 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/16/2004 6:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi folks. I'm new to this forum. I'm rather confused by the position of organisations like Answers in Genesis which seem to consider any position other than a literal 7 day, young earth creation view to be less than Biblically faithful. They take issue with evangelical theologians (even such conservatives as Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer) who leave room for a different perspective.
I have always been rather agnostic about the 'how' of creation. I am not persuaded by the theistic evloution stance because of my disquiet over it's seeming acceptance the ubderlying naturalism which pervades the cyrrent evolutionary paradigm. I guess I find myself more in line with those who wish to challenge the naturalistic evolution from the 'intelligent design' perspective - leaving open the need to debate at a later stage the exact nature and character of the designer and the question of 7 day creation.
Yet from the material I have been given to read by ardent supporters of '7 day, young earth' creationism, it is their unambigious position that all other positions are less than faithful to God's revelation in the scriptures and merely bowing to human authority (whether scientific or interpretation which do not read Genesis in the same plain, literal manner as they do).
Being a relatively new Christian I am disturbed by this It seems to imply that true discipleship means one MUSR subscribe to thier position. They claim a slipper slope argument that not to do so leaves one open to eventually dismissing the virginal conception, bodily resurrection etc. in order to be consistent. Yet I know of many Christians who affirm these without necessarily embracing 7 day, young earth creationism.
Can any one please offer me some good resources to help me work through this?
I ask this because I know of friends who have abandoned Christianity because of their inability to reconcile 7 day, young earth creationism after being challenged to affirm it by its adherents. On tyhe other hand I have not found many who have not been able to affirm the bodily resurrection etc whilst either being agnostic about 'creationism' or holding to a literay framework position on the creation narratives.
Sorry for being so long winded in this my first post. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Diogenes Perhaps
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 1/16/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by mimple
I ask this because I know of friends who have abandoned Christianity because of their inability to reconcile 7 day, young earth creationism after being challenged to affirm it by its adherents.
That's so sad for both sides, one for being so close-minded, the other for such a shallow faith.
http://www.lbfchurch.com/Articles/genesis1-11/creationviews.htm
The only important point, I think, is that God created. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/16/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a few books I recommend:
Hugh Ross, "Creation and Time"
J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, eds., "Three Views on Creation and Evolution"
David G. Hagopian, ed., "The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation"
The first book is a very good presentation and defense of the Old Earth position.
The second is three-way dialogue between young-earth, old-earth, and theistic evolution positions. While the young earth representatives don't engage much with the scientific evidence, they are much more sophisticated in their philosophy of science than the folks from Answers in Genesis or ICR, and they are much less dogmatic.
The third book features a three-way dialogue between young-earth, old-earth, and literary framework interpretations of scripture. The defenders of the framework hypothesis make a very impressive argument that Genesis 1-2 is not intended to give us a chronology of creation--so let the science fall where it may (young or old), it doesn't matter as far as the text of scripture is concerned.
I have found each of these books helpful in thinking about these issues.
Hope it helps.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 1/17/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that main point is taking God at His word and believing it. The Bible says that God created everything in 6 days. www.drdino.com
<><
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 1/17/2004 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Jim_Mottl
I think that main point is taking God at His word and believing it. The Bible says that God created everything in 6 days.
Iconoclast
What confuses me is whether you want us to take God at His word or take your interpretation of God's word at your word.
thanks,
Iconoclast
By all means, don't take my word for it! Read it for yourself.
Gen 1:1-31; 2:1-4
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.
6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground "land" and the water "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came." And so it was. 12 The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 This all happened on the third day.
14 And God said, "Let bright lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years. 15 Let their light shine down upon the earth." And so it was. 16 For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth. The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lesser one, the moon, presides through the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the heavens to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 This all happened on the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, "Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth." 23 This all happened on the fifth day.
25 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal—livestock, small animals, and wildlife." And so it was. 26 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life—the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."
27 So God created people in his own image;
God patterned them after himself;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals." 29 And God said, "Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food." And so it was. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.
1 So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. 2 On the seventh day, having finished his task, God rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from his work of creation. 4 This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
There you go. Should I not believe that this is true?
