From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 20:53:09 EST
Michael is correct that it would be an overstatement to say that theologians
regard "ONLY naturalistic historical/grammatical and textual critical
methods as legitimate." I did not intend to state it as absolutely as that.
I attempted to avoid this obvious error by using the words "pretty much" in
the first part of the sentence. Here's what I actually said:
"... the current intellectual fashion which PRETTY MUCH rejects Typology,
Analogy, and even Prophecy in biblical exegesis, leaving only naturalistic
historical/grammatical and textual critical methods as legitimate.
But I can see how this could be misinterpreted. I guess I should have used
another word like "mostly" instead of "only". Mea culpa. This only shows
how desparately we all need to both give and receive grace in this forum.
Finally, I would hope that everyone on this list would agree that Michael
should either justify or retract the statment that I "denigrate the Bible".
The study of numerical symbolism in Scripture is not a "controlling
methodology." I use every method conceivable to arrive at the truth of what
is really going on in God's Word. This includes Hist/gram, textual
criticism, Analogy, Typology, and the study of its textual, thematic,
poetic, and yes, numeric and geometric design. My only aim is to glorify God
and His Word.a
Richard
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: <richard@biblewheel.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:24 PM
Subject: Hermeneutics
> I will answer Richard's post obliquely. It is an overstatement to say
today
> theologians regard "only naturalistic historical/grammatical and textual
> critical methods as legitimate." Typology analogy etc are still employed ,
> but less so by the more liberal.
> However Hist/gram and textual critical methods are fundamental and form
the
> basis of all interpretation. Over the centuries some have over-emphasised
> one thing or antother eg. allegory in early and medieval church,
> dispensationalism with their artificail scheme which removes half of
> scripture from our use. That is not to say multiple covenants or allegory
> are wrong but rather they must be used with other methods. Numerolgy has
> been used to a minor degree down the centuries (the quotew from the Cath
> encyclopedia indicates that, but how far?) but Vernon and Richard make it
> their controlling method and go beyond its validity and thus end up
> denigrate the Bible they want to enhance.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 20:51:16 EST