Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

And even the (synoptic) Gospels as *bioi* aren't what we today would call
"literal history." They reflect eyewitness accounts of real miracles and
the real life, death and resurrection of Christ, but they involve their own
literary conventions of selection, structuring, paraphrasing, and maybe even
midrash. The whole "common sense realism" approach to scripture has to go
(I think it actually has gone already in most serious evangelical
scholarship).

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dick,
>
> As Dave and Don have helpfully pointed out, there are more than two simple
> literary categories. Also, Young's jump that says "If Genesis isn't literal
> history, than the gospels are not either" is exactly the black and white,
> typically evangelical thought that gets us into this mess in the first
> place. I had hoped people in this forum would be able to nuance their
> thinking just slightly more.
>
> The Gospels are *bioi*, or ancient biography. Of course they are going to
> be interpreted in a different light, than a chapter that is poetry (Gen 1)
> or motif filled narrative (Gen 2). There were no eyewitnesses to the events
> of Gen 1&2 who then wrote down the account, as there was in the gospels,
> etc. I don't want to go on in this way, because it seems silly. Maybe you
> could use your twenty bucks to find a good NT introduction book?
>
> One more questions Dick. How do you look at the vast difference in order
> between Gen 1 & Gen 2. In Gen 1, plants all come first. In Gen 2, there
> are no plants until there are humans to till the ground.
> "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the
> field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung
> up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to
> work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole
> surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man."
>
> God creates man first in Gen 2, and then makes plants, or plants the garden
> (despite the horrid NIV mistranslation, as you know, in v.8 where they
> translate it "The Lord God *had* planted a garden" rather than the Hebrew
> which should be translated "The Lord God planted a garden" after the
> previous event of creating man.)
>
> Bethany
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.