<><
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 1/17/2004 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Jim_Mottl
There you go. Should I not believe that this is true?
Iconoclast
Sure, I believe it is true also. It seems clear to me that "day" in this context is metaphorical and means something on the order of "work period". I do not interpret it to mean a literal rotation of the earth in 23.9998234255 hours. How do you interpret it?
thanks,
Iconoclast
What reason is there to believe that the days are a metaphor?
Day 3 says that God created the seed-bearing plants and trees.
Day 4 says that God created the Sun.
It makes sense that if God created the plants and trees, he would have to provide a way for them to survive, i.e. making the sun. Put a plant in a place where it does not get any sunlight and see how long it survives. I believe that these are literal days because it is what the text says, and reasoning through it confirms it by the example above. I don't think this is allegorical.
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/17/2004 11:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh dear..here we go again. Could someone please clarify for me the hermenuetical presuppositions which underly this issue of how Genesis should be interpreted? Are our 'young earth, 7 day' creation brothers and sisters correct in arguing that anyone coming to the text without the 'baggage'of an enlightenment world view - with it's commitment to a purely naturalistic methododolgy - would take the plain reading to be a literal 7 day and thefore support young earth creationsim? Is it realy as simple as that?
Is general revlation, post fall, so tainted that the accumulated evidence of geology,astrononmy etc cannot be used to inform our interpretation? If so, how is it that we willingly accept the advancements in civilisation in such fields as medicine, physics, etc which are based on a careful study of general revealtion and the natural world?
What of Genesis itself? Is there a case to be made that whilst the plain reading may seem to 'us moderns' to advocate a young earth position, the issue was not a matter of concern for its original readers in the ancient near eastern context? Could it be that for them, the scientific and historiographical questions which we bring to the text, was not part of their reading horizon. So for them , the dominant issue was the theological and revelatory intent of the passage - not the 'mechanistic/scientific' one modern readers seem to keep bringing to it. Perhaps they were content to let the passage address them on its terms, rather than answer questions about the 'how' and actual 'method' of creation.
These are merely my rambling thoughts as I try to make sense of this whole issue. What disturbs me most is that the 'how'of creation, rather than the 'fact' (God did it - not random naturalism) is being made a touchstone of true evangelical/biblical faithfulness.
If our young earth brothers and sisters are correct, it seems that the overwhelming majority of evangelical biblical scholars have sold out - including those scholars who particpated in the Hermenuetics conference of the ICBI and also such leading Godly O.T. scholars like, Gordom Wenham, Walter Kaiser, John Salihammer, Victor Hamilton, Ronald Youngblood but to name a few.
Does this have to be such a polarising issue and is the dogmaticism so common in young earth creationist polemics justified? Is the Gospel really at stake as its proponents (eg. John Safarti, Ken Ham, Duane Gish) claim? What of the position of the newer breed of young earth scholars (eg Paul Nelson and John Mark Richards) who are less dogmatic in their setting forth of the young earth, 7 day creation poit of view.
I look forward to growing in my understanding on this ....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/18/2004 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey mimple,
quote:
Oh dear..here we go again. Could someone please clarify for me the hermenuetical presuppositions which underly this issue of how Genesis should be interpreted?
How about the same hermeneutic that it takes to understand your post; the mental ability all human beings have: a common demonitator making communication makes possible among all people, regardless of their language or cultural context.
It makes no difference (at this point) that there's scientific evidence of an old earth, and (again, at this point) it makes no difference what the intellectual climate was of the nations and culturals surrounding Israel. The text of the creation chapters in Gensis is clear according to the simple common denominator of communication. There is no extra hermeneutic or extra reasoning or anything else needed to understand the account as it is given.
Now, at this point, if one wants to disupute the text's claim--a literal seven day creation--because of scientific evidence, fine. And if one wants to dispute the claim because it is suggested that Israel wouldn't have believed the account as litera because of the surrounding cultures, their beliefs and what have you, fine. But that's not what the account says.
Unless we can first give the respect of simple, common sense interpretation to anything we read, we can never communicate. And this does not mean that everything we read is obviously literal; it means that the language itself must give evidence of this to justify our interpretation. The creation chapters of Genesis simply do not lend to a non-literal interpretation, whether we think the account is accurate or not.
