Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

David -

Your last sentence with its request caught me unawares since I'm not an historian. Of course I recognize the importance of historical questions &, specifically, attempts to understand what was in the minds of people of antiquity as they tried to figure things out but that's not my primary focus or expertise. Historians of science would be able to give better & more up to date guidance on "ancient science." I would just note that most general histories of science will start with antiquity - e.g., David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (U. of Chicago, 1992), Different authors will, however, differ in how much attention they give simply to the results of ancient science in comparison with attempts to understand how people of antiquity actually thought about these matters. & our modern category of "science" can't be disentangled in antiquity from philosophy, theology & often folklore so it's not a straightforward task. That's even more the case with "ancient theology." One could, e.g., look at volumes with titles like Old Testament Theology (e.g., the 2 volumes of von Rad's work by that name) but while these do try to see what the writers of the OT were thinking of, they are also looking at the OT as a whole & trying to make sense of it from a present-day standpoint. That becomes very explicit in something like Brevard Childs Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. The best thing I can suggest for the theology of the writers of Genesis would be to look at a good critical commentary on Genesis - again von Rad or Westermann's Genesis 1-11 and follow along as they try to sort out the "ancient theology", "ancient science" &c. But of course a lot depends on what commentary you use, which is why I advised a "critical" one. While a pre-critical commentary on Gen.1-3 may have a good deal of value for some purposes, it will cause more problems than it solves when it comes to trying to distinguish the theology from the history, science &c precisely because of the conflation that Denis talks about.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>; "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>; "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

> And here is where the core theological issue emerges - the meaning of "the
> gospel." The gospel is fundamentally the person and work of Jesus Christ,
> through whom & for whom all things were created & by whose cross the world
> wll things are reconciled to God. All the other aspects of theology - how
> sin got started &c - are interesting and important but they are not the
> gospel. The failure to realize &/or appreciate this leads to an appalling
> over-emphasis on secondary issues as if they, rather than Christ, were the
> article by which the church stands or falls. And the failure of churches to
> keep Christ front and center has led to a loss of faith of far too many
> Christians - I suspect Bernie is one example though I don't know enough of
> his personal history to say for sure - when they find out that they've been
> misled &/or mistaken about what is really a peripheral matter.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood. Creation is important, law is important,
> and the Old Testament is important. But any theology in which christology
> is seen as just one more doctrine alongside those other matters is seriously
> defective. Those whose faith is limited to acceptance of some propositions
> found in a supposedly inerrant book are riding for a fall.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>; "Jim Armstrong"
> <jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>
>
>> Gen 1 is definitely less controversial than Gen 2ff. The same reasoning
>> that applies to Gen 1 when applied to Gen 2-3 yields a view that many
>> Christians are not willing to accept because of what is perceived to be
>> at stake: the gospel itself.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> That is interesting. I have been doing a long study on the history of
>>> Genesis interpretations and have focused mostly on Gen ! (paper
>>> published in Geol Soc of London spec publication). In a sense it is the
>>> least controversial part.
>>>
>>> If you take Buffon in the 18 century, the controversy he caused was over
>>> the historicity of the Flood not geological time. Most miss that. Even
>>> RC priests J Needham were arguing for millions of years in the 1760s and
>>> getting imprimaturs!
>>>
>>> Gen 2-3 are more challenging,
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
>>> To: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
>>> Cc: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>
>>>
>>>> Denis,
>>>>
>>>> This is my main criticism of John Walton, too. I think he is doing
>>>> marvelous work helping people who are struggling with the implications
>>>> of Gen 1. I will likely see him at SBL in November, and I hope to ask
>>>> him whether he intends to continue he work into Gen 2-3.
>>>>
>>>> I also am not entirely convinced of his material/function distinction,
>>>> but it is certainly valuable to consider.
>>>>
>>>> Pete Enns
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jim,
>>>>> It's easy for Walton to use his "it ain't about material origins,
>>>>> but functional origins" in Gen 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> But did you notice something? HE STOPS AT GEN 1.
>>>>> Why doesn't he use his thesis on Gen 2 and Adam?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask him if he thinks Gen 2 is historical? He works at
>>>>> Wheaton College, and if he says there is no HISTORICAL
>>>>> Adam, then he's gone . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> D
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>
>>>>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:19 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you are dead on. John Walton, OT scholar from Wheaton
>>>>>> presented a lecture for Canyon Institute for Advanced Studies in
>>>>>> Phoenix in 2006 titled, "Reading Genesis with 1 with Ancient Eyes:
>>>>>> What Does it Mean to Create?" In it, he discussed at some length
>>>>>> this matter of ancient perspective, and I believe he would agree
>>>>>> entirely with your surmise that the division implicit in those the
>>>>>> two words would be incomprehensible to those ancient eyes. Science
>>>>>> had neither defined nor differentiated itself in those days. Nor did
>>>>>> they did not think in material terms per se, instead understanding
>>>>>> everything as a part of God's presence and activity in the world.
>>>>>> Walton mentions that "miracle" is a New Testament word, things that
>>>>>> denote some departure from what nature has the capacity to do in the
>>>>>> material world. In contrast, the OT terms are signs and wonders, and
>>>>>> distinctly (he says) not about shuffling material things about,
>>>>>> again because those ancient eyes and hearts (a western term) do not
>>>>>> have a framework at all like western material-based terminology and
>>>>>> explanation. He suggested our traditional way of interpreting much of
>>>>>> Gen. 1, for example, would fall on the ancient ears about as well as
>>>>>> an explanation of daylight saving time.
>>>>>> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>>>>>> Murray Hogg wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 30 08:33:33 2009