Dave Siemens said:
"There is a great difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and
the ANE "science.""
I don't think that statement makes sense. There is no such thing as a
"theology of Genesis 1 and 2." Everyone has their own "theology of
Genesis 1 and 2", some incorporating ANE and some not. I would say Book
1 is the Bible, and Book 2 includes science and history (like ANE
history and modern history). A persons theology may or may not consider
ANE concepts.
George Murphy said:
"We don't literally "read" the world."
I could argue that. I think Book 2 could be read as much as Book 1.
Sure, no book could contain everything about nature, but neither could
any book contain everything about God. We can read about the world in
textbooks and other books- that's the primary way I'm learning about
science and history from others, and also through the spoken word
(podcasts). Book 1 and 2 isn't much different in that respect:
Book 1: God's Word: The Bible which tells us about God and salvation.
Without literally reading this book, we would know nothing about the
death and resurrection of Christ (there would only be verbal stories-
and numerous versions so as to confuse the message). People learn about
God by reading the Bible, commentaries, and listening to lectures of
those trained in theology.
Book 2: God's works: History and science. People learn these from
reading actual textbooks, books, and listening to lectures of those
trained in science and history.
Both use literal books to get their message across. Even Book 1 has
many translations and many languages, and the original is lost. So I
think we do literally read about God's Words and God's works, and also
contemplate the concepts in our minds (meditating on applications and
impact of all this knowledge).
George Murphy said:
"...for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in history
that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which is a
witness to that revelation."
The Bible is a witness, true. But it is also the vehicle for the
message. No Bible, no message. No Bible, and all you have are numerous
conflicting verbal stories... like playing the game of telephone. In
this way, it seems to me the Bible has a much stronger role that you are
suggesting by that statement, because I think without the Bible, we'd
really have no faith at all.
Each book can tell us something that the other can't. For example, Book
1 tells us about the remedy for sin, but not Book 2. Book 2 tells us
about photosynthesis, but not Book 1. Sometimes they disagree on
points, such as the worldwide flood; and in that case, we have to pick a
winner when there is a direct contradiction.
I have a book called "The three views of Genesis." Each believes the
Bible is inerrant. For the meaning of day, one has a 24 hr
interpretation, one day-age, and the other framework. The 24hr. view
claims the other two are compromised by modern science, as if Book 2 is
corrupting them. To my surprise, the other two claim that they are not
driven by Book 2, but by hermeneutics and internal evidence... I think
that is untrue. Why not admit there is a Book 2 and it should take
precedence? Oh- how evil it must be to have nature affect your
theology? I agree with YEC's that the only reason not to have a YEC
position is because modern science (Book 2) is consulted. And I'm not a
YEC. I accept that there is a Book 2 and encourage it's use and
dominance over Book 1 where it is clearly (to me) more correct, such as
in the worldwide flood question.
,,,Bernie
________________________________
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:16 PM
To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
I think I would put the matter more strongly. There is a great
difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and the ANE
"science." Theology is not about a mud pie origin for man with woman
coming later, or a simultaneous creation of both sexes, but the fact
that God is the originator and director of all that is. While most
peoples have recognized some sort of deity, I keep running across
psychological and evolutionary explanations for this. And a strong
philosophical case for materialism can be made. I deny such claims on
the basis of scripture, not because of what I can deduce from a study of
nature.
Dave (ASA)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:29:24 -0400 "George Murphy"
<GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> writes:
That makes it sound as if theology is committed to a worldwide
flood & loses out to science on that issue. It's much better to say
that theology needs to be open to the insights of the sciences in its
interpretation of biblical texts - which is pretty much what I've said.
As to the point about "books" - both the "books" of which we're
speaking when we talk about knowledge of God from science & from God's
historical revelation are metaphorical. We don't literally "read" the
world. & for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in
history that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which
is a witness to that revelation. (& no, I don't mean to say that the
Bible can't be spoken of as revelation but it isn't primary.) In this
regard Christianity differs from Islam.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of
Sciences)
George Murphy said:
"But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump
theology."
