Think of the early chapters of Genesis as theological literature with the
emphasis on 'literature'. It is a well drawn story.
Bruce Waltke, in a recent commentary on Genesis, says "the prologue
announces that the God of the covenant community is the same as the Creator
of the cosmos."
Waltke asks 'Is Genesis myth? He answers: 'If by the word myth one means a
story that explains phenomena and, experience, an ideaology that explains
the cosmos, then the Genesis account of creation is myth.In this sense, myth
addresses those metaphysical concerns that cannot be known by scientific
discovery.'
Genesis and science discuss essentially different matters. Genesis 1 is
concerned with ultimate cause (see my reference to teleology), not
proximation.
The purpose of Genesis and science differ. Genesis is prescriptive,
answering the questions of who and why and what ought to be, whereas the
purpose of science is descriptive, answering the questions of what and how."
Genesis is about who has created the world and for what purpose.
Genesis and science address different communities. They require a distinct
means for validation. One requires empirical testing for validating, while
the other, being addressed to the covenant community of God, requires the
validation of the witness of the Spirit to the heart (Rom. 8:16) For these
reasons; the Genesis creation account cannot be delineated as a scientific
text."
See 'Genesis, a commentary' Bruce K. Waltke, Eerdmans, 2001.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: March 18, 2006 13:47
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?
John wrote:
To your first question , "no."
If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you.
John wrote:
To your second question, either you
did not read my post or you have
decided to insult my presentation?
I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.
Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a
figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars,
but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good
theology, in my opinion.
The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses
the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative,
but
the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First
Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days
are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling
with
the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it
as
being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and
morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly
extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative
chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having
plants
created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a
biologist's
perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious
explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation.
What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is
that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must
be
figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this
way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I
have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way.
What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation
is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the
claims
of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to
Genesis
1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the
text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of
creation?
David Miller
====================
John, I have a couple questions for you.
1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning
the
length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even
discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology
background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well
he
is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not
figurative made a lot of sense to me.
2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day
figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying
that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if
there
is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that
a
theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as
figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what
would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1?
David Miller
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
