On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:15:01 -0500 Glenn wrote:
SJ>Though Glenn is an evolutionist, he still believes in the
>historicity of Gn 1-11, so there is more common ground between him
>and PC's like myself, than there is between us and TE's who believe
>that Gn 1-11 is a collection of unhistorical ANE myths.
GM>I have noticed several positions on the reflector concerning the
status of evolution and the historicity of the early part of the
Scriptures....
>1. historical/no evolution...
>2. nonhistorical/no evolution...
>3. historical/evoluion...
>4. nonhistorical/evolution.
>
>The YEC's would fit into 1. Stephen, I think you would fit into 1. I think
>Hugh Ross would also try to fit himself into 1 as evidenced by his
>earth-centered exegesis of Genesis 1.
[...]
GM>I want to thank you Stephen for agreeing with me publically here.
>Not many are willing to do that.
>Hope the above diagram does not mangle too badly anyone's position
Actually my position may be a bit more complex than Glenn's. Perhaps
a 1.5? :-). Indeed, I doubt if Jim Bell fits into the
"non-historical" category either. I believe the events of Gn 1-11
actually happened, but they may have been expressed in symbolic, even
mythical, language:
"It is argued that the picture of God working like a potter with wet
earth, anthropomorphically breathing life into man, constructing woman
from a rib, with an idyllic garden, trees with theological
significance, and a talking serpent, is the language of theological
symbolism and not of literal prose. The theological truth is there,
and this symbolism is the instrument of inspiration. We are not to
think in terms of scientific and anti-scientific, but in terms of
scientific and pre-scientific. The account is then pre-scientific and
in theological symbolism which is the garment divine inspiration chose
to reveal these truths for their more ready comprehension by the
masses of untutored Christians. This is the view of James Orr who
wrote:
`I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third
chapter of Genesis-whether as history or allegory or myth, or most
probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical
dress-but the truth embodied in that narrative, viz. the fall of man
from an original state of purity, I take to be vital to the Christian
view.' (Orr J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897, p185)
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster:
London, 1955, p223).
Pinnock agrees, saying:
"When we look at the Bible, it is clear that it is not radically
mythical. The influence of myth is there in the Old Testament. The
stories of creation and fall, of flood and the tower of Babel, are
there in pagan texts and are worked over in Genesis from the angle of
Israel's knowledge of God, but the framework is no longer mythical.
God is described as sovereign over history and ever power and breaks
down the pre-supposition of myth. What we find are `broken myths,'
allusion to ancient myths but now translated into different terms.
They occur now as symbols of the realm of transcendence and no longer
as events and literal references." (Pinnock C.H., "The Scripture
Principle", Hodder & Staughton: London, 1985, p123)
Strangely enough, I agree with a lot that Denis and Glenn write. My
"problem" (in their eyes) is that I do not subscribe to the
evolutionary paradigm.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------