Denis writes:
>>On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 GRMorton@aol.com wrote:<<
Did this message get to you by dog sled? It had been so long I thought it
hadn't made it? :-)
Denis wrote:
>> Translated into English, Gen 1:1 is "When God
began to create the heavens and the earth." (This verse drove Karl Barth
to hermeneutical madness and you should consider reading his wild
eisegesis--and if you do, ask yourself the question: "Did Hebrew shepherds
really think with the intellectual categories Barth is suggesting?"<<
I think here is a place to escape the eisegetical net you are trying to trap
me with. I agree that the shepherds were not thinking in Barthian terms
(whatever those terms were). Nor were they thinking in the terms of my poor
eisegetical viewpoint. I will admit that . But IF God inspired the message
of the Scripture then why could he not plan for them to see the Scripture
with their understanding and us with ours. 2 Tim 3:16 states, "All Scripture
is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness."
What does God-breathed mean? If it doesn't mean something which includes
fidelity of message, truthfulness etc,, then I am not sure that
"God-breathed" means anything useful. Is God unable to inspire a message
which can be understood as historically truthful by two different cultures?
I keep coming back to the question: Why couldn't God simply have said "I
commanded the earth to produce the animals" which can be understood as God
creating life by their culture and understood as an evolution of life forms
on our part? (Come to think of it, that is exactly what God said! He said:
"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:..." Genesis
1:24) This type of statement can be viewed as God zapping life into
existence by the shepherds of ancient Israel and understood as God producing
life via evolution by our culture. And whatever science produces in the
future, the future peoples can understand it according to the advanced
science they have. If God is so omniscient why can He not foresee that this
problem would arise and adjust His message accordingly?
You write:
>>Historicity is a function of our epistemological horizon. And when we
look at Gen 1:1 we must "defuse" our 20th century epistemological
"package" and ask questions relative to that of the author. Gen 1:1 is
certainly "historical" within the hermeneutical horizon of the author. <<
This one I really don't quite understand. There seems to be a logical
contradiction in here somewhere. Let's see if I can express it correctly.
You seem to be arguing that we should look at what the author intended and I
agree with that. So here the we all agree that the author intended Genesis
1:1 to be history, so why isn't it? I know you wouldn't advocate this but
your argument has the appearance of saying that we should look at what the
author intended and use that as its meaning except when we don't think
science supports it. (I know this is an old YEC argument and I am sure you
have seen it before).
The language "When God began to create the heavens and the earth" fits quite
nicely within the days of proclamation view I advocate, t. I view Genesis 1
not as the actual creation but the planning and proclamation of the laws of
nature.
You write:
>>But more importantly Gen 1:1 is a metaphysical statement about the
ontological reality of the universe--God is its Creator. Yet the notions
of "creator" and "creature" are colored by the intellectual furniture of
the writer. As a result, because our cosmological context has since
shifted (yes, as even testified by the NT itself!) we are forced to do
the dissection between cosmological and ontological statements.<<
I agree that the cosmological context is different. If I say "Lightning
destroyed that tree" it is a true (ontological) statement. If translated
into Latin "Fulmen destruat arbor" [If I blew the translation it has been
about 25 years since I studied Latin] it could be understood by any ancient
Roman who knew nothing about electrons. It is a true statement in both
cultures. I know that the wind moves electrons and eventually the charge
between the cloud and the ground becomes so great that the insulating
properties of air are insufficient to prevent an electrical discharge. I
know that when the electricity travels through the tree, the water is
vaporized and the tree explodes from inside. Romans knew none of that. But
the simple statement "Lightning destroyed that tree" is still true. If I can
do this for lightning strikes, why can't God do it for creation? Surely you
will not ascribe to me more power to convey a message than God?
Denis wrote:
>>Look it Glenn, I shouldn't have to convince you that Gen 1 is not literal
history--after all you are an evolutionist just like me. <<
Well, not quite like you. :-)
Denis wrote:
>> So there are two levels of understanding with regard to the
"historicity" of Genesis 1:
(1) As literal VCR history--which correct me if I am wrong seems to be
your position with regard to Gen 1:1, but then interestingly you appear
to shift hermeneutical programs for the rest of the chapter.<<
Yep. That is somewhat akin to my position as long as it is not taken to mean
that I ascribe to the ICR type of interpretation. I believe that Genesis 1
is a historical event but it may have occurred prior to the foundation of the
universe itself. Thus it may not be temporal history.
As to shifting hermeneutical approach in that first chapter, I am a shifty
sort of fellow. :-) I freely confess that I am not a great theologian. I
fully admit that you are a much better theologian. While it may take me
another 15 years to get my hermeneutics corrected, at this point I see no
way to answer the questions I asked above other than by moving Genesis 1 to
the very beginning of the universe or to the time just prior to its creation.
I do not feel constrained (maybe I should) to only understand God and his
relation to the earth in the manner in which the ancient Hebrews thought.
But I do feel constrained not to have God be impotent to convey a truthful
statement to mankind about the origins of the universe. Don't get me wrong,
original intent is important, but I don't think it is necessarily the end
all. Abraham believed a true statement that "In his seed all the nations
would be blest", but he had no inkling of what was to come. He obviously knew
it involved a sacrifice of an ancestor but he didn't know the means. If he
had, he would have nailed Isaac to a cross. As it was he hog tied and laid
the kid out on an altar. His lack of knowledge should not limit future
generations from saying, "Oh Christ's death on the cross is what that
promise meant" Their "theological context" had shifted.
Denis wrote:
>> (2) As metaphysical history--that is, it is ANE cosomological science
that carries a metaphysical/historical assertion. It is not literally
true as asserted by the ANE science, but it is true in its ontological
sense in that the universe is a created reality, an entity necessarily
requiring God for its very existence. The actual history of the
event/act/method of creating is not the thrust of the text, or the
intentionality of the its Inspirer, the Holy Spirit.<<
Logically, if the universe was created by God, then it follows that Genesis
1:1 IS history. The temporal clause "When God began to create the heavens
and the earth" is true. I agree that the means of this creation are not
discussed. But like Abraham's promise, future generations can look at the
creation and say "Oh, that is what was meant" It can be understood as
historically true by anyone in any time.
You wrote:
>>As Gen 1:1 stands, it is not possible to regard it as "literal VCR history"
because there is a watery chaotic earth in place before the beginning of
God's creative activity--and that is why I baited you with the question
regarding the Hebrew grammar.<<
I was afraid you might hit me with this one. It is shall we
say...problematical unless one can view the sea of eisegetical quarks at the
beginning as a chaotic fluid... Oh never mind. You have a good objection
here.
I do have a favor to ask. Since it is so cold up there, can you turn your
thermostat up a couple of degrees? We poor oil men down here need you
Canadians to burn up all the heating oil and natural gas that you can. We
need better prices for our products. Thank you.
glenn