I don't think I said that, but I did say that Book 2
(God's works) can trump Book 1 (God's Word).
As an example, Book 1 says there was a worldwide flood,
and Book 2 disagrees (in mine and George Murphy's opinion). I think
Book 2 wins. Book 2 trumped Book 1. Theology is adapted accordingly.
I think David Opderbeck made a good point in his first
response on this thread about the queen- we are confusing the topics
"two books" with "Theology as Queen." Theology can be based on
anything, 0 or more books... even mystics with no books have their own
theology, as well as scholars who consider all books. Claiming to have
no theology is also a theology in itself.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
To: David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of
Sciences)
I see that I stirred up a good deal of discussion &
won't try to respond to everything point by point. But a few
clarifications -
1st, there are some phrases in my original post that
seem to have been overlooked. I said that a putative general revelation
- I would rather just say "observation of the world and reason" - "tells
us nothing about who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement."
I did not deny that a person may conclude from observation of the world
that "there is a God." But it simply does not tell us who that God is -
i.e., that he is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt & raised Jesus
from the dead. It tells us nothing about God as Trinity or the
Incarnation. Nothing. & that has always been recognized by Christians
who argue for a natural knowledge of God.
2d, I used the image of theology of the queen of the
sciences to develop a metaphor. Note my language - "If (as used to be
said) theology is the queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her
ministers." David O & Ted D have had some interesting things to say
about the "queen of the sciences" idea but my purpose in evoking it was
simply to have a picturesque way of describing the roles of theology &
the natural sciences other than the well-worn "2 books" one.
& I went on to say, "But a wise queen will listen to her
ministers in their areas of competence." (Emphasis added.) Bernie says
quite rightly that when it comes, e.g., to the question of 6-day
creation or evolution, evolution wins. That is because theology listens
to the sciences when they speak about their own areas of competence and,
as I said further, will "if necessary reconsider its interpretation of
biblical texts in that light."
But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump
theology. The serious danger of the ideas of natural knowledge of God
and natural theology is that people will begin to think that they can
learn everything they need to know about God and God's will for us by
studying the world - or in other words, from "natural revelation." Nor
is this a mere theoretical danger - it was pervasive in the eighteenth &
nineteenth centuries with the thought of the Enlightenment & deism, & is
quite explicit in something like Lessing's "Education of the Human
Race." I could give numerous examples & Ted D could no doubt do so more
thoroughly. What it produced at best was a kind of unitarian deism with
an emphasis on morality & some kind of hope for an "afterlife." & you
can find this sort of thing today - e.g., Paul Davies.
The proper procedure in theology, as I emphasized in the
PSCF article I referenced, is to start with God's historical revelation
that culminates in Christ. Then we know who God is and can turn to what
science tells us about the natural world and in some ways learn more
fully how the God revealed in Christ is active in the world. We do that
by looking at scientific knowledge in the light of that historical
revelation - that's why I used the title The Cosmos in the Light of the
Cross for one of my books. & that's the kind of thing that the prophet
is doing (in an OT context) in Is.40:18-25 that was cited here. He
isn't pointing to the heavens as independent proof that YHWH exists. If
any Babylonians had been listening in (this is written to those in
exile) they would have said - "Big whoop! Marduk is the one who
stretched out the heavens." (& after all, to all appearances Marduk had
defeated YHWH.) Rather, the prophet is speaking to Jews from the
standpoint of the faith of Israel & simply claiming - if you prefer,
revealing - that the God in whom they'd believed, the God of the Exodus,
was the creator of the whole world.
& note that at the beginning of the last paragraph I
made the qualification "in theology." In studying the world, OTOH< we
don't need to do any theology or say anything at all about God. The
queen shouldn't micromanage her ministers.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3ndyHxMd81hNT8ErrSjwk
JTeuDMRbbGSBD4UaRKHL54VrVY9/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 24 17:49:57 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 24 2008 - 17:49:57 EDT