From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <email@example.com>
> Our only possible source for the Trinity is revelation.
Dave, I don't mean to sound excessively feisty, but what do you make of the
fact that the relevant "data" was apparently downloaded mostly in the first
century, and then lay relatively unprocessed until it was needed in the
fourth century to craft a theological solution to the problem of controversy
that threatened to divide the institutional church?
>Only recently has the Big Bang indicated a beginning to the universe, which was
> already in the scriptures. Apart from the Hebrew scriptures, the "creation"
> myths are a reshaping of something, whether by Marduk using Tiamat, or the
> Demiurge using what was available.
Re science: I would suggest that we admit that Big Bang cosmological theory
is able to speak only to the formational history of OUR universe since t=0.
It has no empirical access to what may have preceded it, and it has
relatively little to say about what may co-exist with it.
Re exegesis: Given the uncertainties in translating the opening lines of
Genesis, many biblical scholars are quite modest in their claims about what
the Bible actually says about an absolute beginning. Some suggest that
Genesis 1 starts not with "nothing," but with chaos.
> There is another aspect of the situation, in that theology has been described
> the application of philosophical methods to the data of scripture.
My question has been, Why limit the "data" of theology to the biblical text
alone? I'm eager for theology to be a vital and contemporary discipline that
is as relevant to the continuing human experience as are the sciences. Why
treat God as essentially silent (non-revelatory) since the Church chose to
close the canon?
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 08:19:56 EST