Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

The point that I made was that it is not necessary for a story to be a
narrative of actual events in order for a valid theological point to be made
from it. What the theological use was is another matter.

If the biblical flood story is not a narrative of a single historical flood
(though probably making use of some memories of real floods), it doesn't
follow that the last day won't really happen. Suppose a U.S. politician
today were to compare unchecked illegal immigration with the Trojan horse.
Opponents couldn't show that such immigration wasn't a problem by pointing
out that the story of the Trojan horse probably isn't historically accurate.
(Disclaimer: I just made that illustration up on the spur of the moment &
am not trying to make a case for or against illegal immigration!)

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjp" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@verizon.net>; <Dehler@ame7.swcp.com>;
"Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation

> George:
>
> And what would that theological "use" be (viz. Mt 24:37,38)?
> Christ intended perhaps to say that just as before the Great
> Judgment in Noah's day, the day of separation, so too it will be
> at the Last Day, when the sheep are separated from the goats:
> People will be going about their business saying, "All is Well"
> or acting as if God does not see.
>
> So does it make a difference whether there was a Flood or not?
> Does it make a difference whether there will be Last Day or not?
> I suppose one could say that there are "Floods" in all our lives,
> a time of division, perhaps even death.
> Then perhaps we don't need a literal Last Day either.
> Or do we preserve the Last Day "theologically" because it is outside
> the purview of man's science.
>
> To put it simply, what does it entail that we separate a theological
> meaning from a historical one?
>
> I would rather suggest that the Incarnational God shows His
> theology in the flesh of history, otherwise we are in danger of
> "spiritualizing"
> God, making Him more an idea for our own convenience and "reason."
>
> bill powers
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:08:17 -0400, "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Dick -
>>
>> On the last paragraph: 1st, of course "fabrication" is a heavily loaded
>> term. Having noted that, the answer to the question "would that not also
>> call into question the theological lessons derived therefrom?" is "No."
>> Again I'll cite Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. There is no reason
>> to
>> think that the events Jesus describes actually happened (i.e., they may
>> have been a "fabrication" in your terminology) - & more importantly, it
>> doesn't make the slightest difference to the theological use Jesus makes
>> of the story whether they really happened or not. Other examples could,
>> of course, be given.
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 8 07:17:03 2009