Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

Iain -

There's a good deal of truth in what you say but care is needed. There's a big difference between saying (e.g.) that the resurrection of Jesus "means X" and saying "the accounts of the Easter appearances and the empty tomb mean X." The former makes sense if the resurrection is something that actually happened, but if it didn't then it's vacuous to say that it "means" anything. OTOH the stories can have a meaning even if they are not historical accounts.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; WENDEE HOLTCAMP ; George Cooper
  Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/

  A good (evangelical) friend of mine who is a lay preacher made the point to me that the word "myth" nowadays has negative connotations, implying just a made up fairy story. However the use of myths is to illustrate spiritual truths, rather than mere history. In other words, to state that the creation accounts are allegorical (and mythical) makes them MORE meaningful than mere history. However, in modern parlance the word "myth" just means "lie" ( e.g. how many times have you seen "10 myths about <xyz> debunked"). When understood properly, a mythical status of an account makes int more important.

  I'm also reminded of an industrial chaplain who used to visit a Christian group I attended, who said "in Jewish tradition, the important question is not 'did it happen?', but 'what does it mean?'". On reflection that seems to me to be the wisest thing I've heard on this whole debate.

  Iain

  On 7/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com > wrote:
    What a fascinating sentence that is, probably more interesting than you intended.

    First of all, what is the "traditional" view? I agree that there are some interpretations of Genesis that are in conflict with science, but I am not sure how traditional they are. And those who hold those views would consider it anathema to "reinterpret" Genesis because it conflicts with science. Those that hold this view would consider the science flawed, and scripture as the only source of truth.

    Second, you used the word framework. Whether you realize it or not, there is a biblical interpretation titled the "framework" view. It sees Genesis more figuratively, but not as a fairly tale, and it does not conflict with science. If you are not familiar with it the leading authors of this view are Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, among others.

    On Fri Jul 27 9:18 , "George Cooper" sent:

      Since the traditionally viewed framework of Genesis is now in conflict with science, reinterpretation is required. People who see it as a fairy tale will certainly have little reason to take it seriously.

    To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

  --
  -----------
  After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.

  - Italian Proverb
  -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 10:33:05 2007