From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:23:03 EST
Actually, neither. I personally like the "two books" perspective, and
note that the testament of nature is patient and uninflected, with
authorship unquestioned. JimA
Peter Ruest wrote:
>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
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:23:14 EST