Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

George wrote,
As Dave pointed out, everyone is concordistic to some extent and
accommodationistic to some extent. The issue is which passages we're
discussing. Usually we share the foundation of the reality of Jesus' life,
death and resurrection and then vigorously debate Gen. 1-11 and related
passages. You brought up Jonah, Job, and NT parables. But I wonder how you
and people on this list consider Gen. 12 through the Kings and Chronicles?
To what extent are you concordistic with respect to these portions of the
Old Testament? To what extent is it important? I've never researched the
archeology and recorded history of that period to know the extent of concord
that exists. If hypothetically such concord were to be shown not to exist,
would that also be of little or no impact to your faith? You used the
intriguing phrase "...the necessary historicity in later Genesis...."

I second this with a big Amen. Perhaps it should be added that there are two issues involved. Science as such and historicity. My belief is that the science in the Bible is always the science of the times. It is always accommodated by God. I have tracked this in my studies from Genesis to Revelation. Or to put it in other words, God had no intention to reveal scientific truth in Scripture and did not do so.

Historicity is a separate, if overlapping, problem. Biblical historians say or imply that they got their historical facts from human sources. Accordingly, their history can be no better than their sources, and this is why Gen 1-11, which evidences being based in part on outdated Mesopotamian sources, is so bad, later Genesis based on oral traditions and Kings based on royal chronicles is better, and the Gospels based on eye-witness accounts are best of all. This also answers the question of how we can with logical consistency make a separation between Gen 1-11 and what follows.

Divine revelation was saved for matters of faith and morals.

Paul

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 1 19:54:43 2006