Re: Reading Genesis literally

Has anyone read John Collins' new book, "Gensis 1-4: A Linguistic,
Literary, and Theological Commentary"? (Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875526195/sr=8-1/qid=1145895399/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5350462-9748866?%5Fencoding=UTF8)
It's really outstanding, I think, in taking the text very, very seriously
from a conservative perspective, and in showing by doing that that a simple
"literalist" isn't what the text intends to communicate. Not everyone here
will agree with all of Collins' conclusions, but it's well worth the read.

On 4/24/06, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For a really eye-opening example of how literalists of the past exegeted
> Genesis, take a look at "On the literal meaning of Genesis" by St.
Augustine. I
> would hardly characterize Augustine's interpretation as literal. However,
it is
> a valuable reference.
>
> --- Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> > From "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman (or was it Cutler's
> > work about N. Steno -- I may be conflating two recent readings of mine),
> > I recently learned that what we refer to as "literalism" or
> > "literalists" today is probably an unfair caricature of what the word
> > used to refer to. Back in the reformation days, those known as
> > literalists freely acknowledged literary devices in their many
> > appearances throughout scripture -- beyond just those parts that are
> > obviously or explicitly acknowledged to be parables or poems, etc.
> > Even today's literalists are probably not quite so literarily shallow as
> > they are often painted. But it does sound if the term did have deeper
> > nuanced meanings historically than gets packed into it today.
> >
> > I was interested to learn in Cutler's work "Seashell on a Mountaintop"
> > that Christian geologists (in the then fledgling profession) and
> > certainly many Christian scientists in general had little objections to
> > the departure from the young-earth time line in and around the 18th
> > century -- in some ways precipitated by the pious Steno himself. It
> > wasn't till Darwin's common descent which did evoke stronger reactions
> > -- and perhaps well after that even that old earth timeliness came to be
> > seen as ammunition in the science vs. religion warfare model.
> > Apparently some who would have identified with "listeralism" back then
> > saw no conflict in reading Genesis 1 timelines metaphorically. I can't
> > get more specific without checking out the book again to find names, but
> > others here probably know who's who.
> >
> > --merv
> >
> > There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
> > returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. --
> > Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > gordon brown wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, burgytwo@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>From AIG this week:
> > >>
> > >>Q: AiG teaches that we must take Genesis as written, but should we
take the
> > whole Bible literally?
> > >>
> > >>A: We?ve got to be very careful here. It?s true, for example, that
Jesus
> > quoted from Genesis when he talked about the foundation of marriage.
Thus, he
> > took Genesis literally. Paul quoted from Genesis when writing about the
first
> > man and the Last Adam, so he accepted Genesis literally, too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >We tend to give the term 'literally' a meaning that is not literal.
Even
> > >the so-called literalists do not take everything in the Bible
literally.
> > >The passage referred to above that Jesus quotes is Gen. 2:24 that
speaks
> > >of two becoming one flesh. Does AiG take one flesh literally?
> > >
> > >Gordon Brown
> > >Department of Mathematics
> > >University of Colorado
> > >Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Received on Mon Apr 24 12:21:59 2006