<<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?>>
Again, your coming in late leaves a lot of ground to make up. I'll try to put
it in simple terms: Glenn believes Gen. 1 has to be journalistic-type
history...everything in order and detail, like one might read in a newspaper
account or college outline. That is one kind of history. There is another
kind. Scholars call it "saga history." (You'll find this in Bloesch, by the
way. Keep reading).
That's where we differ. We also differ because Glenn doesn't accept any other
kind of history. Do you? Maybe not, because you write:
<<Does this mean that you want to have it both ways? Historical and yet
not historical (which is what I *would* call historical fiction)... I was
referring to *your* reference to Longfellow's poem, which is
historical fiction.>>
It ain't fiction, Dave. There really was a Paul Revere (in history) who made a
famous ride (in history). Longfellow didn't make him up out of whole cloth,
like Tolkein made up Frodo. See the difference? Fiction means "feigned or
imagined." Paul Revere wasn't imagined.
Now, Longfellow used what we call "poetic license" in the poem, but that is a
different matter entirely. That is a matter of genre. Hey! Just like Genesis!
Maybe you are using "historical fiction" to mean what Longfellow did in his
poem. I wouldn't use that term, though, because it is fraught with ambiguity
as to its meaning. To most, historical fiction is something like Gone With the
Wind. It is centrally about characters who never existed. That is not what I'm
contending at all.
<<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?>>
Well, if misrepresentation happens, we can't go to implications. The logic
won't work. You can't get to accurate analysis unless the initial position is
stated accurately. Once that's done, I enjoy talking implications.
Anyway, I trust we are clearer now that poetry does not mean NO history. What
implications would you like to explore from that?
<<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. >>
The same Author commands us to work hard to "rightly divide the Word." Surely
you take him at His word here? Just what does that mean to us, today, trying
to understand His revelation? Use hermeneutics or not?
<<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.>>
On the individual level, I agree with you! This is the great promise for all
(the promise recaptured in the Reformation). But we also operate on a
collective level (and have to, or else our Christianity becomes a kind of
spiritual anarchy). That is why Christ left us THE CHURCH, and not Lone Ranger
masks. And in this church has "appointed some to be apostles, some to be
prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors AND TEACHERS..." The
implications of the latter, I think, are evident.
<< I want to ride the train of reasoning and experiences that brought the
author to the place he was at...>>
So if he was on the Freight Train called Hebraic thought forms, wouldn't it
help you to know this? You could actually get on the train and ride along with
him!
<<When I say `train of reasoning,' I don't think I mean the same as
`thought forms.' The latter means `forms of expressing thought.'>>
No, that's not what it means. "Thought forms" refers to paradigms, models
through which a certain culture processes information. Without an
understanding of these, it is difficult if not impossible to truly understand
what the author intends for his audience.
<<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).>>
Then you're REALLY missing Bloesch! Listen:
"In my view, inspiration is the divine election and superintendence of
particular writers and writing in ORDER TO ENSURE A TRUSTWORTHY AND POTENT
WITNESS TO THE TRUTH....The critical elements in divine inspiration are the
election and divine guidance of the writers, the inward illumination of
hearers and readers, and the communication of the truth of revelation."
[Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 119]
Sounds like Dave Probert to me!
"Today, theology needs to recover the paradoxical unity of Word and Spirit,
for ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THIS UNITY CAN SCRIPTURE BE MADE TO COME ALIVE AND BE
A TRANSFORMING LEAVEN IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH. Scripture itself is the
written Word of God, comprising by virtue of its divine inspiration a reliable
witness to the truth revealed by God in Jesus Christ. But it becomes the
LIVING WORD WHEN IT ACTUALLY COMMUNICATES TO US THE TRUTH AND POWER OF THE
CROSS OF CHRIST THROUGH THE ILLUMINATION OF THE SPIRIT." [Bloesch, pp. 25-26]
Again, this sounds a lot like Dave Probert. So perhaps we have come to agree
at last?
Jim