Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

I for one do wish to argue with E J Young. He makes two unfounded
assumptions. First, he assumes that there are only two literary
categories for Genesis, namely poetry or history. Secondly, he assumes
that the Bible is indivisible and that one cannot interpret Genesis
separately from a consideration of Christ and the Gospels.
Don

Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> 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."
>
>
>

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 22:38:27 2008