Hi Bethany:
Alas, I think you have misjudged me. I do not subscribe to Day-Age.
Plants do precede animal life as animals feed on plants. Only some
plants need insects to pollinate. I don't reject a literal
interpretation. I embrace a literal interpretation - correctly
translated and interpreted. What may seem as "obvious" poetry to some
may appear to be an historical narrative to others.
Under the heading "Literary Form," The Expositor's Bible Commentary says
this about Genesis:
Except for the scattered poetic sections in the Book of Genesis, the
overall literary form of the book is historical narrative, which is the
re-presentation of past events for the purpose of instruction. Two
dimensions are always at work in shaping such narratives: (1) the course
of the historical event itself and (2) the viewpoint of the author who
recounts the events. This dual aspect of historical narrative means
that one must not only look at the event in its historical setting, but
one must also look for the purpose and intention of the author in
recounting the event.
If you prefer Genesis as poetry, argue with E J Young: "To escape from
the plain factual statements of Genesis some Evangelicals are saying
that the early chapters of Genesis are poetry or myth, by which they
mean that they are not to be taken as straightforward accounts, and that
the acceptance of such a view removes the difficulties. Some are
prepared to say that difficulties about the resurrection of Christ are
removed at once if you say that the writers of the Gospels do not mean
us to understand that a miracle occurred, and that they are simply
giving us a poetic account to show that Christ lives on. To adopt such
a view, they say, removes all troubles with modern science. But the
truth is that, if you accept such beliefs and methods, you are
abandoning the Christian faith. If you act thus with Genesis you are
not facing up to the facts, and that is a cowardly thing for
Evangelicals to do. Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts
of creation in the Bible--Psalm 104, and certain chapters of Job--and
they differ completely from the first chapters of Genesis. Hebrew
poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first
chapter of Genesis. So the claim that Genesis one is poetry is no
solution to the question."
Read my book, then let's talk. Do you need twenty dollars?
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
<http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Bethany Sollereder
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:18 AM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
Dick,
The day-age theory is even more unsupportable than young earth
creationists. At least the YECers go all the way in their conclusions.
The day-age theory is unsupportable both hermeneutically and
scientifically. For one thing, the order of what was created on each
day does not line up with the fossil record. You have fish in the sea
long before you have land plants. Also, what would be the point of
flowering plants on day (or eon 3) before you have pollinators on day 4
or day 5 (depending on how you want to classify those creatures which
pollinate...)? You reject a literal interpretation, and yet refuse to
reject historical concordism. Perhaps you overlooked the order of the
fossil record which you defend, or are you being... to quote your own
accusations of others in your paper... "willingly ignorant"?
Have you also missed the obvious poetic structure of the passage, three
days to make the world habitable, and three days to fill it? Have you
accidentally overlooked the similarities to other ANE mythologies? Have
you, perhaps, failed to understand the place of ancient biology,
cosmology, and origins in the semitic culture? Maybe you are unsure of
the conventions of genre, and how we should understand a pre-modern
writer?
For if you are not, perhaps it could be asked of you and the day-age
theory what you asked of others...
"Why do some persist in maintaining an intransigent mindset?"
Bethany
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:
Day-age has normally meant tying the days to geological periods. I've
always held a day of God's time to equal whatever period of time it took
to accomplish whatever it was He needed to accomplish. See my article
<http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Fischer.html> : Days of
Creation: Hours or Eons.
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
<http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:35 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
I got those three options from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8
<http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508
/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210638737&sr=8-1>
&s=books&qid=1210638737&sr=8-1
The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation
Randy- to spare me 50 minutes of listening to audio/video- is there a
name for another way to interpret the day than the ones I listed? If
not, it is something unique to that presenter? BTW- Notice the options
I gave is only for those who hold the Bible to be "inerrant" In case
that makes a difference. So far, I interpret Genesis differently
because I don't consider it to be inerrant.
.Bernie
_____
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:13 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
Bernie, these aren't the only options. I think I've given this reference
in this forum before but it bears repeating in this context. John Walton
of Wheaton College provides another perspective in this most interesting
lecture (about 50 minutes long) at the Wheaton College Science Symposium
of 2003. Well worth listening and discussing.
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/Sci_Sym.h
tml
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> Affiliation
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:46 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
It relates because of issues in interpreting the Genesis creation story
as allegory, or if the Genesis creation account has to be inerrant.
The way I see it, if one believe the creation account is inerrant, there
are three ways to interpret day (with an inerrant viewpoint):
1. 24 hrs long
2. Day-age view
3. Framework view
If Genesis is not inerrant, then it opens another possible Christian
interpretation as 'divine myth'.
The science aspect should then be obvious, as it is dealing with
integrating evolution with Genesis.
.Bernie
_____
From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:35 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
This post seems to belong more on an evangelicalism/missions list than
on a list for science and religion dialogue. Sure, perhaps it could
overlap with philology or hermeneutic philosophy. Nevertheless, isn't
this a predominantly theological (or apologetic) question without any
scientific relevance?
G.A.
"Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
I'm arguing with a Pastor friend who supports biblical inerrancy.
Here's a point I came up with- does it hold water?
1. To be "Bible-based," we should teach what the Bible teaches, but
not go "beyond what is written."
2. The Bible claims to be 'inspired' but not 'inerrant'
3. Therefore, the popular Evangelical claim that "the Bible is
inerrant" is to go "beyond what is written" and is not a Bible-based
concept
Therefore, for someone who wants to teach the Bible in all sincerity and
truthfulness, should not claim more for the Bible than it claims for
itself. This is ironic, because this statement says the more the one
takes the Bible seriously, the less they should claim it is inerrant.
Back-up:
For point 1:
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&versi
on=31&context=verse> 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for
your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,
"Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one
man over against another.
For point 2:
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&vers
ion=31&context=verse> 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,
-- and ---
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
For point 3:
National Assoc. of Evangelicals:
http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible,
authoritative Word of God.
Comments?
Please keep comments short, as this post is.
_____
<http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> All new Yahoo! Mail -
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 14 21:58:21 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 14 2008 - 21:58:21 EDT