From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 14:14:10 EST
And, as Wayne Bragg's hermeneutics professor once said, "A text without a
context becomes a pretext."
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Walter Hicks"
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "gordon brown"
<gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; <douglas.hayworth@perbio.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: A man of mud Re: Academics who actively support Young Earth
Creationism
> Whether or not George is a "literalist " is irrelevant. He is trying to
> emphasis the need for a detailed study and exegesis of the text - any
text -
> before we can understand what it means.
>
> Walter, what on earth (pun) is a dust man? (Overhere a dustman is a
garbage
> collector!) It is chemical nonsense to imagine God scooped up some dust,
> added a drop of water and formed a ginger-bread man like morph and then
blew
> the breath of life into it. (Staight out of Bernard Ramm that).
>
> Before we start trying to ascribe inerrancy to be bible we should show our
> devotion to it by studying it very carefully and use every normal means
of
> interpretation to understand. That starts with a careful understanding of
> the words, then the syntax etc
>
> Michael
>
> > Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> > > George Murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll repeat something that I said in an exchange here a few
> weeks ago. One
> > > > should be a "biblical literalist" in the sense of taking the precise
> letters & words of
> > > > scripture seriously.
> > >
> > > How can one accept that, George? You would expect that the Bible
should
> specify the exact
> > > chemical composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to:
> > >
> > > > But one should _not_ be one in the sense of assuming that all the
> > > > texts of scripture are to be read as accurate historical narratives.
> > >
> > > As the only alternative?
> > >
> > > Sounds like a set-up to me ---- just a hokey way to turn everything
into
> a non literal
> > > interpretation.
> >
> > You have not understood what I said. Let me back up. In order to
> understand ANY text you
> > first have to read it with care and pay attention to what it says. That
> is the case whether
> > the text in question is Genesis 2, a sura from the Qur'an, The Origin of
> Species, or The
> > Wasteland. To read a text with care, paying attention to all the exact
> words that are used
> > and not inserting anything that isn't there, is essential to learning
what
> the author(s)
> > and/or editor(s) of the text intended to say.
> >
> > You have to try to determine what _kind_ of text you're dealing
with -
> whether it is
> > historical narrative, saga, liturgy, theological treatise &c - by
> analyzing the structure of
> > the text, putting it in its contexts (literary, cultural, historical,
> scientific) and
> > comparing it with other texts as to literary structure.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 14:24:11 EST