It is clear that I am referring to statements made or not made explicit in
Scripture. Much of the creation account in Genesis, for instance, leads to
much speculations, which are based on different assumptions. Thus your
example is totally out of place. A better example would be the water that
Christ turned into wine. There are all sorts of questions one can ask about
the nature of the wine and the answers to such questions would be based on
assumptions.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: jeff witters <WITTERSJ@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:29 AM
Subject: *imposing our theology
Hi! I just had to make a comment.
Moorad wrote on Wed, 08 Dec 99:
>If the Bible does not say something explicitly, then one has
>to assume something
>The question is to realize that all such assumptions are on
>equal footing
All such ASSUMPTIONS are on equal footing as assumptions, which
then flavor interpretation. So if we both stood before a table
with a small chunk of rock lying on it, and I said, "Look
there's a rock," that would be interpretation based on certain
assumptions I already have (presuppositions). Why is that
interpretation? I interpreted its appearance and called it one
name rather than another. You might say, "Au contraire, that is
indeed a marshmallow." That is your rightful interpretation.
All is fair for argument until I say, "So, tell me how that
marshmallow tastes."
Just a thought (which is of course based on assumptions and
presuppositions) from the sidelines. ;)
Peace be with you. Jeff