From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sat Jun 21 2003 - 06:36:03 EDT
Peter,=20
Just a few comments, as it's apparent we aren't going to make a lot of =
progress on this topic: =20
First, I hadn't fully realized from your paper, Genesis Reconsidered, =
that your age-days were intended just to give an origin-sequence of =
categories of things, such as plants of any kind coming before animals =
of any kind. This would mean, of course, that many of the age-days =
would have huge overlaps. Your scheme thereby gets close in some =
respects to the one proposed by Glenn Morton on his website. But this =
kind of interpretation seems unnatural to me in view of the simple =
linearity of the simple Genesis narrative. =20
I still think your assignment of /oph/ to insects is at the very least =
inconsistent: Previously you'd said the text failed to mention =
invertebrates because they weren't "living souls;" so why would God =
suddenly assign winged insects, which are mostly "unclean" invertebrates =
and presumably also not living souls, such importance? =20
You wrote: "God did not shape Adam as a potter forms the clay, but =
formed him in
his mother's womb and then called him as an adult and filled him with
his spirit for a specific assignment among the preadamites." But aren't =
you doing considerable violence to the clear meaning of the text? What =
justifies rejecting a literal meaning here when you're taking such pains =
to be literal elsewhere? =20
You wrote: "If Adam hadn't sinned, what would God have
done? I think this is an inappropriate and useless question; the bible
never considers it." Yes, but if one wants to take the text literally, =
one must take the Tree of Life literally and its potential consequences. =
So while I agree that the question is theologically useless, it's not =
inappropriate. The question is appropriate for making the point that =
the text is not to be taken literally, and that myth is a good solution. =
=20
You wrote: "The great problem I see with considering them [Genesis =
creation accounts] modified myths is how
to distinguish gold from straw. What is inspired, what is not?" It's =
all inspired, but "inspired" in this case means true to what God wanted =
people to get out of the story at that time, and not true in perhaps any =
other way. Like it or not, we all must continuously decide as we read =
in what sense the biblical words are to be understood. Furthermore, =
those myths probably weren't pagan. They could have originated with =
Abraham, as he certainly did not subscribe to the local polytheistic =
myths as he received them. =20
You wrote: "The OT does sometimes picture God as husband (or father) to =
Israel, but
in the NT, it's Jesus who is the bridegroom to the Church as his bride,
whereas God is consistently referred to as our Father." Granted; in NT =
times God was the Father and Christ was the husband. That was a =
perspective constrained by the historical proximity of God the Son. =20
It's now 2000 years later, a lot has happened, but one thing that has =
not happened is the second coming of Christ. This means God had =
objectives other than just a quick consummation of history in Christ. =
It is then quite natural for God to have reassumed his OT role as =
husband of more than one earthly wife, the wives in this case being =
something like the various branches of Christianity. The future bride =
of Christ will be the unified organism comprising the individual humans =
that make up the various wives of God. The various branches of =
Christianity these days are far from united and thus are more =
realistically seen on Earth as several distinct organisms than as a =
single bride of Christ. =20
This idea in combination with the natural fit to scientific =
interpretations of the world makes God as husband truly a compelling =
theological thesis. The fit to science is good because, if God seeks a =
wife, he would want her to come into existence as independently from =
himself as possible--hence the lengthy and apparently unguided processes =
of creation. The problem of evil also disappears because God's priority =
is to create a "person" independent of any obvious attempts to shape =
her--hence her need to be subject to the laws of the world, which =
include natural catastrophes. As a rule the creation of an independent =
wife has higher priority for God than the physical welfare of any =
individual or group. =20
After living many decades with these ideas I find them so compatible =
with God, history, science and general observations of the world that I =
feel they'll eventually become widely accepted, the more so as the time =
until Christ's second coming grows. =20
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 02:37:56 EDT