RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dear Don and Dave:
 
I'm sure Genesis will be argued about long after we have ceased to be
able to argue about anything. Genesis 2 and beyond can be historical,
and I believe it to be just that, as Semites could draw upon oral
tradition and some of the narrative can be corroborated with the history
of the ancient Near East.
 
So it is only Genesis 1 that may be something else and since it touches
on creation landmarks before human beings evolved it cannot be verified
with anything available to the writer except through plenary
inspiration. Is Genesis 1 inspired and a correct historical account or
not? I tend to think it is, but I could be convinced if anyone made a
convincing argument. And thus far I have not seen one. I've read
Conrad Hyers - he's not convincing.
 
"Fowls" is out of order but flying creatures would work. The sun, moon
and stars weren't created on day four, they were appointed as
timekeepers, etc. So the difficulties the framework hypothesis seeks to
solve aren't difficulties at all in my humble estimation.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:08 PM
To: d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
 
Third, he thinks he is free to interpret terms in the original language
in order to fit contemporary knowledge.
Dave (ASA)
 
On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:37:40 +1200 Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
writes:
> 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.
>
>
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 15 11:17:50 2008