On Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:58:09 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
DL>Debating you reminds me of debating "Canada's Hal
>Lindsey"--Grant Jeffery, who happens to be the latest guru of
>dispensational eschatology. Grant would send me gobs and gobs of material.
>His method was simple: The more citations he found that supported his
>position, then the more convinced he became it must be true. His method
>was really a "volume = truth" approach. One of Grant's favorite lines was:
>"I've got 4000 books in my library . . .", as if this carries any truth
>value. Works contra-Grant were deemed poor or ignored.
>
>The truely sad thing about Grant was that he wasn't in any position to even
>criticize the people he would cite, let alone truely understand what they
>were saying. All Grant could do was "shuffle" material, not assess it
>in any critical fashion.
>
>I eventually I did an academic check on him and found out he was first year
>Bible school dropout--and it really didn't surprize me.
Thanks for the character assassination, Denis. I am not a
dispensationalist, nor a "dropout", nor do I believe "volume =
truth". I scan and post quotes to *learn*. If you don't like them,
just delete them without reading them.
DL>Nevertheless, with great energy, again, you cite gobs and gobs of
>material, all of which, of course align with your exegesis of Gen 1:1 and
>your concordist NEED of harmonizing Gen 1 with science. You begin
>"exegesis" . . . er, well, you begin your interpretive program with the
>answer in hand.
>Bluntly, that's eisegesis.
You toss around buzz words like "concordist", and "eisegesis" which
obscure, rather than clarify. Nowhere have I tried "harmonizing Gen 1
with science". But I do believe that behind Gen 1, and the story of
Adam & Eve and the Fall, there is a historical reality, told in
part-symbolic form. If that's "eisegesis" then I am in good company
because Christ and the apostles believed it too.
DL>Couple comments to support my point:
>
SJ>Again, this is asserting too much! The LXX translators may have
>been Greek speaking Alexandrian Jews, but they were still
>Jews!
DL>So? Are you suggesting they were impervious to having their
>epistemology hellenized? Not likely.
No doubt there were helleninistic elements in their "epistemology"
but you have not shown that creation ex nihilo was one of them.
SJ>"Dr. Edward J. Young (Westminster Theological Journal, May 1959,
>p146) cogently presents the data and proves to my complete
>satisfaction that the traditional translation is correct.
DL>Bluntly, Stephen, you are in no position to even make this
assessment. The many times I have seen you state: "My interlinear .
. ." says it all for me.
Notice the "" marks Denis? The statement was by Dr James Oliver
Buswell Jr in his "A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion",
not by me! I am sure that Dr Buswell did not have to rely on his
"interlinear"! :-)
DL>A few of his [Young's] points are:
>
>(1) The Masoretic text, which points the preposition with a shewah,
>also accents the word with a tiphcha, showing that the Masorites
>considered the word as in the absolute state.
>
>And why do you think that is? They were hellenized, Stephen. Yes,
>Jews that were hellenized, steeped in Western intellectual categories.
>So we would fully expect the vowel pointing that they ADDED (it was never
>there in the autographs) in the 10TH CENTURY AD to reflect the hellenistic
>epistemology they were steeped in.
Oh. So everyone was "hellenized", even the Masorettes? I'm sorry, but
I think it is more likely that the translators of the LXX and the
Masorettes were being Jewish when they insisted on creatio ex nihilo.
DL>Look at yourself--you are steeped in the modern epistemic value
>that science is valuable, and because you are a
>fundamentalist/evangelical (therefore steeped again now in Scotish
>Common Sense Realism) you with amazing vigor are forced by your own
>epistemology to provide a modus vivendi between these two
>systems--that is why your hermeneutic is dominated by concordism.
>And that is why you react the way you do to such caveats as Sarah's
>seminal emission or the grammar in Gen 1:1. Your CONCORDIST NEEDS
>skew your exegesis.
And I could just as easily say that " Your EVOLUTONIST NEEDS skew your
exegesis"! :-)
BTW, I am an "evangelical" but not a "fundamentalist". But I willingly
accept the charge of "Common Sense Realism". I presume the alternative
is "Un-Common Sense un-Realism"? :-)
DL>Here's a great example of GOB methodology:
SJ>(2) All the ancient versions without exception translate the word
as >an absolute. The LXX says, En arche epoiesen ho Theos....
>
DL>Again, they were hellenized.
And again, you don't know that. You are only asserting it to fit in
with your evolutionist theories.
SJ>Clearly John had this verse of Genesis in mind when he wrote, En
>arche en ho Logos....
DL>Yes, of course. But again, they were hellenized.
Sez you.
SJ>The Vulgate reads, In principio creavit Deus...."
DL>Yes, but again, they were hellenized.
*Everyone* was "hellenized" (according to you!) :-) What about Jesus,
was he "hellenized"?
DL>Bluntly, this is my point. If you would have read my post, I made
>it clear that the hellenization process was quite operative as early
>as the LXX. So your listing of translations reflecting the absolute
>state AFTER THAT TIME does not strengthen your argument. If anything
>it makes me believe you missed the point completely, but you think
>with your "gobs & gobs" methodology you've solved the problem.
No. I cited reputable scholars who disagreed with your claims.
DL>Unfortunately, to those not familar with the debate your gobs of
>material looks impressive.
I think "those not familar with the debate" are also able to judge
bluster, Denis! :-)
SJ>Yes it is indeed "hard...to believe" Denis! :-) This is not a new
>issue and there is no question that any 1st year OT student would be
>aware of it, let alone Professors of Hebrew who translate Bibles! I
>would be more inclined to believe that the Hebrew scholars who
>translated my AV, RSV, NIV, Berkeley and Green's translations as "In
>the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", knew exactly
>what they were doing and were trying to be as faithful to the original
>text as far as humanly possible!
DL>Stephen, you are in no position to state this:
>
>"[They] knew exactly what they were doing and were trying to be as
>faithful to the original text as far as humanly possible!"
And you are "in no position to state" the opposite, Denis!
DL>Have you ever parsed a Hebrew verb in your life?
No, I haven't, but then I am not claiming to. I can read *English*
and I was merely citing the opinions of Hebrew scholars (like E.J.
Young) who disagree with you. Since Hebrew scholars of equal erudition
disagree on whether bereshith in Gn 1:1 is in the absolute or
construct state, it is clear that something other than the ability to
parse a Hebrew verb is involved.
DL>If not, how can you with any integrity or authority say this?
Oh, here's the "integrity" bit. Glenn did not agree with what I said
either, so it was not long before he accused me of lack of
"integrity". All I can say Denis, is that this indicates the
weakness of your evolutionary views, if in order to bolster your
position you have to invent imaginary moral failures on the part of
your "opponents". Recognise this last word - its in your tag-line"
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
I will leave it to others to judge whether you practice what you
preach.
DL>Is the inverse of this statement for the Bibles which incorporate
>the construct state the following:
DL>"The translators did not know what they were doing and were not
>trying to be faithful to the original text as far as humanly
>possible!"
No, of course not! It was *you* who claimed that "As hard as it might
seem to believe, our English translations have betrayed the
autographs." I have made no claim about those who translated it the
other way. No doubt they were also "trying to be faithful to the
original text as far as humanly possible".
But they are in the minority. AFAIK, only the NEB (1961) and the GNB
(1966) translate it in the construct state. The NIV (1973) translates
it in the absolute state.
SJ>It is possible that bereshith in Gn 1:1 is in the construct, not
>absolute, state, but this is all it is - possible! It is by no means
>as certain as you make out, and there are formidable arguments against
>it, that IMHO are decisive.
