|
Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the
ologies.
In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so
that we may recognize the faith
once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or
reality. Jesus was not referring to any
"Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they
would be One as He and the Father are One
Is "Unity in diversity" how you see the Godhead or
"Trinity?" JD
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.
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
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
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.
|
