> In interpreting "scientific details" it appears to me that there are at
> least three possibilities for any text: (a) figurative language (i.e.,
> Psalm 98:8); (b) phenomenal language (your example of Matt 16:2,3 or Eph
> 4:26); or (c) plain statements of historical fact (Gen 9:17-23, *I think*).
> I would take Joshua 10 to be possibly a combination of (b) and (c).
>
> I certainly agree that the author's intention is paramount, but can we
> always know? This uncertainty seems to me to be at the heart of all the
> debate about how to interpret Gen 1-9, and I certainly don't have all the
> answers. I use the rule of thumb "when in doubt, use (c)" - it seems to me
> to give God the benefit of the doubt. I think overuse of (b) - phenomenal
> language, or "author's viewpoint," is dangerous, for example, what if we
> applied it to eyewitness accounts of the resurrection?
I have to jump in again. I don't think the statement "when in doubt,
use (c)" applies for a literal-seven day creation six thousand years
ago. Geologists don't have many doubts that the earth is vastly older
than 6000 or so years. The only people who seem to have doubts are those
who haven't seriously studied geology (and I'll repeat my constant refrain
in these types of discussions, if you're a geologist and you believe in a
young earth, please contact me because I'd love to talk!).
I guess that the way we all read and interprete the Bible is based to a
large extent on our personal backgrounds and experiences but, in my opinion,
the creation stories don't appear to be an historical narrative at all. They
have a definite mythological (I'm not using the word in a perjorative sense)
flavor to them.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium