>"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.
While I agree with most of this, I wish Ramm hadn't used the categories of
scientific and pre-scientific. Literally, he's correct of course. But in
this era when people tend to equate pre-scientific with primitive and
scientific with advanced/sophisticated, it's not the best choice of words.
It seems to me that the main thrust of the first few chapters of Genesis is
to tell us about God, about His creative acts, and about how man must
relate to Him. Science is beside the point -- it's not the subject, and to
label the account as pre-scientific, as though it might have been more
scientifically defensible had it been written by, say, Willy Braun in the
20th century as opposed to Moses several thusand years ago, is IMO a
presumption we have no justification to make. In fact, you could make a
case that the very fact that God codified His entire message to man -- from
creation through the gospels, Acts and the epistles -- long before the
advent of 20th century science may be a pointed reminder to us that we do
not _need_ 20th century science to understand what God has to say to us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148