Again, I am in agreement that the text was written in a language and context
which would be understandable to the people of time. Just as a scientist
would not speak in detail to a 3rd grader about quantum mechanics. However,
if the scientist tried to explain simple quantum theory to that child,
he/she would make it simple but accurate. Again, this would bring me back to
the point that while the text is general and is initially intended for the
people of that time, it would not necessarily be inaccurate. Therefore the
things written should be visible in nature as it would be perceived. Of
course this is like Monday morning quarterbacking. Who's to say what is
correct, and that is the point of the discussions.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Jan de Koning
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:31 AM
To: ASA Forum List
Subject: Re: ASA Perspectives
At 10:45 AM 15/03/02 -0600, Don Perrett wrote:
>Regarding the idea of how the people of the OT saw there world, nature this
>is, can anyone say for certainty whether Genesis was written based upon the
>views of the day, or were the views of the day based upon their
>interpretation of the text itself? If one accepts that the text was given
by
>God then the text is as it stands regardless of human fallibility to
>discover it's meaning. This of course means that while the people of the
>time may have had their own understanding this alone did not make them
>right.
>
>Good Morning to all!
>Don P
Wait a minute now. What kind of literature is Gen. 1- 11? Besides try to
understand what the first hearers understood. Besides, in Hebrew as in
most languages one has different understandings of literature, "Science"
did not really exist 6000 years ago, but in order to make sense, God would
have to talk in a language the people understood.
Besides, do we know Hebrew so thoroughly, that we know for sure that a word
like "ruach" must sometimes be read as "wind", at other times as "breath"
at other times as "spirit" ? Or "nephesh" in one chapter as "life" and in
the next as "soul"? Specially when "nephesh" is said to be blood in
another place. (Then think of Revelation where the altar receives the
blood of the martyrs. I have my doubts that the translation there is quite
right.
In our translating into English we are guide by our understanding of how
"man' is put together. In that respect we may be very much influenced by
Greek thinking.
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 12:47:29 EST