DL>Save the superlatives Stephen. And face this FACT:
>Reshith appears 50 times in the OT. IT RARELY, IF EVER HAS AN ABSOLUTE
>SENSE. At best, those holding the absolute can appeal to only TWO
>instances where it MIGHT be in this state--Is 46:10 and Prov 8:23. In
>both these cases, a construct meaning can be understood.
I am aware of this, as are the OT scholars who translated the NIV but
still stuck to the absolute state. Eichrodt in the monograph I cited
"In the Beginning. A Contribution to the Interpretation of the First
Word of the Bible", considers this and disputes the 50:2 ratio. He
also disputes the relevance of this typem of statistics. It's a bit
like the YEC's saying that "day" means 24-hour day in the rest of the
Bible - of course it does, but it proves nothing about Gn 1:1.
DL>So Stephen, the "formidable" argument points clearly to the
>construct. That is how reshith is used in the OT. Exegesis is
allowing the TEXT and its WORDS shape your theology--NOT the other
way around. So Stephen, who is being "faithful" to the "original
text", me or you?
I do not read Hebrew (except in a lexicon), so I have never claimed
that I am "faithful" to the "original text". You made strong claims
that Gn 1:1 was in construct state and claimed those who disagreed
with you had "betrayed" the original text. I simply pointed out from
OT text books that I have that your claim is by no means certain and
that important OT scholars like Young, Von Rad and Eichrodt, disagreed
with the view you are espousing.
You have tried to turn this into a contest between your knowledge of
Hebrew and mine, when it is really between the scholars who support
the construct state view versus the scholars who support the absolute
state view.
I am content to claim that *both* sides are being "`faithful' to the
`original text' ", and the real difference is in their philosophical
presuppositions, not their knowledge of Hebrew.
SL>IMHO you claim to much, in order to bolster your evolutionary
>reconstruction.
DL>Considering the previous point, do reassess your CLAIM.
I think any fair-minded person would agree that things were not as
one-sided for the construct view as you made out, Denis.
DL>My acceptance of this exegesis of Gen 1:1 came 7 years before my
>acceptance of evolution--so your charge is inaccurate.
OK. I stand corrected. But I was referring to all that you now
"claim".
DL>And do remember, your charge has two sides to it. Maybe it is you,
>Stephen, steeped in your CONCORDIST METHODOLOGY that is forced to skew
>the Gen 1 Text.
If being a "concordist" means that I think that behind Gn 1-11 lies
real, historical people and events, then I am proud to be a
concordist, because that appears to me to be the view of Christ and
the apostles, not to mention 99% of the Christian Church!
SJ>Buswell sums it up more bluntly:
>
>"Those who choose to take the word as in the construct state
>generally translate the sentence so as to get rid of the doctrine
>of creation ex nihilo." (Buswell, p148).
DL>Need one comment on such a sorrowful remark? Hard to believe that
>someone would make such a rash (if not ridiculous) charge as this in
>a theology text. Ever think that maybe Buswell gets rid of the
>obvious interpretation of Gen 1, a view which does not support
>doctrine of creation ex nihilo?
Well, isn't that what you were doing?
DL>Blessings,
Who are you kidding, Denis? You have basically done character
assassination on me, trying to discredit me in the eyes of
Reflectorites, by comparing me with "dispensational eschatology",
"volume = truth" and an "academic...dropout". You have scorned my
knowledge of Hebrew (I never claimed I had any) and your have
questioned my "integrity". And now you type the words "Blessings"-
am I supposed to believe you really mean it?
DL>"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
>rather than expose thy opponent."
Ahem! Er, yes, well.... :-(
Denis, as with Glenn, the general nastiness of your tone to those who
disagree with your evolutionary views, means I will probably not
respond to you personally in future. Again, as with Glenn, any posts
on topics you raise will be to the Group and should not be seen as to
you personally. Thank you for what I have learned (and no doubt will
continue to learn) from your undoubted erudition.
Goodbye.
Yours concordistically!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------