I absolutely agree. My only point was by this was that most people took that
as the natural meaning. In other words there did not seem to be a problem
with 24-hour days until the rise of modern science (at least not much of a
problem) But I agree that the traditional interpretation on any point may be
wrong and should not necessarily be the standard against which all truth is
measured.
Lloyd Eby wrote:
>Maybe so, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion
concerns the proper meaning or understanding of that description. There is
*no* interpretation principle or scheme (or hermeneutic, to use the
three-dollar word) which wears its worth or obviousness or justification
on its sleeve, so to speak. This does *not* mean that every one is as good
as every other. But it *does* mean that there is no such principle which
is obviously or naturally or unchallangeably superior to any other.
Believing otherwise is the hallmark of fundamentalism, and fundamentalism
becomes self-refuting in the face of competing and different
fundamentalisms.<
Lloyd,
I honestly am not trying to be difficult here. I honestly do not see what
Jim is trying to say. He criticises Mike and I for assuming that just
because a text is mytho-poetry that it is ipso facto unhistorical. So I
offer the suggestion in an attempt to understand what he is saying that if he
is saying that a poem can convey historical truth we all agree with that.
But if the poem doesn't relate history I would have trouble with that. But
Jim's last post was non-responsive to the dichotomy I presented. So I ask for
him to show me in what manner those 3 statements would be handled. But I
never see any example of what it is he means by this is historical but it is
mythopoetry. What is the difference between my child's history book and
mythopoetry which requires me to somehow interpret the scripture differently.
Others may see the difference which I am unable to. But I can't see HOW or
WHAT this difference is.
I am also not trying to suggest that the hermeneutic I like is better than
all others. But Jim keeps implying that the mythopoetry is historical but
apparently refuses to allow it to be subjected to the same standards of truth
which other historical events are judged. Caesar either conquered Gaul or he
didn't. That is something of which the label TRUE or FALSE can be applied. I
can go to France and find evidence of that conquest, in the language, in
ancient roads and battlements etc.This evidence does not prove that Caesar
conquered Gaul, but it is consistent with that concept. Jim seems to want
the mythopoetry to be historical but neither TRUE nor FALSE (I guess, I still
don't understand).
If Genesis is to be removed from the arena of historical verification then
will someone please say so clearly? And say so without telling me what I am
assuming. Tell me clearly what it is that you mean!!
This will be my last post on this subject. Jim, the floor is yours.
glenn