrect, was an
>> accommodation based on the understanding of Judaism at the time. Also,
>> in the 666 thread, he claimed that even though John expected that the end
>> of the age, was going to occurr in the first century, he was mistaken.
>>
>> I have trouble being convinced of this accommodationalist position.
>> Perhaps because, as inspired writers, Paul and John should have known
>> better. The ideas of Adam being historical, and the end times being a
>> first century event, certainly seems to be something that Paul and John
>> could understand, which seems, to me anyway, not the case with the author
>> of Genesis 1.
>>
>> Is there any book or article that explains this method of interpretation?
>
Received on Sat Jun 10 20:21:28 2006