RE: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")

Hi Merv:
 
I think you would agree that Scripture has to be translated and
interpreted and that science and history can aid in that. And I agree
with you that we need to be sensitive as to priorities. It is precisely
interpreting in a vacuum of extra-biblical information, however, that
has gotten us into this mess. And it is only through consideration of
mitigating evidence that we are going to extricate ourselves. History is
the long-overlooked third leg of a three legged stool. "God said it.
That settles it," only works if you know exactly what He said, who He
said it to, and what He intended by saying it.
 
I met a man in Germany many years ago who gave me a different
perspective on the Christian idea that we are supposed to turn the other
cheek. He read the verse that if we are struck on the "right cheek," it
is a back of the hand blow, an insult. By offering the other cheek we
are saying in effect, strike me if you will but don't try to belittle
me.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Merv [mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:19 PM
To: Dick Fischer; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
 
Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> ...snip... We don't ignore the facts of science and history or
> consider them to be malleable and beat them into a shape that fits how

> we interpret the Bible.
>
Imagine that last statement turned on its head to say this:
 
"We don't ignore the facts of *Scripture* or consider them to be
malleable and beat them into a shape that
fits how we *see science.*"
 
Actually we have already been using all of our culture (not just
observations of nature) to help us interpret Scriptures for thousands of

years now. Nevertheless, that re-worded statement is exactly the concern

that some of my "hostile-to-science-establishment" friends have. I have
enjoyed recent meetings local to Manhattan Kansas where Keith Miller has

been hosting discussions centering around the video series by Wesley
Ministry Network entitled "Religion and Science: Pathways to Truth." (an

excellent series!) Anyway, about the second or third video in, one
speaker was presenting his ever-so-reasonable arguments related to
dismantling the wall of hostility, and at one point showed a linear
graphic with science at one end, and religion on the other (or words to
that effect), and a stark color contrast between the two that became
blurred as the speaker made his point. Unintended to his point, though,
was that the visual blurring that occurred on screen did not look in
anyway mutual, but showed the science color creeping toward the theology

side becoming much more "dominant", and I remember thinking that my
friends, had they been there, would have immediately picked up on this
irony (which would have, for them, stolen the message!).
 
To reach across this divide will require a sensitivity and an explicit
acknowledgment that science is not running the show. And yet they are
convinced that it is.
 
--Merv
P.S. One, referred to above, is excited about the movie "Expelled" and
will loan it to me since I haven't seen it. I know there was extended
discussion over this, so I know what to expect, I think. But it
obviously connected with him. Any distilled wisdoms from that mountain
of posts would be appreciated.
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 16 09:11:26 2008