From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 14:27:18 EST
Hey George,
I was responding to your post and really asking you to elaborate, not to get in a snit about it.
George Murphy wrote:
>
> 1st, I have not said anything about the authors' intentions.
I know you did not. I did and I think that is the important issue.
>
> 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.
Well, I became a Christian at age 20 and I never went to such a Sunday school. However, when I got around
to the OT, Genesis just reads that way to a causal observer.
>
> 3d, you are still refusing to face the basic question of interpretation when you
> set up "actual history" as the default setting.
What default setting am I supposed to use?
>
> 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.
The internal is what I was hoping for.
>
> 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.
Elitist is too polite but following Burgy's 25 rules, I'll not use any other ;).
>
> 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).
I said that because that is what I get here and there on this list. I read the books that I want to read. If
a poster cannot make their point without ia reference text, then so be it. If you don't want to respond
yourself, then don't bring the subject up.
>
> 6th, my parallel post on concordism is also relevant to this discussion.
Will read
Walt
===================================
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)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 14:33:21 EST