Re: A man of mud Re: Academics who actively support Young Earth Creationism

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 08:18:03 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: A man of mud Re: Academics who actively support Young Earth Creationism"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > George Murphy wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I'll repeat something that I said in an exchange here a few weeks ago. One
    > > should be a "biblical literalist" in the sense of taking the precise letters & words of
    > > scripture seriously.
    >
    > How can one accept that, George? You would expect that the Bible should specify the exact
    > chemical composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to:
    >
    > > But one should _not_ be one in the sense of assuming that all the
    > > texts of scripture are to be read as accurate historical narratives.
    >
    > As the only alternative?
    >
    > Sounds like a set-up to me ---- just a hokey way to turn everything into a non literal
    > interpretation.

        You have not understood what I said. Let me back up. In order to understand ANY text you
    first have to read it with care and pay attention to what it says. That is the case whether
    the text in question is Genesis 2, a sura from the Qur'an, The Origin of Species, or The
    Wasteland. To read a text with care, paying attention to all the exact words that are used
    and not inserting anything that isn't there, is essential to learning what the author(s)
    and/or editor(s) of the text intended to say.

       You have to try to determine what _kind_ of text you're dealing with - whether it is
    historical narrative, saga, liturgy, theological treatise &c - by analyzing the structure of
    the text, putting it in its contexts (literary, cultural, historical, scientific) and
    comparing it with other texts as to literary structure.

        When you say "You would expect that the Bible should specify the exact chemical
    composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to," you are showing the fundamental
    confusion that besets so much popular discussion of the Bible: That the only way it can claim
    to be true is if it claims to be an accurate historical or scientific account. That is not
    true. But this is not, as you further say "just a hokey way to turn everything into a non
    literal interpretation." There are some parts of scripture which _are_ to be read as
    historical narratives.

    Shalom,
    George

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 08:21:35 EST