From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 13:52:56 EST
Jan writes
>>While I'm writing, I'm curious how many of the NT miracles
>>you accept. I won't be offended if you consider that to be
>>too personal a question. With a few exceptions, I think
>>most of this list has accepted Gen 1-11 as mythology/exaggeration.
>>It's gotten a little boring to talk about.
>Jim, I would not say it that way. Gen.1-11 is not mythology, nor is it
>exaggeration. We want to translate something written in a background
>strange to us, with an outlook on life we do not understand into a story
>acceptable to scientists (of all kinds) in the 20th and 21st
>century. These modern scientist have a particular outlook on life (say
>philosophy of life), consequently on story-telling, which they then want to
>use on writings of a century they do not understand. That never
>works. Translators of the Bible know that, and I am convinced that they
>even translate words incorrectly because of that. However, very few of us
>are willing to study those possibilities, and do our own research, which
>then may result in still another translation.
>Is it boring? I don't think so, but it may be dangerous in some churches,
>if you want to remain a member of the church, the community of saints.
My point was that you can't take the words at face value. We all
(except the in-denial YECs) accept that. To me, the next logical
question is "what about the New Testament?" Are these more historically
inaccurate "stories" to "make a theological point?" Did Jesus raise from
the dead "in a spiritual sense?" If we can destroy the meaning of words
in the OT, it is only intellectually honest to challenge the NT as well.
Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 01:03:31 EST