Dick said:
"If there were some egregious errors in Genesis 1 then I think we could
say that it might have been simple human error in a human account."
One "egregious error" in Genesis (due to ANE thought) is stating that
there is a "firmament" in which the stars are hung, with water below and
above it. To add insult to injury, the NIV mistranslates the
"firmament" as "atmosphere," because we know today there are no stars
hung in the atmosphere with water above that. Remember, the firmament,
or atmosphere, was there to separate the waters.
Thinking there is a solid dome firmament is akin to the Gilgamesh story
saying that there is a tunnel thru the earth that the sun travels
through so it can rise in the east the next day.
I'm violating the 4 day email max- sorry- but this was too juicy to pass
up.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:35 AM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
Hi George:
If there were some egregious errors in Genesis 1 then I think we could
say that it might have been simple human error in a human account. That
it does correlate with what we can confirm elsewhere persuades me that
the writer had divine assistance. He had no means to test it or
authenticate it through any exterior means. So I believe Genesis 1 to
be inspired but I must admit I'm walking by sight here and not by faith.
Starting with Genesis 2 the writer (likely a different writer) had oral
tradition from actual descendants to draw on. Inspired, I believe, but
verifiable in addition.
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com <http://www.historicalgenesis.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:41 AM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
Whether or not Genesis 1 is "not a bad fit all things considered" to BB
cosmology is debatable but let that pass for now. I want to point out
here that if what Genesis gives us is "what the writer thought God did"
then the question has to be asked, in what sense was the account
inspired by God? If it isn't simply one more human document from the
ancient near east, on the same level as enuma elish or Gilgamesh, (which
I'm quite sure isn't what Dick means) then to say that it's "what the
writer thought" and in some sense the word of God gets close to what I &
others have argued, that God "accomodated" to the human condition in
inspiring the text.
I would, though, not ascribe everything in Gen.1 (or other biblical
texts) to simply the common views of the writers or their cultures.
That's the case with the physical picture presented in the text (dome of
the sky &c) but not necessarily with the view that's presented of God's
relationship with the world. I.e., there is accomodation to human ideas
about the natural & social sciences but not (as least not completely)
theology.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
Hi Don:
What God actually did is better described by Big Bang cosmology.
What the writer thought God did is described in Genesis and it is not a
bad fit all things considered.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 16 14:48:17 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 16 2008 - 14:48:18 EDT