<<But Jim, Denis has stated that there is no historical content. >>
Er, when was Denis declared Pope? Denis, is that pointy hat you're wearing?
<<And you never miss an opportunity to refuse to tell us HOW he did it all in
space-time.>>
I don't KNOW how He did it. No one does. That's what makes him God. That's why
Genesis is written the way it's written. The mechanics of omnipotence are
foreclosed to our knowing in this natural world.
<< You see, the ONLY way you can KNOW that he did it in
space-time is if we are told what He did and then can compare it to what
actually happened. >>
But that is exactly what we DO have! Genesis 1 says he did it in space-time.
And hey, what do you know, here we are, in space-time! I believe the latter is
a valid empirical observation (though this reflector could simply be a dream,
a possibility I've entertained from time to time).
<<On the grammar front, I think you miss my point. English scholars do
not examine the grammar of Chaucer, like Theologians examine the grammar of
the Bible. They don't try to squeeze that extra bit of info out of a
discussion of why Chaucer chose this construction rather than that
construction.>>
But you said grammar shouldn't matter AT ALL if one considers Genesis less
than VCR history. You said, "If there is no historical value in Genesis 1, why
does the grammer mean anything at all?"
Grammar is grammar, no matter who examines it. It is a function of the TEXT,
not the examiner. An English scholar and a theologian BOTH must approach
Chaucer as Chaucer, and Genesis as Genesis. And if a scientist waltzes in and
says, "Hey, Chaucer is really about food--it's a cook book!" or "Genesis 1 is
a detailed history of the how of creation," he ought to be set straight.
In short, the text exists, its grammar exists, and you deal with it.
But you've shape shifted just a bit, haven't you? To Denis you wrote:
<< But as Jim and I in one of our rare moments, agree that poetry can convey
historical information.>>
I count this as a great moment in the history of bilical discussion. But if
that is so, then grammar does matter, doesn't it?
You wrote:
<<I stop where God stopped; at the written word.>>
Well so do I. And I try not to put my demands on it. I try to let it speak
for itself. I gotta agree with Pope Denis here: "The irony of eisegesis is
that in attempting to be SHAPED by the Word it SHAPES the Word. Instead of
letting God tell us, we tell God."
Jim