Hi Lance. I don't mean to be rude, but all the below is the same boring stuff I have heard for many years. Many scientists repeat this mantra too. I just don't buy it. The Bible is more than poetry and literature that answers questions outside of science. There are real, empirical observations in the Bible, history of a people, real names of real people and real places, with dates and times that are real and refer to our physical world.
The way I see it, the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ encompass all knowledge and all wisdom. It is all inclusive of science. Science, on the other hand, defines its realm of inquiry as one that excludes God and excludes any consideration that cannot be observed empirically and demonstrated to others. When it comes to the question of origins, science dismisses the idea of a Creator a priori. What people like Waltke try to do is define Biblical study as exclusionary of science. I strongly disagree. David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? 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. ---------- "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.
