Re: The Oldest Human Fossils ...

In a message dated 3/2/2005 10:57:23 AM Eastern Standard
Time, "George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, we have to first try to determine the meaning of the texts in
>their original setting, as they were understood by their human
>writers and the audiences to which they originally were addressed.
>But to that extent we're just doing literary criticism, not
>theology. Christian theology is to be done from the standpoint of
>faith in Christ.
>
> rich:
> That's what you said above. You called understanding the texts in
>their original setting literary criticism. That's wrong.
> That's what I responded to.

The study of literature is called literary criticism. If that
literature claims to contain historical or scientific information then
it also gives us putative data for historical or scientific studies.
I did not expand upon all the possibilities for the point that I was
making was that the study of the texts alone isn't theology.

> george:
> Thus your statements really have nothing to do with what I've said.
>
> rich:
> You're right. My correct statements as to how to separate faith and
>science to study the Biblical texts have nothing to do with what
>you've said and if there's anything in the scientific study of those
>texts that would shed light on the development of Christian theology,
>you won't encounter it. Thanks for the exchange.

You continue to ignore what I've said. Though you seem to have little
idea about how theology - as distinguished from religious studies - is
done, you will imagine that your statements about how to relate faith
and science are "correct" because you aren't interested in what anyone
else has to say if they don't agree with you. Happy soliloquizing.

Shalom,
George
Received on Wed Mar 2 19:53:39 2005