RE: [asa] The Barr quote

It's hard for me to believe that OT professors would overlook Psalm 90:4
written by Moses or ignore the proclamation that Adam was cultivating
the garden on the same day God planted it, or believe there was a way to
cram all the events listed on day six into the last part of a 24-hour
day. It would be like stating that most auto mechanics don't know how
to change a spark plug, or saying most doctors don't know which side the
heart is on, or most dentists don't know an eye tooth from a wisdom
tooth. What makes Barr think OT professors know nothing about reading
Scripture? Has he done a survey? Where is his data?
 
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 Randy Isaac
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:42 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The Barr quote
 
In light of all your comments, is it accurate to say the following?
 
Barr and "any professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class
university" believe that the authors of Genesis 1 fully believed and
intended a message of creation in six 24-hour days. With this, the
typical
YEC agrees.
 
Barr & co. apparently would also believe the following with which the
typical YEC would not agree:
--the world was not in fact created in six 24 hour days so that the
Bible is
in error
--the Genesis passage is humanly inspired but not divinely inspired
--the message that God created the world in six 24 hour days is not God
telling us what actually happened
--Genesis was written in 5th or 6th century BC by Hebrew scribes
 
 
If so, we have a curious situation:
 
the interpretation of a 6 24hour day creation is correlated with a view
that
the Bible (or at least Genesis) is of recent (relatively) human
inspiration
and origin, not God's message of truth to us.
 
the view that Genesis has an indeterminate (either long or no message of

chronology) is correlated with a view that the Bible is of divine
inspiration and origin, with Genesis written earlier, taken from God's
theological message to a Mesopotamian audience.
 
That's quite the opposite of what is normally claimed. Scientific
evidence
of an old earth would be consistent with both of the above views (heads
I
win, tails you lose) but the YEC position would pick and choose from
each
one.
 
Randy
 
 
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 Sun May 18 23:07:59 2008