Shuan Rose wrote:
>
> You and the other concordists are certainly right.Christianity is a
> historical faith and we should not forget that It builds on Israel's faith
> which is also deeply historical.
>
> I think the problem is that Genesis 1-11 looks like history and is in fact
> joined onto a historical account, so we want to consider it history. It was
> the genius of the the original writer( The Yahwist, according to the
> scholars) to take an account of the saving acts of YAHWEH in Israel's
> history, that originally started with the call of Abraham, and to extend it
> into prehistory . He did so by taking several seperate creation stories,
> arranging them into a chronological sequence, and inserting genealogies to
> cover the gaps.He did so in order to make the vitally important theological
> point that the first saving act of YAHWEH was the creation of the universe
> and that the Lord of Israel was also the Lord of the universe.
>
> Now in creating his literary and theological scheme, the Yahwist mined the
> mythological traditions of his day and rewrote them to suit his conception
> of YAHWEH. The flood story, for example is based on older Babylonian (and
> possibly Canaanite) originals. the story of Adam & eve really does not fit
> together seamlessly with Cain and Abel( hence the perennial question, Where
> did Cain's wife come from?). The tables of generations work to link together
> what were separate stories. Following the Yahwist, the Priestly writer adds
> Genesis 1 and the Priestly version of the flood story to the Yahwist's
> foundation.
>
> Now, this is what OT scholars say is happening in Gen 1-11. See, for
> example, Gerhard Von Rad, The Problem of the Hexatuech, and the extensive
> litetrature generated by that book. Online, try
>
> http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_TC.HTM
>
> Concordists and fundies tend to simply ignore the scholars view of Gen
> 1-11."Lets not let expert analysis get in the way of our historical
> reconstructions" is the motto of both groups. I think this a short sighted
> view that ends up in endless (and IMHO) pointless discussions on trying to
> extract a historical kernel out of Genesis 1-11. I have yet to see Glenn,
> Dick, or anyone else get to the meat of Gen 1-11, which for me , is What
> does it mean for ME and my community that my God is the maker of heaven and
> earth? As scientists, you should be able to contribute devotional and
> theological insights that I, a non scientist, do not have. I would like the
> list to table (at least, for a little while) the whole concordist debate and
> hear some contributions on this question.
I think, Shaun, that you seriously misjudge the dominance of
"scholarship" as supporting the position that you promote here. I would
suggest that you get a copy of Francis A. Schaffer's (A generally
accepted "scholar")"Genesis in Space and Time". While deeply exploring
the spiritual meaning of Genesis, Schaffer points out the reasons for
taking Genesis 1-11 as a true historical account and backs it up with
Biblical quotes from the New and Old Testament. Indeed, he suggests that
it is _only_ as a historical account can it's deep spiritual content be
appreciated -- and that "scholarship" that treats it as other than real
history falls short of the true spiritual message. I suggest that
reading it might possibly change some of your conclusions.
I do not agree with Schaffer 100% but he balances off some of the
extreme views in the opposite direction.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 11:43:23 EDT