GM> The
> proclamation set in motion a sequence of events leading to the thing
> proclaimed. The next proclamation set in motion another sequence of event.
> The fulfilment of all the events was not in the order of the proclamation.
And Denis responded:
DL> 1. Do you think for 1 second that the writer of Gen 1 thought in this
> proclaimation/fulfilment category? Any proof in the ANE anyone thought
> in this way?
>
> 2. How many examples in the history of exegesis can you find of a church
> scholar holding to this view? Which modern theologian (Biblical, OT)
> holds this?
>
> 3. Any hint elsewhere in the Scripture this theory is correct?
These are important questions, but -- even IF they are all answered in the
negative -- they are not decisive. One word: heliocentrism.
------------------------
DL> 4. Now, I accused you earlier of loading the dice. I don't apologize,
> because I can't imagine how you could possibly FALSIFIED this framework
> of yours. At least with PC and YEC we can catch them on their exegesis
> and whether indeed it matches the scientific record.
> But with your theory there is no way of testing for either its falsity
> or veracity . . . everything and anything goes. Bluntly, there is no
> predictive value.
"No predictive value" does not mean that it is completely without value.
I confess to having a great deal of sympathy for "concordist"
interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis. Yes, concordism has the
danger of reading things into the text never meant to be there; but I
believe that concordist interpretations have some value as well. Even if
we adopt non-concordist hermeneutics, is there not SOME value in linking
the texts to what we believe to be actual historical events? Even if we
adopt non-concordist hermeneutics, can we not still ask, "What WERE the
actual historical events" and gain SOME insight from the text? The "Tree
of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" may sound like an allegorical element
to you and me, but all those geneologies do NOT sound allegorical. I'm
not ready to so divorce historical questions from the exegesis. What's
the proper balance here? I'm not sure.
As you so forcefully pointed out earlier, you get exactly the same
theology from different hermeneutics. That being the case, I'd like to
keep my hermeneutical options open. If there are "concordist" readings
which fit the observables (e.g. "days of proclamation," "two-Adam"), they
may not have my unqualified support, but they do have some value to me and
to others.
That's hardly a logical argument, I know, but, but, but....
Anyone want to rescue me here? :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder if your feelings |
on this matter are clear...." | Loren Haarsma
--the Emperor (_Return_of_the_Jedi_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu