You wrote:
GM> Ask the question, "Would God tell us a true story of creation?"
>
> There are only 4 possible answers I can think of
> 1. He is willing and able. Thus he told us a true (but incomplete) account.
>
> 2. He is unwilling and able. Raises the problem of who penned the message we
> have in Genesis 1-11. If it is wrong, and God inspired it, then God lied.
> If God let Moses write what he wanted, then what do we have in the record?
>
> 3. He is willing but unable. Questions God's potency.
>
> 4. He is unwilling and unable. Both bad options for God's character.
Jim and Denis have been advocating,
"5. He is willing and able, but chose to do otherwise, and for good
reasons."
Perhaps you would push that under #2, "Unwilling." But that little
deduction, "If it is wrong, and God inspiried it, then God lied" carries
several unstated assumptions under the words "wrong" and "lied"
(assumptions about God's intentions) and particularly under the word
"inspiration."
GM> While I have no problem
> with the language coloring the account, I do have a problem still if God is
> unable to break through that language and get a basically correct view to us.
It is not a question of "unwilling" or "unable." It is a question of
choice.
Now I agree with you that the proposal, "God chose NOT to break through
that [ANE] language and get a basically [historically] correct view to
us," is a challenging one; it's a proposal which requires serious
justification. That is why I offered those five possible reasons why God
would so choose. I hope others can expand on this topic.
-----------------------------------
GM> You wrote:
>LH> 1) For the sake of the human author and the immediate audience. God had a
> > message to communicate, and now was the right time to do it! For God to
> > stop and correct their historical/cosmological misperceptions would have
> > gotten in the way of what God wanted to teach! (God knows our human
> > limitations, and makes allowances for them.)<<
GM> This is indeed an interesting suggestion. But I find one problem and that
> is today (contrary to your point 3), we do not take comfort in having a story
> that makes no scientific or observational sense.
On the contrary, we CAN take comfort in it if we remember:
--The ancient Hebrews had no "natural" way of knowing the
correct scientific or observational story.
--They built the best cosmological picture/story they could with what
they had.
--God did not need to correct their cosmology to tell them what they
really needed to know.
--God did not need "override" their mistaken cosmology (i.e. carefully
choose the words so that they would be interpretted one way by
ancient Hebrews, and another way by us today, and make "observational
sense" to both cultures) in order to tell them what they really
needed to know.
What does this imply?
++God gives us freedom to discover certain things for ourselves, and
the freedom to be wrong when we have insufficient information.
++God gives us the _responsibility_ to discover certain things for
ourselves.
++God actually grants us a certain level of respect and autonomy in
these matters. He chooses NOT to step in to correct (or
"override") our misconceptions if those misconceptions are not
getting in the way of his intended message.
++God can reveal His essential truth to us and through us today,
despite our modern-day misconceptions, while still granting us our
full measure of freedom and responsibility in "non-essential"
matters.
To me, that is exciting and comforting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GM> I don't really believe that
> God had to correct their cosmology in order to give them a correct view of
> what happened. A case in point is the evolution of life. They may have
> viewed Genesis 1 like a YEC would but I see in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24 God
> commanded the waters and land respectively to bring forth life. In light of
> modern evolutionary views, the waters were the first place life arose and if
> Cairns-Smith is correct, life arose from inorganic clay i.e. "eretz'
> 'land-ground'. (See A.G. Cairns-Smith, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life,
> Cambridge Univ. PRess, 1985) Thus I think God did break through the ANE
> language to leave us the true message.
I agree that God did take care with what the ancient scriptures said, but
I don't think the kind of editorial control you suggest is necessary. The
psalmist praised God for "firmly establishing the earth upon The Flood."
God inspired the sentiment and the words, but I can't think of any way for
that to be a "correct view" in our modern cosmology, unless we REALLY
stretch the interpretation of those Hebrew words.
