[asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically

Murray,

Your contribution of 2nd October surprises me on two counts: first, that you should set yourself up as a _mind reader_ of both the Lord and the Apostle Paul; and, based on this presumption, that you should attempt to 'steer us away from what is a deeply ingrained habit of reading Genesis historically'. But, as you must know, this remarkable illusion completely ignores information which amply ratifies this most excellent habit; I refer to the phenomena manifested in the Bible's opening Hebrew words which, as I pointed out in this forum a short time ago, rest upon a carefully chosen (and eternal) structure of numerical geometries and other rare features of interest* - thus, interestingly, fulfilling Lewontin's worst fears; though now it is not only 'a foot' that is wedged in the door, but rather 'the whole torso' of a Creator demanding to be let in!

[Murray, allow me to remind you of an earlier email (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200809/0206.html) in which you conceded the strength of one facet of these phenomena, viz the mapping of the early Genesis numbers onto certain metric dimensions of an A4 sheet of cut paper. You said, "I DO find the A4 paper thing quite remarkable...Had you merely stopped at declaring 'here's a remarkable numerical curiosity' I wouldn't have a problem, but to suggest it proves something?". But, Murray, the problem you face is that there are many more such facets - each independent of the others, and each associated with an exceedingly low probability. For example, included among these is the derivation of good approximations of p and e from Genesis1:1 and John 1:1, respectively, using identical procedures. A simple calculation reveals the combined probability of such a chance outcome to be 1 in 8 billion.]

Clearly, what gives you liberal theologians nightmares are the implications of this remarkable _Preface_ to the Scriptures - one which may be fairly described as a _Fanfare_ ushering in the Lord's Word to man. Here are some of the many inferences that a rational person may draw from a careful consideration of the data:

1. God's Being and Sovereignty confirmed.

2. The ready access of the supernatural to our world of space and time confirmed.

3. Methodological Naturalism exposed as a fiction.

4. Liberal theology - a passing aberration.

5. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ preserved faithfully; in particular, Adam, and his sons Cain and Abel, confirmed as real people.

6. The doctrine of an evolutionary creation destroyed.

Such paradigm-changing matters are, of course, anathema to those intent on continuing their accustomed spree of Bible-bashing, intent only on soldiering on with their false ideas and agendas. So it is little wonder that the appetite for proper debate concerning the 'Fanfare' appears to be completely absent from this forum of scientists. But how does that square with the common man's view of the role of a scientist or intellectual? Isn't he entitled to expect those with the necessary grey matter to sort out challenges of this kind on his behalf? To shoot down or ratify by sound argument? Such unfulfilled expectation constitutes further evidence (if more were needed) for the truth of my thesis.

Murray, as you must know, _fact_ will always trump _conjecture_. I respect you as one who is prepared to examine evidence, come to a reasonable conclusion, and to stand by it. Why not re-examine the facts? They are readily available, and confirm that Genesis 1 and 2 (and much more!) are to be understood as real history.

Vernon

* http://www.whatabeginning.com/ASPECTS/ASPECTS_1.html, et seq.

> Murray Hogg wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Please bear with me as I try to, once again, steer us away from what is a deeply ingrained habit of reading Genesis historically...
>>
>> I think that all this talk of sin being a "free choice" is really grounded in a rationalist, enlightenment anthropology which bears very little semblance to the realities of human nature or, might I add, the Biblical witness.
>>
>> Here I have to say I find it curious that conservative evangelicals maintain such a strong attachment to an Augustinian view of the atonement whilst rejecting an Augustinian view of human nature - no wonder there's confusion about the issue of sin and atonement!
>>
>> Personally, I think Luther was right when he emphasised that our choices arise not out of our free-will, but out of our enslaved will - i.e. out of our desire to please ourselves rather than to please God.
>>
>> I don't see ANYTHING which is contrary to an evolutionary history for humans here: evolution is ENTIRELY about survival and reproduction, hence entirely about self-preservation, hence guaranteed to produce beings who are entirely self-concerned - goodness, even our natural sense of altruism is nothing more than "redirected selfishness".
>>
>> Thus: "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)
>>
>> What is needed is something to get us beyond such self-absorption.
>>
>> In consequence of this, I don't see the need to posit some point in human evolutionary history when the capacity to make free moral choices arose (either by emergence or by divine gift) and which then was lost through an act of disobedience.
>>
>> In this I'm simply going to push the line I've been taking: Genesis 1/2 isn't about history, it's about the right ordering of reality. Not about what WAS, but about what SHOULD BE (that's how pre-modern origins stories function).
>>
>> As such, it might talk about an initial state of innocence from which humanity "fell" but this isn't to recount an historical detail. It's to make a claim about the true basis of human morality (i.e. that we ought to choose the tree of life, not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and the consequence that arises in every person's experience when they fail to follow this principle.
>>
>> The clue here, I will urge, is Paul's personal experience and the fact that it PRECISELY repeats the Genesis story, not as historical event, but as the personal experience of the individual. Indeed, the doctrine of original sin has ALREADY been "freed from the ancient science and reformulated" BY NONE LESS THAN PAUL HIMSELF!!!!! Except, conservative evangelicals have been so obsessed by the historical issue, they have utterly disregarded the theological message, have obsessed over Paul's use of the story "as if" historical (more on which below), and have thus totally overlooked the relevance of passages such as Romans 7;
>>
>> I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. (Rom 7:9)
>>
>> In the light of which, I simply can't credit the claim that Paul was naive enough to think that Genesis 1/2 was making a historical claim - he KNOWS that the "death" of sin is something other than physical death, he knows that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of the law, and he knows that "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15). He KNOWS that sin has power only when one seeks to live according to the law AND that the fundamental issue is NOT whether I choose to obey God but that "in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." (Rom 7:18) and that the ONLY answer to this problem is found in acceptance of the redemptive act of God in Christ with the subsequent gift of the Spirit (Rom 8:1-11) or, in the words of Jesus, "you must be born again" (John 3:7).
>>
>> For those who want to argue that Paul, and Jesus, thought Genesis 1/2 was about history consider this: one of the realities of "myth" is that you can NEVER tell by listening to somebody narrating mythical stories whether that person thinks the story is "real" or not. We REPEATEDLY make reference to all sorts of "fictional" stories-the plays of Shakespeare, Aesop's fables, biblical parables, etc, etc-without OUR thinking these stories actually happened SO (and here's the critical point) why would we think Jesus and Paul talking "as if" Genesis is history proves anything about what THEY thought?
>>
>> No, just because Paul and Jesus talk "as if" Gen 1/2 is historical proves nothing about whether they thought the story is historical. Talking "as if" historical is PRECISELY the way such stories are used-by tribal cultures, by Paul, by us, and, supremely, even by Jesus himself.
>>
>> So, there you have it-either one takes SERIOUSLY the genre of Genesis, or one doesn't. And if one does, if one notes the details of the text (a talking snake? a flaming sword to guard the tree of life?) and the fact that Paul can "recapitulate" the story in his own experience rather than seeing is as ONLY something which happens "back in the day" THEN one should be able to get over the HISTORICAL question of "when did it happen".
>>
>> And THEN one need not respond to a claim that "the story is symbolic" by simply reiterating the same hopelessly misguided question "Yes, but WHEN did sin enter the world?"
>>
>> So, again, and again, and again, and again: Gen 1/2 isn't written according to the criteria of modern historiography and we really must, I think, make a concerted effort NOT to put historical questions to the text. Rather, we should head a remark that George Murphy made some time ago and start thinking THEOLOGICALLY about the fact that we are dealing with Christian Scripture-inspired by the Spirit, chosen by the Church, and interpreted theologically under the guidance of both.
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 05:33:35 2009