Re: [asa] Two questions... (geneology gaps)

 Bernie,

there are other options besides what you mention below.  My own opinion is that the genealogy is correct (and without gaps) so it points back to an historic Seth who lived maybe in the 3rd of 4th millennium BC, shortly before the flood (which was a riverine flood, and which is the same event described in both Genesis and the Mesopotamian literature).  It's possible that this Seth really did have a father named Adam as stated in the genealogy.  Maybe he is connected to the Adamu/Adapa that Dick discusses from the Mesopotamian literature.  Or maybe not.  Either way, since "Adam" meant "mankind" and/or since he may have been the subject of famous literature in the culture of that day, the writer of Genesis created out of him the "Adam" character we see in Genesis 2-3.  In those chapters he is part of a "mythological" story telling the creation and Fall of man.  This story was designed to go back and tell what happened prior to the earliest recorded history.  So IMO the "Adam" in Genesis 2-3 is a symbolic representation of pre-historic humanity, not a literal individual, whereas the Adam of Seth's genealogy is probably a recent, literal individual.  The connection between the two uses of "Adam" is literary, not actual history.  Thus, the entirety of early Genesis is set in the neolithic (as Dick points out) and yet still describes for us the theoloical significance of the origin of humanity back in the mists of time well before the neolithic.  I
think this is what we'd expect from the kind of literature the Bible writer was using.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: 'ASA' <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:03 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions... (geneology gaps)

James Patterson: “The genealogies are well known to contain gaps.”

How can there be gaps
in Genesis geneologies when it not only gives names, but who begat who and how
long each lived and how old they were when one was begat?  My opinion is that
the history is nailed-down, but wrong; but it’s ok because the history is
incidental to the theological message (RE: Lemoureux).

…Bernie

From: James Patterson
[mailto:james000777@bellsouth.net]

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
4:18 AM

To: Dehler, Bernie; 'ASA'

Subject: 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 w
hat 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 no
t 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 difference20in 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 TE20camp 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 12:57:09 2009