Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dick,

Actually, I feel that there are several examples Hebrew poetry models in
Genesis 1. First, there is the parallelism found in the days. Day 1
matches with Day 4, 2 with 5, and 3 with 6. While it's not the same type of
parallelism found in the Psalms (often called thought-rhyming), where the
parallels are found in the very next line, it still has parallelism.
Also, you have the 'x + 1 formula' that is extremely common in Hebrew
composition and poetry, just take a look at Proverbs (6:16 for example).
The 6 + 1 (6 days plus the Sabbath) is an incredibly common poetic
construction. If you need examples, let me know and I'll look them up.
While probably the most common Hebrew poetic construction, that of chiasm,
is absent in Genesis 1, it is found in other parts of Genesis 1-11, most
notably in the flood account.

As for your second point, that is a very creative dealing with the text, and
one that I have never heard before.

Bethany

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
> 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 14:49:28 2008