|
Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have)
taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group
(sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as
'recovering' the truth.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 18, 2006 17:35
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in
Genesis literal or figurative?
It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is
not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be
opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often
different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless
of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity
concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be
unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that
exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal.
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my
remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My
comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in
a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such -
for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years
old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such,
IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real
question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that
question.
End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve
into the character of the opponent is side tracked.
Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course.
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: "David Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John wrote:
> > To your
first question , "no."
>
> If I get time, I will try and
present some of it for you.
>
> John wrote:
> > To
your second question, either you
> > did not read my post or you
have
> > decided to insult my presentation?
>
> I
read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.
> Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider
using a
> figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most
Bible scholars,
> but the pressure for doing this seems to come
from science not good
> theology, in my opinion.
>
>
The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses
> the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be
figurative, but
> the uses of the word day prior to this are
numbered. The text says, First
> Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc.
It is hard to insist that numbered days
> are figurative. It is the
numbering of the day as well as its coupling with
> the evening and
morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as
>
being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and
> morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were
greatly
> extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain
the figurative
> chronology that you hold onto. There is the added
problem of having plants
> created long before the sun, moon, and
stars? Not likely from a biologist's
> perspective. So, in all,
your perspective is not the most parsimonious
> explanation. I
remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation.
>
> What
bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is
> that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the
meaning must be
> figurative, they just find ways to try and show
why it could be read this
> way. I have no trouble understanding
that it might be read this way. I
> have trouble with the idea that
it should be read this way.
>
> What is the motivation for
making it figurative? I believe the motivation
> is cultural. It
seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims
> of
science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis
> 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly
from the
> text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long
process of creation?
>
> David Miller
>
>
====================
> John, I have a couple questions for you.
>
> 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological
treatment concerning the
> length of the day in Genesis 1? I have
read his perspective and even
> discussed this personally with him
before, but he comes from a theology
> background and I come from a
science background, so I don't know how well he
> is accepted as a
"theologian." His arguments for why the day is not
> figurative
made a lot of sense to me.
>
> 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL
or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day
> figuratively? In other
words, I don't have a problem with someone saying
> that perhaps we
should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there
> is
any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a
> theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in
Genesis 1 as
> figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy
Spirit guiding us, what
> would be the reasons to view the day
figuratively in Genesis 1?
>
> David Miller
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace,
seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer
every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
> & lt;
BR>> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an
email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be
unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be
subscribed.
|
