From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:47:56 EST
Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > Walter Hicks wrote:
> > >
> > > george murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When you say "You would expect that the Bible should specify the exact chemical
> > > > composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to," you are showing the fundamental
> > > > confusion that besets so much popular discussion of the Bible: That the only way it can claim
> > > > to be true is if it claims to be an accurate historical or scientific account. That is not
> > > > true. But this is not, as you further say "just a hokey way to turn everything into a non
> > > > literal interpretation." There are some parts of scripture which _are_ to be read as
> > > > historical narratives.
> > >
> > > O.K. But we are talking about a specific verse, so let us not get lost in a larger question.
> >
> > Until you are willing to give some serious consideration to the larger question
> > (i.e., how scripture is to be read and interpreted), your discussion of specific texts
> > will be of little value.
>
> O.K. Educate me.
>
> But at the same time be certain to explain why not everybody agrees with your notion that the authors'
> intended (and I emphasize INTENDED by the authors) that the first parts of the Bible should not be
> read as actual history. I think that your position comes about solely because of recent scientific
> issues. Show me to the contrary.
>
> Walt
>
> >
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> > George L. Murphy
> > gmurphy@raex.com
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> > george murphy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > When you say "You would expect that the Bible
> should specify the exact chemical
> > > composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse
> to," you are showing the fundamental
> > > confusion that besets so much popular discussion of the
> Bible: That the only way it can claim
> > > to be true is if it claims to be an accurate historical
> or scientific account. That is not
> > > true. But this is not, as you further say "just a hokey
> way to turn everything into a non
> > > literal interpretation." There are some parts of
> scripture which _are_ to be read as
> > > historical narratives.
> >
> > O.K. But we are talking about a specific verse, so let us
> not get lost in a larger question.
>
> Until you are willing to give some serious
> consideration to the larger question
> (i.e., how scripture is to be read and interpreted), your
> discussion of specific texts
> will be of little value.
>
> O.K. Educate me.
>
> But at the same time be certain to explain why not everybody agrees
> with your notion that the authors' intended (and I emphasize INTENDED
> by the authors) that the first parts of the Bible should not be read
> as actual history. I think that your position comes about solely
> because of recent scientific issues. Show me to the contrary.
1st, I have not said anything about the authors' intentions.
2d, one reason why "not everybody agrees" is that they were taught in
Sunday School to read Genesis as accurate history & have had that idea reinforced
by clergy who either think it is accurate history or who just don't want to upset people
over something they think isn't important.
3d, you are still refusing to face the basic question of interpretation when you
set up "actual history" as the default setting.
4th, as I have said repeatedly, there is both internal & external evidence for
understanding early Genesis not to be historical. I freely admit the influence of the
external evidence but it doesn't stand alone.
5th, you apparently think that what I've said is just in the interest of
defending a particular interpretation of Genesis. It isn't. To be blunt, what I wish
is that people would learn to read the whole Bible in an adult way. If that sounds
elitist, so be it.
5th, since you've felt free to tell people to read a book about GA &C, I'll be
more specific & tell you to read _The Bible: Now I Get It: A Form-Criticism Handbook_
by Gerhard Lohfink (Doubleday, 1979).
6th, my parallel post on concordism is also relevant to this discussion.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:54:10 EST