From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 00:37:28 EST
In a message dated 3/19/03 1:07:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jarmstro@qwest.net writes:
> Mmm, I suppose one might be led to enquire in such a circumstance, "What
> theory do you follow in interpreting scripture?" Maybe I'll give that a
try
> next time the T word comes up in this context! - Jim Armstrong
Hi, Jim
I'm not quite sure whether you are being ironic or even sarcastic
here... But anyhow, for normal Bible reading, a prayerful attitude and
open mind is usually sufficient. But the topic addressed was YEC
interpretations. In the context of Gen.1-2, you may find my current
"theory" under A. Held & P. Rüst, "Genesis reconsidered", PSCF 51/4
(Dec. 1999), 231-243;
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html, and, if you want
some more, under P. Rüst, "Creative providence in biology", PSCF 53/3
(Sept. 2001), 179-183;
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Ruest.pdf + ... RustFig1.jpg;
... Ruest.html
My answer to Gary Collins' question about how to react to Ken Ham and
YEC in general was:
>I am in the middle of such a discussion with a young-earth creationist
>(who has published a book-long theological defense of the young-earth
>creationist postulate).
>
>The crucial point he doesn't seem to check is that there is a close
>parallel between the theological treatment of the Bible and the
>scientific treatment of nature (or creation). We have two "books" of
>God, his Word (in the Bible), and his work (in creation). The biblical
>text (originals) is data, and the creation is data. But theology is
>interpretation, and science is interpretation. Data are given - they
>are, in a sense, God's truth, which is absolutely reliable (although we
>are not able to see all of it directly, both with the biblical originals
>and with the realities of creation). We cannot change the data, we can
>at most falsify or obscure it. But any interpretation, be it of biblical
>texts or of observations in nature, are the work of fallible humans. Its
>reliability has certain probabilities, which range from 0 to somewhere
>below 100%. Any interpretations must be subject to revision if
>necessary. Any pitting of "the Bible" against "science" is therefore a
>confusion of categories, and therefore mistaken.
>
>There is no "literal interpretation" of the Bible which would be immune
>from human fallibility. I believe we have to take the (original)
>biblical text "literally", in the sense of respecting the way the divine
>Author led the human authors to formulate and later copyists to transmit
>it: we must not change any of it. But we cannot evade interpreting it -
>any reading of it automatically is an interpretation, which has to be
>evaluated. So I would not discuss whether Gen.1-11 has to be taken
>"literally" or not. The question is how these words are meant to be
>interpreted. And this cannot be other than "theory-laden", just as with
>scientific interpretations. There is no priority of the interpretations
>of one type of data (biblical text) over those of another type of data
>(creation). There only is priority of God's data (in the Bible and in
>creation) over its interpretation (in both domains).
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 00:36:52 EST