Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Paul,

Your example of the missionary and the translation is a very nice one,
but I don't think it addresses the core of Glenn's questions (as I
understand them). The example you gave was that the interpreter gave
a different metaphor (that was accomodated to what the people might be
accustomed to) in place of the original - the two metaphors had the
same meaning. But I think Glenn's point is that the Bible seems to
describe as History (not as metaphor), which has since been shown to
be false. Hence accomodationalism is not the substitution of one
metaphor for another, but rather the presentation _as truth_ something
that was in accord with the current understanding of science, but
which subsequently was superseded by better theories. Glenn's point
is that ANE cosmology is WRONG science, so how can we trust the
theology of the Bible which states things in terms of such outdated
cosmology. This is on an entirely different level from substituting
trucks for ships.

I personally don't have an answer to Glenn's question apart from
"seeing through a glass darkly", but I thought in fairness that I
should state that I don't think your example, however nice it is,
gives an answer.

Iain

On 6/3/06, Paul Seely <PHSeely@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Glenn wrote,
>
> <<Where does it say that God will only prevaricate about science but not
> prevaricate about theology?>>
>
>
> The question is good, but you have distorted the issue by using the word
> prevaricate. Like many evangelical Christians you have put God in a box and
> given him just three possible ways of speaking about matters: He can make a
> mistake (whoops), or he can lie, or he can tell the truth. Apparently, you
> have decided, I think rightly, that biblical statements accommodated to the
> science or cultural beliefs of the times are not due to God's ignorance or
> failure of memory, so in the box you have made for God, there is nothing
> left but to label them as lies (prevaricate).
>
> So, I ask, Where does it say that God only has these three options?
>
> A few years ago I heard of a missionary who went to central Africa to
> preach, but he knew very little of the native language, so when he preached
> he used an interpreter. In the midst of a sermon, he quoted James 3:4
> "Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong
> winds, are still directed by a very small rudder, wherever the inclination
> of the pilot desires." But, the interpreter's message at this point did not
> sound right to the missionary, so he stopped preaching and asked the
> interpreter, "What did you just tell them?" The interpreter said, These
> people have never seen a ship and do not know what one is, so I told them
> that even though trucks are large, they are directed by a little steering
> wheel."
>
> The interpreter was telling the people that the missionary and the Bible
> spoke of a truck and a steering wheel, which is NOT TRUE. It is not what
> they said. Now my question to you is this: Did the interpreter accidentally
> get the translation wrong, or did he lie? Or is it just possible that
> there is another perfectly ethical and even rational alternative?
>
> Paul
>
> .
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------