Hi Dave-
We have two things-
1. The actual text of Genesis 1 & 2
2. The interpretation (theology) of Genesis 1 & 2
Ok- let's assume the text hasn't changed. We now deal with only part 2.
For part 2, there are two time periods to discuss:
A. What is the ancient theology (interpretation)?
B. What is the modern theology (interpretation)?
For part A, ancient theology, maybe we are both in agreement that it is
ANE science (firmament, flat earth, geocentricism, etc.). Maybe
everyone saw it the same way back then (in the time of Moses and even up
to Jesus and the Apostles).
For part B, we have different camps (YEC, OEC, TE, etc.). YEC is like
ANE except they accept some Book 2 (modern science) such as
heliocentricity and a round Earth.
So maybe for part A one could say there is a theology of Gen 1 & 2, but
today (part B) there is no "theology" but instead "theologies."
Are our minds converging yet?
...Bernie
________________________________
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
Bernie,
Are you saying that the clear declaration that there is one God and that
he created what the ANE claimed as gods is not theological? Of course,
if one fudges on the exegesis, there are some very stupid theological
claims. Recall that there are sluice gates in the firmament to let the
waters above the firmament flow. Of course, this can be a canopy that
Glenn showed would cook the earth. Even it did not have sluice gates. Of
course, there is the nonsense that all we have is what it says to each
individual, so that there are as many truths as persons.
Dave (ASA)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:49:23 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
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 Wed Jun 25 15:14:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 25 2008 - 15:14:03 EDT