From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 12:06:22 EST
Whether or not George is a "literalist " is irrelevant. He is trying to
emphasis the need for a detailed study and exegesis of the text - any text -
before we can understand what it means.
Walter, what on earth (pun) is a dust man? (Overhere a dustman is a garbage
collector!) It is chemical nonsense to imagine God scooped up some dust,
added a drop of water and formed a ginger-bread man like morph and then blew
the breath of life into it. (Staight out of Bernard Ramm that).
Before we start trying to ascribe inerrancy to be bible we should show our
devotion to it by studying it very carefully and use every normal means of
interpretation to understand. That starts with a careful understanding of
the words, then the syntax etc
Michael
> 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 - 13:53:31 EST