RE: [asa] Two questions...

1. The genealogies are well known to contain gaps. This doesn't mean
they are false, this means that the Jews reported incomplete data. Whether
they forgot or whether they left out folks because they were not important
(or perhaps were dishonored) we don't know.

2. I believe Calvin was one who agreed with the concept of
accommodation. That seems reasonably clear. It seems of no great consequence
then what ancient Hebrews thought specifically about the sky. What they
wrote in their limited lexicon, in their ancient and foreign culture, in the
word of God, is difficult to interpret. To discount concordism because of
ANE beliefs is your choice, and in my opinion, not a good one.

JP

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:08 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...

James wrote:

      Concordism Inerrancy Truth in Science

----------------------------------------------------

 TE - NO NO YES

OEC - YES YES YES

YEC - YES YES NO

----------------------------------------------------

As Denis Lamoureux says in his book, I think it is key to break-up
concordism into three levels: theological, historical, and scientific.

The Bible is theologically concordant- the spiritual things taught in it are
true. It is a book of theology. It is not scientifically or historically
concordant- the science and history (such as Adam in geneologies) is not
true. They are incidental vehicles to deliver a theological message. The
Bible was never meant to teach history or science- just theology.

You can't say YEC and OEC are concordant, because both reject the ANE
science of a firmament. The firmament is clearly written about in Genesis.
Translating it as "sky" is dishonest. It is a trick to fool people into
thinking it said something which it never did. It doesn't make sense to say
the sky is the firmament because Gen. also says the stars are placed in the
firmament (sky). If the sky is the firmament, and the stars are in the sky,
where is the water over the stars (since the sky separated the waters below
from above). And no, the heavenly waters were not drained because of the
flood, because the Bible says the floodgates were also closed, implying
there's still heavenly water up there.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of James Patterson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:24 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...

I don't think it's the science issues that are the most troublesome, at

least for me. It's the lack of foundational doctrines that are, I think,

critical to many mainstream Christian churches. That would be concordism,

and inerrancy/infallibility of the Word of God.

One can only integrate science and religion if they agree with one another.

If you say they don't agree, that will cause problems in the church...most

of them. If you say the Word of God is wrong, then you will definitely have

problems. That basic starting point is where TE went wrong. From reading

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation it is obvious that this is not a new

issue - the historical account early on in the book is well written and

seems clear. The backlash from that early position of non-concordism appears

to be what caused the YEC movement to take such a strong stance...a balance

on the other side of the equation. At least that's how I read it.

God's Word should (does IMO) agree with God's world. And if it doesn't, then

man is either interpreting the Word wrong, or measuring the world wrong.

Genesis 1 and 2 are easily reconciled - it's obvious to a child reading it

that one is a specific timeline, and the other is not the same sequence. Do

you think the ancient Jews didn't notice that? Gen 2 is thus fairly

obviously a story that is told from a viewpoint of what's important to the

Jews telling it, not necessarily in sequence. This is not inconsistent with

the two accounts being from different tribes - but does a better job of

reconciling it. It may have been so obvious that the Jews didn't even

describe the rationale for the difference in the Talmud (I don't know, just

guessing it's not mentioned).

The closest thing I have seen to a reconciliation of the OEC and TE

positions is Bob Russell's chapter...God working through Objective Special

Providence. That is truly intriguing to me and very worthy of further

examination. However, that's only if it can be couched in the doctrines of

concordism and inerrancy (and it doesn't seem to have problems in that

arena, but I haven't read his other works).

      Concordism Inerrancy Truth in Science

----------------------------------------------------

 TE - NO NO YES

OEC - YES YES YES

YEC - YES YES NO

----------------------------------------------------

Now, you may not agree with that "Truth in Science" part for OEC (as the

"Liars for Jesus" label indicates), but the Truth is out there. Is RTB

always right? NO. Humans all. But they will listen, learn, relate, change,

modify models, and do so humbly...if there is accurate data to show that

some component of the model is wrong. I don't see the YEC camp ever doing

that. I don't see the TE camp ever doing that with regard to concordism or

inerrancy. What I do see is OEC as a balanced position that melds science

and faith quite well.

There's just a few bumps left in the road, is all. Nothing much.

:)

James P

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 10 07:19:01 2009