From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 18:53:43 EST
Don Winterstein wrote,
<< Everything I’ve read so far in the way of attempts to force the Bible to
fit an evolutionary, old-Earth scenario has been either contorted or
obviously deficient. The thrust in every case has been to try to convince us
that the words, especially those of the first chapters of Genesis, mean
something quite different from what a straightforward reading would suggest.
But what’s so terrible about assuming that the authors of Genesis were simply
doing the best they could to straightforwardly fit what they “knew” about
the world into a framework consistent with what they knew about God? The
Bible: Inspired but limited. >>
You are right. The "interpretations" of the concordists (those who try to
make the Bible agree with modern science) are invalidated by the fact that
even conservative Evangelical OT scholars often reject them, e.g., there is a
consensus of Evangelical OT scholars that the sun was actually created, or at
least first put into working order, on the fourth day. It was not in working
order before that. I have pointed out other similar invalid rationalizations
about Gen 1 and Gen 11 ["The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory
and in Biblical Context," , Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 49:2
(June, 1997) 85-95 www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF6-97Seely.html; and "The
Date of the Tower of Babel and Some Theological Implications," Westminster
Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38]
In my opinion, you are on the right track. The purpose of the Book is to
point to Jesus Christ, not just the historical person, but the ever-present
living Word of God.
Since we are both seeking to build a new paradigm, you will probably
appreciate my efforts to do the same, especially as I laid them out in the
latter part of the paper on the Tower of Babel.
Paul Seely
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 24 2003 - 18:54:19 EST