RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Hi Bethany:
 
And since you feel you can criticize Young on his ultra conservative
rhetoric that then gives you license to totally through out his main
point that Genesis doesn't fit the model of Hebrew poetry for which we
have many examples.
 
You also wrote: "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."
 
This is the problem with a bad translation and resultant flawed
interpretation that I am trying to correct. Genesis 2 and following
only pertains to the man that God placed in the garden - Adam who lived
about 7,000 years ago and not generic mankind whose precursors climbed
down out of the trees 5 to 6 million years ago.
 
So .
 
"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the
field had yet appeared on the [land] and no plant of the field had yet
sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the [land] and there
was no man [or Adam was not there] to work the ground, but streams
["fountain" in the Septuagint refers to irrigation] came up from the
earth [land] and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God
formed [Adam]."

Southern Mesopotamia is a desert area. The entire verses refer to the
necessity to irrigate the land in order to grow crops. And that is
exactly what they did. The first city in Mesopotamia, Eridu, was
nourished with water that was diverted off the Euphrates down an old
river channel. That's what the writer is telling us, but he was stuck
using archaic Hebrew.
 
Then along come interpreters who have no knowledge of ancient history
and think it is necessary to "destroy the village to save the village."
 
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: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:37 AM
To: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Cc: d.nield@auckland.ac.nz; dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
 
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.
 

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 14:27:57 2008