----------------------
GM> If God had wanted to avoid the problem altogether He could have simply said
> "I created you guys" and then gone from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 12:1. This
> would have sufficed to be a true (but incomplete) statement of fact. It would
> have avoided ANY of our erroneous cosmology. So why all the additions of
> Adam, Eve, the snake, Cain's family, the Flood, etc.?
If God had skipped all that, he would have had to include all sorts of
statements about humanity's proper place in creation, our sinfulness, the
promised redemption, etc. etc. in boring propositional-theology language.
;-)
Besides, I DON'T think that Genesis 1:1 - 12:1 are entirely unhistorical.
How much "historicity" was there? How much is necessary? How much am I
comforatable with? I'm still working on those questions. But if those
stories, in one form or another, pre-existed the time of Moses, and were
believed at the time to be a pre-history of the nation, then I believe it
would be consistent with God's character to use those stories to reveal
his truths.
(Did I say, "'boring' propositional theology"? What a horrible thing for
a Calvinist to say! :-)
--------------------------------------
>LH> 5) For our sakes today --- so that we don't put all our faith in God
> > purely on the basis of recorded narratives (or what others tell us about
> > God), but instead we ALSO look to our own experiences with God as a source
> > of faith in God's character. It has been asked, "If Genesis offers
> > untrustworthy history, how can we trust scriptures to teach us about
> > salvation?" The answer, clearly, is that we trust GOD.<<
GM> I would be uncomfortable with this approach. While our trust should most
> definitely be in God, we learn of God through the pages of the Scripture. If
> we cut our connection there, then our conception of God and who and what He
> is becomes very subjective.
But it's not a matter of "cutting the connection." It's not an
all-or-none sort of thing. The interplay between scripture and experience
is complex, and I have no pithy way to describe it.
GM> I will ask you what I asked another person. How many stories and accounts
> in the Bible can be untrue before we begin to think that the whole thing is
> erroneous. If every story were verifiably false except the resurrection,
> would we have much reason to beleive in the resurrection?
Answer: No, we wouldn't. On the other hand, suppose every New Testament
story were verifiably true except for one which was verifiably false ---
Pontius Pilate never had a wife. What then, throw the whole gospels out?
Extreme examples on either end don't tell us much.
GM> If I recall correctly, you are a physicist. How many predictions of
> Einstein's relativity need to be false before you would know that relativity
> is false? If only one prediction of relativity were wrong, say I found a way
> to transmit information faster than light, would you feel so confident in
> relativity? If we apply such an exacting standard in science,
> why do we avoid that when it comes to God?
These simple questions have complicated answers!
When we deal with propositional questions (such as scientific theories), a
whole host of issues go into the brew as we make our decisions. How
reliable are the contradictory observations? (Reliable equipment?
Reliable reporters?) How successful is the theory otherwise? Etc. etc.
When we get into RELATIONAL questions, things get even more complicated.
For example: "What would it take to make you believe that your wife
doesn't love you?" Ponder how many variables go into answering that one!
Complicated, isn't it?
When it comes to God and the Christian faith, we have both propositional
and relational questions involved --- both are important!
So what am I saying? We make these decisions with our heart, our
intuition, our logic, and our common sense. There are no clear-cut rules,
no obvious answers except in the most extreme examples such as you and I
gave above. The prospect of historical inaccuracy in the early chapters
of Genesis --- the prospect that any "concordist" hermeneutics will fail
to match our observations to the text --- is disturbing. It should
disturb us, based upon what we know about God's character. Yet if we can
also find good, solid reasons why God might have chosen to reveal in this
way, reasons which are consistent with everything else we know about God's
character, then I have no doubt about the answer.
--------------
Thanks for asking all these questions. Others have asked them before.
I've asked them myself many times. It's about time I wrestled with the
answers in a semi-formal way.
Still hoping others will join in on "historicity and character issues...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why should I have to WORK for everything? |
That's like saying I don't DESERVE it." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu