It appears, mon frere (that's the extent of my French) that we are closer than
either of us once supposed!
<< Gen 1 for me is without question
completely and utterly the Word of God, but it is as G.E. Ladd says--"The
Word of God in the words of men." The propositional revelation, our
Scriptures, is akin to the ultimate revelation, our Lord and Saviour . .
. it is both fully divine and fully human . . . >>
I agree with Ladd (and Bloesch & Pinnock, I might add). The tough part is in
the "unpackaging."
<<My concern with the concordist hermeneutic is its overemphasis on the
divine aspect of Gen 1. That is all. >>
I'm not sure what you mean by "overemphasis on the divine aspect." Would you
clarify, please?
<< But as the Hebrew text
stands, there is more reason to believe a dualism is set up than not.
[Remember, I am now talking of the TEXT as an independent phenomenon, as an
entity that has its own life independent of authorial intentionality.]
However, I would say this is intellectual "statistical noise" due to the
fact that it is not part of the INTENTIONALITY of the author, which of
course is intimately related to his epistemology (which I argue does not
have the CXN "software package").>>
Here I have a little trouble (and what is this reflector without a little
trouble?) I think the Hebrew mind was fully aware of dualism--and rejected it!
The entire OT is a rejection of dualism. The implications of dualism are dire,
and the author of Genesis 1 (not to mention the Ultimate Author) would have
been quite aware of this. So I think there is more reason to reject dualism
than not.
Imagine it this way. You're communicating to the chosen people about the One
God, I Am. You want to leave the impression there's another "one" of them
around? Not likely.
Gen. 1:1 is truly the beginning, of revelation. As it unfolds, we learn more,
all the way up to the NT. So 1:1 does not, as I see, set up any potential
contradiction. It'd be a pretty sloppy revelation if it did!
<<Jim, if you were God and you wanted to reveal within the intellectual
context of your prophets how would you get across the notion of CXN to
them if they just did not have the "CXN software package" as part of their
intellectual horizon at that point in history? >>
I'd do it the way I did the rest of progressive revelation. I would not set up
any contradictory impression. (Gee, this is nice, putting on the Deity robes.
Just as quickly, off they come).
Jim