Harmonization is an interesting approach to integrating science and
Biblical interpretation, especially of the early chapters of Genesis.
Personally I don't engage in harmonization, but I appreciate the respect
some harmonizers, like Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer, give to science. I
even see something admirable in the most conservative YEC position, which I
think was expressed within the recent "What's Missing" thread. While I
don't use the particulars of YEC or other harmonizing approaches, I share
with harmonizers (and all believers) the view that God speaks to us in
Scripture, and also the strong desire to hear what God is saying.
The question is: what is God saying, and how can we rightly hear God's
voice in and through the human voices of the Biblical authors?
Armin Held and Am Raun published "Genesis Reconsidered" in the Dec 1999
issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (Vol. 51, #4, pp.
231-243). I apologize if this listserv has already discussed that article
(a quick search for Raun's name in my archives didn't turn it up). Held
and Raun present their own harmonization. Without getting into the
particulars of their scheme vis-a-vis Glenn's or Dick's or the standard YEC
(e.g. ICR) view, I wonder if Held and Raun's statements defending
harmonization in general would accurately reflect the views of harmonizing
participants in this list. Here are some examples:
"The trend to disparage attempts at harmonization is mistaken, resulting
from inadequate care in interpretation."
"The Bible claims to be inspired by God. He designed it for all cultures,
but letting it be contaminated with gross errors would compromise it."
"A biblical writer was guided to select, from his own vocabulary, words and
phrases compatible with reality, even while perhaps holding some erroneous
belief. But a myth masquerading as prophetic narrative revealing God's
creation would be inconsistent with God's character of truth."
"The Bible is not equivalent to any other book. It might contain
information beyond the ken of its writers."
"Some interpreters exclude inspiration, and thus the possibility of a
harmony . . ."
"Radical criticism widely destroyed confidence in biblical reliability.
But an unprejudiced reading of the text resolves the imagined
contradictions and avoid making myths out of texts which do not present
parables but prophetic narrative."
I'm interested in other's views, but here are mine. God indeed inspired
the Biblical authors, but the knowledge so transmitted was not "prophetic
narrative." Rather, it was knowledge of God's character and will. "Myth"
is used in an everyday sense to mean a fanciful, erroneous story, but in
religion it means something more valuable and significant than that, just
as what scientists mean by "theory is more valuable and significant than
the meaning of "theory" in its everday sense of hunch or guess. Yes,
historical criticism has gone too far sometimes, and yes, the Bible is not
like other old books, but the scholarly methods used to study ancient texts
can and should be applied to the Bible. The trend to disparage
harmonization did not result from "inadequate care" in interpretation, but
rather a lot of honest and careful hermeneutical scholarship.
How do others view Held and Raun's defense of harmonization?
Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Member, Prehealth Sciences Advisory Committee
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Voice: (402)-280-2154 or -2321
FAX: (402)-280-5595
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 11:27:31 EST