Got to run ... coffee's waiting!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/18/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | mimple
Are our 'young earth, 7 day' creation brothers and sisters correct in arguing that anyone coming to the text without the 'baggage'of an enlightenment world view - with it's commitment to a purely naturalistic methododolgy…
Jim_Mottl
What reason is there to believe that the days are a metaphor?
Day 3 says that God created the seed-bearing plants and trees.
Day 4 says that God created the Sun.
It makes sense that if God created the plants and trees, he would have to provide a way for them to survive, i.e. making the sun. Put a plant in a place where it does not get any sunlight and see how long it survives. I believe that these are literal days because it is what the text says, and reasoning through it confirms it by the example above.
Iconoclast
mimple, notice what Jim is doing here. He is using a first blush understanding of the text (an hypothesis) and confirming his understanding through reasoning. But notice his reasoning – he is using scientific knowledge to confirm his hypothesis. He is using a purely naturalistic methodology – a scientific experiment about what happens to plants without sunshine – to validate his interpretation of the text.
So, what is the problem with continuing to gather more scientific evidence to continue to confirm or disconfirm our initial hypothesis regarding what the text means? We are all actually doing this – it is only that some deny that this is what they are doing because they are unaware that this is what they are doing.
Now, if we were all to become aware that this is exactly what we are all doing wouldn’t we then need to take into account ALL the scientific evidence that humankind has accumulated?
It seems to me that before we can even converse about what the text means we first must become aware that we are ALL interpreting the text based on our own presuppositions and our own reasoning.
From this agreement then we would need to come to agreement that we must use ALL of the evidence at our disposal to determine what God would have us understand from His word. For any side to limit what evidence is valid or not based on some prejudicial view is to refuse to acknowledge that they are self-selecting the evidence they are willing to look at based on what is convenient to their currently held belief. When this happens – when someone refuses to look at evidence that might disconfirm their currently held belief – one has to ask themselves, why are they doing this? Is it because they have great faith that the Creator of the universe loves them or is it because they have little faith that the Creator of the universe loves them? What would happen to their faith if they suddenly opened their minds up to the possibility that some strongly held belief was, in fact, not true? Have they built their faith that God loves them on a house of cards? Is the belief in a literal seven-day creation the cornerstone card to their faith? And, if it is, is the real problem what they believe regarding creation? Or is the real problem that their faith is built on a house of cards rather than an experiential loving relationship with the Creator of the universe? And, if the real issue is that they have built their faith on a house of cards rather than an encounter with Jesus is it helpful to them to argue with them about a different interpretation or does that just continue to confirm for them that a literal seven-day creation IS a critical belief to their faith? How would one even go about getting at this underlying issue if it is, in fact, the real underlying problem?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 1/18/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I am just checking for the moment, and don't have time to put a lot of time into responding right now. But I do have a question.
Exodus 12:7 They are to take some of the lamb's blood and smear it on the top and sides of the doorframe of the house where the lamb will be eaten.
Exodus 12:12-13 On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and kill all the firstborn sons and the firstborn male animals in the land of Egypt. I will execute judgement against all the gods of Egypt, for I am the LORD! When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This plague of death will not touch you when I strike Egypt.
Is this allegorical or did this actually happen as it says in the Bible?
<><
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/18/2004 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | I think one interesting thing to keep in consideration is the intent and belief of the author. What did the author believe to be writing? Did he believe that he was describing the literal acts of God in the creation of the world? It would seem that it would be likely that he did when you take into account the fact that the Hebrew creation "myth" (not meant to be taken pejoratively) resonates greatly with other ancient creation myths of time. The presuppositions of the writer himself seem to warrant the cocnlusion that he thought he was describing creation in literal terms. It coincides with everything that the people of this time period (and before) believed to be true about the cosmos; such as that the "earth" is flat and mostly continuous body lost amidst the endless chaotic "waters" that were not only surrounding the earth but which also pervaded the space on the other side of the sky, thus also in the "heavens" where YHWH dwelt (see the account of the creation of the sky as "separating the two waters" in Genesis 1)). This works to illustrate the significance of God bringing light and order to a otherwise chaotic and formless mass of earth. this have been an apparent reference to the character of this God as a benevolent creator.
