Re: Kerkut

George Murphy wrote:

> gordon brown wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > Dick Fischer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good. Maybe he'll answer a question for you that you can pass to this
> > > > group. Why is it that the professional, scholarly, scientific expertise
> > > > that he applies meticulously to astrophysics are totally abandoned when he
> > > > ventures into biology, genetics and anthropology? If he professes no
> > > > expertise in these sciences, that's fine, why doesn't he just say that and
> > > > keep his mouth shut?
> > > >
> > > > Because he does have genuine scientific credentials in the area of
> > > > astrophysics, it is often overlooked that he has no training in the other
> > > > sciences. But nevertheless, he continues to comment in the other areas of
> > > > science as if his training in astrophysics qualifies him. Why doesn't he
> > > > either opt out from making comments in those fields of science where he has
> > > > continually demonstrated his lack of expertise, or consult with some
> > > > honest, qualified scientists who can keep him from making obvious blunders
> > > > in these areas.
> > > >
> > >
> > > & I would add that I don't know whether or not he has any training in biblical studies
> > > &/or theology. I know that this is a somewhat sensitive point, since many protestants
> > > think that the priesthood of all believers means that any Christian can open an English
> > > translation of the Bible and interpret scripture with as much authority as a Christian
> > > who does have some training in these areas. It doesn't.
> > >
> > > Shalom,
> > > George
> > >
> >
> > Since Hugh Ross now has an associate, Fazala Rana, who is supposed to be a
> > biologist and presumably influences Ross, perhaps determining Rana's areas
> > of expertise would be relevant in assessing the credibility of Ross's
> > statements in the areas that Dick mentions.
> >
> > I have heard that Hugh Ross has studied Hebrew (maybe on his own (?)), but
> > as far as I know, he has not had any formal theological training. I don't
> > believe that a layman should always defer to a trained clergyman. Some
> > have been led astray by doing that. The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were
> > commended for checking out Paul's statements. I believe that all believers
> > should seek to be educated theologically, but that doesn't necessarily
> > mean a formal education with degrees. I perceive that many laymen on this
> > list are theologically knowledgeable, and I respect their contributions to
> > the discussions of the theological aspects of the issues discussed here.
> > Of course, I also respect the contributions of those with theological
> > degrees and am happy to learn from them what we laymen have missed.
>
> Of course it isn't simply a matter of what degrees a person has: Karl Barth
> didn't have an earned doctorate. (Apropos of which: In the 1st part of the 20th
> century there was a man on the faculty at Harvard who was supposed to be one of the
> world's greatest experts on Shakespeare, but he had only a B.A. When asked why he
> didn't get a Ph.D. he's supposed to have said, "Who would examine me?")
>
> Actually one of the major problems I see here is the lack of familiarity that
> most Christians have with the whole history of the Christian theological tradition,
> including biblical interpretation. This is true of many clergy as well as laity.
> What theologians have said & written for the past 2000 years isn't necessarily
> normative, but if people don't know anything about it they will always be re-inventing
> the wheel - or unfortunately, re-inventing old heresies. They will think that some
> teaching is what Christians have always believed whereas it may be an idea that has
> cropped up quite recently (e.g., pre-tribulation rapture) or has been held only by some
> relatively narrow strand of the tradition. They think that evolution is a theological
> latecomer, while in reality the ideas of a number of the church fathers are quite open
> to evolutionary interpretation or development. & perhaps most importantly, those who
> are not familiar with the history of the _whole_ church simply aren't aware of the
> variety of views that have been held on some important matters.
> This is a problem especially for protestants, who in practice ignore everything
> that happened theologically between about A.D. 100 & 1600 - & if they're very
> conservative, everything after about 1600! The situation ought to be better for RCs but
> in practice the fathers may be more respected than actually studied. & except for
> post-Vatican II RC theologians, the whole protestant part of the tradition may be
> ignored.

I respect your credentials, George, but this and some other recent posts are totally
self-serving (IMO). If one were to take them seriously, then we should all go home and just
listen to what the latest theory is from you and and other theologians.

As I have said in the past, there are as many opinions out there as there are theologians. If I
want to back up any old opinion at all, I can always find one to do so. When I do quote one of
them at you, you dismiss it by a blanket statement about "other" theological opinions. Indeed,
"other" opinions are the only things that exist out there in theology land..

George, you *do* have many good things to say and you do have a lot of experience in both
science and theology. I respect much of what you say. However, one has to weigh your statements
ONLY by the merit of what you say and not by your (or any other's) credentials.

If the Bible should not be interpreted by the common man, then it should be taken from
bookshelves and given back to the R.C. Church.

Then you may check with them for the correct interpretations ;)

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)
===================================