Walter,
I don't think that you can really call Francis Schaffer a generally
recognized scholar, (as much as some of his engaging Christian apologetics
- old Princeton, Van Til, and smattering of Dooyeweerd influenced
worldview- warms the chrisian heart) especially not in Old Testament
studies. A very interesting treatment of Genesis by a very good scholar is
the Genesis Volume in the Interpretation Series by Walter Brueggemann. I
haven't heard much about him on this list but I think that serious
theological reflection on the early chapters of Genesis needs to be
acquainted with his position!
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> 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)
> ===================================
>
******************************************************************************
Graham E. Morbey, Chaplain || Wilfrid Laurier University
tel. 519-884-1970 ext.2739 || Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5
fax 519-885-4865 || gmorbey@wlu.ca
******************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 14:00:44 EDT