Re: The importance of concordism

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 07:05:38 EST

  • Next message: David Campbell: "Re: biology"

    At 11:56 AM 1/13/00 -0500, George Andrews wrote:
    >
    >Mostly unborn; and could you define eisegetism for me (Thanks for the
    >compliment?). But to the point: I do not consider "rocks fall toward
    earth" as a
    >scientific description of gravity; likewise, I do not consider "God
    created earth
    >wind and fire" as a description of HOW creation came into being.

    Actually eisegetism is something I am often accused of so it was fun
    getting to accuse someone esle. :-) Basically it means reading modern
    views into the ancient texts. And since the entire concept of old earth
    and Genesis
    1-as-merely-meaning-G0d-created-the-heavens-and-earth-and-little-else view
    is fully modern, that is eisegesis.

    >
    >> But that isn't what the Bible tells us. If the Bible simply said, "God
    >> created the heavens and the earth, and then went into Genesis 12:1, there
    >> would be no creation/evolution issue at all. Sometimes I think your
    >> approach is the biggest cop out around. It ignores 30-40 centuries of
    >> judeochristian heritage and acts as if the modern interpretation is the
    >> only way anyone should have ever understood the Bible. That is silly.
    >
    >There shouldn't be a creation/evolution issue even with the full creation
    account
    >as we have it. with the notable exception for the need for watering the
    ground,
    >Genesis doesn't proscribe or describe anything at all about the creative
    process:
    >just that there was a process and that the major categories of things a
    human can
    >observe with the naked eye (from the reference frame of the surface of the
    Earth)
    >are products of God.
    >
    >Can you define what you mean by "modern interpretation"? Modern science, by
    >definition was not known to the previous scholars of the last 30-40
    centuries.
    >they of course did have contemporary scientific ideas which has always
    been my
    >point!

    And that is part of my point about the eisegetical nature of your
    interpretation. You are interpreting it NOT as they did, but as you do in
    light of modernd data. All of us do it, but it appeared to me as if you
    were ignoring the fact that nearely everyone in the old times viewed it as
    a HOW God created and in what order he did it.

    >> Why is it so hard for people to understand that God could tell a simplified
    >> but true story. No one expects an electron by electron account.
    >>
    >
    >A thousand amens! He did just that! He told a simplified but true story
    about his
    >creation in the context of the listener without evolution, relativity...
    But the
    >truth is theological; not subject to quantification.

    But most assuredly NOT in the context of a world sans evolution! My point
    is simply God could have said,'out of the slime came life' and everyone
    would feel less discomfort about evolution. Why didn't God do this?

    >The knowledge of ancients was not as extensive as ours; this is not
    arrogance.
    >Moses, because of his time in history, had no knowledge of or
    prerequisites for
    >quantum field theory; this is very different than "Moses was too dumb to
    >understand" which I never stated or implied.

    But we aren't even talking about quantum when it comes to evolution. God
    could have gotten the concept across about evolution because many
    contemporary societies believed in it. Many believed in the old universe.
    My point is that on the surface it the account doesn't look very
    evolutionary (although I see some of it in the account) and there is no
    obvious reason God should have withheld this.
    >
    >>
    >> But that doesn't address the real issue I am raising which is, why can't
    >> God tell the truth? You feel that God tells the truth in Genesis 1 when the
    >> ancients wrote it, but I doubt seriously you would feel the same if a YEC
    >> came into the class and read Genesis 1 and said that was how God created
    >> the world. We can't have one standard for God(a lower one) and another for
    >> us(a higher one). --end of what I wrote George A. continues
    >>
    >> Why do you insist that truth must be quantifiable? Language inherently is
    >> not so. The truths and untruths (e.g., solid spheres) of Genesis can be
    >> deciphered intelligently without resort to naivety of interpretation.
    >>
    >> No where did I quantify truth! What on earth are you talking about. I was
    >> talking about standards of behavior.
    >
    >Great! Then we can at last scrutinize the account of Genesis without
    attempting to
    >make it conform to evolutionary - or any other modern scientific theory.

    Well if that is what you define as quantifying truth, then in my opinion,
    an account that conforms not one whit's worth to reality isn't worth
    studying! Lets all go study the 7 cosmic oceans of eastern religions. There
    is something that will teach us deep truths as well as any other false story.

    I now am leaving for my son's wedding so you can have the last word.
    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 13:01:25 EST