I wrote:
>> So the question
> really lies in what is Genesis 1 saying. Is it merely stating the
> "createdness quotient" or is it saying something historical?
You replied:
>>Both. The metaphysic (which of course, is the THEOLOGY) is the
REVELATION, the historical is the ANE cosmology which has since been
superceded by a better cosmology (as is characteristic of all cosmology or
science). (Do realize that HISTORY is a function of the epistemological
framework of the historian. Or if you wish, the technological state of
the VCR being used.) Thus Gen 1 is an ANE scientific 'vehicle' upon which
a theology is carried, all of which was put together under the supervision
and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.<<
If I am not misunderstanding you, I think we can agree here. (OH NO,
AGREEMENT IS SO BORING) :-) I have no problem with metaphysical meaning
contained in the accounts of Genesis 1-11. Nor do I have a problem with the
carrier wave, so to speak, being the ANE language. Everybody is stuck with
their language. As I mentioned a few months ago,modern astronomers speak of
the celestial sphere, poles, sunrise, sun set, moonrise and moonset etc. All
those terms are Ptolemaic in origin. What I want (and may never get) is that
there be some way to look at Genesis 1-11 which allows the historical (VCR)
to be true also. If it is not, that is where I have trouble due to the
variation on Lactantius' argument.
You wrote:
>>gm> I agree that the writer was probably saying different things on
different levels. He was saying something that the VCR could pick up.
But who's VCR? His not ours.<<
Not necessarily. Consider this. Whatever means God used to create the world
whether as an engineer designing the Big Bang or as a magician popping it
into existence in an instant, God used only one method. He did not use two
contradictory methods.Whatever that method was is what I hope the VCR would
pick up. If I am wrong today in what I expect the VCR to see I hope to be
corrected tomorrow. To me the important thing is not whose VCR but does the
VCR pick up what ACTUALLY happened. While you and I certainly messed up in
our view of what the VCR should pick up when we were YEC's that does not mean
that there is no VCR type of info to pick up.
You wrote:
>>We disagree. I am most concerned about the metaphsyic (theology). I
certainly appreciate your intense apologetic spirit, but this text is not
going to help you. Just look at the "order of the creation
events"--you've got plants before the sun. That makes no evolutionary
sense my evolutionary brother.<<
I agree. That is why I think Hayward's Days of Proclamation is the only
solution for this difficulty. Hayward made a mistake in placing the days of
proclamation just prior to the creation of the Earth. I think it makes more
sense to place them just prior to the beginning of the universe. It avoids
all these nasty temporal problems. It makes Genesis 1 be the planning stage,
most of which is complete by the time Gensis 2 opens.
You wrote:
>>Oh, you are right here, in principle. But I would argue that we both
know the YEC exegesis fails the scientific record, I would then argue
that your concordism fails the scientific record, and thus what are we
left with? The metaphysic. And I cannot help but wonder if God set it
up this way for us in time to peel away the cosmology over time to find
the core of the message, which being is that God is the Creator.<<
There must be a delay of time between when I send notes to the reflector and
when you get them. I sent a rather detailed description of the Days of
Proclamation to you a couple of days ago. My exegeses (or eisegesis) is not
the YEC one. Not in any way shape or form do I agree that Genesis 1 is God
said; God immediately created. I view it as God said: God set a process in
motion. This is a whole lot different.
You wrote:
>> Nevertheless, I would love to see Gen 1 steeped in historical
reality that we could find in the rocks. But it just does not stand.<<
Since a couple of days ago, you implied that you had not heard of the Days of
Proclamation theory and I have not yet seen a response to it from you, I
would love to get your erudite criticism from you. I think I have found
something that allows Genesis to be historical--the biggest problem is that
it requires evolution which most YEC's don't like thinking that it is more
important for evolution to be wrong than for the Bible to be historical.
What do you think of the Days of Proclamation view?
You wrote:
>>"Truth must be objective"--Does the Good Samaritan have to be a
historical reality for truth to be imparted by his story?
Look it Glenn. I absolutely share with you the intense desire to provide
an apologetic for the faith that will knock the socks of people. I would
love for YEC to work. But that is not what science has shown both of
us. In my theological voyage I found the same occurred for PC. So it
forced me to adjust the apologetic--again, that is exegesis. I have to
work with what God has given me for ammunition, not what I would like to
have as amo. Besides, we've got a ton of design arguments out there
waiting to be put in the service of the Lord. And if there is one thing
science is doing over time is showing how incredibly design nature is. <<
I fully agree with you here. Science shows design, YEC does not work, and I
stand corrected, (partly) the Good Samaritan does not have to be an actual
fellow for a truth to be imparted. But when I asked if there was anyone who
believed that Genesis 1:1 was not literal history you said it wasn't. I
respect your opinion and vast theological knowledge which is much greater
than mine by a mile, but if Genesis 1:1 is not a historical statement then
there is no point in any of us wasting our time here.
