>From: "Steven M Smith" <smsmith@usgs.gov>
> Perhaps the better questions would be ...
>
> 1) How much does the culture in which the various parts of the Bible were
> written influence what was actually written down (i.e. saved for later
> generations) and what was not (either edited out or not mentioned because
> of culturally perceived irrelevance)? This question tries to get to the
> agenda issue that you mention.
Rough estimate: 100% (where the culture of the day includes the heritage of
its past)
> 2) How much does our chosen theological 'theories' of inspiration,
> inerrancy, infallibility, and authority (as you referred to in an earlier
> post) color our perceptions of God's revelation that was transmitted
> through this cultural influence?
Rough estimate: 100%
> 3) Which version or versions of The Phantom Menace should be declared
> canonical? ;^)
For a community to designate something as "canonical" is to make a choice
concerning the identity of that community. What documents will be used to
define the community and to settle arguments between factions within that
community? A community has every right to make that choice, but I think it
should then be willing to acknowledge that it has made that choice as a
human community. Nothing wrong with candor; candor deserves respect.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 14:34:06 EST