Re: [asa] RE: Bible veracity

Indeed, there is great value in the very tension that exists between
disparate ideas. It is a recognition that seems to be elusive in our
time when black and white, win/lose is more appealing than the idea of
living in a state of tension and allowing temperate and illuminating
conversation to exist without requiring that one of the conversants
either convert or die. It's another dangerous era our world has entered
when the imposition of ideas and wills is such a dominant modality in
venues both large and small. I make it out that Jesus has called his
community to embody and evince peace among God's man-creations.
Practice in the small things gives us (and others) hope for peace in the
"big show".

As that applies to Genesis et seq, its parts once expressed to someone
in their time what the author(s) set out to say. Our opinions as to
whether they succeeded, and whether subsequent translations remained
faithful to that intent of expression depends upon what we require of
the texts. That is the nubbin, "what we require of the texts".

But that seems simply upside down to me, this "...what WE require of the
texts".

Our arguments won't change or settle what the author(s) were in fact
communicating. But the dialogue is illuminating, and at the end of the
day, in all honesty I think we must be comfortable with (and teach!) a
diversity of sensibilities about both the nature of the scripture and
what it says to us, simply because we do not and cannot have the minds
of the author(s) or of the original hearers.

I love this ASA forum because it for the most part exemplifies this
approach. The "tensions" exist here, as does the conversation, most of
which is civil. My wish is that a little more caution might be manifest
as to the self-assured certainty of some of the positions, simply
because carried over into a more public and less knowledgable forum, it
oversimplifies and I think does a disservice to the nature of the
history and documents and even the substance of our faith, all rich in
diversity and thought, and not nearly so tidy as to preclude questions
and serious thought as one grows in (presumeably dynamic) faith.

Returning to the post below, you bet! Good teaching always requires
leveling the subject matter to the audience. One should ponder exactly
what that might mean in the context of the writers and hearers of the
early scriptural writings. Your (Debbie's) observations about tailoring
explanatory material resonates with me, and seems not dissonant with the
way Genesis speaks to me. At the end of the day, it seems to me that we
could (can/do) very easily require too much of these texts and thereby
run the risk of unintentionally diminishing their exquisite though
simple central message in our own eyes, as well as those in our other
spheres of endeavor.

Or so it seemeth to me. JimA
 

Debbie Mann wrote:

>Glenn Said:
>
>I think you misunderstand. I don't want someone to go through line by line.
>I think what I want is an acknowledgement that concordism is necessary or we
>have very little except self-delusion.
>
>Debbie replies:
>
>Whose responsibility is it to acknowledge this?
>
>And if they do say that they agree with you that concordism is necessary,
>then you demand that they prove that it exists - when no proof is possible.
>
>You seem to be angry when there is no acknowledgment, but also angry when
>there is acknowledgement but no proof.
>
>I have been amazed to find that the Catholics do not expect concordism, nor
>do I get the impression that most Jewish leaders expect it. Nor do I get the
>impression that most of the people on the list expect it. Atheists do.
>Atheists spend hours and hours dissecting the Bible proving that what they
>consider to be concordism does not exist.
>
>I have been a teacher. I have taught people far less educated, less
>intelligent and less experienced than I. I frequently use the 'repeat after
>me in your own words' technique because I am also a parent. I have
>frequently 'settled' for them getting the right idea, even if they had
>certain 'facts' wrong. If you add something that has a magnitude of two to
>something which has a magnitude of two do you get four? Maybe, maybe not.
>You get something less than or equal to four. Do we hash this out in class?
>Depends on the class. Now, this particular question would not be asked
>unless it was to be hashed out - but there are others which parallel this
>that come up surprisingly often. The 'truthful' answer would distract and
>confuse the student. So, instead of 'technically the answer is not but...' I
>have paused and answered 'yes' to such questions. Also, I have frequently
>made up stupid little stories to illustrate points.
>
>Aesop's fables are great. Did a fox really talk to some grapes? I think not.
>But the story is culturally sound.
>
>I'm listening to the new Teaching Company tape on Genesis. I'll let you know
>if it touches on something that I think will be of value to you. The
>introduction states that the book of Genesis is the greatest piece of
>ancient literature there is.
>
>I read a lot of historical fiction in my youth. It was an easier way to get
>an idea of the times - and a far more moral one. Have you read any of
>Dickens non-fiction? He wrote some true stuff that was pretty randy - I
>couldn't finish it. Dickens fiction did a lot to change society. He is
>credited with bringing Christmas back to England.
>
>'Uncle Tom's Cabin' changed a lot of lives. How about '1984'?
>
>I do not agree with you that the choice is between concordism and delusion.
>
>History is not always cause and effect. It does not teach in a clear and
>linear fashion. It is filled with all sorts of asides, and distractions that
>are far from the point. Why did Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Genghis
>Khan succeed? There are lessons to be learned from their lives and deaths -
>but they aren't the best ones to teach us how to be perfected as human
>beings.
>
>The Bible is to teach us how to live. It doesn't have to agree with either
>history or science in order to accomplish this.
>
>
>
>-
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 18 04:23:10 2006