> * Glenn's diagram is simple, but wrong. Simiplicity is not virture if it
> doesn't capture a position correctly.
I don't see how the diagram is wrong. Why are historicity and evolution
not valid axes?
> * Glenn's characterization of my position is that there is NO history, no
> reality, no truth in Gen. 1 simply because of the genre. That is 180 degrees
> from anything I've ever said.
So why don't you put yourself into the historical/no-evolution corner of
Glenn's diagram and be content? Perhaps you would like to add some other
axis to make his diagram more useful, but how is it `wrong'?
Also your statement above suggests that you think there is absolute history,
reality, and truth in Genesis 1. (What else does 180 degrees mean?) If
this is true, then what exactly are you disputing with Glenn?
> I attribute it to Glenn using "either/or" exclusively. You seem to tend a
> little to that "either/or", too, Dave, when you write, first:
Does this mean that you want to have it both ways? Historical and yet
not historical (which is what I *would* call historical fiction).
> How did you leap from recognition of genre to "historical fiction"? Again,
> this is something no one has ever asserted here. If you can cite me
> any of my language that is "ambiguous" on this point, that would help.
> Then I can clarify if need be.
I was referring to *your* reference to Longfellow's poem, which is
historical fiction. As I said to Denis, I doubt you believe that
there is historical fiction in the Scripture, yet you suggest an
analogy of some kind.
As Glenn pointed out, poetic does not necessarily require a loss
of accuracy. In fact poetry is often necessary to communicate ideas
with any kind of fullness of meaning.
> But I really like your two statements about "enlightenment" and "author
> intent," both of which I've championed in these discussions (again, you
> bring up "entertainment," but I never intimated such a thing. See why
> I can get a little touchy about mischaracterization?)
I think you may get touchy because you read other's responses to your posts
as if they were supposed to accurately reflect your views. I have trouble
understanding why you sometimes seem touchy when people try to explore the
*implications* of your ideas. If you think the implication doesn't follow,
why not refute the argument rather than claim *you* were mispresented?
I brought up entertainment, as that is the primary value of the fiction
in historical fiction. It is an implication of your suggestion that there
was some kind of analogy between historical fiction, such as long fellow,
and the literary forms of the Bible.
So if you indeed don't see Genesis 1 as historical fiction like
Longfellow's poem, please just say so and we can back out of that cul de sac.
***
> Now, your "author intent" principle is a mainstay of good hermeneutics, but
> then you undercut yourself with this:
> <<I also doubt that it is necessary to have a Hebraic thought-form in mind
> when reading the Scripture.>>
> It is if you want to understand author intent! How can you possibly have a
> full understanding of what ancient Hebrew writers intended if you don't
> understand their thought forms? It is absolutely crucial, especially when a
> current thought form can actually skew the meaning of Scripture.
I guess we are thinking of different authors. The Author I was referring
to has ways that not even the Hebrews understood, and spoke through them
of mysteries that they did not comprehend. (But we have the mind of Christ).
I believe the testimony of Scripture is that to understand what God would
speak to us requires only receptive hearts (open ears). The learned of the
Jews in Jesus' time were unable to understand the Scriptures, because they
were unable to recognize the God of the Scriptures. The ability to hear
His voice is what is critical.
At the level of the human authorship, what I want to understand is what
was being observed and experienced that was captured in the words. I
want to ride the train of reasoning and experiences that brought the
author to the place he was at, where the Spirit of God breathed upon
his spirit inspiring him to write as he did.
The Bible is different than other historical writings. The difference
with even the apocryphal books is so very striking. It is not the
text or forms used, it is the purity of the Spirit of God moving upon
the authors that is so astounding. (One of my points of disagreement
with Bloesch).
When I say `train of reasoning,' I don't think I mean the same as
`thought forms.' The latter means `forms of expressing thought.'
In all the years I have read the Bible I have only found such
considersations useful when something really cryptic got said. But not
really useful, as general comments about literature never can prove
what was intended in a specific instance. The best help for resolving
mysteries is to consider the context within the text itself.
(Understanding historical context doesn't usually help much either, as
what people in general may have been in general thinking about doesn't
tell you about what the author was thinking at the moment he was writing).
> Hermeneutics is tough work, but necessary.
Hermeneutics, like all human endeavors, is likely to be useful only if
it does not exalt itself too highly. God *will* confound the wisdom
of the wise. 90% of the value in formal hermeneutics is due to the
application of common sense, which He freely gives to all who ask.
--Dave