> Glen,
> I think the notion that the authors were not fully aware is not
> eisegetical uncleanness at all. Perhaps they were aware at one "level"
> but not at another. This is called "sensus plenior," which in itself
> could be a sticky, but fun, hermeneutical discussion.
>
> Dennis (with 2 "n's" -- from Dionysius, god of wine) Durst
> ;-)
>
Hey Dennis with 2 "n"s,
The notion of sensus plenior is often associated with Christological
typology. Glenn (two "n"s too) clearly holds a similar method with
regard to Gen 1, but his approach is better (and currently) termed
"concordism."
Support for Christological typology (rhetorically as unusual as it
appears) is from the NT's use of the OT. Concordism, however, is not
evident in the NT. For that matter, excepting the notion of creatio ex
nihilo, the NT is consonant with Gen 1. Instead, concordism springs from
outside the Biblical tradition (but that is not to imply it is ungodly, I
just think it is eisegetical). It has been around a long time, made
significant inroads in the 19th century geologcal/biological
controversies, and is now manifested in an inordinately resistant
(virulent?) form as expressed by Hayward and our recalcitrant friend Mr.
Morton (that should get me a blast of hot Dallas air up here in
Northlands).
Blessings,
Denis with only 1 "n" (who prefers the amber nectar of the gods)
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------