Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Serious Question

Forum Quick Jump

129 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/1/2004 11:30 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Scott,

Great stuff. Thanks very much.

Now, here's the biggie (question...or two!):

Do you circumbscribe your acceptance of theories and ANE concepts with particular parameters? In other words, where do you draw lines as to scholarly accuracy and to the discovery of truth, so that you don't end up going out into left field?

Who do you suggest one avoids in regard to scholarly reading on these subjects? In other words, who is not doing a good job or is no on base, in your opinion?

Great talking with you again, Scott. I'll PM you my e-mail address.

Thanks much,

Starkman

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 9/1/2004 11:43 AM (GMT -6)

Here are a couple of other good Westminster Theological Journal papers, this time by Mark Futato:

Mark Futato: "Because It Had Rained", http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/92974~9_27_99_7-13-34_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.1.pdf (part 1) and http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/79611~10_4_99_5-20-49_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.2.pdf (part 2)

These papers advance some particular arguments for ahistorical (or at least dischronological) interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and propose that the ANE civilization most in mind in those chapters is Canaanite rather than Babylonian or Egyptian (a slight scholarly difference with others - most scholars primarily see Babylon, not Canaan, in Genesis 1 and in fact that is a significant reason they date Genesis 1 late, to the period around the exile). My mind is that there is probably a layering of tradition there, as the texts and the traditions they were based upon were adapted and reapplied to the succession of ANE opponents facing the Hebrews (Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon).

Scott

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 9/1/2004 11:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Do you circumbscribe your acceptance of theories and ANE concepts with particular parameters? In other words, where do you draw lines as to scholarly accuracy and to the discovery of truth, so that you don't end up going out into left field?

Who do you suggest one avoids in regard to scholarly reading on these subjects? In other words, who is not doing a good job or is no on base, in your opinion?

I would be particularly skeptical of anyone who fails to treat the text with respect and instead finds it wanting - for example, denigrating it as the work of primitives or denying its relevance to the community today. People who think the text is essentially not worthwhile have therefore probably not thought it worth much of their time to really study it, and thus are unlikely to have anything really perceptive to say.

I also would be particularly skeptical of anyone who interprets the text through modern lenses rather than in the historical-cultural context - whether on the right (eg inerrantists) or left wings (eg philosophical skeptics/atheists). Such authors' mindset would cast a suspicion, in my mind, on their receptivity and objectivity - naturally, when they assess the game of football by judging it with the rules of baseball, they either find it wanting (left wing) or let their imaginations run away trying to harmonize (right wing).

But frankly, no-one should be avoided whose ideas about creation-evolution and Genesis interpretation most reasonably and parsimoniously fit with the overall scheme of evidence. If atheist Old Testament scholar Gerald LaRue puts forward well-reasoned and supported ideas about the nature of the text in its historical-cultural context - more power to him. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll draw the same faith conclusions from those ideas that he will, though :-) Close to the other side of the spectrum, the same could be said with respect to, say, old-earth inerrantist Hugh Ross.

Scott

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/1/2004 12:16 PM (GMT -6)

I sent you an e-mail, Scott.

Thanks,

Starkman

129 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual