----- Original Message -----
From: George Cooper
To: George Murphy
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
In the case of Genesis 1, the internal evidence shows that both it & Genesis 2 cannot be read as straight historical-scientific narrative without forcing.
Yes. Yet, even the allegorical path does not allow a flow through Genesis 1 & 2 without some viscosity.
The external evidence shows that Genesis 1 is not in accord with modern scientific accounts of the origin of the universe or living things.
Largely due to nourishment from science, there may yet be an interpretation where science is in accord with a literal view. But, if I present it now, it would detract from this groups current discussion. At some point, I would appreciate the privlege of presenting some of its merits.
Helio
PS: I will try to not send duplicate emails in the future. My forum habits are getting in my way.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: Iain Strachan
Cc: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; WENDEE HOLTCAMP ; George Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
To be "perfectly clear" - I was not playing the "if we can't believe Genesis (or Jonah, or the floating ax), we how can we believe the resurrection" card. I was distinguishing between the meaning of an event & of a text. The resurrection was simply 1 example.
But to the question "If Genesis 1 isn't literally true, what about X, Y or Z?" 1st, one ought to read the texts themselves with care and in the larger biblical context & try to determine whether they can consistently be read as historical narratives without special pleading, or if it seems more reasonable (again in context) to read them in another way. 2d, one ought to look at relevant historical & scientific evidence to see if there are reasons pro or con for reading them as accounts of things that really happened. I.e., we should look at evidence both within & outside scripture - internal & external evidence. In the case of Genesis 1, the internal evidence shows that both it & Genesis 2 cannot be read as straight historical-scientific narrative without forcing. The external evidence shows that Genesis 1 is not in accord with modern scientific accounts of the origin of the universe or living things.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Iain Strachan
To: George Murphy
Cc: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; WENDEE HOLTCAMP ; George Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
Yes, clearly care is needed. I think the repeated comment that comes back when I try to debate with YEC's is "where do you draw the line between what's allegorical and what's literal history?". E.G. if Genesis 1 isn't "true" (in the literal sense) what else isn't true, e.g. Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus etc where do you draw the line? I'm never sure how best to answer these worries.
But meanwhile .. we do things every day that mean something different from the literal truth. When I click the send button it means that the mail will be delivered. But that's not literally what happened - I clicked the mouse button, the same one I'd click if (in the metaphorical sense) I'd clicked the Send or the Discard button (with different meanings).
So "Clicked the Send button" is much more meaningful than "Clicked the mouse button", and easier to understand than "Clicked the mouse button when a pattern on the screen resembling and arrow moved over an area on the screen resembling a button with the word "Send" written on it.
Iain
On 7/27/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
Iain -
There's a good deal of truth in what you say but care is needed. There's a big difference between saying (e.g.) that the resurrection of Jesus "means X" and saying "the accounts of the Easter appearances and the empty tomb mean X." The former makes sense if the resurrection is something that actually happened, but if it didn't then it's vacuous to say that it "means" anything. OTOH the stories can have a meaning even if they are not historical accounts.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Iain Strachan
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; WENDEE HOLTCAMP ; George Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
A good (evangelical) friend of mine who is a lay preacher made the point to me that the word "myth" nowadays has negative connotations, implying just a made up fairy story. However the use of myths is to illustrate spiritual truths, rather than mere history. In other words, to state that the creation accounts are allegorical (and mythical) makes them MORE meaningful than mere history. However, in modern parlance the word "myth" just means "lie" ( e.g. how many times have you seen "10 myths about <xyz> debunked"). When understood properly, a mythical status of an account makes int more important.
I'm also reminded of an industrial chaplain who used to visit a Christian group I attended, who said "in Jewish tradition, the important question is not 'did it happen?', but 'what does it mean?'". On reflection that seems to me to be the wisest thing I've heard on this whole debate.
Iain
On 7/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com < drsyme@cablespeed.com > wrote:
What a fascinating sentence that is, probably more interesting than you intended.
First of all, what is the "traditional" view? I agree that there are some interpretations of Genesis that are in conflict with science, but I am not sure how traditional they are. And those who hold those views would consider it anathema to "reinterpret" Genesis because it conflicts with science. Those that hold this view would consider the science flawed, and scripture as the only source of truth.
Second, you used the word framework. Whether you realize it or not, there is a biblical interpretation titled the "framework" view. It sees Genesis more figuratively, but not as a fairly tale, and it does not conflict with science. If you are not familiar with it the leading authors of this view are Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, among others.
On Fri Jul 27 9:18 , "George Cooper" sent:
Since the traditionally viewed framework of Genesis is now in conflict with science, reinterpretation is required. People who see it as a fairy tale will certainly have little reason to take it seriously.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
--
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
--
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 13:36:37 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 27 2007 - 13:36:37 EDT