I think we are at the root of our difference. You wrote:
>>Thank you very much for being so honest. You are then an eisegete. <<
Just as you are a true not-literalist. But please don't tell my family that
I am an eisegete. They don't know and they might disown me. :-)
You wrote:
>>However, with your methodology, your overriding
program/concern/assumptions become the "Word of God," because you've
already decided before entering the Holy Text what its message is.<<
I would like to make only one small correction here. It is not that I
decided WHAT the message is before I went a looking, it was that I had
decided what the SUBJECT was. Genesis 1 has the SUBJECT that God created the
world. Thus since the ANE writer viewed it differently, and he is wrong, I
look to see if there is another way the subject matter can be viewed. The
message comes out of that. I do this because if the subject of Genesis 1 is
not historical that means that maybe God didn't create the universe. If that
is the case, then why are we arguing about all this stuff?
You wrote:
>>We do our best to figure out what these words mean
because we believe they are the very words of God. And once we figure
them out we let them shape our lives . . . I mean that is exactly what
they have done to you in your personal life . . . that is why you are a
Christian.<<
If I do this for other pieces of literature, like Wordworth's poetry, I feel
an emotional experience but not necessarily a need to reform my life. As to
what I have done as a Christian, I have become a Christian because I believe
that the resurrection is historically true- not because the words of that
story guided my life.
You wrote:
>>Yes, your exegesis of my position is correct. You took the WORDS by
which I presented my views very seriously. No eisegesis here ;-)<<
Shucks, I will obviously have to try harder to be eisegetically consistent.
:-)
You wrote:
>>(2) Since science (cosmology) is indeed historically conditionned, it is
improved if not superceded over time. The ANE cosmology of Gen 1 has
since been superceded. The evolutionary paradigm best describes the
origin of life.
(3) With (2) being the case, it allows us to focus even more on what
the theology of Gen 1 is. <<
My problem is with the confluence of these two things and the unspoken
assumption which went into the conclusion in 3. That is that since the ANE
cosmology has been superceded the content and intention of the author can be
ignored. As a hopeless eisegete, I worry tremedously that the logical
application of this view point leads to real problems. Modern science which
supercedes all other knowledge, discounts the belief in miracles of all sort
has been discounted.. Thus there is no talking snake, no staff of Moses
turning into a snake, no ax head raised by Elisha, no walk in the fire by
Shadrach and company, Stars of Bethlehem are impossible by modern cosmology
so we can rule that out. And the virgin birth is clearly impossible. Even if
you extend parthenogenesis to humans, Jesus should have been a female so now
we know, by modern science which supercede those of the Roman world, that
Mary was playing around on Joseph. The miracles Jesus performed must have
been of the nature of a magician and the resurrection is now the reviving of
a person who had a bad day.
In 2 Kings 6:5 did Elisha really raise the ax? Is this historical? This is in
a historical part of the Bible?
If you allow modern views to decide what the Bible is saying, you have real
problems OR you can not apply this methodology consistently without removing
all miracles and engaging in a search for the theology intended.
If I end up at that point, which is precisely where I almost ended up, I will
reject Christianity in a New York minute. Why would I believe that the Bible
has important things to say to me about my life if all of those things are
not historically false? My future resurrection is going to be a historical
event. But it is based upon the historicity of the former resurrection. The
only logical reason for a human to be able to raised is if that person was
God incarnate. But if the virgin birth is untrue, then Jesus is no different
than me and there is no more reason to believe that he resurrected than that
Ghengis Khan resurrected.
If theology adopts the view that modern cosmology, science etc. are allowed
to override everything that the ancient writers beleived, then we are truly
in trouble.
Eisegeticism is better than atheism.
Regards,
glenn