Dave Probert wrote to Denis Lamoureux and commented on my questions:
> Hi Denis -
>
> I wanted to comment on something you said to Russ. It is an
> observation related to the meta-discussion you are having with him.
>
> > If only the Lord would have sent a Holy Spirit
> > inspired commentary for us along with His Word!!!
>
> He did (e.g. Deut 8:2-6, Ezek 20:5-48, Ps 78, 105, 106 on Exodus,
> Romans/Hebrews on the Law).
>
> But as Ezekiel observed in 20:49
>
> Then I said, "Ah Lord God! They are saying of me,
> 'Is he not {just} speaking parables?'"
>
> we don't always understand what the commentary means either.
>
> I think the problem is that we start with assumptions that keep us from
> asking the right questions. The Bible is full of answers to questions
> we didn't figure out to ask (yet). It doesn't seem to answer a lot of
> the questions that *we* think are important (such as some that Russ is
> asking -- sorry Russ).
>
> An interesting study is to go through the Scriptures and identify
> the questions that get asked (e.g. Luke 13). Then consider *why*
> they are being asked, and why they were important enough to be
> recorded.
>
> I started to understand Paul better when I tried to figure out
> what questions he was answering in his epistles. Without an idea
> of the questions, his answers just seem to flit from topic to topic,
> like they were some kind of ecstatic utterance.
>
> It seems to me that most communication can be understood as having
> two flavors. Records of observations and answers to (sometimes
> implicit) questions. Or both.
> [Miriam in Exo 15:21, James 1:5-8, John 3:16]
>
> --
> Dave
Dave, I agree that we must read Scripture for what it says and how
it says it. So in a way we are pretty much on the same track. Yet it
would be wrong to divorce Scripture from history. God did enter into
history in many ways, most especially when he himself became human.
The events recorded in biblical history are part of world history,
and therefore we do have a right to ask how the biblically-recorded
events relate to historical events not recorded in the Bible. For example,
it would be incorrect to write a history of the Middle East without
including an account of a nation that had six hundred thousand fighting
men which crossed, and was miraculously provided for, in a desert for
forty years.
Jesus's body, which existed in historical time, was real and human.
I see no reason for not asking questions about that body. I have suggested
that he had a Y chromosome and that that chromosone either did or did
not share the characteristics of the Y chromosome of other males who
lived at that time. If it did, then it would have pointed to descent
from a single very ancient male, even though in fact he did not have
a human father and did not descend from that ancient male. If his Y
chromosome did not share the characteristics of contemporary males,
then there was a physical difference between the body of this human
being and other human beings.
I think, as I have said, that the second possibility is not to be chosen.
But in any case we should see that in relatding biblical and secular
history we are faced with those two alternatives. As I said, I opt for
the first, which leads me to conclude that God created a chromosome
which looked like it descended from another created being, but actually
did not. Then, if God did that once, he could have done it another
time.
In Christ,
Russ
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:
Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE
Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421