Comments on: The Real Creation Science http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/12/02/the-real-creation-science/ Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation Sat, 19 May 2012 15:36:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: VanceH http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/12/02/the-real-creation-science/comment-page-1/#comment-335 VanceH Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:56:32 +0000 http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/12/02/the-real-creation-science/#comment-335 Thanks for the references--I will check them out. Actually I thought your "non-answer" was quite helpful. I would have been very skeptical if you had claimed to have this all sorted out. I'm very much aligned with your position. Most of the time I feel alone, with my atheist friends on one side and my YEC friends on the other--it's nice to have some company. Thanks for the references–I will check them out. Actually I thought your “non-answer” was quite helpful. I would have been very skeptical if you had claimed to have this all sorted out. I’m very much aligned with your position. Most of the time I feel alone, with my atheist friends on one side and my YEC friends on the other–it’s nice to have some company.

]]> By: GJG http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/12/02/the-real-creation-science/comment-page-1/#comment-334 GJG Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:27:12 +0000 http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/12/02/the-real-creation-science/#comment-334 Hey Vance, this is THE challenge facing all of us who take both the Bible and science seriously. I don't think we will ever be able identify with certainty the transition from "mythological polemic" to "historical narrative" - or if such a transition even exists. It may be more of a gradual unfolding of detail rather than a sudden switch. As Christians, we must understand the life and times of Jesus, including His death, resurrection, and ascention as historical narrative - even though the modern emphasis on chronological consistency was obviously of little concern to the first century writers. Without this we are all, as Paul says, wasting our time. So this is non-negotiable in my mind. It's also obvious to me that many of the cast and characters from Genesis 1-11 are used as polemic against Isreal's pagan neighbors. But the calling of Abram in Chapter 12 is different in that it has no ANE counterpart. This story clearly seems unique to the Hebrews. But given that these stories were primarily handed down as oral tradition for so many generations, all the way up to the Exodous (and later if you accept the later date for Genesis) - I think its reasonable not expect the level of historical accurracy that we see in the NT. Basically, eyewitness accounts are more reliable than centuries of oral tradition - which I think is a reasonable assumption. And given the standards of how "Truth" was communicated down through the ages by ANE cultures, I don't think that any non-historical qualities distract from the "Truth" as God revealed it. We just to be flexible enough in our hermeneutics to allow for the scientific recreation of natural history to paint a slightly different picture than the one contained within the Scriptures. Not because the Bible contains lies, but simply becasue accurate historical reporting was not the intended purpose of them. The many differences between Kings and Chronicles, for instance, should be enough to establish this. As far as the culturally driven content in the NT - this is both challenging and frustrating. I think we can all agree that the NT model for the treatment of women and slaves are merely data points along a trajectory that moves us from the OT towards a greater compassion for our fellow men and women. And at the same time, others have used this same argument to excuse homosexuality - claiming that this was culturally driven. In my opinion, this is an abuse of the principle of accommodation, but it is very difficult to argue this consistently and still allow your wife to speak in church or not have to wear a head-covering. If you haven't already, get John Walton's commentary on Genesis and Peter Enns book, "Inspiration and Incarnation" - these two resources helped me tremendously. And I alwasy recommend them to others working through these same issues. Sorry for the non-answer, but as you have already observed, this can be discouraging. -GJG Hey Vance, this is THE challenge facing all of us who take both the Bible and science seriously. I don’t think we will ever be able identify with certainty the transition from “mythological polemic” to “historical narrative” - or if such a transition even exists. It may be more of a gradual unfolding of detail rather than a sudden switch.

As Christians, we must understand the life and times of Jesus, including His death, resurrection, and ascention as historical narrative - even though the modern emphasis on chronological consistency was obviously of little concern to the first century writers. Without this we are all, as Paul says, wasting our time. So this is non-negotiable in my mind.

It’s also obvious to me that many of the cast and characters from Genesis 1-11 are used as polemic against Isreal’s pagan neighbors. But the calling of Abram in Chapter 12 is different in that it has no ANE counterpart. This story clearly seems unique to the Hebrews. But given that these stories were primarily handed down as oral tradition for so many generations, all the way up to the Exodous (and later if you accept the later date for Genesis) - I think its reasonable not expect the level of historical accurracy that we see in the NT. Basically, eyewitness accounts are more reliable than centuries of oral tradition - which I think is a reasonable assumption. And given the standards of how “Truth” was communicated down through the ages by ANE cultures, I don’t think that any non-historical qualities distract from the “Truth” as God revealed it. We just to be flexible enough in our hermeneutics to allow for the scientific recreation of natural history to paint a slightly different picture than the one contained within the Scriptures. Not because the Bible contains lies, but simply becasue accurate historical reporting was not the intended purpose of them. The many differences between Kings and Chronicles, for instance, should be enough to establish this.

As far as the culturally driven content in the NT - this is both challenging and frustrating. I think we can all agree that the NT model for the treatment of women and slaves are merely data points along a trajectory that moves us from the OT towards a greater compassion for our fellow men and women. And at the same time, others have used this same argument to excuse homosexuality - claiming that this was culturally driven. In my opinion, this is an abuse of the principle of accommodation, but it is very difficult to argue this consistently and still allow your wife to speak in church or not have to wear a head-covering.

If you haven’t already, get John Walton’s commentary on Genesis and Peter Enns book, “Inspiration and Incarnation” - these two resources helped me tremendously. And I alwasy recommend them to others working through these same issues.

Sorry for the non-answer, but as you have already observed, this can be discouraging.

-GJG

]]>