<<I doubt the problem is `thought forms.' It seems to me that you have yet
to clearly articulate your position. You seem to want to keep enough
ambiguity to allow wiggle room, or so it seems. I liked Glenn's diagram
because is was a simple characterization. >>
Part of the problem is that you have come in so late on this discussion, Dave.
There was a ton written on this earlier. My position is hardly ambiguous, as
Denis confirms (Denis: Thanks for the nice note. I can't remember the last
time I was accused of being "profound"!), but it's understandable if you're a
little lost at this point. So I'll try to give a simple summary.
* Poetic literary form does NOT mean the text contains no historical truth, as
Glenn seems to think.
* Glenn's diagram is simple, but wrong. Simiplicity is not virture if it
doesn't capture a position correctly.
* Glenn's characterization of my position is that there is NO history, no
reality, no truth in Gen. 1 simply because of the genre. That is 180 degrees
from anything I've ever said.
I attribute it to Glenn using "either/or" exclusively. You seem to tend a
little to that "either/or", too, Dave, when you write, first:
<<Obviously there is much poetic and parabolic language in the Scripture,
but the purpose is not entertainment, but enlightenment. The critical
issue is always what the author intended to communicate.>>
Which is great! But then you follow with:
<<Historical fiction inhibits clear communication because one can never be
sure what is fact and what is fiction. >>
How did you leap from recognition of genre to "historical fiction"? Again,
this is something no one has ever asserted here. If you can cite me any of my
language that is "ambiguous" on this point, that would help. Then I can
clarify if need be.
But I really like your two statements about "enlightenment" and "author
intent," both of which I've championed in these discussions (again, you bring
up "entertainment," but I never intimated such a thing. See why I can get a
little touchy about mischaracterization?)
Now, your "author intent" principle is a mainstay of good hermeneutics, but
then you undercut yourself with this:
<<I also doubt that it is necessary to have a Hebraic thought-form in mind
when reading the Scripture.>>
It is if you want to understand author intent! How can you possibly have a
full understanding of what ancient Hebrew writers intended if you don't
understand their thought forms? It is absolutely crucial, especially when a
current thought form can actually skew the meaning of Scripture.
Hermeneutics is tough work, but necessary.
<<Speaking of pain, at your suggestion I got ahold of some of Bloesch's works
and have started trying to wade through the first one. I cannot yet tell
if he is a `potent explicator,' but I know for sure he doesn't aim for
clear exposition of his ideas.>>
I'm sorry you're having trouble with Bloesch. He doesn't present clarity
problems for me. But I commend you for trying, and encourage you to keep it
up. Even if you don't agree, your own ideas will be clarified, and that's
always good.
Jim