RE: A Third Method of Apology

This has a response to George and to Dick.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 12:31 PM
To: ASA; Dick Fischer
Subject: Re: A Third Method of Apology

>Why in the world does apologetics have to focus on Genesis 1 - 11?

Because of the YECs, that is why. You can claim that it shouldn't be so,
but regardless of whether or not you are right on that narrow issue, the
YECs, make it important to deal with this area in a way that makes sense
to them.

>Besides, the description below of the "liberal" method of
interpretation (where I suppose people would try to group me) is
>inaccurate at several points. (E.g., why would a "liberal" use the
NIV, which waffles with its rendition of raqia` as
>"expanse"?)

I agree with you about the inaccuracy. Why is the only alternative Dick
mention's Dick's approach, which the YECs, at least will say doen'st
allow for the truth of the Eve account.

Dick wrote of his method:

>1. Genesis 1-11 is considered the factual history of the Semites, not
the entire human race.

I have posted this earlir:
The problem I see is that this creates two classes of people-the Semites
(Jews and Arabs) who are descended from Adam with the image of God and
others who don't have it. This creates weird situations like my family
in which my wife and children would be descendents of Adam and have the
image of God, and I wouldn't. (My wife occasionally thinks this may be
true when she see some of the stuff I do) But at root, such a view in my
mind could encourage racism. In fairness to Dick, whom I like, he would
deny this. But given what humans do with racial differences, I think it
is a valid worry.

>2. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is preferred using sound,
consistent exegesis, and mindful of archaic Hebrew
>language.

Dick, I wouldn't say that your interp is literal in the sense that it
can't account for the order of animals in the fossil record matching the
order of the account. Since you think the account is in history, as
opposed to the view I hold that it is the pre-planning of the
univers--before time, it means that you fail the concordance test.
Without concordance, it can't be literal.

>3. Scripture is inerrant in the autographs, but suffers currently from
errors in transmission, translation, and
>interpretation.

Any time the Bible differs from the Gilgamesh Epic, you select the GE as
the correct account. That bothers me.

>4. KJV is preferred, though needs revision in light of historical
evidence.

We know so much more about the Hebrew language than we did in King
Jimmies time, but you still want to use that translation in to an
archaic english whose word connotations, we don't understand sometimes.

>5. The "days" of creation are seen as days of God's time, not man's
time.

Sure wish someone would match those days to the actual geologic column.
No day-age approach, which is what I would call your God-days will do
it.

>6. Adam is considered to be the federal head of the human race, the
biological head of the Semitic race, and the first to
>receive God's covenant.

Does not explain religious monuments going back to at least 425,000
years ago. Your post caused me to put out a preliminary version of my
page on ancient religion. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm It
mentions you Dick. :-)

>7. Faith alone has proved insufficient for understanding.

>8. Scripture can be clarified by Scripture, and Bible interpreters
should consider revelations of modern science and
>ancient history.

How about the modern discoveries of anthropology outlined on my religion
page, or are they excluded?

>9. Impartial, unbiased data and evidence should guide us in
formulating theories of understanding, both theological and
>scientific.

It is amazing how often the word impartial is bandied around by people
who won't pay attention to anthropological data, Dick.

>10. Scientific theories are best left to credentialed scientists, and
modern science poses no threat to Genesis 1-11,
>correctly interpreted.

How about the science of hydrodynamics? Your view of the flood requires
a wall of water 3000 feet high at the southern end of Iraq, or,
superhuman pushing by humans to move the ark upstream against a flood.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm or
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/physmeso.htm

>Again, what do you think? Please realize that I have compiled a wealth
of historical data to support this method.

I think you need to pay attention to anthropology and quit trying to
twist it to fit your pet theory.
Received on Sun Aug 8 19:02:35 2004