Let us not start accusing each other of certain views, unless they are
expressly stated, such as you do. You forgot to mention, that when you
start reading Scripture you have a certain philosophical outlook with which
you read. Even the translators did that, with as a result that the same
word is translated in different ways. I think I mentioned the word "ruach"
before, trans;ated as Spirit, spirit. wind, breath. Obviously the
translator was interpreting when translating. I don't say that he did not
have to interpret. The same way in the NT, the word "pneuma" is in John
3:8 translated as "spirit" and as "wind". The translator was obviously
interpreting what he read in Greek. What is a "literal grammatical
historical interpretive view" reading the bible anyway? Saying that is
already a philosophical statement. I will accept that you are a Christian
who is honestly reading and wanting to live by the Bible, but that does not
give me the right to state, that you are dishonest. At best, I would say
that you are not seeing the many diificulties, which your way of reading
the Bible will give you. Unless you can think like a Hebrew in Moses time,
and talk like one, you have to be careful when accusing somebody of putting
his "science" above the Bible.
Also, history is a science, grammar is a science and literature may not be
a science, but it could be discussing a parable. Interpretation is
certainly not a sure thing.
Please, note that here I have not given my own interpretation of a
biblical story. I do think that you should start thinking as a Hebrew
thought in the time of Moses, when you want to read Gen.1 in the way you
appear you want to do it. Can you? And then live like one? Just imagine,
starting from slavery at a young age, in a country with pagan gods, not
being able to read, how would you listen to stories? A "scientific"
description would not be possible to listen to, so . . ..
Please, be careful in your discussions.
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.