From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:24:45 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <emc.717771929@sybok> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In <90850@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> 
>hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton) writes 
>
>>In article <emc.717533486@ro> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>>In <1126@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>>>Bible.
>
>>>Please no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to dissect
>>>the texts in this manner?
>
>>I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
>>interpretation of the Scriptures.
>
>The polarization of the reading of Genesis into the literalist and
>"intended-spiritual-meaning-ist" camps is utterly simplistic.  If I
>am not the latter, than I am naturally (according to you) the former.

Based on the kind of "dialog" which frequently occurs on this group,
that was a reasonable assumption. You criticized
Stanley for "dissecting the texts" when all he had done was to observe
that nonliteral interpretations don't invalidate the spiritual message
of the Bible. You sounded like a literalist. Please accept my apology.

>We are not discussing a modern word of fiction.  Genesis, it is clear,
>from textual and linguistic analysis is a book composed from several
>oral and written traditions.  It is not out of context to the available
>genre of the day.  It is similar to other sources from which it derives
>its material.  Gen. 1 is written in different language and with a
>different point of view than Gen.2.  The Hebrew is different.  The
>story is different. The use of God (Elohim) in one vs. Lord God (YHVH
>Elohim) in the other is different.  There are other parts of Genesis
>that have Middle Hebrew overlaying Old Hebrew.  This is a cause for
>many anachronisms.

>Are you sure that you know the inteded meaning
>of each author in each case, including the later editings?

No. Are you?

>
>>Is that really what God is telling us about in
>>Genesis?
>
>If God spoke to you personally, then let us know.

I didn't make an assertion. I merely asked a rhetorical
question. Maybe I should rephrase it: Does it seem more logical that the
Creator of the Universe, after making man and giving him intelligence
so that he could investigate the universe God gave him, would then
proceed to explain to him in detail the earth's history, which man himself
can learn about from his own investigation,  or that He would explain
to man something of Himself, which man can't learn on his own? Obviously
I don't claim to have *the* answer that *everyone* oughta accept, but it seems
to me that the main theme of the Bible is the relationship between man and
God.  Archaeology confirms much of the history in the Bible, but it doesn't
necessarily follow that the creation account in Genesis is an exact description
of the events and timing God used to create things. If my assumption that
the Bible deals mainly with the relationship between man and God is accepted,
then it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the events before
the creation of man are only outlined.

>Otherwise,
>I think you are in the same boat as all of us.

So far as learning by normal scholarly methods is concerned
(textual analysis, study
of the cultural context from other ancient records, archaeology, ...) I'm
in the same boat as everyone else. Christians maintain, however, that
there is such a thing as spiritual truth, that it is written in the Bible,
and that much (most? all?) of it is discernable only by the work of
the Holy Spirit.

>You have to study,
>the languages, history, context, etc. of the texts to slowly begin
>to see what the writer is saying.  People spend entire lifetimes at
>this and sometimes still don't have enough information.

Agreed. The spiritual truth and the truth that can be learned by normal
methods are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe I can
discern spiritual truth from the Bible does not excuse me from
applying the normal methods that are applied to the study of any
other text.
>
>>>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?
>>>Are the former marked in red letters?

Well, some Bibles do have the words of Christ in red :-). (Although
even a novice Greek student (me) knows that NT Greek does not clearly
separate quotations from surrounding text, so that there are debates
over where some quotations end.)

>
>>You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the
>>heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even
>>the creationists' creation scenario in detail.
>Biblical writers had no knowledge of modern science or evolutionary
>biology.  So what?

I was trying to point out that there isn't enough detail in
Genesis to develop even the creationist scenario without
some mental gymnastics. Therefore it doesn't seem logical to call it
a historical record. An outline, but not really a historical
record.
>
>>Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the
>>scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him,
>>and what He requires of me.  Spiritual truth convicts me that I
>>am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
>>on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God.
>
>Then you don't need a Bible.  You have already established the truth
>before reading it.

What led you to conclude this? Christians believe that the Scriptures
are the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit enables them to understand
what God is saying on the Scriptures. According to 2 Tim 3:16 all
Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness. And according to John 14:26, "the
Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things...".  No Christian is claiming
that he discerns God's will independently of the Bible. Christians are
urged in II Tim 3:16 and elsewhere to study the Scriptures, and told in
John 14:26 and elsewhere that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things.
It would seem that the message is, "Study the scriptures and rely on the
Holy Spirit for understanding". You don't get to first base without studying
the Scriptures.

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environmental Staff