Re: Genesis Truth
michael farley (mifarley@indiana.edu)
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:37:31 -0500 (EST)OK, Jim. If there is no either/or concerning the
historical/allegorical nature of Genesis, then could you plese restate
the difference between your position and Glenn's position? In light of
your last post, I understand you to be advocating the view that the early
chapters of Genesis are historical but in a non-literal sense. Is that
correct? I have heard this argument (Peter Kreeft argues this in his
Handbook of Christian Apologetics) but I fail to see what is meant by
this.
I will take Francis Schaeffer's approach to try to flesh out our
differences. Do you believe that Genesis 12-50 is historical, and by
historical I mean that if you had been at Sodom and Gomorrah you would
have seen the destruction of the cities exactly as Genesis describes, you
would have seen a man named Abraham go to Mount Moriah to sacrifice his
son, you would have seen a baby boy born to couple nearly 100 years old,
you would have seen Joseph betrayed by his brothers and become
second-in-command to Pharaoh, etc. etc.? Ss (Schaeffer used to distinguish
his meaning of historical by saying that if you had been in Jerusalem at
the time of Christ's death you could have walked up to the cross and
gotten a splinter in your finger from it.) If you do accept Genesis 12-50
as historical in this sense, then why do you not take such an appraoch to
Genesis 1-11? What textual evidence warrants such an interpretive shift?
Mike Farley
Indiana University