Re: the box

Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> Ok, lets not rehash interpretation but I would say that there are basically
> two boxes I see. YEC or figurative/allegorical/poetic. Those two
> categories constitute about 99.9% of the interpretations I see when it comes
> to Genesis 1-4
>
> But, there may be merit in your criticism that some of us, me in particular,
> might not be able to think out of the box of concordism. But then physics
> has that problem as well. I don't know a single physical theory which isn't
> concordistic in nature. Indeed, all science is concordistic. Only with
> religion do we leave the realm of concordims.
>
> You can have the last word, George, I really don't want to rehash things.

        I kind of doubt that either of us will ever really have the last word! Just 2
brief points here.

        1) What you call "figurative/allegorical/poetic" is a huge "box" but in any
case refers only to the literary forms of the texts. What is more significant is the
theology that is expressed by them - i.e., what is being said about the relationship
between God, the world, & humanity?

        2) It isn't true that "Only with religion do we leave the realm of concordims."
In both physics & history we are concerned not only with what happens but, in different
ways, with the meaning of what happens - which requires interpretation from one or
another standpoint. The Genesis texts are talking about the meaning of the world &
humanity in light of faith in the God of Israel.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun Feb 8 06:18:54 2004