Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Dear Murray,
A nice question, but I deal with it by using the qualifying
term "ancient" in both cases (ancient science & ancient history).

If you want to use this anachronism argument, then don't use the
term "theology" when referring to the Bible because the inspired
writers didn't have this category.

So, are these terms foreign to the Text? Yes. But they are helpful
for understanding the Scriptures. It's like the terms Incarnation and
Trinity. Not in the Text, but heuristic devices.

The ancients asked: Where did the heavens come from? Though
they didn't "stand on the shoulders of giants" like us, they were
still asking questions about the physical world--and using the
term "ancient science" is judicious.

Same with the origins of peoples, including the Hebrews. Gen 1-11
is an ancient understanding of where people came from. Thus,
an ancient understanding of history--or ancient history.

BTW, I'm not the first to say this. Check out Kent Sparks' book
on ANE texts.

Hope this makes sense.

Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

> Hi Denis,
>
> I actually wonder if using the terms "science" and "history" in this
> context isn't - in the end analysis - anachronistic.
>
> I'd offer the observation that what "pre-modern" societies do is tell
> stories - they don't do "science", and they don't record "history". And if
> one can escape the need to force Genesis into either category, then the
> result is very liberating. One can even begin to read Genesis
> theologically as per the entire point of the narrative!
>
> Here I think much benefit might be gained from a familiarity with the
> field of ethnohistory - which discipline gives some interesting insights
> into the way non-Western and pre-modern societies deal with their past.
> It's on my list of subjects to get around to "one day."
>
> Actually, as I think about it, this might be more or less another way of
> putting your entreaty of "Separate, don't conflate", viz; if one can
> discriminate between "history", "science", and "story" -- where "story" is
> a way of conveying meaning (theological meaning in the case of Genesis) --
> then one is, I think, well on the way to resolving the "problem" which
> arises in light of our modernist inability to see that there is more than
> one way of conveying spiritual truth.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>> Dear Bernie,
>> You are a scrapper my friend!
>>
>> You write:
>>> Ancient theological idea:
>>> Adam was the first human to sin.
>>>
>>> This statement is nothing but theology
>>
>> NOT true. It's ancient science (creation
>> and existence of Adam) delivering an inerrant
>> and Holy Spirit-inspired theology (sin is
>> very real and humans are sinners).
>>
>> Bernie: Separate, Don't Conflate!
>>
>> Best,
>> Denis
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 29 12:34:37 2009