On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:54:50 -0500, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
>SJ> I personally don't think of myself as an Old-Earth Creationist because
>I think that OEC is just creationism and YEC is the variant.
RC>I like this. OEC is true creationism; YEC is an offshoot.
Thanks. This was not meant to be disparaging to my YEC brothers.
It is just how I think (and have always thought) about YEC.
The YEC-OEC controversy is not such a big issue in Australia, even in
fairly conservative churches that I have attended for 30 years.
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 04:55:37 -0400, Geoffrey Lewis wrote:
>SJ>I personally don't think of myself as an Old-Earth Creationist
>because I think that OEC is just creationism and YEC is the variant.
>Indeed, YEC is a comparatively recent phenomenon
>RC>I like this. OEC is true creationism; YEC is an offshoot.
GL>Such disregard for origins! (just etymologically?).
I am not sure what this means. But if it means that the original
writer and recipients of Genesis 1 took it to mean 6 x 24-hour days,
I do not agree. IMHO the internal evidence is overwhelming that
Genesis 1 was intended as a literary framework expressing God's
creative work in the pattern of a human working week:
"The fourth interpretation, which has also been called 'historico-
artistic', or the framework theory, is not, as is too often imagined,
an innovation of the modern age. Augustine...constructed a brilliant
and startling interpretation of the days in De Genesi ad litteram...
In the Middle Ages, Gersonides (1288-1344) considered that the days
'indicate the prior order between beings in logical and natural
terms, but not in chronological terms'...Ceuppens attributes this
view to Thomas Aquinas...since World War II the main proponents have
been N. H. Ridderbos of Amsterdam, B. Ramm of California, M. G. Kline
of New England, D. F. Payne of Britain and J. A. Thompson of
Australia. There is no questioning their competence or, generally
speaking, their respect for Scripture.
The literary interpretation takes the form of the week attributed to
the work of creation to be an artistic arrangement, a modest example
of anthropomorphism that is not to be taken literally. The author's
intention is not to supply us with a chronology of origins. It is
possible that the logical order he has chosen coincides broadly with
the actual sequence of the facts of cosmogony; but that does not
interest him. He wishes to bring out certain themes and provide a
theology of the sabbath. The text is composed as the author
meditates on the finished work so that we may understand how the
creation is related to God and what is its significance for mankind.
This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the
commentators. It recognizes ordinary days but takes them in the
context of one large figurative whole; the differences in order
between the two 'tablets' no longer cause difficulties neither does
the delay in the creation of the stars, nor does the confrontation
with the scientific vision of the most distant past. So great is the
advantage, and for some the relief, that it could constitute a
temptation. We must not espouse the theory on the grounds of its
convenience but only if the text leads us in that direction.
To put it plainly, both the genre and the style of the Genesis
prologue, as our introductory chapter saw them, provide strong
grounds for presuming in favour of the literary interpretation"
(Blocher H., "In The Beginning", 1984, p50)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------