I think the major difference between us is epistemological not really
hermeneutical. I am willing to go with what I view as objective reality.
This means that if I come to the point that I believe that the Bible is not
objective reality, then I will reject it. This epistemological difference is
such that I have real problems seeing why I should believe something which 1.
does not tell me the factual case of creation, 2. does not tell me the
factual case about the farming capabilities of early man 3. does not tell me
the truth about the life spans (assuming the years in Genesis 5 are not
really months like the Egyptian calendar) 4. Does not tell me the factual
case about the Flood, 5. Does not tell me the factual case concerning the
Tower of Babel. 6. Does not tell me the factual case about the origin of
sin. And 7, most importantly, does not tell me a factual story of the
resurrection and the payment for sin.
It just seems contradictory to believe that something so false factually is a
Good Book.
The reason for this is that this seems to be a crucial test of whether or not
this document is inspired by God. When you opened the mouth of that tadpole
and saw what you saw, you obviously had performed a crucial test of someone's
theory and it was found wanting. If I can really trust God, then I can do
the same here. If He is really God, then He should be able to stand up to
the test. I don't think the YEC's really trust God because they are afraid
to test what they think against the hard, cruel data.
You wrote:
>>I agree and appreciate your intellectual tension. But the answer is
practice. Look it, there are things you could show me about rocks, and I
would just shake my head wondering how you ever came up with such a
claim--but it would be second nature for you. That's what use to
kill me about literary scholars--Gen 1 just did not seem like history for
them, and I just "couldn't get it." But looking back that made sense,
for the only literature I was ever exposed to were multiple choice exams
in dental school, the sports page, and writing prescriptions for Pen V and
Tylenol #3--and I am not exaggerating. <<
I fully admit that my exposure to Hebrew literature is very limited. And you
may be correct (probably are) about how the Hebrews thought and their view of
reality. But I know logic. I also know that somehow God created the world
by means of process X. Whatever process X is is what I expect God to tell me
if He wants me to beleive His word. For Him to do otherwise raises all those
character issues which I have not seen you attempt to tackle and show me
where I am wrong logically.
I wrote:
>>> Well, I too may be very very wrong here. I may be doing nothing short of
perpetuating the major YEC problem of insistence on some form of VCR
history.<<
You replied:
>>Gently and respectfully, yes you are. The epistemology of your
hermeneutic is indeed that--you got it.<<
You don't have to be gentle at all. I know exactly what my epistemology
leads me to. The entire crisis of faith I underwent was due to this
epistemology. It is the same epistemology I use in science. I just wish you
would analyse the 4 possibilities of why God would not give us a correct
message which I told you was my main stumbling block to your view point and
then comment on the Days of Proclamation view.
You wrote:
>>The issue is making you aware
that you are indeed a theologian and are making hermeneutical decisions
(WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT) everytime you read God's Word. All I am
doing is saying, "Fine Glenn, you approach the Text in such and such a
manner, justify the hermeneutical package you are employing."<<
I am trying to justify it based upon the logic that an erroneous message can
be given by any erroneous religion. Only the correct religion can give the
correct, message about origins. I also see so much subjectivity to the
hermeneutic you offer that I wonder if it really proves anything. That much
subjectivity in the work of a geophysicist who reported to me would be cause
for dismissal.
I wrote:
>>> Seriously, you are correct we all do a dance on this issue. But the
dance
> which removes history from Genesis 1-11 seems to do more harm than good.
But
> the dance the YEC's do may actually do even more harm. They make one
refuse
> to believe every single scientific observation in the universe. We live in
a
> "virtual reality", because we can trust no observation.<<
You replied
>>Don't worry about the apologetic fallout, that's the Lord's problem, not
ours (and of course, I say this respectfully). <<
I think we should worry about the apologetic fallout. The YEC's don't and
look at what happens when people actually look at the scientific data. I am
too old to think I am infalllible, but I also know that what I offer must
stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny of the scientific data.
You wrote:
>>Great post pal. As one rock sharpens another rock . . . or however that
goes ;-)<<
Likewise. Gotta tell you that one guy who didn't like some of the
discussions that group I get with every two weeks were into, told us that we
weren't rock sharpening rocks, we were butter sharpening butter. I will
never forget that line. :-) I think he would think the same of the
reflector. He would of course, be wrong. You are a tough, troubling debate
opponent. I mean that in the best sense of course.
glenn