From here we would than have to ask the hermeneutical question, how should this verse be interpreted in light of today's scientific knowledge? It would seem that interpreting it as alegorical will always come off as an ad hoc attempt to make the Bible into something it almost apparently isn't (that is, inerrant), but you could simply claim that God's purpose was communication of concepts (namely, that God is the ex nihilo creator of th universe) and that as long as the concept gets accross than we can go ahead and assume that God a metaphorical reading of the text is ok (as long as the main concept is saved). In light of modern science, it seems almost rediculous to try to force a literal interpretation on the bible, but of course, that is just my interpretation.
Just some thoughts
Aaron S. Rutledge | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 1/18/2004 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Jim_Mottl
Is this allegorical or did this actually happen as it says in the Bible?
Iconoclast
I think it is an historical account.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Why? | | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/18/2004 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Thinking out aloud ....
Ok... let’s assume, rather uncontroversially, that the original readers and author held to a literal 6 day creation cosmology. A world view shared by the surrounding near eastern cultures.
Does this necessarily imply that the intent of the passage would have been understood to be a description of how creation took place as opposed to what the Lord wanted them to know about creation in realtion to the competing polythesim and panetheism of their surroung cultures - as expressed in creation texts such as the Epic of Gilameash (? hope I got that right!). In other words, would the original readers have understood the passage to be a theological/polemical statement concerning the uniqueness of Yahweh and his creation rather then an explanation of the duration and manner in which creation took place.
In other words, is it our modern penchant for scientific and mechanistic explanations which are obscuring the intent of the passage. Are we on safer ground when we simply let the text adddress on it’s term? Revealing to us the nature of God as the creator of all things, the high dignity of being human, the corrupted nature of God’s originally good creation?
Is it also possible that what we have here is a painted scene of the major theological truths about creation and not a manual of how creation was achieved? This does not necessarily imply that there is no historical basis to the passage, it simply understands the passage as having a theological rather than a scientific/historixcal intent as defined by our modern historical and scientific conventions.
There may well be good reasons to infer from witin the passage and the OT and NT canon as a whole certain important historical considerations (eg Adam’s historicity in light of Jesus and Paul’s teachings etc), but these should not be taken to be the primary intent of the passage in it’s original historical.cultural ancient near eastern context.
Does this make sense? Or am I fudging simply because of my disquiet over young earth creationism??
| | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/18/2004 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey Doc Boyd .. what do you make of this? You must have come across many folk who held to a particular view of creation. What is your considered opinion please?? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/19/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon, Icon, Icon! Oh, what-ever am I going to do with you!!!
quote:
The text does not claim a literal seven day creation. YOU are claiming a literal seven day creation based on YOUR reasoning and YOUR presuppositions.
I have different presuppositions and different reasoning than you do and what my normal everyday common understanding of the meaning of words tells me is that this whole story is metaphorical in nature. It seems plain as "day" to me.
Hogwash! Let's just put aside that old and tired Presupposition" argument for one minute and ask the question again: Does the text of the creation account read as anything but literal (poetical vs prose exegesis does not mean non-literal, so forget that argument too)? Further, is it impossible that Job, though it has poetical structure, cannot possibly have been a literal account? Why not? Surely Satan and God have discoursed before over people (e.g., Jude's account of Michael and Satan arguing over the body of Moses). What's so hard to think that there was a real person named Job who became the center of attention in battle between God and Satan? Because it's poetic in nature?
Icon, you say these records are not literal, but then you turn right around and support the exodus event as a literal reading. (James, by the way, refered to the patience of Job, and I can't see how he was looking at a mythilogical, non-literal figure as being much encouragement to the suffering saints he wrote to.)
One event can be read as literal, the other cannot because science says it can't be, or because people have presuppositions. I'll say it again. The creation account is clear: seven days and that's it, folks. It's reiterated in Exodus 20, not as myth, symbol, culture or anything else, but as a reality so striking that it is mentioned in the heart and soul of the law:
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.
I'm sorry, but that isn't read as myth or anything else. It's literal. Now, as I said in my last post, if one wishes to contest the veracity of the account, as not being literal because of scientific evidence, fine, but don't change the common sense reading and meaning of the text to do so. (Presuppositions. Oh, for for the love of Noah!)
Let's stop trying to make the Ancients out to be so culturalized that they can't even understand simple language when it's meant to be understood as such. If we--all of us, from all walks of life, in all cultures and in all time--can't at least talk to each other with the common denomitor that makes communication even possible, then no one on this board has said anything ... at least not that we can be sure is meant to be literal, or otherwise. Wait, we come from a "modern" climate; we reason, therefore we can talk in the literal and mean it to be taken as such.
Hogwash, I tell you, hogwash!
For ... hogwashing,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 1/19/2004 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | mimple: Ok... let’s assume, rather uncontroversially, that the original readers and author held to a literal 6 day creation cosmology. A world view shared by the surrounding near eastern cultures.
A2: Ok, lets.
Mimple: Does this necessarily imply that the intent of the passage would have been understood to be a description of how creation took place as opposed to what the Lord wanted them to know about creation in realtion to the competing polythesim and panetheism of their surroung cultures - as expressed in creation texts such as the Epic of Gilameash (? hope I got that right!).
A2: No of course this does not necessarily imply that the passage was meant to be taken as purely lieteral. In fact, it seems likely that the category "purely literal" wouldn't have been a part of the ancient mindset. The sense one gets from reading the ancient creation myths (as well as almost all ancient texts) is the unabashed mingling of myth/metaphor with literal explanation. They may have seen themselves as having the "true" creation story, while all the while realizing that it is just a story. So, in a sense, I think it would be accurate to say that the author of the Genesis creation story (who is not necessarily or even probably the same person as the writer of Genesis 1) was not only thinking with completely different categories, but that his categories allowed for the intermingling between the theological and literal/descrptive. An interesting question to ask yourself is this: are our creation stories (i.e. the big bang and evolution) any more "real" than the story this community was telling itself? We might say that our Big Bang story is right, be we are also constantly ready to revise it, alter it and conform it to whatever mold we need to (in the modern period it has been the empirical mold). Yet no matter how many changes and revisions it undergoes, it always will remain a story about creation. Of course, our story is more flexible the Jewish/Sumerian/Egyptian story. It can, so we are told, exclude God from the explanation. Of course, "creation without God" is just a subplot to the wider Big Bang plot some of us choose to tell ourselves about the creation/beginning of the universe.
Mimple: In other words, would the original readers have understood the passage to be a theological/polemical statement concerning the uniqueness of Yahweh and his creation rather then an explanation of the duration and manner in which creation took place.
A2: It is likely that it is both/and not either/or
Mimple: Are we on safer ground when we simply let the text adddress on it’s term?
A2: This may sound like a nice thing to strive for, but unfortunately this is not possible. as human beings we are so indellibly embedded in our own worldviews that we cannot simply "put on the mindset" which created these passages. Niether do we have the historical recources to construct anything that goes beyond mere historical and exegetical conjecture.
The questions y'all are asking here are twofold and intermingling
Exegetical/Historical- What does the text really say? What was the author thinking as he wrote each word? How did the story come into existence, what was it trying to explain and what were the motives behind its creation? What role did the story play in its wider historical context? How do we know?
Hermeneutical/Theological- How does God want this story to be understood today? What role should the authors intent play in how we interpret it today? Why would God want it to be interpeted literally? Why would he want it to be treated metaphorically? What was God's intent in putting this in his "word" and how do we know?
Personally, I think that tryint o answers these question is, while quite fun, utterly hopeless. You will never reach certainty on this or any other issue that is being debated on this entire website (unless you choose to be certain about it). Nevertheless, truth is out there, unfortunately, we never really know if we are getting closer to it or further away from it.
Sorry this was so long
With respect
Aaron S. Rutledge | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/19/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
Metaphors We Live By ... got it, my good man. I'll see if I can't find it one of these days.
Thanks much,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:22 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|